Photokina!

rawr · 08-01-2014, 06:20 AM

Originally posted by Pål Jensen

They can afford to fill every niche.

Not everything that is here today sprung up overnight.

Canikon built their current lineup piece by piece, year by year, camera model by camera model. Nikon was very slow to move away from APS-C and step into FF, Canon was equally slow about moving away from APS-H and into proper FF. Their current FF lineup was a slow evolution.

I believe there is room in the marketplace for Pentax to introduce a FF, and progressively develop their role in FF. Just like Nikon and Canon have done.

**savoche** · 08-01-2014, 06:20 AM

Originally posted by Pål Jensen

People will still leave Pentax because of FF. You can be sure that the moment a Pentax FF body is released the whining will start; Its is only 24mp; it is not 24mp; you cannot buy one as there is no 400/2.8 AF lens for it. Nikon and Canon have more lenses so it is pointless...etc...etc...we heard it all before...
It is not realistic that Pentax will have more than one FF body in the line-up for the foreseeable future. And the lens line-up will be very restricted compared to Nikon and Canon. The whining is not primarily about what people want or need but for the whining itself; they need an excuse to consume and experience changes. They will have no problem finding something to be unhappy about after Pentax have released their FF body. They will post threads where they proclaim their deflection to another brand because Pentax refuse to update the camera after 6 months on the market.....

This is so spot on.

You could also add that few, if any, of the whiners would buy the FF body, much less a 400/2.8 should it be released (because it ain't a 500/2, and it's too big and expensive).

I know, I know. I want everything, too, and I want it for free.

End of rant.

Mr Bassie · 08-01-2014, 06:45 AM

Originally posted by savoche

This is so spot on.

You could also add that few, if any, of the whiners would buy the FF body, much less a 400/2.8 should it be released (because it ain't a 500/2, and it's too big and expensive).

I know, I know. I want everything, too, and I want it for free.

End of rant.

Yes I agree as well. I suspect some people think that FF will make them a better photographer. But it is interesting to see some pro photographers moving away from FF due to the hassle of carrying it around.

I can testify to the joys of small cameras. I traded my Q for a Pentax 645 film camera. The 645 is great in many ways but it is so big I never want to take it anywhere. Meanwhile I am now eyeing a Q7 and waiting for the price drops.

D1N0 · 08-01-2014, 06:47 AM

Originally posted by Pål Jensen

People will still leave Pentax because of FF. You can be sure that the moment a Pentax FF body is released the whining will start; Its is only 24mp; it is not 24mp; you cannot buy one as there is no 400/2.8 AF lens for it. Nikon and Canon have more lenses so it is pointless...etc...etc...we heard it all before...
It is not realistic that Pentax will have more than one FF body in the line-up for the foreseeable future. And the lens line-up will be very restricted compared to Nikon and Canon. The whining is not primarily about what people want or need but for the whining itself; they need an excuse to consume and experience changes. They will have no problem finding something to be unhappy about after Pentax have released their FF body. They will post threads where they proclaim their deflection to another brand because Pentax refuse to update the camera after 6 months on the market.....

People will always whine. Not a reason not to make a FF camera. Pentax doesn't need more bodies for FF a different sensor in the same body is easy Pentax also had de K-5 II and IIs.

bibz · 08-01-2014, 08:02 AM - **1 Like**

They are currently making the best stills camera in the world. Bang for buck is totally there. If you think the overpriced d810 is anywhere near it you are lucky and should jump on it. If not, continue waiting for the camera that will never come out. That ideal camera doesn't exist. Theres no custom garage for cameras. Yet.

Other systems full frameyness gets hugely let down by 'this'll do' kit lenses and all covering pro stuff. Theres nothing special in canons line up that isn't telephoto (useless to me). Nikon has the 14-24. No gorgeous primes. They then shoot the apsc stuff in the foot to get you to 'upgrade'. I'm not gonna spend $2.5k on a Pentax 35mm camera. But I wouldn't want them to release anything less then that. I expect higher quality from them. And the lenses. A broken motor 16-50 2.8 has way more to it then a 24-85 3.5-5.6. Maybe not for snap shots, but these aren't good cameras for those...

