New processor for Pentax K-3

Wired · 09-11-2013, 07:56 PM

Originally posted by carrrlangas

Why not use an ND filter?

why carry one everywhere when you can have 1/8000?

IchabodCrane · 09-11-2013, 08:23 PM

Originally posted by Wired

why carry one everywhere when you can have 1/8000?

You'd pay $500 too much for that new Oly to avoid carrying a $65 ND filter?

Wired · 09-11-2013, 10:10 PM

Originally posted by IchabodCrane

You'd pay $500 too much for that new Oly to avoid carrying a $65 ND filter?

Very valid question, but no. Not in that case.

I bought the EM5 for a specific purpose, that is street photography while I'm biking and as a small lightweight backup for the D800 when I'm on hire. I do not need 1/8000 for its primary function. So in this case I wouldn't need that feature.

Essentially I bought it to replace the my Q as my take everywhere camera.

D1N0 · 09-12-2013, 12:12 AM

Originally posted by ChristianRock

Why would Nikon abandon the APS-C market? That's a bit of wishful thinking. As far as I know, the D3x00, D5x00 and D7x00 have all sold well. The D7000 was the D300 replacement, that's why there isn't a D400. Most people think of it (and the D7100) as high end APS-C, even if the specs are just a bit short on some aspects, it compensates for it in others.
For Canon - people are excited about the 70D and since the 7D is such a respected camera, I expect a 7D Mk II. It probably hasn't come out yet because the 7D still sells, and it has such powerful specs, they can only top it with a significantly upgraded sensor.

I didn't say that, I said the aps-c pro body is dying out. Plenty of low-mid-high aps-c camera' s voor consumers.

Last edited by D1N0; 09-12-2013 at 08:20 AM.

Caat · 09-12-2013, 12:32 AM

Originally posted by IchabodCrane

You'd pay $500 too much for that new Oly to avoid carrying a $65 ND filter?

The value of 1/8000 is not just about not needing an ND filter as often, it's also about removing a weak link from the optical train - I'd rather use as little extra glass as possible.

thibs · 09-12-2013, 01:09 AM

Originally posted by Caat

The value of 1/8000 is not just about not needing an ND filter as often, it's also about removing a weak link from the optical train - I'd rather use as little extra glass as possible.

And you don't need to put it on or pull it off (stupid I know)

D1N0 · 09-12-2013, 01:14 AM

There is also the solution of stopping down

SyncGuy · 09-12-2013, 01:33 AM

Originally posted by IchabodCrane

You'd pay $500 too much for that new Oly to avoid carrying a $65 ND filter?

You bought a DSLR instead of solely using film camera which you could have just digitized too?

IchabodCrane · 09-12-2013, 04:23 AM

Originally posted by SyncGuy

You bought a DSLR instead of solely using film camera which you could have just digitized too?

LOL -- I'm busted! But I will add I think that analogy is a wee bit obtuse.

**Aristophanes** · 09-12-2013, 05:57 AM

Originally posted by Wired

Very valid question, but no. Not in that case.

I bought the EM5 for a specific purpose, that is street photography while I'm biking and as a small lightweight backup for the D800 when I'm on hire. I do not need 1/8000 for its primary function. So in this case I wouldn't need that feature.

Essentially I bought it to replace the my Q as my take everywhere camera.

You are probably the main market for the EM1. You have FF and this is your more compact, backup camera when absolute IQ including ISO and DOF are not a priority, and the EVF compromises are OK.

The kicks on the Oly strategy are:

1) Costly lenses with deep DOF.

2) It has definitely edged up in size to compact DSLR with larger sensors.

3) An emphasis on control features over absolute IQ from a larger sensor, like cropping (only 16MP), giving up at a minimum 2 stops in low light over FF, and so on (rote list by now).

4) Concerns about Oly's financial health.

5) Lots of outlay for a camera and AF system outclassed in 2 years (or less).

6) No on-board flash, so no quick fill. And the supplied external flash looks.....ridiculous, and is under-powered.

I really liked the EM5 when I first tried it save for some inscrutable controls and my aversion to EVF's.

I think it would be very interesting, though, for a company looking to put a "pro" FF camera out with no top LCD and scrunching everything down to as compact as possible like the EM1 appears to have done as adesign philosophy. Clearly Olympus feels no qualms about cutting out some real estate hogging "pro" features that can be replicated by a tilting rear LCD. same with some control wheels and placement etc. Hint, hint.

This is a nicely designed camera, but when the APS-C versions from (Sony?) come out, the smaller m4/3 format will suffer. Olympus is doing best to keep from being the run of the litter.

