Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
09-29-2014, 01:05 AM   #1591
Loyal Site Supporter
clackers's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Melbourne
Photos: Albums
Posts: 8,873
QuoteOriginally posted by ogl Quote
- it's not new sensor.
K-500 = 16Mp sensor
K-S1 = 20Mp

09-29-2014, 02:34 AM   #1592
ogl
Pentaxian
ogl's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Siberia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 7,216
QuoteOriginally posted by clackers Quote
K-500 = 16Mp sensor
K-S1 = 20Mp
It's SONY sensor which already used in several cameras before. I don't mean K-500 at all.
09-29-2014, 08:41 AM   #1593
ogl
Pentaxian
ogl's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Siberia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 7,216
QuoteOriginally posted by Kunzite Quote
On the Imaging Resource interview, Ricoh Imaging said that the AA filter simulator needs a different SR system - different hardware; because of that it cannot be added via firmware upgrade. We can be sure it's different (an adaptation of the K-3's SR system, instead of the K-50/K-5 etc. ones).
Wait the technical explanation from you about difference of new SR system from old one for lens stabilization.
Dо you really think that it works in another way for making lens stabilized?
09-29-2014, 10:07 AM   #1594
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Romania
Posts: 9,229
The technical difference can be superficially explained as "a separate controller dedicated just to shake reduction" and "stronger actuators".

09-29-2014, 01:27 PM   #1595
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Oregon
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 75
Isn't today the release date for the k-S1? Not much talk about it...
09-29-2014, 01:51 PM   #1596
Loyal Site Supporter
clackers's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Melbourne
Photos: Albums
Posts: 8,873
QuoteOriginally posted by ogl Quote
It's SONY sensor which already used in several cameras before. I don't mean K-500 at all.
We know that. Didn't you see when JPT said: "A new sensor. On Sony cameras, that sensor is no better, but also no worse than the 16mp one that preceded it. It is definitely a newer model, though."?

And we're talking about the K-500, because that's the comparison Buckaroo was making.

I think you answered without reading other people's posts!
09-29-2014, 04:52 PM   #1597
JPT
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Tokyo
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,233
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by GearHead Quote
Isn't today the release date for the k-S1? Not much talk about it...
It's been on sale since last Friday in Japan. Unfortunately, there hasn't been much written about it in English yet.
09-30-2014, 04:00 AM   #1598
Junior Member




Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Maine
Posts: 28
QuoteOriginally posted by clackers Quote
Smaller, wifi capability and no AA filter.
Smaller isn't always better, some may not care about wifi or AA filers at double the money. Will the AA filter do better on the K-S1 or will the K-50/500 do better with a better lens to the point that both have an investment of equal expense... With $399 price of the K-500 (with a 18-55mm) that still leaves $400 to spend on another lens... I guess each person has to weight the differences and see what is right for them... For me I would pass on the wifi and AA filter and opt for a better lens on the K-500 - A side note - the K-500 pixel size is 22.9um(squared) vs 17.7um(squared)... Does a person really need 20 megapixels or even 16 megapixels... Printing at professional quality (300dpi) it only takes 7 megapixels for an 8x10 - what happens to the other megapixels (are they thrown out or averaged in) in either case there is degradation with the sharpness, contrast and even color because the resolution is going to be compromised in order to make it fit... Here is an exercise that is simple to do and will raise some questions... Take a picture of some telephone wires at full resolution and then view them on the computer the telephone wires look like a ripsaw blade until you view at 100%... Would you get the same results if you printed the picture at less than full size? And if you shrink the picture down what happens to the detail, sharpness, contrast, colors etc.. Some long time professionals seem to agree that pixel size is more important than pixel count but is overlooked by many consumers... I happen to agree... I have another question - why would a person need an AA filter is they are getting the results without one? And another point I would like to make is if the K-S1 has a faster processor then why does the K-500 still shoot at a faster frame rate (6 vs 5.4)... Here is a link for your viewing pleasure - use your own deductions: Specifications - Pentax K-500 vs Pentax K-S1

