Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
12-26-2013, 09:27 AM   #196
Pentaxian




Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Nelson B.C.
Posts: 3,211
Isn't the GR mirrorless? And doing quite well by their admission? It is a specific market segment, the luxury compact, but with an aps-c sensor. I can see an expansion of this line with different focal lengths.

The Q is mirrorless as well, interchangeable lens as well. Step up from your phone to a Q. I suspect that this gives an idea of the direction they will take with that body.

Pentax = pentaprism. EVF's aren't quite there yet. A 100% viewfinder with aa filter in an entry level dslr. They probably would sell 10 of those for every K3.

Full frame and 645. I wonder if Pentax views them both the same, somewhat of a specialty market segment. Worth pursuing, but only carefully? It would be very easy to put a big expensive sensor into a flimsy plastic box. Akin to large amplifiers with lots of power. Better to have something that caters to the specific needs and desires of that market segment. The general purpose line being aps-c.

12-26-2013, 09:31 AM   #197
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 23,781
QuoteOriginally posted by Clavius Quote
So, this guy is telling us that camera systems should be about the IQ, not about the amount of pixels or sensor size. Now while that's true, he also claims the K-3 trumps the FF systems in IQ. That sounds like making up excuses to me. Stalling.

Cheer up guys, the next fake Pentax FF rumor is always just around the corner.
Are you suffering from some form of depression? Are you assuming we need "cheering up" because you need cheering up?
12-26-2013, 09:46 AM   #198
Lens Buying Addict
monochrome's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Kirkwood (St. Louis) MO
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 19,497
QuoteOriginally posted by kenyee Quote
That's weird because their videographers should be using an external monitor w/ focus peaking if they're part of a news network that has the pocket money for a $1K external screen...
Yep. Legit network, too. We tabled further discussion and the Post was more about the color profiles, but I'm curious to hear more about the shoots and gear myself.
12-26-2013, 07:10 PM - 2 Likes   #199
Pentaxian
Uluru's Avatar

Join Date: May 2010
Location: Back to my Walkabout Creek
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,400
35mm FF digital is totally different from a 35mm film camera economy of 70+ years ago. While the 35mm film was relatively cheap to obtain, and smaller cameras made for it easier to make and carry around, 35mm digital is the opposite of it.

If photography only happened now, and not in the film days, 35mm FF would have zero favours, from manufacturing to marketing, as it would make no sense at all; all very expensive to make, with very little real life benefits.

So we have some kind of reverse logic happening in the current digital camera market, a thought that pushes forward an idea not at all plausible for any other sense than to somehow validate the format from the past. It is not rooted in any economical, technological, informational or ecological benefit — quite the contrary. And is supported by the population group that otherwise also suffers from reverse logic reasoning more than others, finding "justification" and "validation" through the reliance on "past values and heritage" which they pick and choose and then insist upon as a holy relic (men of 45+).

If we analyse the type of cameras most sold today, we see those are the cameras that relish not the past for the sake of it, but are formats which were built with a digital age in mind. Like the 1/1.7" sensor digicams that defined the incredible miniaturisation of the digital photography, and up to APS-C system cameras.

APS-C format had a brief foray in the film age, and then the digital happened almost immediately after it. It was recognised in the beginning of the digital age that the APS-C was a good size to gain a good economy from a standard size wafer (an analogy to the 35mm film obtainable from the film rolls, which was economical back then). Digital APS-C still kept the compatibility with an array of utilities and lenses from the past (3:2 format equipment: lenses, adapters, flashes, etc.).

And then happened a breaking point in the imaging philosophy too. Pentax soon after took on the APS-C wholeheartedly, and developed a whole eco-system of cameras and all new designed lenses. I must say that of all the companies involved in SLR photography, Pentax was obedient to the philosophy of the quality of the image, rather than being obedient to a specific format now gone. That elementary difference — which consequentially makes everything else different — is even more pronounced today, when after a decade or so in the age of digital, Pentax is able to squeeze out an incredible image quality out of a digital APS-C format. Do we really believe that is because Pentax is chained to the APS-C format? Or is it because Pentax actually firmly believes in the philosophy of the quality of image and the photographic experience, which they can deliver even with a tiny Q?