I sold my Olympus 35RC RF recently because I wasn't using it and I knew some keener student would. First time in forever I have not had an Olympus camera. Makes me sad.

I wonder what processors Olympus uses?

gazonk · 09-12-2013, 06:02 AM

Originally posted by Aristophanes

This is a nicely designed camera, but when the APS-C versions from (Sony?) come out, the smaller m4/3 format will suffer.

The NEX-7 was in some respect already ahead of the EM-5, for instance I don't think the very good new VF in the EM-1 is much larger than the NEX-7 viewfinder.

**Rondec** · 09-12-2013, 06:03 AM

It does seem that a lot more people use four thirds cameras as their back up/travel cameras. The problem that they face is that NEX is trying to get that same market and doing it with some really nice specs (as well as undercutting upper end four third pricing). Hard to see how all of the four thirds players pull out of this unscathed.

Mistral75 · 09-12-2013, 06:12 AM

Originally posted by Aristophanes

(...)

I wonder what processors Olympus uses?

Sensors are bought from Sony. Image processors I don't know.

thibs · 09-12-2013, 06:38 AM

Originally posted by Mistral75

Sensors are bought from Sony. Image processors I don't know.

It is quite recent (Sony sensors) but yes current u43 sensors are Sonys

thibs · 09-12-2013, 06:40 AM

Originally posted by gazonk

The NEX-7 was in some respect already ahead of the EM-5, for instance I don't think the very good new VF in the EM-1 is much larger than the NEX-7 viewfinder.

At least the EM5 EVF wasn't flickering or very little in Salon de la Photo, yesteryear in Paris.
NEX-6 and NEX-7 EVFs though were flickering like a mouse in front of a hungry cat.

It could be a setting problem (50/60 Hz?) though, I dunno.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Fujifilm X100 EXR Processor "reconfigurable processor" an FPGA?	bwDraco	Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands	8	11-30-2013 10:29 PM
Is the image processor in Pentax K-r is good enough?	dmnf	Photographic Technique	10	05-15-2013 09:43 AM
New Pro NEX and the Pentax K-3	Belnan	Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands	17	09-16-2012 08:01 PM
New Pentax K-3 target...	JohnBee	General Talk	10	03-29-2012 09:21 AM
new computer processor!	Gooshin	General Talk	9	02-12-2008 12:07 AM

09-11-2013, 07:56 PM	#151
Wired Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: Edmonton, AB Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,519	Originally posted by carrrlangas Why not use an ND filter? why carry one everywhere when you can have 1/8000?

09-11-2013, 08:23 PM	#152
IchabodCrane Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2012 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,728	Originally posted by Wired why carry one everywhere when you can have 1/8000? You'd pay $500 too much for that new Oly to avoid carrying a $65 ND filter?

09-11-2013, 10:10 PM	#153
Wired Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: Edmonton, AB Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,519	Originally posted by IchabodCrane You'd pay $500 too much for that new Oly to avoid carrying a $65 ND filter? Very valid question, but no. Not in that case. I bought the EM5 for a specific purpose, that is street photography while I'm biking and as a small lightweight backup for the D800 when I'm on hire. I do not need 1/8000 for its primary function. So in this case I wouldn't need that feature. Essentially I bought it to replace the my Q as my take everywhere camera.

09-12-2013, 12:12 AM	#154
D1N0 Pentaxian Join Date: May 2012 Location: --- Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,802	Originally posted by ChristianRock Why would Nikon abandon the APS-C market? That's a bit of wishful thinking. As far as I know, the D3x00, D5x00 and D7x00 have all sold well. The D7000 was the D300 replacement, that's why there isn't a D400. Most people think of it (and the D7100) as high end APS-C, even if the specs are just a bit short on some aspects, it compensates for it in others. For Canon - people are excited about the 70D and since the 7D is such a respected camera, I expect a 7D Mk II. It probably hasn't come out yet because the 7D still sells, and it has such powerful specs, they can only top it with a significantly upgraded sensor. I didn't say that, I said the aps-c pro body is dying out. Plenty of low-mid-high aps-c camera' s voor consumers. Last edited by D1N0; 09-12-2013 at 08:20 AM.

09-12-2013, 12:32 AM	#155
Caat Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: United Kingdom Photos: Albums Posts: 927	Originally posted by IchabodCrane You'd pay $500 too much for that new Oly to avoid carrying a $65 ND filter? The value of 1/8000 is not just about not needing an ND filter as often, it's also about removing a weak link from the optical train - I'd rather use as little extra glass as possible.

