[philbaum]

normhead - thanks for the K3 video - i'd seen it before but still terrific.

Let me relate my mental image when someone says FF. We have this long time birder in our club who is a Nikon snob if you will. Has told me several times if you want a sharp lens, then it has to be Nikon - and he's serious. But putting that aside, he's been helpful to several people, including me, over the years and has moderated his positions. So he has 2 D4s, a 600mm Nikon, a 200-400 Nikon zoom, and his wife has a D800. He's now 74. For a long time, his photography has consisted of driving his car close to a few lookout points for birds, then transferring the camera equipment to small carts, then towing the carts to photography positions - preferably within say 45 feet, putting up the heavy gimballed tripod for the day;s shooting. Putting up chairs and sitting/shooting till its time to go home.

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.

Its almost silly to talk about how a camera should be designed without considering what the owner wants it for.

---

Last edited by philbaum; 12-25-2013 at 01:52 PM.

[starjedi]

normhead - thanks for the K3 video - i'd seen it before but still terrific.

Let me relate my mental image when someone says FF. We have this long time birder in our club who is a Nikon snob if you will. Has told me several times if you want a sharp lens, then it has to be Nikon - and he's serious. But putting that aside, he's been helpful to several people, including me, over the years and has moderated his positions. So he has 2 D4s, a 600mm Nikon, a 200-400 Nikon zoom, and his wife has a D800. He's now 74 and his wife is not any younger. For a long time, his photography has consisted of driving his car close to a few lookout points for birds, then transferring the camera equipment to small carts, then towing the carts to photography positions - preferably within say 45 feet, putting up the heavy gimballed tripod for the day;s shooting. Putting up chairs and sitting/shooting till its time to go home.

I'll admit, he's taken some really fine bird pictures. Then soon after that image pops in my mine, its followed by memories of Canikon shooters with large zooms, with bulging backpacks standing around looking miserable 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. Its silly to talk about how a camera should be designed without considering what the owner wants it for.

I'm not begrudging anyone their FF or larger dslr cameras. I use both my K5 and my Nex cams frequently, but for different venues/purposes. This insistence that Pentax must have a "upgrade" path to FF, is something that i don't waste time considering. If Pentax wants to build a FF body, fine. if they don't want to build one - fine.
I sell more pictures than my Nikon friend, because i work harder at it, he works harder at the photography end of things. Diversity of mfr and designs and applications is good for photography. End of rant :-)

Your words are really inspiring!

[thibs]

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.

At first yes, the supposedly CD-quality 128 Kbit/s MP3 went in every home.
Nowadays, people slowly realize how 128 MP3 is essentially a waste of time and a waste of ears (to stay polite).

I don't say 24/192 lossless is a minimum (though I certainly like that) but 16/44.1 lossless is, to me.

In fact I'm not so sure 128 MP3 is that much used anymore. AAC et all seem a lot more mainstream (and for good reasons).

[Rondec]

Ok, this is what gets me, recently one of the review magazines posted their numbers, wherein the K-3 had faster AF than the Nikon D7100 and was very close to it in tracking. So, one has to ask, where is this coming from? Like , in what generation of cameras was Pentax AF inferior. In what price range is K-3 AF inferior to Canon or Nikon? Or is it at all? Ricoh/Pentax made a commitment to improving AF on Pentax systems and the first link in that was the K-30. We've now been the through the 3 years of constant AF improvement. On the forum, this has been analyzed to death. We've also seen studies where it was suggested that Pentax had a higher keeper rate than any other maker on stationary objects.

So, even when Pentax was the slowest, it was still better in some ways than it's competition. So the long time posters, with thousands of posts have been through all this. have seen the current numbers, and have been dealing with the "pentax needs to improve it's AF for years." The Nikon/Canon speed was paid for with less accuracy. Yet no one repeats over and over, "Nikon and Canon need to improve their focusing accuracy." So what long time Pentaxians see, in a criticism like "Pentax needs to improve it's AF and SDM" is Canon and Nikon marketing hype. And when someone with 5 posts comes on a dwells on those issues, we are suspicious, one because there are folks who make their living selling Canon and Nikon gear who come on and make exactly that type of post.

We also see someone that isn't familiar enough with Pentax to understand that every camera for 3 years now has had major improvements to it's AF system. And quite simply, those of us with the cameras don't know where we are. We know the camera is a lot better. But we aren't in a position to say where it is compared to Nikon and Canon, except for one test against the D7100 which was pretty much a draw.

But a lot of us, look at that line and see red. We don't know that it's true. I suppose it would be a reasonable assumption to assume the AF system needs work, if you're coming from the Canon or Nikon community and haven't really kept up with the times around Pentax land.

