Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
03-03-2015, 03:21 AM   #796
Pentaxian




Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Manila
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,191
QuoteOriginally posted by kadajawi Quote
I don't think that they should split up video and stills and do a dedicated video focused mirrorless line (akin to the Cinema EOS). Pentax doesn't have the expertise for that. Improved video in their regular bodies, yes. But something dedicated... maybe eventually, one day, but I'd rather see some of that functionality in their DSLRs.
Yup, I only felt sad about it since the K-01 was the first to feature a Prime M sensor..for whatever it's supposed to be for, but it provided Pentax some catch up for video. Finally, 1080p! Lol.

As for the Q yeah too bad Pentax can't pour more resources into developing it now with the FF on the horizon.. But I'm not complaining, it can wait

03-03-2015, 03:24 AM   #797
Pentaxian




Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 2,609
The K-5 had 1080p (albeit a tad soft perhaps) too, and it didn't compress it to hell and back. The result barely had any compression artifacts. Unlike the output of following Pentax cameras.
03-03-2015, 03:30 AM   #798
Pentaxian




Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Manila
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,191
true, and to some extent K-5 actually looked better than K-01 video output, but produced insane video file sizes.

Thanks for the clarification on that part. Though I'm still wondering why the Prime M was even developed.. A budget processor?
03-03-2015, 03:43 AM   #799
Pentaxian




Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 2,609
QuoteOriginally posted by Alizarine Quote
true, and to some extent K-5 actually looked better than K-01 video output, but produced insane video file sizes.

Thanks for the clarification on that part. Though I'm still wondering why the Prime M was even developed.. A budget processor?
It is nice to have both options though. Big files and good quality and small files and not so good quality. Because sometimes you just need to save space, and sometimes quality matters. Pentax requires you to use 2 cameras for that, and that is insane.

I'd say so. I suppose Fujitsu offered it?

It's not like the higher end Prime is any better for video though. Frame rates are low, bitrates are low, shake reduction is still digital...

03-03-2015, 03:47 AM   #800
Pentaxian
thibs's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Belgium
Photos: Albums
Posts: 5,159
QuoteOriginally posted by kadajawi Quote
It is nice to have both options though. Big files and good quality and small files and not so good quality. Because sometimes you just need to save space, and sometimes quality matters. Pentax requires you to use 2 cameras for that, and that is insane.

I'd say so. I suppose Fujitsu offered it?

It's not like the higher end Prime is any better for video though. Frame rates are low, bitrates are low, shake reduction is still digital...
In a couple years, Ricoh may be in a position to develop their own chipset.
After all, Ricoh is BIG and if those chips can be reused in other markets by Ricoh....
03-03-2015, 05:12 AM   #801
Pentaxian




Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 2,609
QuoteOriginally posted by thibs Quote
In a couple years, Ricoh may be in a position to develop their own chipset.
After all, Ricoh is BIG and if those chips can be reused in other markets by Ricoh....
Perhaps. But the synergy effects aren't quite as big as for brands like Samsung and Sony. Cameras are much closer to phones than to copying machines. You need something fast for the interface. Access to the camera, a way to process the data from the camera and compress it. Video encoder and decoder. WiFi. Those things are needed for phones and cameras, and the phone world is moving very fast.

Just look at this:
Exynos 7420 (Galaxy S6) vs Snapdragon 810 (HTC One M9) vs Apple A8 (iPhone 6) benchmark scores

I have a Snapdragon 801 device, and it is ridiculously fast. Very snappy, everything happens instantly. And the newer processors are even faster. The fastest of them all is made by Samsung, which can modify it for camera use.
03-03-2015, 08:55 AM   #802
Senior Member




Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Sweden
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 290
QuoteOriginally posted by mecrox Quote
A Fuji spokesman recently said that he thought mirrorless would have cancelled the advantages of the DSLR within 2-3 years. So perhaps 2-3 years' time is what Pentax are thinking? Who knows. The Q won't last forever, its sensor is too small.
Q is Q, a small sensor. Itīs like a VW Polo and 645 is like a bus for 50-70 persons. I think Pentax comes with a mirrorless APS later but itīs not a replacement for Q.
For 100 years ago a camera was big, in 1950-60 you see 6X6 and 24X36mm around. In 1970 came the 110cassette and in 1980 film and camera companies try to replace 35mm with the smaller APS. Today most pictures are taken with a cellphone with a very tiny sensor and if you see a digital 645 or Hassy on the street today you probable take a snapshot of him or her. So Q are not to small, itīs a small, fun and useful camera, but itīs not a 24X36.
03-03-2015, 09:13 AM   #803
Site Supporter
reh321's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: South Bend, IN, USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,721
QuoteOriginally posted by mecrox Quote
A Fuji spokesman recently said that he thought mirrorless would have cancelled the advantages of the DSLR within 2-3 years. So perhaps 2-3 years' time is what Pentax are thinking? Who knows. The Q won't last forever, its sensor is too small.
Canon would be extremely surprised to hear that; their SX-50 has been a very successful line. The primary power of bridge cameras comes from their tiny sensors, and the current Q sensor is larger than theirs. Even without a pancake lens, using only a 01 that I bought from a Japanese merchant, I use a Q7 to replace my Canon Elph pocket camera, and use it also to take Bird&Butterfly pictures. I bought it specifically, because of all MILCs, it has the smallest sensor and therefore provides the most "reach" with affordable (to me) adapted lenses, similar to what I would have gotten with an SX-50.

I hope Pentax is learning from the Q-family so that they will be in a position to "de-mirror" the K-S2, or similar camera, on short order if Fuji is correct. But I expect them to keep the Q in any case; they currently market four APS-C cameras, so there is no reason why they couldn't market at least two MILCs.

03-03-2015, 09:54 AM   #804
Pentaxian
mecrox's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Oxford, UK
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,910
QuoteOriginally posted by reh321 Quote
Canon would be extremely surprised to hear that; their SX-50 has been a very successful line. The primary power of bridge cameras comes from their tiny sensors, and the current Q sensor is larger than theirs. Even without a pancake lens, using only a 01 that I bought from a Japanese merchant, I use a Q7 to replace my Canon Elph pocket camera, and use it also to take Bird&Butterfly pictures. I bought it specifically, because of all MILCs, it has the smallest sensor and therefore provides the most "reach" with affordable (to me) adapted lenses, similar to what I would have gotten with an SX-50.

I hope Pentax is learning from the Q-family so that they will be in a position to "de-mirror" the K-S2, or similar camera, on short order if Fuji is correct. But I expect them to keep the Q in any case; they currently market four APS-C cameras, so there is no reason why they couldn't market at least two MILCs.
Each to their own but imho, cameras with sensors this small won't last. Smartphones will slowly reel them in, maybe not now but as I said, in 2-3 years the state of play won't be the same as today ... Pentax have had a very, very good run with the Q but nothing lasts forever. Bridge cameras are great, but paying $$$ for something with a tiny sensor inside it, no matter how capable the overall specs sound, strikes me as a bit of a rip-off. We are already seeing the better bridge cameras moving to 1" +/- sensors.

Last edited by mecrox; 03-03-2015 at 10:01 AM.
03-03-2015, 11:46 AM   #805
Site Supporter
Spodeworld's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: New Joisey
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,189
I may be getting this thrown back in my face in the future, but I agree, the small sensor found in cameras like the Q are too small to be attractive over the long term without a revolutionary improvement in IQ, esp in low light.