There lies the true understanding of this unique brand, and what it stands for.

The other side of that philosophical difference is even more pronounced when we analyse the Sony's foray into the mirrorless FF. I looked the other day at the photograph of the A7's development team, and saw a group of young men in their late 20s. And I wondered, how on Earth such a young group of people can, in any material way, be (1) intimately connected to an old imaging format, (2) abide the requests of some much older men from the management, and (3) design a product that is wholesome and flawless?

And the final product confirms that it cannot be so.

There is a wide gap between the desire for a format that is totally ill-suited for the economies and possibilities of the digital age, and the impeccable image quality and the overall experience that justifies using such a format. The gap is so wide there, and generationally so wholly disconnected, that any product made just "to fit in because few senior managers from Sony, Canon and Nikon are pushing it", will only float into an already groundless reality of the digital FF, and be very little connected with ideas of a wholesome product or an unmatched photographic experience.

As much as the film 35mm format made sense in those days, so much the digital 35mm format doesn't make sense today. The only possible and clear advantage FF had was in the realm of SLRs, where it could grant a well-sized VF for the majority of population to use a camera and obtain a well focused photograph. But that was in times of manual focusing. As soon as the AF came on, the VF was deliberately crippled to save on cost, or, as in the mirrorless A7's case, the EVF used instead, or, the back LCD is used all the time. The 35mm format itself becomes pointless, because the unique experience of it is even lesser than the experience of some other purely digital format.

Because its only distinctive experiential benefit is gone, and is substituted with wishful thinking and pixel peeping at 200% to ascertain that there may be some theoretical gain from a sensor wrapped in a product package so wholly disconnected from the common sense and practical use.

Now I understand the reluctance on Pentax's behalf, to go and deliver a product that will simply disappear in the same groundless reality of the digital FF — even if done rightly, and if it's an DSLR with a big bright VF. Pentax knows that it is about being a slave to a wrong format, in the wrong age, and to the wrong population's mindset. But the amount of irrational in that market is so strong, and its gatekeepers so loud, that if Pentax don't try and deliver their own FF, their other parts of business may bear unfavourable consequences.

Or, you must be at good terms even with a village fool who thinks he's a king by flattering his "keen knowledge of world's affairs and good judgment", just to keep him at a comfortable distance and from breaking your kitchen's window, scaring your children, or spitting in your garden for no reason at all.

Only for that purpose I do hope they will release some form of an FF DSLR rather sooner than later, and then sell as many APS-C and compact cameras and lenses as possible.


Last edited by Uluru; 12-27-2013 at 05:10 AM.
12-26-2013, 07:50 PM   #200
Pentaxian




Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Nelson B.C.
Posts: 3,211
I agree. There will be a market for them, but small and specialized. I really don't get people spending close to $2k for a body that you need to adapt your lens to. Go for it, but you think Pentax has a difficult and tight market to deal with.

The only full frame that makes sense to me is the D800. Marked improvements on all fronts, but close to $3k.
12-26-2013, 08:11 PM   #201
Veteran Member




Join Date: Dec 2012
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 696
@uluru -- very well written -- you make very good points. Can only speak for product photography -- there's absolutely no need for anything beyond a K-3... in a studio, it's all about staging and lighting, and 24 MP is more than enough for any project. As for ad shots in the field, it's all about a compelling image, not so much about IQ.

If it were my company, I wouldn't bother with FF -- instead, I'd look for compelling add-ons, like building a PocketWizard flash radio-trigger into the K-3. Things no-one else has, like the switchable anti-aliasing filter. And the weather sealing... and...and... this is all just a basic marketing and sales exercise ... the product line is first rate.
12-26-2013, 08:43 PM   #202
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2011
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,615
QuoteOriginally posted by Uluru Quote
APS-C format had a brief foray in the film age, and then the digital happened almost immediately after it.
APS-C format actually predates 36x24mm
("several 35 mm still cameras used perforated movie film before the Leica was introduced in the 1920s.
. . . The first full-scale production camera was the Homeos, a stereo camera, produced by Jules Richard in 1913,
and was sold until 1920. It took 18x24 mm stereo pairs, using two Tessar lenses."
From 135 film - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

QuoteOriginally posted by Uluru Quote
The only possible and clear advantage FF had was in the realm of SLRs, where it could grant a well-sized VF for the majority of population to use a camera and obtain a well focused photograph.
36x24mm film became popular with rangefinders and other "mirrorless" cameras,
well before SLRs were used for that format starting in the late 1940s/early 1950s.

