[Chippedoff]

Would be nice if Pentax decided to adopt the Foveon x3 sensor. Sigma isn't keeping up with the hardware requirements for the sensor and Pentax & Samsung are really the only two digital camera manufacturers that are currently providing improvements to their cameras and value to their customers.

[normhead]

Would be nice if Pentax decided to adopt the Foveon x3 sensor. Sigma isn't keeping up with the hardware requirements for the sensor and Pentax & Samsung are really the only two digital camera manufacturers that are currently providing improvements to their cameras and value to their customers.

For my bird images, I'm using 800-1600 ISO pretty regularly... while I'm enjoying the use of an SD2 Merril... it's not for everyday. Don't get me wrong, I love the sensor and what it does, it just doesn't do everything. An x3 sensor body would be nice... as long as they kept their line of bayer sensors going.

[redrockcoulee]

But in this case it would be one area where Pentax would actually have a decided advantage over Canon for once.

They would never do it because they are Canon, but honestly, if they really want to break into the market, they should license the H mount from Hasselblad and tap into the large installed base of Hasselblad users already out there who might be looking into upgrading to digital.

There might be the need to negotiate with Fuji on this as well as the lenses are Fuji and the two companies have had some other joint ventures so not sure how much of the H system is fully Hasselblad.

[Chippedoff]

For my bird images, I'm using 800-1600 ISO pretty regularly... while I'm enjoying the use of an SD2 Merril... it's not for everyday. Don't get me wrong, I love the sensor and what it does, it just doesn't do everything. An x3 sensor body would be nice... as long as they kept their line of bayer sensors going.

I can't really say anything bad about my nikon d600 except it's low light performance is not as good as my pentax k30, and what was nikon thinking when they centered all the focus points. I'l give points to Pentax & Sigma for their focus system. Most of my cameras are not for sports to begin with. Sold off a couple nikons so looking to get another pentax but which one i don't know.... Yet.

[philbaum]

FF is not nearly so important as some folks here seem to think.

So far, Ricoh have been tackling things methodically from the ground up. Earlier this year, they refreshed the compacts, the Q and Ricoh's own line, then more recently they refreshed the Pentax lower- and mid-range DSLRs. It would hardly be a surprise, therefore, if next Ricoh tackled the higher-end Pentax cameras by refreshing the K5 level and, if they are going to continue with it, the 645D - plus the lenses and accessories catalogue. If they manage this before the end of the year, they will have refashioned the entire line-up of their camera division in 2013. For all we know, they might even throw something unexpected into the mix such as a "K-02" (i.e. APS-C K-mount mirrorless) or some kind of very clearly professional new Pentax APS-C DSLR.

Together with overhauling their sales and marketing networks and launching in India, that's a lot of things Ricoh will very likely have done in just one year. There's an argument for saying that FF is a complete distraction from the basic and very important work sorting out the whole Ricoh/Pentax camera business and placing it on firm foundations. Committing the huge investment FF would demand before you've dealt with everything else is crazy, imho.

Bear in mind, too, that we don't know how Ricoh plan to position themselves overall. They might plan to produce cameras of appeal across the whole world or they might have decided to go more for the kind of cameras which will well sell in Asia because it is easier to make profitable progress against their competitors in Asia than it is in the USA and Europe. In the second case, FF is even more exotic and unnecessary. We just don't enough to be sure.

If someone wants FF there have been plenty of choices out there for years now. And I'll bet that the vast majority who've bought Pentax equipment over the past 5-7 years have not done so because they want FF. They wanted what they bought.

Well said. There seems to be a lot of hostility on Pentax Forums towards any mention of mirrorless cameras. Perhaps that led to Ricoh maintaining the existing identity of Ricoh cameras. Ricoh cameras usually seem to be well received when launched, and particularly this last one: GR was it. So maybe the decision was made by headquarters to keep conventional DSLRs under the Pentax Brand and mirrorless under the Ricoh brand. Not a bad decision, actually. don't know for sure of course, just speculating.

A year ago I had conversation with a former Pentax rep. He said that some prominent professional nature photographers had switched to Pentax because they did NOT offer FF. Pentax is commited to APS with the best APS lens line-up out there. Value is different things to different folks...

A good observation. When you buy a Pentax top of the line K5 series, you get all the features including WR, even though its APS. When you buy a Nikon D600, there's some obvious crippling going on to motivate some buyers into the D800 and higher. Ironic.

Sensor size is getting increasingly less important (still somewhat important though), while operating features and ergonomics are getting more important on a practical basis.

[Uluru]

..
Sensor size is getting increasingly less important (still somewhat important though), while operating features and ergonomics are getting more important on a practical basis.