QuoteOriginally posted by mecrox Quote
Each to their own but imho, cameras with sensors this small won't last. Smartphones will slowly reel them in, maybe not now but as I said, in 2-3 years the state of play won't be the same as today ... Pentax have had a very, very good run with the Q but nothing lasts forever. Bridge cameras are great, but paying $$$ for something with a tiny sensor inside it, no matter how capable the overall specs sound, strikes me as a bit of a rip-off. We are already seeing the better bridge cameras moving to 1" +/- sensors.
03-03-2015, 11:51 AM   #806
Veteran Member
robjmitchell's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Melbourne Aus
Posts: 1,144
QuoteOriginally posted by mecrox Quote
Each to their own but imho, cameras with sensors this small won't last. Smartphones will slowly reel them in, maybe not now but as I said, in 2-3 years the state of play won't be the same as today ... Pentax have had a very, very good run with the Q but nothing lasts forever. Bridge cameras are great, but paying $$$ for something with a tiny sensor inside it, no matter how capable the overall specs sound, strikes me as a bit of a rip-off. We are already seeing the better bridge cameras moving to 1" +/- sensors.
Ummm....... I'sn't the whole point of the Q system is that it is the smallest interchangeable lens system! You cant do that with bigger sensors because you need bigger optics to cover them.
03-03-2015, 12:23 PM   #807
Moderator
Racer X 69's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: The Great Pacific Northwet
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 8,795
QuoteOriginally posted by kadajawi Quote

If Pentax doesn't change I know my next camera will be a Samsung.
But.

But.

But.

The Samsung GX10 was a Pentax K10D in disguise. You could have already had one . . . . . .
03-03-2015, 01:22 PM   #808
Site Supporter
Zygonyx's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Ile de France
Posts: 2,951
QuoteOriginally posted by robjmitchell Quote
Ummm....... I'sn't the whole point of the Q system is that it is the smallest interchangeable lens system! You cant do that with bigger sensors because you need bigger optics to cover them.
Nor with smartphones, because you never will have the ergonomy/controls nor optics !
03-03-2015, 01:54 PM   #809
Pentaxian




Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 2,609
QuoteOriginally posted by Zygonyx Quote
Nor with smartphones, because you never will have the ergonomy/controls nor optics !
You can, though it will be more like a camera that you can make phone calls with, if you must. Also it depends on if someone will actually make it. But technically it's possible. The Panasonic CM-1 or so is already getting close...
03-03-2015, 02:32 PM   #810
Senior Member




Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Sweden
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 290
QuoteOriginally posted by mecrox Quote
Each to their own but imho, cameras with sensors this small won't last. Smartphones will slowly reel them in, maybe not now but as I said, in 2-3 years the state of play won't be the same as today ... Pentax have had a very, very good run with the Q but nothing lasts forever. Bridge cameras are great, but paying $$$ for something with a tiny sensor inside it, no matter how capable the overall specs sound, strikes me as a bit of a rip-off. We are already seeing the better bridge cameras moving to 1" +/- sensors.
Smartphones/Cellphones are micro computers with telephone and camera functions. I donīt use it as a camera and itīs not a camera. Probably the Q series live longer than the 645 series because itīs good enough. As I said in https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/16-pentax-news-rumors/270063-what-should-...ml#post3178656 , the trend goes to smaller format and today you could see pictures taken with cellphones at nights in newspapers( not nice ones). Panasonic / Olympus seams satisfied with 1" sensors in theirs systems. I use Q but have K3 too, I think I'm going to buy the next Richo GR because itīs so good and compact but I donīt think I buy the new FF, K3 are adequate for me even in the dark. Different tools for different situations.
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!
645z, ad, camera, cameras, canon, display, dslr, evf, features, ff, film, full-frame, glass, lens, lenses, market, mirror, mirrorless, money, nikon, pentax, pentax news, pentax rumors, results, sensor, time, value, vs
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
This is what Pentax should do Rekusu Pentax Medium Format 19 01-12-2015 01:10 AM
What should I do? kodai84 Photographic Industry and Professionals 4 01-05-2014 08:49 AM
Focusing on Pentax K-Mount only - Or what should I do with my M42s antipattern Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 5 01-30-2013 10:26 AM
What Should I Do? tabl10s Pentax K-5 8 10-16-2012 03:55 AM
what Pentax should do nathancombs Pentax DSLR Discussion 12 07-06-2007 01:39 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:38 PM. | 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