**Belnan** · 08-01-2014, 10:14 AM - **1 Like**

Pentax K2 - Camerapedia

Good One banep

**jpzk** · 08-01-2014, 10:20 AM

Originally posted by banep

Can be seen as a joke.
Probably.
But it's real.
It has similar size and almost the same weight as K-3.

You must have some relationship with Ricoh then ... and that amazes me that it is way out there in Slovenia.
Make sure to keep feeding us on the rumour ... we like that here!

JP

---------- Post added 08-01-14 at 01:22 PM ----------

Originally posted by Belnan

Pentax K2 - Camerapedia

Good One banep

It even has one of my favorite lens on it: the 43mm Ltd in silver.

JP

**Belnan** · 08-01-2014, 10:26 AM

Originally posted by jpzk

You must have some relationship with Ricoh then ... and that amazes me that it is way out there in Slovenia.
Make sure to keep feeding us on the rumour ... we like that here!

JP

---------- Post added 08-01-14 at 01:22 PM ----------

It even has one of my favorite lens on it: the 43mm Ltd in silver.

JP

I always told myself that if Pentax released a full frame camera I would buy the FA43 with it. Maybe they will offer it as a kit.

Cannikin · 08-01-2014, 10:51 AM

Originally posted by Pål Jensen

Linear resolution is meaningless as images are not one-dimensional.

The ability to resolve detail is determined by whether or not you can distinguish a feature from something directly adjacent to it. This means that the only thing that matters for resolving power is the linear separation between one detail and any other detail, i.e. one dimension.

For instance, the ability to resolve two lines parallel to each other, the only thing that matters is the perpendicular axis between them. Lines of pixels along the parallel axis are useless because they are along the lines, and do not separate them. If you want to clearly resolve lines that are twice as thin, you need to double the linear resolution, which is four times the pixels (assuming square pixels). This applies to individual pixels as well, lines are just easier to visualize (you can think of pixels as very short lines running in a direction perpendicular to the axis between it and the pixel you are comparing it to). The only thing you need to distinguish one pixel from any other pixel is the line of pixels between them. Pixels in any other direction are not necessary.

There is a reason why print quality is given in DPI (dots per inch) or PPI (pixels per inch), and why astronomers state the resolving power of their telecopses in terms of angular resolution, which are all single dimensional units. This is why you cannot believe that marketing nonsense that 4K UHD (3840x2160) is "four times clearer" than 1080p. 4K will only resolve twice as finely spaced details as 1080p, with four times the total pixels.

**Pål Jensen** · 08-01-2014, 11:41 AM

Originally posted by Cannikin

The ability to resolve detail is determined by whether or not you can distinguish a feature from something directly adjacent to it. This means that the only thing that matters for resolving power is the linear separation between one detail and any other detail, i.e. one dimension..

No one except pixelpeepers (litterally) look at images this way. You look at whole image at the same time. Images fills an area. It is the total quality of this area that decides the quality of the image. Resolution happens in more than one dimension.

cali92rs · 08-01-2014, 12:30 PM

Originally posted by Pål Jensen

No one except pixelpeepers (litterally) look at images this way. You look at whole image at the same time. Images fills an area. It is the total quality of this area that decides the quality of the image. Resolution happens in more than one dimension.

Ummm yea...
I don't remember reading "image quality" = resolution.

You could've said that resolution is not important to you and that would've been a correct statement.
Trying to change the definition of a term makes what you wrote incorrect.

Cannikin · 08-01-2014, 12:59 PM

Originally posted by Pål Jensen

No one except pixelpeepers (litterally) look at images this way. You look at whole image at the same time. Images fills an area. It is the total quality of this area that decides the quality of the image. Resolution happens in more than one dimension.

Yes, I'm sure all those film scientists and astronomers who determined that the proper way to measure resolving power of film and optical systems was given in terms of single dimensional units (e.g. lp/mm and radians/degrees respectively) long before the concept of "pixels" was even invented were all "pixelpeepers"...

The bottom line is that if you want to perceive twice as finely spaced detail or go from 100dpi to 200dpi in your print, doubling your pixels does not get you there, while doubling the linear resolution (quadrupling the pixels) does, and that is the relevant factor in perceived resolution/sharpness.