But coming in and repeating the old and being unaware of the process, can cause some of the old timers to feel a little frustration. This AF thing was marketing hype. People bought into for years. We have to inform every newbie that comes on the board. With the advent of the K-3, in APS-c, it's Canon and Nikon that have the work to do, if they intend to keep their lead in AF, because right now it's evaporated.

How good the K-3 AF is compared to FF systems, we're waiting to find out. SDM is a different issue. No one knows if SDM is worse than any other AF system at this point. We've been told that Pentax has the best reliability rate in the industry, with SDM rolled in, but no one has teased out the SDM numbers for us. No one has compared Pentax electric drive motors with anyone else's. As far as we know for sure, the only thing SDM needs is a better warranty and possibly a quicker turnaround time on repairs. That's what we know for sure. ANd see here's the thing, with Pentax being top of the heap, and SDM possibly being the worst, how good are the Pentax screw drives? So here's the thing, saying Pentax needs to fix SDM (which again has probably already been done, as most people who follow the forum already know, give Canon and Nikon a free pass. The overall reliability rate is less than Pentax's, so why aren't you saying, Nikon and Canon over all need to improve their reliability rates, even more than Pentax does.

And the answer is, unless you've been here for a while, you just don't understand that marketing for the most part hinges on lies of omission, and fanboys are fed by marketing. So if you repeat the hype, your number of posts will be noticed.. if you say something that you've discovered from your experience then everyone pays attention. no one cares, because you're doing way more than repeating the hype. You're adding real information.

Tell us what you know, not what you're read and you'll have instant credibility. Especially for small companies like Pentax, what you've read in Canikon land isn't the whole story. And we've heard it, every time someone indoctrinated in the Canoikon universe comes here and starts posting.

Everyone needs to work on their lens reliability, but Pentax leads the pack in that one. And with the new AF system in the K-3, we really don't know where we stand at the moment. We just know it's a lot better. Most of the people on the forum, who found Canikon AF to be superior, were people comparing Pentax's to Canons and Nikons that were 3-5 years newer, or cameras that cost 4 times what the Pentax cost. And most of us realize, a $1200 Pentax doesn't have to compete with $3000 to $7000 competitor. Those camera probably have AF systems that cost more than a whole Pentax k-30.

When you come to Pentax land, the first thing is the "what Pentax users know that the rest of the world doesn't, reality check". It's unavoidable.

I do think SDM is slower than ring motors of Canon and Nikon. I do wish Ricoh would do an upgrade on the DA * lenses, particularly the 16-50 and 50-135. That said, I agree with you that it is irksome to read opinions of people whose most recent shooting experience with a Pentax was k10, K20 or even K5 making blanket claims about the current abilities of Pentax cameras to auto focus. It really has gotten a lot better, with both the K5 II and K3 and yet there are plenty of folks out there that believe that Pentax is still running the same auto focus module present in the K20.

[leonsroar]

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!

Google translate works fine and seems I don't have to translate this time

[derekkite]

It is interesting to see what pentax has done already. The k50 is a compelling offering for the price. The k3 is probably the best aps-c on the market. Oddly not home run type stuff, but solid and selling. The lens lineup has holes, but new ones and updates have been coming regularly. In folks of my acquaintance $1000 is alot of money to spend for a camera. Pentax has something very nice for them. That is bread and butter for all the manufacturers. Quite a few of these folks will be happy with the kit lens, a few will want more, and the k3 plus limiteds or da* are there to satisfy.

Where pentax lacks are the smaller market segments where more money is spent. Sports and wildlife is a natural for the wr bodies, as is macro, but the more demanding need stuff that isn't available. A professional full frame body along with a good lens selection would satisfy the portrait, wedding and other pro market segments.

Nikon and canon are in a position where any new product steals sales from another of their products. So you see purposeful crippling. Pentax is in a position to grow.

I don't see any strikingly groundbreaking stuff, rather a rounding out with solid products that sell.

[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.

I re-read that interview translation several times, to try and make sense of it. Although it really needs a professional technical translator to be sure, I think it's saying that the main challenge for them is to fit it into a body similar to the K-3/5 range. That's not quite the same thing as having a problem with it: I would expect that the issue is detailed engineering design, which is to be expected. In this world of employing other people's components, rather than designing everything for yourself, detail design means sizing, emulating performance redesigning, physically trialling, redesigning, costing and then finalising a production design, with probably several times around each sub-loop to achieve the price and performance required. All it takes is commitment and time.

[derekkite]

The second interview is interesting. When asked about the smartphone as a threat to the market, he says that in fact it represents a growth of the market for photographers. The quality of output from the phones will disappoint, and the higher end offerings are there to provide better iq for those who want it.

I would agree. There are many many young folks who have a knack and desire to take photos and want to push it further than the phone is capable.