The main limitation on IQ improving with increasing image size on film
was the difficulty in keeping the film flat,
and that effect didn't really start until you got to roll film.

The 36x24mm format was chosen for IQ, not because of the viewfinders.
12-26-2013, 08:59 PM - 2 Likes   #203
New Member




Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 12
If Pentax keeps improving high quality APSC format cams like the K-3, while updating their MF line to be convincing value for cash strapped pros in the studio and in the field with a need for maximizing IQ, then FF could be a bad move – distracting at best and causing the existing lines to fall behind rapidly moving competition.

On a tripod in the field or with studio lighting, Wouldn't we all rather have MF? I'd like to see high-end and entry level 645-like options.

For carrying equipment around all day and hand holding shots, APSC with stabilization should be more useful than FF, and allow access to both native and FF lenses with outstanding range of character with decent resolving power.

Not sure I see the value proposition for a smaller company to try to cover 3 formats that overlap in functionality, when they already have two significantly differentiated and well respected product lines.

What I would find more convincing would be a strategy to standardize around FF for the future as a combined platform for every form factor. A GR super snapshot cam, a rugged DSLR compatible with either crop or FF lenses, and a studio/field interchangeable back body that could use both FF and MF lenses. Now that would be disruptive, and maybe successful if they move faster than Fuji/Panasonic/Leica and Olympus/Sony.

For some reason I don't see Nikon or Canon as serious competition in the next couple turns of their product cycles. They mainly represent established market share for innovative companies to take away as quickly as possible.

12-26-2013, 10:17 PM   #204
Pentaxian
RobA_Oz's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Tasmania, Australia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 4,126
QuoteOriginally posted by gerafotografija Quote
If Pentax keeps improving high quality APSC format cams like the K-3, while updating their MF line to be convincing value for cash strapped pros in the studio and in the field with a need for maximizing IQ, then FF could be a bad move – distracting at best and causing the existing lines to fall behind rapidly moving competition.
That hasn't been so much the case with their other product lines, and quite the contrary when you look into it. Both the 645D and the Q have borrowed technologies from the K-mount DSLRs, and of course the 645D also borrowed the mount and elements of the body shape from the film 645. The K-01 and the GR have also borrowed from the K-mount cameras, as well as the GR from its own predecessors. I see the mooted FF35 body as doing likewise. All it would take is a couple of kit zooms and perhaps a longer FL prime to begin with, and a serious lens roadmap to encourage sales. Early adopters would include the people with existing FA and earlier lenses, plus whoever is brought on board with whatever difference of approach that is purported to be in development. Pentax has gone from a three body lineup when the K-5 was introduced, to a six body portfolio now, and I don't think those who predicted dire consequences at the time the Q was released have been proven correct.
12-27-2013, 01:26 AM - 1 Like   #205
Veteran Member




Join Date: Dec 2012
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 696
Need some help with this -- I still don't understand what you would want FF for. What you would use it for; what advantages it would give you vs the Pentax APS-Cs. I mean, if smaller and lighter and less expensive gives you the same image quality as larger, heavier, and more expensive -- then -- why bother with FF, either as the manufacturer or as the customer?

For the very small number of people doing serious studio work, there's medium format. But for all the rest of us, do you really want to hurt your back -- and your wallet -- on an old-fashioned FF experience?
12-27-2013, 02:01 AM   #206
Pentaxian
gazonk's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Oslo area, Norway
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,509
QuoteOriginally posted by philbaum Quote
n
I'll admit, he's taken some really fine bird pictures. Then soon after that image pops in my mind, its followed by memories of Canikon shooters with large zooms, with bulging backpacks standing around looking solemn at parades, while i'm having fun with my tilting LCD on my Sony Nex with a few light primes or small zoom, getting new perspectives down low and up high and even shooting behind kinetic skulptures as they are moving down the parade route. Shooting with a small camera, i find is a totally different creative feeling than lugging a heavy cam/lens combo. Its not that one is "better" than another, its a different style, different applications. I use my K5 as much if not more than my Nex - for different applications though.
Wise words! I often use my K-5 much as you use your NEX (I mostly only use light primes - DA15, DA35, DA70 and M50), and I sometimes miss a tilting screen, although mostly the K-5 screen suffices.
12-27-2013, 03:05 AM   #207
Site Supporter
savoche's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 7,727
QuoteOriginally posted by jon404 Quote
Need some help with this -- I still don't understand what you would want FF for.
You and me both. Is there anything an FF does better than APS that MF doesn't do even better?