JimmyDranox · 08-01-2014, 01:22 PM

Originally posted by Pål Jensen

No one except pixelpeepers (litterally) look at images this way. You look at whole image at the same time. Images fills an area. It is the total quality of this area that decides the quality of the image. Resolution happens in more than one dimension.

Anyone is a pixelpeeper after a new lens acquisition. At least.

Poit · 08-01-2014, 01:57 PM

Originally posted by Uluru

In short, Asahiman says:

- No FF this Photokina. Don't expect it.

For the record, Asahi Man said there would not be FF body on display at Photokina, but there might be information about it.

**monochrome** · 08-01-2014, 02:04 PM

Originally posted by Poit

For the record, Asahi Man said there would not be FF body on display at Photokina, but there might be information about it.

Copy / Paste again, just For the Record

asahi man wrote:

"The Pentax fullframe Body is not to see @ Photokina this year.

Maybe any informations,but we will see no body.

The next lens should be not a 2,8 70-200.

It is the telezomm till 4xxmm.

What we see this year is the new Q and maybe lenses for aps-c and ff.

The converter production got a power up now,because there are still much more orders than production numbers

Cheers."

NOTE: As regards the production of the 645Z on another thread - Production plans DO change in response to market demand. Rumors that FF was temporarily pushed aside by 645Z may have some basis in fact.

08-01-2014, 10:14 AM - 1 Like	#321
Belnan Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Nova Scotia Photos: Albums Posts: 1,090	Here is the Pentax K2 Pentax K2 - Camerapedia Good One banep

08-01-2014, 10:51 AM	#324
Cannikin Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: SW Washington Posts: 833	Originally posted by Pål Jensen Linear resolution is meaningless as images are not one-dimensional. The ability to resolve detail is determined by whether or not you can distinguish a feature from something directly adjacent to it. This means that the only thing that matters for resolving power is the linear separation between one detail and any other detail, i.e. one dimension. For instance, the ability to resolve two lines parallel to each other, the only thing that matters is the perpendicular axis between them. Lines of pixels along the parallel axis are useless because they are along the lines, and do not separate them. If you want to clearly resolve lines that are twice as thin, you need to double the linear resolution, which is four times the pixels (assuming square pixels). This applies to individual pixels as well, lines are just easier to visualize (you can think of pixels as very short lines running in a direction perpendicular to the axis between it and the pixel you are comparing it to). The only thing you need to distinguish one pixel from any other pixel is the line of pixels between them. Pixels in any other direction are not necessary. There is a reason why print quality is given in DPI (dots per inch) or PPI (pixels per inch), and why astronomers state the resolving power of their telecopses in terms of angular resolution, which are all single dimensional units. This is why you cannot believe that marketing nonsense that 4K UHD (3840x2160) is "four times clearer" than 1080p. 4K will only resolve twice as finely spaced details as 1080p, with four times the total pixels. Last edited by Cannikin; 08-01-2014 at 11:01 AM.

08-01-2014, 11:41 AM	#325
Pål Jensen Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Norway Photos: Albums Posts: 4,371	Originally posted by Cannikin The ability to resolve detail is determined by whether or not you can distinguish a feature from something directly adjacent to it. This means that the only thing that matters for resolving power is the linear separation between one detail and any other detail, i.e. one dimension.. No one except pixelpeepers (litterally) look at images this way. You look at whole image at the same time. Images fills an area. It is the total quality of this area that decides the quality of the image. Resolution happens in more than one dimension. Last edited by Pål Jensen; 08-01-2014 at 12:07 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Photokina 2014 - FF	Tesla	Pentax Full Frame	797	11-14-2014 11:14 PM
Official PF Photokina Meetup	Adam	Travel, Events, and Groups	42	09-26-2012 11:33 AM
Photokina interview	larkis	Pentax Medium Format	5	09-22-2012 04:36 PM
Photokina price drop?	Dynasty	Pentax DSLR Discussion	10	08-21-2012 04:27 PM
Predict Pentax Photokina Announcements	selar	Photographic Industry and Professionals	72	08-20-2012 04:04 PM

08-01-2014, 06:20 AM	#316
rawr Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 11,913	Originally posted by Pål Jensen They can afford to fill every niche. Not everything that is here today sprung up overnight. Canikon built their current lineup piece by piece, year by year, camera model by camera model. Nikon was very slow to move away from APS-C and step into FF, Canon was equally slow about moving away from APS-H and into proper FF. Their current FF lineup was a slow evolution. I believe there is room in the marketplace for Pentax to introduce a FF, and progressively develop their role in FF. Just like Nikon and Canon have done.

