[JPT]

Here is a link to another interview with a Ricoh Imaging marketing guy.

Interview: Interview Studio 2013: Ricoh Imaging Edition - digital camera Watch

Don't have time to read it because I'm at work. Merry Christmas, by the way!

---

Last edited by JPT; 12-24-2013 at 10:13 PM.

[JimmyDranox]

So, Mr Kohei Endo is telling us that is a problem with the size of SR mechanism for the FF sensor.

Frankly, I don't buy it. I think they are working on something new for this FF camera. There is a hint in this interview, about other functions for the SR mechanism which they are exploring.


Merry Christmas.

[Uluru]

Any sensible translation welcome. Google's auto translation is horrid and I would not comment on anything.

[goubejp]

If the 645DII is a larger sensor (approaching FF 645) then I'll start looking for lenses, maybe purchase a used 645D.

The lenses as the 25 mm are expensive, though. I Wonder what justify 5000 $ for this lens.
Anyway I have seen shots from the 645 D at an international photojournalism exhibition - visa pour l'image à Perpigna, France. They are absolutely amazing.

[Kunzite]

So, Mr Kohei Endo is telling us that is a problem with the size of SR mechanism for the FF sensor.

Frankly, I don't buy it. I think they are working on something new for this FF camera. There is a hint in this interview, about other functions for the SR mechanism which they are exploring.

Merry Christmas.

I think he's just telling us they have to work on a lot of issues, including SR with a larger/heavier "full frame" sensor, so we should be patient. I don't feel he's talking about a "blocker", but a challenge.
But without a proper translation... (hello, lensroar )

Indeed, it's interesting how much he's talking about SR. Besides its obvious function, they made the AstroTracer, the AA filter simulator - what are they planning next? Maybe a "super resolution mode", by combining several images taken at (sub)pixel offsets? Maybe something we don't even think it can be done this way?

[RobA_Oz]

Interesting. In-lens stabilisation has the advantage of providing a more steady viewfinder image. Theoretically, it should be possible to move the viewfinder image in sync with the sensor, to provide the same facility with in-body stabilisation. The only drawback would be the additional mass and bulk to accommodate the extra hardware, and perhaps lower battery life.

I doubt, though, that they're working on that. A 35FF sensor can fit on the same SR platform as the APS-C sensor, so, the issues have to be the drive, the associated dynamics and battery drain.

[eyeswideshut]

Apparently, they did! It would still be killer. The lack of SR in the Sony A7/R is about the only thing keeping me from going after one.

As a "system", the A7/R s is not at all interesting to me, but as a digital back for legacy lenses it succeeds. I'm still holding out for the ff Pentax offering though, in the hope that they will go the optical viewfinder route in the classic slr style.

[asw66]

M:
There are customers who believe in that the size of image sensor ultimately equal to camera’s quality and other factors are not so important. In Australia, recently, I was told by one of customers that the size of image sensor represents whole quality of the camera, FF is the best.

T:
It sounds similar to faith in engine size and horse power among auto industry as well as faith in number of pixels on image sensor among camera industry.

M:
I agree. (as a case study), in audio industry, there were discussions centering power output rather than sound quality and it led to simply sound power race. Sound quality should be discussed in terms of sound quality and/or depth but the power race actually happened. After the race ended not meaningfully, manufacturers who focused on power started facing hard time and the small others who kept focusing on quality survived. Having experienced that (note: Murano used to work for Sony), I feel it (note: FF vs APS-C) is not a long-lasting discussion.

T:
Sounds interesting. It can be applied for digital camera industry.

M:
So, we have to be careful about rough discussion of FF vs APS-C even though number of pixel is of course important matter. We’d like to keep on focusing color depth and tenderness of image quality.

I thought that this part of the interview was particularly interesting. I'm a long-time Apple fan, and the hand-wringing that I see in this forum is very reminiscent of the anxiety that I used to see in Apple forums during Apple's lean years. We (forum members) thought that we understood Apple's needs better than Apple did -- and we were wrong. I thought that Steve Jobs' first few moves were ludicrous, but we all know how his reign panned out.

So the insider's view at Ricoh/Pentax is that current trends in imaging are repeating movements that we've seen in audio a decade or so ago. And perhaps they're right. I certainly appreciate the ongoing prioritising of "color depth and tenderness of image quality". When I shoot alongside other people with other brands of cameras, it seems to me that the images I get have a rich, full-blooded character that other brands seem to have trouble matching.

Consumer audio has been marked by an obvious decline in massive stereo systems that dominate lounge rooms. Contemporary systems are expected to be much sleeker, and to integrate well with video systems. So perhaps FF cameras are bit like these big old hi-fi systems. They do the job well, but they're big, clunky, and expensive. Consumers will gravitate towards less intrusive and demanding alternatives, so long as the quality is there. We've already seen a boom in cell phone imaging, despite the obvious IQ differential.

Having said that, it still seems to me that larger-format systems will always retain an edge in quality. Larger-format systems produce images that have a look that many people (myself included) find desirable. This just seems to come down to physics.