[Daikokuya]

I'm inclined to say that Pentax should stay with APS-C, and avoid going to FF. It's too late to get into FF and find a decent business opportunity after the D600 and the 6D. Sony has already delved into FF with the RX1 and the alpha 7. It's 2 years late, at least. But that 2-years just killed Pentax. It's so sad that Hoya, not Ricoh at the time, bought Pentax. Even the K-3 doesn't look like to sell much, so Pentax would be fine to upgrade APS-C and the 645D, IMO.

Oh, by the way, I'm not on the side of those who see the rise of smartphones as a conduit to DSLR, as Mr. Endo said in the second interview. Rather, I think the opposite is happening in the way that those who shoot DSLR are turning to smartphones because DSLR is too heavy to carry out, but those with smartphones are likely to stay away from DSLR because smartphone guys are only casual shooters, not serious ones. "From smartphone to DSLR" is too opportunistic, and only fits well in company's annual reports.

[Uluru]

I'm inclined to say that Pentax should stay with APS-C, and avoid going to FF. It's too late to get into FF and find a decent business opportunity after the D600 and the 6D. Sony has already delved into FF with the RX1 and the alpha 7. It's 2 years late, at least. But that 2-years just killed Pentax. It's so sad that Hoya, not Ricoh at the time, bought Pentax. Even the K-3 doesn't look like to sell much, so Pentax would be fine to upgrade APS-C and the 645D, IMO.

I wouldn't bet on it.
User's opinions about a possible FF solution is extrapolated from trends others are following. That is why everyone fears, and in their mind they imagine Pentax coming on same terms to fight with big boys — and losing it.
Unlearn that. Pentax is much smarter than that. They are to give all users (including Pentax's own) a viable alternative with a different set of values, not a replica of existing ideas.

[dosdan]

Even the K-3 doesn't look like to sell much

I think the K-3 will sell OK. If not though advertising, then though good reviews, referrals & word-of-mouth, like the K-5 did.

Main thing that may hold back Pentax upgraders is the relatively little product difference from the K5II/K5IIs. The product difference from the K-5 is a bit bigger (better AF tracking , better AF sensitivity, better AF performance accuracy under artificial lighting), so many of these owners will be tempted. (I gave in to temptation today.)

Dan.

[Daikokuya]

I think the K-3 will sell OK. If not though advertising, then though referrals & word-of-mouth, like the K-5 did.

Main thing that may hold back Pentax upgraders is the relatively little product difference from the K5II/K5IIs. The product difference from the K-5 is a bit bigger (better AF tracking , better AF sensitivity, better AF performance accuracy under artificial lighting), so mnay of these owners will be tempted. (I gave in to temptation today.)

Dan.

I have no data on how much the K-3 sells, but given that the booking of silver models has been cancelled a lot and major websites show that the ranking of the K-3 in terms of sales is very low, I would expect K-3 sales to be lower than the company's project.

[Daikokuya]

I wouldn't bet on it.
User's opinions about a possible FF solution is extrapolated from trends others are following. That is why everyone fears, and in their mind they imagine Pentax coming on same terms to fight with big boys — and losing it.
Unlearn that. Pentax is much smarter than that. They are to give all users (including Pentax's own) a viable alternative with a different set of values, not a replica of existing ideas.

Pentax would be smarter than I, at least. But I don't think everybody is smarter than Pentax so that one can know the difference between "a viable alternative with a different set of values" and "a replica of existing ideas". As Mr. Endo admitted in the second interview, people don't know the difference among DA, Star, and Limited lenses. How can one find a difference between Pentax FF and the others even though Pentaxians don't understand how Star lens is better than the other Pentax lens? Today, everyone is at a loss for choosing which one to buy, 6D or D600. Or, some people are even wondering to choose the 5DIII or the D800, which one is clearly different from another in terms of IQ or other features. That, I think, is the problem which bothers Pentax so much.

[NotaxPen]

I think the K-3 will sell OK. If not though advertising, then though referrals & word-of-mouth, like the K-5 did.

Main thing that may hold back Pentax upgraders is the relatively little product difference from the K5II/K5IIs. The product difference from the K-5 is a bit bigger (better AF tracking , better AF sensitivity, better AF performance accuracy under artificial lighting), so mnay of these owners will be tempted. (I gave in to temptation today.)

Dan.

When the K-5II/IIs first came out, people were saying exactly the same thing. "Relatively little difference from K-5 so most won't upgrade" If you objectively look at the actual differences, you will see that K-3 difference is MUCH larger than K-5 to K-5II/s, it just depends on which of those differences are important to you whether you will upgrade or not. For me, I think the REALLY big product difference between the K-3 and the K-5II/IIs is that with the K-3, I don't have to CHOOSE between a K-5II and a K-5IIs.

[JPT]

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

This computer translation is a lot easier to follow.

???? ???????? - ????? ??