08-01-2014, 06:20 AM	#317
savoche Master of the obvious Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: Lowlands of Norway Posts: 18,311	Originally posted by Pål Jensen People will still leave Pentax because of FF. You can be sure that the moment a Pentax FF body is released the whining will start; Its is only 24mp; it is not 24mp; you cannot buy one as there is no 400/2.8 AF lens for it. Nikon and Canon have more lenses so it is pointless...etc...etc...we heard it all before... It is not realistic that Pentax will have more than one FF body in the line-up for the foreseeable future. And the lens line-up will be very restricted compared to Nikon and Canon. The whining is not primarily about what people want or need but for the whining itself; they need an excuse to consume and experience changes. They will have no problem finding something to be unhappy about after Pentax have released their FF body. They will post threads where they proclaim their deflection to another brand because Pentax refuse to update the camera after 6 months on the market..... This is so spot on. You could also add that few, if any, of the whiners would buy the FF body, much less a 400/2.8 should it be released (because it ain't a 500/2, and it's too big and expensive). I know, I know. I want everything, too, and I want it for free. End of rant.

08-01-2014, 06:45 AM	#318
Mr Bassie Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2012 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,258	Originally posted by savoche This is so spot on. You could also add that few, if any, of the whiners would buy the FF body, much less a 400/2.8 should it be released (because it ain't a 500/2, and it's too big and expensive). I know, I know. I want everything, too, and I want it for free. End of rant. Yes I agree as well. I suspect some people think that FF will make them a better photographer. But it is interesting to see some pro photographers moving away from FF due to the hassle of carrying it around. I can testify to the joys of small cameras. I traded my Q for a Pentax 645 film camera. The 645 is great in many ways but it is so big I never want to take it anywhere. Meanwhile I am now eyeing a Q7 and waiting for the price drops.

08-01-2014, 06:47 AM	#319
D1N0 Pentaxian Join Date: May 2012 Location: --- Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,802	Originally posted by Pål Jensen People will still leave Pentax because of FF. You can be sure that the moment a Pentax FF body is released the whining will start; Its is only 24mp; it is not 24mp; you cannot buy one as there is no 400/2.8 AF lens for it. Nikon and Canon have more lenses so it is pointless...etc...etc...we heard it all before... It is not realistic that Pentax will have more than one FF body in the line-up for the foreseeable future. And the lens line-up will be very restricted compared to Nikon and Canon. The whining is not primarily about what people want or need but for the whining itself; they need an excuse to consume and experience changes. They will have no problem finding something to be unhappy about after Pentax have released their FF body. They will post threads where they proclaim their deflection to another brand because Pentax refuse to update the camera after 6 months on the market..... People will always whine. Not a reason not to make a FF camera. Pentax doesn't need more bodies for FF a different sensor in the same body is easy Pentax also had de K-5 II and IIs.

08-01-2014, 08:02 AM - 1 Like	#320
bibz Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Newcastle, AU! Posts: 276	They are currently making the best stills camera in the world. Bang for buck is totally there. If you think the overpriced d810 is anywhere near it you are lucky and should jump on it. If not, continue waiting for the camera that will never come out. That ideal camera doesn't exist. Theres no custom garage for cameras. Yet. Other systems full frameyness gets hugely let down by 'this'll do' kit lenses and all covering pro stuff. Theres nothing special in canons line up that isn't telephoto (useless to me). Nikon has the 14-24. No gorgeous primes. They then shoot the apsc stuff in the foot to get you to 'upgrade'. I'm not gonna spend $2.5k on a Pentax 35mm camera. But I wouldn't want them to release anything less then that. I expect higher quality from them. And the lenses. A broken motor 16-50 2.8 has way more to it then a 24-85 3.5-5.6. Maybe not for snap shots, but these aren't good cameras for those...