Of course, if I can get FF without any size/weight penalty but with a bigger and brighter view finder, I'm not saying I won't get one.

And I want a small phone with a big screen, too!
12-27-2013, 03:24 AM   #208
Pentaxian
Raffwal's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: 64°57' North
Posts: 806
QuoteOriginally posted by Uluru Quote
Pentax knows that it is about being a slave to a wrong format, in the wrong age, and to the wrong population's mindset.
And because Pentax knows better than its customers what they want or need, it has rapidly become number one seller in the camera market!
12-27-2013, 03:55 AM   #209
Pentaxian
RobA_Oz's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Tasmania, Australia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 4,126
QuoteOriginally posted by jon404 Quote
Need some help with this -- I still don't understand what you would want FF for. What you would use it for; what advantages it would give you vs the Pentax APS-Cs. I mean, if smaller and lighter and less expensive gives you the same image quality as larger, heavier, and more expensive -- then -- why bother with FF, either as the manufacturer or as the customer?

For the very small number of people doing serious studio work, there's medium format. But for all the rest of us, do you really want to hurt your back -- and your wallet -- on an old-fashioned FF experience?
When it all comes down to it, I think a rational explanation is that APS-C has an advantage with longer FL lenses (ie a narrower angle of view for the same FL) and, conversely, FF35 has an advantage of a wider angle of view with shorter FL lenses. There are some people who specialise in very narrow DoF, who say that FF35 offers an advantage there and, while there's no doubt that, for the same FL and aperture, the DoF for a FF35 sensor will be less than on an APS-C, I'm left wondering just how far you need to take that argument, when I look at some of my work with an A 50/1.2. Still, whatever makes you happy.

Pixel density or resolution is the other difference. Now that APS-C sensors have equalled, and slightly surpassed the resolution of 35mm Kodachrome, there's probably not much more left to say on that score, until you migrate to the larger formats.

As I've said elsewhere on these Forums, now I have a K-3 I am left wondering why I want a FF35 sensor body, from an image quality viewpoint. The one remaining reason for me is the greater size and brightness of the optical viewfinder that is possible with that format, and that's simply because my eyes aren't getting any better. I think Pentax can fit a 35mm sensor in the K-3 sized body, with the minimum increase in bulk. The viewfinder is the one current reason why I'd think of moving up to one, but you never know what else they'll fit into the package.
12-27-2013, 04:18 AM   #210
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Southern Indiana
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 14,963
I think there has always been an expectation that eventually most upper end cameras would go full frame. Otherwise why would you keep your old mount? That said, I think I would prefer to have an upper end APS-C camera than a camera that has a full frame sensor, but has been cut down in features to try to get it in at a lower price point.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
aps-c, camera, challenge, ff, full format, full frame, image, industry, pentax, pentax news, pentax rumors, power, quality, slr, sound
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Ricoh announces company name change - no more Pentax Ricoh Imaging, just Ricoh. rawr Pentax News and Rumors 528 10-28-2013 04:39 PM
2012 Japan sales of mirrorless & SLRs philbaum Pentax News and Rumors 541 06-26-2013 02:21 AM
Imaging-Resource Pentax/Ricoh interview ogl Pentax News and Rumors 44 09-24-2012 08:32 AM
Imaging Resource Interview with PENTAX US VP Marketing Gareth.Ig Pentax News and Rumors 8 01-28-2012 10:42 AM
Interview with Pentax Japan Executive Noisychip Pentax News and Rumors 255 01-24-2012 08:13 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:32 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top