09-30-2014, 06:37 AM   #1599
JPT
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Tokyo
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,233
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Buckaroo50 Quote
Smaller isn't always better, some may not care about wifi or AA filers at double the money. Will the AA filter do better on the K-S1 or will the K-50/500 do better with a better lens to the point that both have an investment of equal expense... With $399 price of the K-500 (with a 18-55mm) that still leaves $400 to spend on another lens... I guess each person has to weight the differences and see what is right for them... For me I would pass on the wifi and AA filter and opt for a better lens on the K-500 - A side note - the K-500 pixel size is 22.9um(squared) vs 17.7um(squared)... Does a person really need 20 megapixels or even 16 megapixels... Printing at professional quality (300dpi) it only takes 7 megapixels for an 8x10 - what happens to the other megapixels (are they thrown out or averaged in) in either case there is degradation with the sharpness, contrast and even color because the resolution is going to be compromised in order to make it fit... Here is an exercise that is simple to do and will raise some questions... Take a picture of some telephone wires at full resolution and then view them on the computer the telephone wires look like a ripsaw blade until you view at 100%... Would you get the same results if you printed the picture at less than full size? And if you shrink the picture down what happens to the detail, sharpness, contrast, colors etc.. Some long time professionals seem to agree that pixel size is more important than pixel count but is overlooked by many consumers... I happen to agree... I have another question - why would a person need an AA filter is they are getting the results without one? And another point I would like to make is if the K-S1 has a faster processor then why does the K-500 still shoot at a faster frame rate (6 vs 5.4)... Here is a link for your viewing pleasure - use your own deductions: Specifications - Pentax K-500 vs Pentax K-S1
I think you have some misconceptions about pixel size (not directly comparable across different generations of technology), printing (good printers have very high DPI and can handle all the pixels you can throw at them) and the processor (the shutter is more likely to be the limiting factor for the burst rate).

But the main point I want to make is that last year's state-of-the-art is this year's bargain, just like this year's state-of the art will be next year's bargain. Rewind to last summer and the K-50/K-500 had just come out, offering nothing more than the K-30 but costing significantly more. In that case you really could say the tech was the same as the old model.

I think the other thing is that the K-S1 is not part of the mainstream camera line-up (see the PF Photokina interview). Its capabilities are slanted towards a particular type of user who wants something small. It compromises by having quite modest specs in some areas (AF, burst rate) but has surprisingly high-end features in other areas (viewfinder, AA simulator). Imagine a person who wants to use the 21/40/70 limiteds as a kit. This camera is ideal for that user, but certainly not for everyone.
09-30-2014, 07:27 AM   #1600
Loyal Site Supporter
clackers's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Melbourne
Photos: Albums
Posts: 8,873
QuoteOriginally posted by Buckaroo50 Quote
Smaller isn't always better, some may not care about wifi or AA filers at double the money.
You seem confused, Buckaroo.

You have gone from saying that they are "basically identical" to conceding they're not, just that the new features are not your cup of tea.
09-30-2014, 07:48 AM   #1601
Pentaxian
mecrox's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Oxford, UK
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,101
QuoteOriginally posted by JPT Quote
I think you have some misconceptions about pixel size (not directly comparable across different generations of technology), printing (good printers have very high DPI and can handle all the pixels you can throw at them) and the processor (the shutter is more likely to be the limiting factor for the burst rate).

But the main point I want to make is that last year's state-of-the-art is this year's bargain, just like this year's state-of the art will be next year's bargain. Rewind to last summer and the K-50/K-500 had just come out, offering nothing more than the K-30 but costing significantly more. In that case you really could say the tech was the same as the old model.

I think the other thing is that the K-S1 is not part of the mainstream camera line-up (see the PF Photokina interview). Its capabilities are slanted towards a particular type of user who wants something small. It compromises by having quite modest specs in some areas (AF, burst rate) but has surprisingly high-end features in other areas (viewfinder, AA simulator). Imagine a person who wants to use the 21/40/70 limiteds as a kit. This camera is ideal for that user, but certainly not for everyone.
As a travel camera for the Limited prime lenses this could be a cracker- I have the lenses and use them all the time. Too costly at the mo, however. Thirty per cent less and I would very likely go for it. But right now, it looks priced one level above what it's really worth, imho. We'll see. I'm going for a winter break for which the K-S1 would be ideal next Feb. Hmmn.

Last edited by mecrox; 10-01-2014 at 04:24 AM.
10-01-2014, 03:56 AM   #1602
Junior Member




Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Maine
Posts: 28
QuoteOriginally posted by clackers Quote
You seem confused, Buckaroo.

You have gone from saying that they are "basically identical" to conceding they're not, just that the new features are not your cup of tea.
I said that they were basically the same with a few exceptions one being that the pixel count was higher but the pixel size was smaller in the K-S1. If they were identical then I guess that they would call the K-S1 a K-500.
A Camaro may share the same driveline (engine, transmission, etc) as a corvette with a few exceptions body style etc... Which in some respects make the Camaro and Corvette basically the same with respects to what makes it go down the road - engine etc... Please, don't put words in my mouth or twist what I do say.
10-01-2014, 05:03 AM   #1603
Junior Member




Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Maine
Posts: 28
QuoteOriginally posted by JPT Quote
I think you have some misconceptions about pixel size (not directly comparable across different generations of technology), printing (good printers have very high DPI and can handle all the pixels you can throw at them) and the processor (the shutter is more likely to be the limiting factor for the burst rate).