08-01-2014, 10:20 AM	#322
jpzk Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Québec Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 8,251	Originally posted by banep Can be seen as a joke. Probably. But it's real. It has similar size and almost the same weight as K-3. You must have some relationship with Ricoh then ... and that amazes me that it is way out there in Slovenia. Make sure to keep feeding us on the rumour ... we like that here! JP ---------- Post added 08-01-14 at 01:22 PM ---------- Originally posted by Belnan Pentax K2 - Camerapedia Good One banep It even has one of my favorite lens on it: the 43mm Ltd in silver. JP

08-01-2014, 10:26 AM	#323
Belnan Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Nova Scotia Photos: Albums Posts: 1,090	Originally posted by jpzk You must have some relationship with Ricoh then ... and that amazes me that it is way out there in Slovenia. Make sure to keep feeding us on the rumour ... we like that here! JP ---------- Post added 08-01-14 at 01:22 PM ---------- It even has one of my favorite lens on it: the 43mm Ltd in silver. JP I always told myself that if Pentax released a full frame camera I would buy the FA43 with it. Maybe they will offer it as a kit.

08-01-2014, 12:30 PM	#326
cali92rs Veteran Member Join Date: May 2011 Location: Long Beach, CA Posts: 3,354	Originally posted by Pål Jensen No one except pixelpeepers (litterally) look at images this way. You look at whole image at the same time. Images fills an area. It is the total quality of this area that decides the quality of the image. Resolution happens in more than one dimension. Ummm yea... I don't remember reading "image quality" = resolution. You could've said that resolution is not important to you and that would've been a correct statement. Trying to change the definition of a term makes what you wrote incorrect.

08-01-2014, 12:59 PM	#327
Cannikin Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: SW Washington Posts: 833	Originally posted by Pål Jensen No one except pixelpeepers (litterally) look at images this way. You look at whole image at the same time. Images fills an area. It is the total quality of this area that decides the quality of the image. Resolution happens in more than one dimension. Yes, I'm sure all those film scientists and astronomers who determined that the proper way to measure resolving power of film and optical systems was given in terms of single dimensional units (e.g. lp/mm and radians/degrees respectively) long before the concept of "pixels" was even invented were all "pixelpeepers"... The bottom line is that if you want to perceive twice as finely spaced detail or go from 100dpi to 200dpi in your print, doubling your pixels does not get you there, while doubling the linear resolution (quadrupling the pixels) does, and that is the relevant factor in perceived resolution/sharpness.

08-01-2014, 01:22 PM	#328
JimmyDranox Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2012 Location: Ploiesti, Romania Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,632	Originally posted by Pål Jensen No one except pixelpeepers (litterally) look at images this way. You look at whole image at the same time. Images fills an area. It is the total quality of this area that decides the quality of the image. Resolution happens in more than one dimension. Anyone is a pixelpeeper after a new lens acquisition. At least.

08-01-2014, 01:57 PM	#329
Poit Banned Join Date: Feb 2013 Location: Canberra, Australia Posts: 423	Originally posted by Uluru In short, Asahiman says: - No FF this Photokina. Don't expect it. For the record, Asahi Man said there would not be FF body on display at Photokina, but there might be information about it.

08-01-2014, 02:04 PM	#330
monochrome Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Working From Home Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 26,276	Originally posted by Poit For the record, Asahi Man said there would not be FF body on display at Photokina, but there might be information about it. Copy / Paste again, just For the Record asahi man wrote: "The Pentax fullframe Body is not to see @ Photokina this year. Maybe any informations,but we will see no body. The next lens should be not a 2,8 70-200. It is the telezomm till 4xxmm. What we see this year is the new Q and maybe lenses for aps-c and ff. The converter production got a power up now,because there are still much more orders than production numbers Cheers." NOTE: As regards the production of the 645Z on another thread - Production plans DO change in response to market demand. Rumors that FF was temporarily pushed aside by 645Z may have some basis in fact.