So you say that organising all-present exhibitions of small pastels and sketchbook sized watercolours is all what we need to understand art. Very large scale oil painting isn't that important at all because everything you can say about art fits in a pocket sketchbook of good ergonomics, easy to carry around.

I've made this analogy to make you understand how foolish that original statement was.

Sensor and optics *are everything* that matters in a camera. Without them, "a camera" isn't any, but a worthless box.
Bigger the sensor and better the optics, more unique image properties that cannot be recaptured in any other way. APS-C only mentality kills the art of photography in the end and make it a predictable, stereotyped product for quick consumption — like constant exhibitions of sketchbook size pastels.

We should distinguish between "that I think fits my pocket, my little budget and my very limited time to carry a sensor box around" and not make it a synonym with the entire camera world of possibilities, and other people much more interested than you in the game of light capture.

[Pål Jensen]

So you say that organising all-present exhibitions of small pastels and sketchbook sized watercolours is all what we need to understand art. Very large scale oil painting isn't that important at all because everything you can say about art fits in a pocket sketchbook of good ergonomics, easy to carry around.

I've made this analogy to make you understand how foolish that original statement was.

Sensor and optics *are everything* that matters in a camera. Without them, "a camera" isn't any, but a worthless box.
Bigger the sensor and better the optics, more unique image properties that cannot be recaptured in any other way. APS-C only mentality kills the art of photography in the end and make it a predictable, stereotyped product for quick consumption — like constant exhibitions of sketchbook size pastels.

The smaller formats are good enough for large fine art prints; you can't tell the difference unless the same images is exhibited side by side and by close scrutiny. We are not talking "small pastels". Not that long ago you needed bigger format to get great quality. Bigger sensors are getting (somewhat) cheaper but smaller sensors are getting better. Theres the law of diminishing returns. Smaller sensors aren't a obstacle to great quality; even the Q can produce prints that rivals 35mm film.
Of course larger sensors has its place but there is no APS only mentality. APS has 95% of the market for good reasons.

---

Last edited by Pål Jensen; 08-22-2013 at 03:14 PM.

[redrockcoulee]

In the old film days not all prints exhibited were produced on 20X24 cameras. Some fairly large images have been exhibited shot on 35mm and ABS-C cameras.

Uluru: what it the size difference between the larges a APS and a FF sensor that can be reasonably exhibited ? Is it 2 times or 4 times or 10 times? I do not think it is the difference as between sketchbook size iamgers and larg scale oil paintings. Some of the most famous paintings of all time are not even that large Mona Lisa for example

And if very large size is so important why are you not shooting with at least a MFDB as there must be that much more improvement from FF as FF is from our Pentaxs?

The comments that we mostly do not need FF is not the same as there should not be FF. Large prints and shallow DOF are current trends that may not reflect the future or everyone's idea of art either as well most people shooting digital slrs are not arranging for solo exhibitions, there just are not enough galleries so do not even need to have numbers for that.

[Uluru]

APS has 95% of the market for good reasons.

Only two reasons that allowed that to happen were:
a. that photography is ruled by everyday mob, or our common ignorance, which can't see the aesthetic difference between the output of a certain glass plus sensor combination.
b. current economy, that does favour cheap and small electronic gadgets produced in billions

So it is good enough, but it is not the art — it is only a convenience and a fantasy that allow everyday John and Jane dream they can become a big artist one day.
Yet the definition of art is by default seeking the unique and hard to reach heights, and open up new horizons — not to dwell in common plains.

See for example this article by Ashwin Rao, Chasing Light in the Palouse with the Pentax 645D. Many photograph posted there, even scaled down to fit the screen clearly illustrate they cannot be done with an APS-C sensor and its lens. For example this image below, go on and repeat all its characteristics, nuances and dimensions of space with the K5. Even the FF camera with sweat to come close.

You see, it is same in arts. If you can't see the difference between the JMW Turner's masterpiece and a sheet done by local competent watercolour dabbler, we can't go on forward and have a quality discussion about details that matter.

[Pål Jensen]

You see, it is same in arts. If you can't see the difference between the JMW Turner's masterpiece and a sheet done by local competent watercolour dabbler, we can't go on forward and have a quality discussion about details that matter.

Of course different formtas have their own properties but what make APS less "arty" than anything else? Photography is about content. Great art is created with all formats. It is not the gear but the photographer. Youre mixing up sensor size with wheteher image is art or not; makes no sense.
And about seeing the difference; a friend has a fine art gallery in town - he lives from selling fine art prints - and he is expensive too - sold an image for $5000. Not a single customer (nor me) can spot which one is shot on FF or APS.