But the main point I want to make is that last year's state-of-the-art is this year's bargain, just like this year's state-of the art will be next year's bargain. Rewind to last summer and the K-50/K-500 had just come out, offering nothing more than the K-30 but costing significantly more. In that case you really could say the tech was the same as the old model.

I think the other thing is that the K-S1 is not part of the mainstream camera line-up (see the PF Photokina interview). Its capabilities are slanted towards a particular type of user who wants something small. It compromises by having quite modest specs in some areas (AF, burst rate) but has surprisingly high-end features in other areas (viewfinder, AA simulator). Imagine a person who wants to use the 21/40/70 limiteds as a kit. This camera is ideal for that user, but certainly not for everyone.

No I do not have any misconceptions about pixel size. I am not an expert but I do read what experts have to say. If pixel size was not a factor then I guess all full frame cameras would have the same pixel size as a point and shoot. What can hold more a 5 gallon pail or a 50 gallon barrel. Larger pixels can obtain more data to make the processing more accurate.

Printing: Since 300dpi is considered professional quality and your human eye can't detect that fine detail and actually begins to fall off around 150dpi that most people with the naked eye can't tell the difference between 150dpi and 300dpi what use is it to print at 600, 1200 etc when you can't even see the detail without a magnifying glass. Most computer screens have 100-125dpi (there are exceptions). So if things look great on your computer then printing at 300dpi are going to have 3 more times detail than what you see on your computer.

We know that companies have to stay in business and many times they will market things that really are insignificant and make a big deal out of it and tell you this is what you need because they rely on this marketing for the purpose of you selling last years technology and running out and buying today's latest and greatest. Whether you need it or not. Sony has an A57 which was replaced by the A58, in my opinion they went backwards and the A57 in my opinion is a better camera. Canon did the same thing with their superzoom SX50. Canon said look a 1000mm zoom, you need this. The SX40 having 840mm is a better lens with the respect that it is f2.7 vs f3.5 for the SX50. Which would you rather have - I prefer the f2.7 lens over the 1000mm... Then they said "Oh look you can now shoot RAW too". All camera's shoot a raw picture and then it is converted. Why didn't they program the SX40 to save a RAW image - well that was for the next latest and greatest. But the SX40 can save a RAW file if you download a free chdk file which allows you to save RAW and opens many other features not found coming from the factory (of which they could have if they wanted too)... But want to only give you certain things so that they can next year turn some of those features on and say "Hey look here, you need this. Sell your camera and get this new latest and greatest one"...

If you recall I did say that the K-S1 fills a market share and it will sell and that the individual will have to decide for themselves if the K-S1 was worth the extra bucks or would a K-50/K500 work for them.. It is their money and they can buy what they want. I also said that if a person were to consider the K-S1 would it be worth the road trip to go all the way to the K-3. Everyone will buy what they want for their own reasons and if everyone felt the same way then there would only be one camera company and one camera. And I was also trying to point out the marketing aspect that through marketing they will try to convince you that you need this latest and greatest - for the sole purpose of getting your money (which they do need in order to stay in business). Are you getting your moneys worth and do you really need what they are marketing. That is a decision only you can make.

I was pointing out what I was aware of and sharing that. If you agree that is fine, if you don't it doesn't matter to me. To make a statement (that I have a misconception) to attack me personally - well I understand that level of discussion too. The facts are - I don't have a misconception about pixel size and I guess from that standpoint you opened your own mouth and stuck your own foot in it... And I will leave it at that...
10-01-2014, 05:40 AM   #1604
Loyal Site Supporter
clackers's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Melbourne
Photos: Albums
Posts: 8,873
QuoteOriginally posted by Buckaroo50 Quote
Please, don't put words in my mouth or twist what I do say.
"Basically identical" are your words, not mine, Buckaroo!

I'm afraid at least two people who read them don't think you're correct.
10-01-2014, 06:19 AM   #1605
JPT
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Tokyo
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,233
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Buckaroo50 Quote
No I do not have any misconceptions about pixel size. I am not an expert but I do read what experts have to say. If pixel size was not a factor then I guess all full frame cameras would have the same pixel size as a point and shoot. What can hold more a 5 gallon pail or a 50 gallon barrel. Larger pixels can obtain more data to make the processing more accurate.

Printing: Since 300dpi is considered professional quality and your human eye can't detect that fine detail and actually begins to fall off around 150dpi that most people with the naked eye can't tell the difference between 150dpi and 300dpi what use is it to print at 600, 1200 etc when you can't even see the detail without a magnifying glass. Most computer screens have 100-125dpi (there are exceptions). So if things look great on your computer then printing at 300dpi are going to have 3 more times detail than what you see on your computer.