But this IQ difference is already relatively small, and likely to become less important over time. It probably is a safe bet that the future of enthusiast photography is in systems that are more compact, flexible and inexpensive than current FF systems.

Similar reasoning would seem to apply to the MF market. I've thought for some time that the way for Ricoh/Pentax to make a splash in high-end amateur/low-end pro market would be to develop something akin to a Leica S2 at an affordable price, with 645 compatibility via an adaptor. I haven't held much hope that such a product would manifest any time soon, if ever, but I'm starting to wonder if it's such an unrealistic thing to hope for after all. It would seem to fit well with Ricoh/Pentax's vision of the future, being substantially more compact and flexible than existing MF systems. But the possibility of delivering such a system at a reasonable price is by no means clear.

[gazonk]

What "killer feature" does a Toyota Tundra full-size pickup truck have in comparison to a Ford or Chevy or Ram?

Don't know about US pickup Toyotas, but over here in Europe they've won a huge market share despite building cars so boring that you risk falling asleep by just looking at one. But they have one simple "trick": Extreme reliability.

[Fogel70]

A 35FF sensor can fit on the same SR platform as the APS-C sensor, so, the issues have to be the drive, the associated dynamics and battery drain.

I really doubt a FF sensor will fit on a APS-C SR mechanism. The whole FF sensor package is probably at least 50 x 40 mm in size. And more powerful coils might need more space too.

So a FF SR mechanism probably has to increase 15-20 mm in size both on width and height.

[normhead]

M made interesting comments re their desire for best image quality -- color and 'tenderness -- vs a FF race per se. If I were Pentax, would want to get my weather-sealed APS-C cameras used by pros and get their testimonials.

My background is in the ad agency business. For so many images, you just don't need FF or medium format -- exception being double-page ads perhaps. As a creative director, I wanted compelling images first and foremost. Images that told a story. Images that sold the product. Against that, maximum image quality was nice if you could get it but not essential.

Would also get the US Army or Marines to formally take a few into Afghanistan next year, before we leave. Combat photographer's choice. Tough enough for the mud, grit, and dust outside Kandahar? You bet, so get one for those ad product shots of snowmobiles, ski equipment, etc.

Repeated testimonials from pros will drive the advanced-amateur market better than anything -- would you agree?

P.S. -- Merry Christmas, everybody!

That K-3 spot with the pro shooting the ballerina certainly was a bright spot for me. I'm not saying it convinced me to buy the camera, but it might have pushed me along a bit. I reassured me, that I wasn't going to be disappointed with it. An ad can't really do much more than that.

You Tube

You Tube

That being said, seeing it, or a shortened version on the tube a few times before the holidays would have pushed the brand name into the public eye.

[dansamy]

I had never seen that spot before. It would be very nice to see any Pentax advertising in mainstream venues. I see Canon's SL1 spot all over the place. It would be nice to see a Pentax spot with a mom or dad shooting the dance recital or the Christmas play. That football game, IN THE RAIN! That vacation to Mexico.

[kenyee]

Consumer audio has been marked by an obvious decline in massive stereo systems that dominate lounge rooms. Contemporary systems are expected to be much sleeker, and to integrate well with video systems. So perhaps FF cameras are bit like these big old hi-fi systems. They do the job well, but they're big, clunky, and expensive. Consumers will gravitate towards less intrusive and demanding alternatives, so long as the quality is there. We've already seen a boom in cell phone imaging, despite the obvious IQ differential.

I think this is a good analogy. Most people want convenience over ultimate quality. We saw that w/ the popularity of MP3 over FLAC. And smartphones over dedicated portable audio players like the Zen.

I don't think this will only affect APS-C though..I think it's having a big effect on most DSLRs. This graphic shows the "good enough" concept...the A/B lines have been moving steadily outwards so most are "good enough" now. You have to ask what your target usage is as well. Galleries, get the most resolution and DR (MF and 36MP FF)...wedding photographers most likely will use these as well Facebook, etc, is fine w/ smartphones now. Travel, m4/3 is good enough and AF is probably fast enough for most people. The problem is where does that leave APS-C and the entire midrange of DSLRs?


The image is from The Full Frame Debate | byThom | Thom Hogan

[Cynog Ap Brychan]

Most people want convenience over ultimate quality

That's exactly how we arrived at 35mm in the first place. But serious photographers, it seems, weren't by and large prepared to go smaller than that with film. Whether "full frame" remains the standard for digital imaging, or smaller formats establish themselves more firmly for high-end work, is an interesting question.

[RobA_Oz]

I really doubt a FF sensor will fit on a APS-C SR mechanism. The whole FF sensor package is probably at least 50 x 40 mm in size. And more powerful coils might need more space too.

So a FF SR mechanism probably has to increase 15-20 mm in size both on width and height.

In an earlier thread, I did some calculations based on the size of the SR platform and concluded that it was possible, with a caveat about the possible need for more robust drive elements.