New PENTAX K-50

Uluru · 06-08-2013, 02:52 PM

Originally posted by audiobomber

...
The Dynamic Range spec does not measure noise. DR is the amount of signal captured, measured in EV stops between the brightest recorded portion of the signal and the darkest.

I showed that number of over 3 stops really exists. 3.5 EV is the difference in dynamic range between the two, so it is 3.5 stops.
Regarding noise, it does relate to dynamic range. If you work on an image that is captured using lower DR (say K7), and want to process it so it appears it has more substantial darks, highlights, mid-tones, etc — more substantial tonal stretch, or give it an appearance of an image of a higher DR (k5), you interpolate 'noise', or controllably random information into it, like grain.
How much noise you want in it, depends on the DR you wish to achieve.
So loosely saying, the difference between the K5's DR and K7's DR is also 3.5 light stops of tonal stretch generated by noise, or random grain, required to make K7's image achieve visually similar appearance to K5's.

Smeggypants · 06-08-2013, 04:02 PM

Originally posted by audiobomber

No, they demolish your real world opinion. I won't waste any more of my time on it though.

No they actually back up my real world experience. And that experience is that with all other things being equal the K-5 produces Images that would require nearly 3 full stops less to produce on the K20D.

To claim only 1 stop difference is just nonsense Compare an image taken at ISO6400 on the K-5 and it's a huge order of magnitude better than an Image taken at ISO3200 on the K20D.

causey · 06-08-2013, 04:08 PM

Originally posted by geomez

Megapixels determine the size of the image, not the quality of the image.
Check out this old article from the height of the megapixel war a few years ago.

Giz Explains: Why More Megapixels Isn't Always More Better

Then why not a 1 mp camera? A single fantastic mp?

causey · 06-08-2013, 04:11 PM

Originally posted by eliallan

I don't think anyone is claiming mp are of no consequence, just that more mp does not guarantee better iq. .

Apparently, there are people who claim that mp are of no consequence for IQ:

(a)

Originally posted by Racerdew

The sensor quality is what matters not the size of the pixels.

(b)

Originally posted by geomez

Megapixels determine the size of the image, not the quality of the image.
Check out this old article from the height of the megapixel war a few years ago.

Giz Explains: Why More Megapixels Isn't Always More Better

Last edited by causey; 06-08-2013 at 06:39 PM.

**monochrome** · 06-08-2013, 05:30 PM

Originally posted by theperception2008

The WG-3 is very successful in professional applications. Dentists and auto shops seem to buy them up and so do the outdoor enthusiasts. The Mx-1 has been doing really well in Asia.

Originally posted by Wired

Yup. We bought a pair of WG10's for our auto shop. Can't believe how awesome it is for our uses.

Doing well enough that the WG Macros are also distributed in the B2B Division (as business tools for Dental and other applications) in the USA.

**geomez** · 06-08-2013, 07:16 PM

Originally posted by causey

Apparently, there are people who claim that mp are of no consequence for IQ

Originally posted by causey

Then why not a 1 mp camera? A single fantastic mp?

A. I never claimed mp is of NO consequence to IQ.

B. The only constant truth about megapixels is that they determining image size. That is it. Nothing more. Compare the six mp of a *ist DS vs the six mp of a camera phone. They vary widely. How about the 6 mp *ist vs a 16 mp K-5 IIs with a cracked plastic lens. They vary widely.

Considering that megapixels determine size, imagine I paint a picture on a 4" x 4" canvas vs a 8" vs 8" canvas. Is the image quality of the larger one automatically better? Of course not.

There are too many factors that determine image quality. Megapixels CAN effect image quality, but they are one of many factors, many of which being far more important to IQ than megapixels, that determine the overall image quality of a picture.

causey · 06-08-2013, 07:31 PM

Originally posted by geomez

A. I never claimed mp is of NO consequence to IQ.

Then you didn't express your thought very clearly. This is what you said: "Megapixels determine the size of the image, not the quality of the image." And to say that megapixels do not determine IQ is to claim that they are of no consequence to IQ.

But if mp are relevant to IQ, then it is possible in principle to have sensors with more mp that produce IQ higher than the IQ of sensors with less mp. Which is not to say that simply increasing the number of pixels is going to improve IQ.

P.S. I explained in another post why I would have liked to see 24mp in an entry level camera. I have spine problems, and the ability to crop given by such a camera would allow me to turn, as it were, my 135mm prime intro a 200 or 250mm lens. I am not a blind believer in mp.