We know that companies have to stay in business and many times they will market things that really are insignificant and make a big deal out of it and tell you this is what you need because they rely on this marketing for the purpose of you selling last years technology and running out and buying today's latest and greatest. Whether you need it or not. Sony has an A57 which was replaced by the A58, in my opinion they went backwards and the A57 in my opinion is a better camera. Canon did the same thing with their superzoom SX50. Canon said look a 1000mm zoom, you need this. The SX40 having 840mm is a better lens with the respect that it is f2.7 vs f3.5 for the SX50. Which would you rather have - I prefer the f2.7 lens over the 1000mm... Then they said "Oh look you can now shoot RAW too". All camera's shoot a raw picture and then it is converted. Why didn't they program the SX40 to save a RAW image - well that was for the next latest and greatest. But the SX40 can save a RAW file if you download a free chdk file which allows you to save RAW and opens many other features not found coming from the factory (of which they could have if they wanted too)... But want to only give you certain things so that they can next year turn some of those features on and say "Hey look here, you need this. Sell your camera and get this new latest and greatest one"...

If you recall I did say that the K-S1 fills a market share and it will sell and that the individual will have to decide for themselves if the K-S1 was worth the extra bucks or would a K-50/K500 work for them.. It is their money and they can buy what they want. I also said that if a person were to consider the K-S1 would it be worth the road trip to go all the way to the K-3. Everyone will buy what they want for their own reasons and if everyone felt the same way then there would only be one camera company and one camera. And I was also trying to point out the marketing aspect that through marketing they will try to convince you that you need this latest and greatest - for the sole purpose of getting your money (which they do need in order to stay in business). Are you getting your moneys worth and do you really need what they are marketing. That is a decision only you can make.

I was pointing out what I was aware of and sharing that. If you agree that is fine, if you don't it doesn't matter to me. To make a statement (that I have a misconception) to attack me personally - well I understand that level of discussion too. The facts are - I don't have a misconception about pixel size and I guess from that standpoint you opened your own mouth and stuck your own foot in it... And I will leave it at that...
First, I should apologise if I came across argumentative or personal. I certainly didn't mean that.

There's a lot of what you said that I agree with. It's true that a lot of people, myself included, won't really gain much from a jump from 16mp to 20mp. I also think that the K-50 in particular is a really great deal at the moment. I think your criticism of the K-S1 boils down to a criticism of paying the price of being an early adopter. I can agree with that too. If I get K-S1, I certainly won't be paying the full price for it. It happens with all cameras and I don't think it applies only to the K-S1.

As for the point about pixel size, I mean that calculating the pixel size is not a reliable indicator of performance, because newer sensors are often as good as or better than their predecessors despite higher pixel counts thanks to improvements in the design. The clearest example is the Sony 12mp sensor in the K-r compared to the 16mp sensor in the K-5. The sensors we are talking about in this case can be compared using DXO (I used the A3000 for the 20mp and NEX 5R for the 16mp). They get the same overall score on Sony mirrorless bodies, with the 16mp slightly better in dynamic range and the 20mp slightly better at high ISO. I think it shows there isn't much to worry about. If what you mean is the same technology applied to higher density sensor is likely to lower the pixel-level image quality, I agree that is true.

The point about printing is that you certainly won't get visible jaggies from the downscaling of the image like you do on a computer screen or the camera's LCD, which is what I thought you were trying to say a few posts back. Whether you need more than 16mp depends on how big you want to print or whether you want to crop. I don't run into this limit much, but I did with a picture I cropped from landscape to portrait and wanted to print big to enter into a competition, so this is what I mean when I say the printers can demand quite high pixel counts.
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!
af, camera, care, colour, design, ff, flash, format, iso, k-01, k-3, k3, kit, kit lens, leds, lens, level, look, medium, pentax, pentax k-s1, pentax news, pentax rumors, performance, price, scheme, steve, value
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Some Thoughts on the K-01 and Mirrorless From Pentax Biro Pentax Mirrorless Cameras 108 06-25-2014 03:20 PM
Mirrorless K-Mount Camera Joshua A Photographic Industry and Professionals 12 08-22-2013 04:28 AM
K-mount mirrorless....FF RonHendriks1966 Pentax Full Frame 13 05-28-2013 03:13 PM
Waiting on my first mirrorless: K-01! Penta Welcomes and Introductions 2 01-30-2013 05:49 AM
New Pentax: K-5, K-r and Mirrorless models coming JohnBee Pentax News and Rumors 32 08-08-2010 01:57 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:35 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.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