09-12-2013, 01:09 AM	#156
thibs Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Belgium Photos: Albums Posts: 7,001	Originally posted by Caat The value of 1/8000 is not just about not needing an ND filter as often, it's also about removing a weak link from the optical train - I'd rather use as little extra glass as possible. And you don't need to put it on or pull it off (stupid I know)

09-12-2013, 01:14 AM	#157
D1N0 Pentaxian Join Date: May 2012 Location: --- Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,802	There is also the solution of stopping down

09-12-2013, 01:33 AM	#158
SyncGuy Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2011 Posts: 821	Originally posted by IchabodCrane You'd pay $500 too much for that new Oly to avoid carrying a $65 ND filter? You bought a DSLR instead of solely using film camera which you could have just digitized too?

09-12-2013, 04:23 AM	#159
IchabodCrane Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2012 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,728	Originally posted by SyncGuy You bought a DSLR instead of solely using film camera which you could have just digitized too? LOL -- I'm busted! But I will add I think that analogy is a wee bit obtuse.

09-12-2013, 05:57 AM	#160
Aristophanes Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Rankin Inlet, Nunavut Photos: Albums Posts: 3,948	Originally posted by Wired Very valid question, but no. Not in that case. I bought the EM5 for a specific purpose, that is street photography while I'm biking and as a small lightweight backup for the D800 when I'm on hire. I do not need 1/8000 for its primary function. So in this case I wouldn't need that feature. Essentially I bought it to replace the my Q as my take everywhere camera. You are probably the main market for the EM1. You have FF and this is your more compact, backup camera when absolute IQ including ISO and DOF are not a priority, and the EVF compromises are OK. The kicks on the Oly strategy are: 1) Costly lenses with deep DOF. 2) It has definitely edged up in size to compact DSLR with larger sensors. 3) An emphasis on control features over absolute IQ from a larger sensor, like cropping (only 16MP), giving up at a minimum 2 stops in low light over FF, and so on (rote list by now). 4) Concerns about Oly's financial health. 5) Lots of outlay for a camera and AF system outclassed in 2 years (or less). 6) No on-board flash, so no quick fill. And the supplied external flash looks.....ridiculous, and is under-powered. I really liked the EM5 when I first tried it save for some inscrutable controls and my aversion to EVF's. I think it would be very interesting, though, for a company looking to put a "pro" FF camera out with no top LCD and scrunching everything down to as compact as possible like the EM1 appears to have done as adesign philosophy. Clearly Olympus feels no qualms about cutting out some real estate hogging "pro" features that can be replicated by a tilting rear LCD. same with some control wheels and placement etc. Hint, hint. This is a nicely designed camera, but when the APS-C versions from (Sony?) come out, the smaller m4/3 format will suffer. Olympus is doing best to keep from being the run of the litter. I sold my Olympus 35RC RF recently because I wasn't using it and I knew some keener student would. First time in forever I have not had an Olympus camera. Makes me sad. I wonder what processors Olympus uses?

09-12-2013, 06:02 AM	#161
gazonk Pentaxian Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Oslo area, Norway Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,746	Originally posted by Aristophanes This is a nicely designed camera, but when the APS-C versions from (Sony?) come out, the smaller m4/3 format will suffer. The NEX-7 was in some respect already ahead of the EM-5, for instance I don't think the very good new VF in the EM-1 is much larger than the NEX-7 viewfinder.

09-12-2013, 06:03 AM	#162
Rondec Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Gladys, Virginia Photos: Gallery Posts: 27,653	It does seem that a lot more people use four thirds cameras as their back up/travel cameras. The problem that they face is that NEX is trying to get that same market and doing it with some really nice specs (as well as undercutting upper end four third pricing). Hard to see how all of the four thirds players pull out of this unscathed.

09-12-2013, 06:12 AM	#163
Mistral75 Pentaxian Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Paris, France Posts: 7,527	Originally posted by Aristophanes (...) I wonder what processors Olympus uses? Sensors are bought from Sony. Image processors I don't know.

09-12-2013, 06:38 AM	#164
thibs Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Belgium Photos: Albums Posts: 7,001	Originally posted by Mistral75 Sensors are bought from Sony. Image processors I don't know. It is quite recent (Sony sensors) but yes current u43 sensors are Sonys

09-12-2013, 06:40 AM	#165
thibs Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Belgium Photos: Albums Posts: 7,001	Originally posted by gazonk The NEX-7 was in some respect already ahead of the EM-5, for instance I don't think the very good new VF in the EM-1 is much larger than the NEX-7 viewfinder. At least the EM5 EVF wasn't flickering or very little in Salon de la Photo, yesteryear in Paris. NEX-6 and NEX-7 EVFs though were flickering like a mouse in front of a hungry cat. It could be a setting problem (50/60 Hz?) though, I dunno.