Last edited by causey; 06-08-2013 at 07:39 PM.

Quicksand · 06-08-2013, 08:13 PM

Originally posted by Aristophanes

You do realize that moving the "Exposure comp" just moved one of the preceding 3, ISO, aperture so shutter speed?

Right?

LOL. You do realize that suggestion was entirely tongue-in-cheek.

Right?

But there is a concealed nugget of a point in there, actually. There is a balance a designer needs to strike between not enough controls and too many, given a set of parameters that need adjusting. I think we can all agree that five control wheels would be too many. One is not enough in some cases (though it will suffice, if that's all ya got).

Is the right number two? Or three? Opinions differ I'm sure.

But with more wheels available, and something approaching a one-function-per-control mapping, the greater the chances are that you can program your brain and muscle memory to make a desired change without consciously thinking about it. Even when you're using a mode that doesn't use all the wheels. If you want EV comp, it's always in the same place, just grab it. No button pushing. No pausing to think about it.

This is why some people want a dedicated video button too.

wed7 · 06-08-2013, 09:19 PM

New lenses, where are these new new lenses as promised?

Tesla · 06-08-2013, 10:09 PM

I know many like the design of the K-30, but the K-50 does look more like a professional camera and less like an entry level camera in my opinion. If that was Pentax's goal, then I think they did a good job.

raider · 06-08-2013, 10:55 PM

Okay. I am late to the party. I get my wife to have a look at the K-50 image and compare that with her K-30. This is what she has to say.

The K-30 looks more rugged and sporty as far as outlook is concerned. The K-50 looks more rounded and traditional. Both camera looks just fine.

StephenHampshire · 06-09-2013, 12:00 AM - **3 Likes**

I can't see my camera when I'm looking through the viewfinder

timcatn · 06-09-2013, 04:53 AM

Originally posted by StephenHampshire

I can't see my camera when I'm looking through the viewfinder

Not even when pointing it towards a mirror?

Personally i wouldn't mind if the K-50, if it is real, sells alongside the K-30. That will satisfy those who like the aggressive look of the K-30, AND those who prefer a more traditional styling.

StephenHampshire · 06-09-2013, 05:03 AM

Originally posted by timcatn

Not even when pointing it towards a mirror?

Personally i wouldn't mind if the K-50, if it is real, sells alongside the K-30. That will satisfy those who like the aggressive look of the K-30, AND those who prefer a more traditional styling.

As I'm a vampire, I don't see ANYTHING in the mirror! Just a little tongue in cheek way of saying that I don't think the external looks matters so much, as long as the ergonomics are OK.

I use a K5 and K30 and the most annoying thing about the k30 styling is that some the LV and Playback buttons are swapped between the 5 and 30. With a mag alloy body, the K-50 looks like a good back up to the K5/K5II as well as a fine camera in its own right. I would think it is more likely to be a replacement for the K30 though...depends on the price as well, twin dials, focus peaking, weather resistance and all metal body would be some spec for the an "entry" level

H. Sapiens · 06-09-2013, 05:14 AM

Originally posted by timcatn

...

Personally i wouldn't mind if the K-50, if it is real, sells alongside the K-30. That will satisfy those who like the aggressive look of the K-30, AND those who prefer a more traditional styling.

Personally, I think the K50 looks like Pentax have tried to make the generic DSLR - the one if you erase the logo you just can't guess who made it. Never mind - I don't care much.

However, as a general comment to the quote: I think Pentax have to give up trying to cover all the bases. The past years we have seen designs from the near and more distant past, in retro styled cameras (Q, MX) , we see the more aggressive and sporty look of K30 and the WG, and we see the futuristic K01. And now we seem soon to be offered this timeless K50. There's just no common thread.

I think, if I worked in their marketing department (ok, we all know they don't have one) I would be pretty frustrated.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
For Sale - Sold: K-5, 16-50,50-135,65-250, Sigma 17-50, 50 1.4, 50 1.8, Tamron 90 2.8, Flashes	virarfast	Sold Items	8	04-04-2013 02:30 PM
For Sale - Sold: K-5, K-7, Pentax 16-50, 50-135, 12-24, Tamron 90 Macro, 70-300, Metz 48 and 58, etc	hfthomp	Sold Items	10	01-10-2013 07:32 PM
'Like new' Pentax K-30 w/ DA L 15-55mm and DA L 50-200MM for $589	brianV	Pentax Price Watch	2	11-23-2012 08:56 AM
new sigma 50-200 compared to pentax 50-200mm	George S	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	2	05-21-2011 06:52 PM