BTW The image you posted has nothing to do with art and is forgettable.

[Uluru]

Uluru, I'm usually on the same page as you on most issues, but frankly your argument here comes off as incredibly snobbish and a bit misguided. By way of example, the Rao photos in the link you posted are for the most part thoroughly mediocre images despite their detail, with only 2 or 3 decent ones in the entire spread. All the megapixels and dynamic range in the world will not change that fact. Conversely, there are artists out there churning out fantastic work with Holgas and pinhole cams. Think of it as the blotchiness of a Monet vs. the grotesque hyperrealism of any number of art school failures.
The fact is, it's not the tool, but the artist in whose hand the tool is held.

There is a misunderstanding. Intent is important. Talent is important. Tools are important. All is important.

It is true that emotional appeal of the image taken with Pentax Q can be magnificent, but there is also a dimension that tools, up to certain sensor and lens combination, will not be able to capture or mimic.

So I'm not denigrating the value of a certain camera and lens combinations, but stressing why we need new ones, when previous reach their limits.
I'm comparing this picture with traditional arts just to see there is a good analogy, and also, a similar struggle that happened in the past in traditional art techniques as well.

Good example were pastel and watercolour mediums on one side, and oils and sculpture on the other side. Former are cheaper, generally much quicker to do and are truly portable. Latter are not; they are more difficult to do, every error shows up more prominently.

Expressive art can be done in all of them, same as boring pieces, but one cannot deny that inherent predispositions of some mediums can accommodate a wider spectrum of possibilities — no matter to which aesthetic end — and some mediums have more opulent vocabulary. One example: really good abstract expressionism as done by so called New York school is impossible to do in watercolours and in pastel. They didn't even bother with those mediums. It is very similar to as when a photographer chooses rather medium format camera to do portraits and dismisses using Pentax Q because it is inadequate for all the stretch of portrait work possible.

It is unfair to deny that dimension which tools allow us exists, and tout it's not the tool that matters — when tool certainly *is* important. In case of Ashwin's photographs, I've pointed out to some *technical* attributes that cannot be repeated with APS-C camera and lenses, which is similar to comparison between the rich, sparkling impasto effect possible in oils, but impossible to repeat in watercolours.

Thus, we should crucify a photographer on a cross of self-indulging snobbism, I presume, because "he or she is unable to do the work with more common tools we are using and are able to buy", or, "he or she should be a bloody master with anything". Absolutely same that criticism traditional artists were suffering too, for everyone painting with oils and big size, in eyes of those who didn't have such a chance, was a "snob not able to do same with more modest tools, a snob unable to draw, etc.".

However, only "snobbism" here is the profuse ignorance often granted to those who don't have enough mileage, patience and cannot understand inherent practical limitations of mediums that are visible only after a certain amount of hard work.

[philbaum]

We should distinguish between "that I think fits my pocket, my little budget and my very limited time to carry a sensor box around" and not make it a synonym with the entire camera world of possibilities, and other people much more interested than you in the game of light capture.

Do you have to work at being rude and offensive - or do you just come by that naturally

Aren't you aware of what's happening to the camera marketplace this year. Check out these comments by Kirk Tuck who has a much more rational view than you do - at least he's not out there trying to insult people who disagree with him.

The Visual Science Lab / Kirk Tuck: Has the bubble burst? Is that why camera sales in N. America are down by 43%?

[Cynog Ap Brychan]

Aren't you aware of what's happening to the camera marketplace this year. Check out these comments by Kirk Tuck who has a much more rational view than you do - at least he's not out there trying to insult people who disagree with him.

He ends up by saying that he could be totally wrong.... I hope he is, but he makes a persuasive argument.

[gazonk]

Check out these comments by Kirk Tuck who has a much more rational view than you do - at least he's not out there trying to insult people who disagree with him.

The Visual Science Lab / Kirk Tuck: Has the bubble burst? Is that why camera sales in N. America are down by 43%?

Very interesting link, thank you!

[Barry Pearson]

You see, it is same in arts. If you can't see the difference between the JMW Turner's masterpiece and a sheet done by local competent watercolour dabbler, we can't go on forward and have a quality discussion about details that matter.

I once sat in front of the (original) "The Fighting Temeraire tugged to her last Berth to be broken up" for about an hour, studying, analysing, and admiring it. Yes, dabbling doesn't compare to this!

But that has nothing to do with "image quality" in the sense that we might use the term here. What makes it great lies in a difference dimension - that painting certainly doesn't display the type of image quality we might strive for with better sensor technology, etc.