06-08-2013, 02:52 PM	#406
Uluru Banned Join Date: May 2010 Location: Back to my Walkabout Creek Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,535	Originally posted by audiobomber ... The Dynamic Range spec does not measure noise. DR is the amount of signal captured, measured in EV stops between the brightest recorded portion of the signal and the darkest. I showed that number of over 3 stops really exists. 3.5 EV is the difference in dynamic range between the two, so it is 3.5 stops. Regarding noise, it does relate to dynamic range. If you work on an image that is captured using lower DR (say K7), and want to process it so it appears it has more substantial darks, highlights, mid-tones, etc — more substantial tonal stretch, or give it an appearance of an image of a higher DR (k5), you interpolate 'noise', or controllably random information into it, like grain. How much noise you want in it, depends on the DR you wish to achieve. So loosely saying, the difference between the K5's DR and K7's DR is also 3.5 light stops of tonal stretch generated by noise, or random grain, required to make K7's image achieve visually similar appearance to K5's.

06-08-2013, 04:02 PM	#407
Smeggypants Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2010 Posts: 1,536	Originally posted by audiobomber No, they demolish your real world opinion. I won't waste any more of my time on it though. No they actually back up my real world experience. And that experience is that with all other things being equal the K-5 produces Images that would require nearly 3 full stops less to produce on the K20D. To claim only 1 stop difference is just nonsense Compare an image taken at ISO6400 on the K-5 and it's a huge order of magnitude better than an Image taken at ISO3200 on the K20D.

06-08-2013, 04:08 PM	#408
causey Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Arlington, VA Photos: Albums Posts: 3,757	Originally posted by geomez Megapixels determine the size of the image, not the quality of the image. Check out this old article from the height of the megapixel war a few years ago. Giz Explains: Why More Megapixels Isn't Always More Better Then why not a 1 mp camera? A single fantastic mp?

06-08-2013, 04:11 PM	#409
causey Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Arlington, VA Photos: Albums Posts: 3,757	Originally posted by eliallan I don't think anyone is claiming mp are of no consequence, just that more mp does not guarantee better iq. . Apparently, there are people who claim that mp are of no consequence for IQ: (a) Originally posted by Racerdew The sensor quality is what matters not the size of the pixels. (b) Originally posted by geomez Megapixels determine the size of the image, not the quality of the image. Check out this old article from the height of the megapixel war a few years ago. Giz Explains: Why More Megapixels Isn't Always More Better Last edited by causey; 06-08-2013 at 06:39 PM.

06-08-2013, 05:30 PM	#410
monochrome Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Working From Home Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 26,276	Originally posted by theperception2008 The WG-3 is very successful in professional applications. Dentists and auto shops seem to buy them up and so do the outdoor enthusiasts. The Mx-1 has been doing really well in Asia. Originally posted by Wired Yup. We bought a pair of WG10's for our auto shop. Can't believe how awesome it is for our uses. Doing well enough that the WG Macros are also distributed in the B2B Division (as business tools for Dental and other applications) in the USA.

06-08-2013, 07:16 PM	#411
geomez Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2013 Location: Roanoke, Virginia, USA Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,760	Originally posted by causey Apparently, there are people who claim that mp are of no consequence for IQ Originally posted by causey Then why not a 1 mp camera? A single fantastic mp? A. I never claimed mp is of NO consequence to IQ. B. The only constant truth about megapixels is that they determining image size. That is it. Nothing more. Compare the six mp of a ist DS vs the six mp of a camera phone. They vary widely. How about the 6 mp ist vs a 16 mp K-5 IIs with a cracked plastic lens. They vary widely. Considering that megapixels determine size, imagine I paint a picture on a 4" x 4" canvas vs a 8" vs 8" canvas. Is the image quality of the larger one automatically better? Of course not. There are too many factors that determine image quality. Megapixels CAN effect image quality, but they are one of many factors, many of which being far more important to IQ than megapixels, that determine the overall image quality of a picture.

06-08-2013, 07:31 PM	#412
causey Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Arlington, VA Photos: Albums Posts: 3,757	Originally posted by geomez A. I never claimed mp is of NO consequence to IQ. Then you didn't express your thought very clearly. This is what you said: "Megapixels determine the size of the image, not the quality of the image." And to say that megapixels do not determine IQ is to claim that they are of no consequence to IQ. But if mp are relevant to IQ, then it is possible in principle to have sensors with more mp that produce IQ higher than the IQ of sensors with less mp. Which is not to say that simply increasing the number of pixels is going to improve IQ. P.S. I explained in another post why I would have liked to see 24mp in an entry level camera. I have spine problems, and the ability to crop given by such a camera would allow me to turn, as it were, my 135mm prime intro a 200 or 250mm lens. I am not a blind believer in mp. Last edited by causey; 06-08-2013 at 07:39 PM.

06-08-2013, 08:13 PM	#413
Quicksand Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: Central Ohio (formerly SF Bay Area) Posts: 1,519	Originally posted by Aristophanes You do realize that moving the "Exposure comp" just moved one of the preceding 3, ISO, aperture so shutter speed? Right? LOL. You do realize that suggestion was entirely tongue-in-cheek. Right? But there is a concealed nugget of a point in there, actually. There is a balance a designer needs to strike between not enough controls and too many, given a set of parameters that need adjusting. I think we can all agree that five control wheels would be too many. One is not enough in some cases (though it will suffice, if that's all ya got). Is the right number two? Or three? Opinions differ I'm sure. But with more wheels available, and something approaching a one-function-per-control mapping, the greater the chances are that you can program your brain and muscle memory to make a desired change without consciously thinking about it. Even when you're using a mode that doesn't use all the wheels. If you want EV comp, it's always in the same place, just grab it. No button pushing. No pausing to think about it. This is why some people want a dedicated video button too.

06-08-2013, 09:19 PM	#414
wed7 Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: Manila, Philippines Posts: 1,421	New lenses, where are these new new lenses as promised?

06-08-2013, 10:09 PM	#415
Tesla Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2013 Location: Washington State Posts: 589	I know many like the design of the K-30, but the K-50 does look more like a professional camera and less like an entry level camera in my opinion. If that was Pentax's goal, then I think they did a good job.

06-08-2013, 10:55 PM	#416
raider Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Perth, Australia Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,989	Okay. I am late to the party. I get my wife to have a look at the K-50 image and compare that with her K-30. This is what she has to say. The K-30 looks more rugged and sporty as far as outlook is concerned. The K-50 looks more rounded and traditional. Both camera looks just fine.

06-09-2013, 12:00 AM - 3 Likes	#417
StephenHampshire Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Winchester Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,523	I can't see my camera when I'm looking through the viewfinder

06-09-2013, 04:53 AM	#418
timcatn Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2012 Location: Trondheim Posts: 237	Originally posted by StephenHampshire I can't see my camera when I'm looking through the viewfinder Not even when pointing it towards a mirror? Personally i wouldn't mind if the K-50, if it is real, sells alongside the K-30. That will satisfy those who like the aggressive look of the K-30, AND those who prefer a more traditional styling.

06-09-2013, 05:03 AM	#419
StephenHampshire Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Winchester Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,523	Originally posted by timcatn Not even when pointing it towards a mirror? Personally i wouldn't mind if the K-50, if it is real, sells alongside the K-30. That will satisfy those who like the aggressive look of the K-30, AND those who prefer a more traditional styling. As I'm a vampire, I don't see ANYTHING in the mirror! Just a little tongue in cheek way of saying that I don't think the external looks matters so much, as long as the ergonomics are OK. I use a K5 and K30 and the most annoying thing about the k30 styling is that some the LV and Playback buttons are swapped between the 5 and 30. With a mag alloy body, the K-50 looks like a good back up to the K5/K5II as well as a fine camera in its own right. I would think it is more likely to be a replacement for the K30 though...depends on the price as well, twin dials, focus peaking, weather resistance and all metal body would be some spec for the an "entry" level

06-09-2013, 05:14 AM	#420
H. Sapiens Pentaxian Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 328	Originally posted by timcatn ... Personally i wouldn't mind if the K-50, if it is real, sells alongside the K-30. That will satisfy those who like the aggressive look of the K-30, AND those who prefer a more traditional styling. Personally, I think the K50 looks like Pentax have tried to make the generic DSLR - the one if you erase the logo you just can't guess who made it. Never mind - I don't care much. However, as a general comment to the quote: I think Pentax have to give up trying to cover all the bases. The past years we have seen designs from the near and more distant past, in retro styled cameras (Q, MX) , we see the more aggressive and sporty look of K30 and the WG, and we see the futuristic K01. And now we seem soon to be offered this timeless K50. There's just no common thread. I think, if I worked in their marketing department (ok, we all know they don't have one) I would be pretty frustrated.