More full-frame smoke, but still no fire, this time from photographyblog

jcdoss · 09-24-2014, 06:58 AM

Originally posted by johnmflores

It's interesting that within all this defense of Fuji there aren't the standard criticisms that have been levied against Pentax here and elsewhere. Stuff like:

- They are short-sighted for not providing an upgrade path to users to full-frame.
- APS-C is doomed as full-frame prices come down. They will be doomed if they don't release full frame
- They can't be considered a serious camera company if they don't offer a full-frame camera
- Pros shoot full frame. As a market they are smaller but they buy products with higher margins and are very influential. If you don't offer full frame then you just can't compete
- Full frame is better. I need/want it. If they don't offer full-frame, I won't even consider them.

So why do these claimed market dynamics apply to Pentax but not Fuji?

Here's a complaint you forgot to level against Fuji, and it's been going on since the S1 Pro days. They inflate their ISO values, then claim they have cleaner high ISO images.

Mistral75 · 09-24-2014, 07:03 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by monochrome

Mine's a tale that can't be told, my freedom I hold dear.
How years ago in days of old, when magic filled the air.
T'was in the darkest depths of Mordor, I met a girl so fair.
But Gollum, and the evil one crept up and slipped away with her, her, her....yeah.

Didn't you forget something?

Youtu.be

**Miguel** · 09-24-2014, 07:04 AM

Originally posted by monochrome

I would permanently relegate the brand name Pentax as well as any unique identifying characteristics (K-mount) to the dustbin and start over with something that has a positive image. Think that little shot on the back of the K-3 was a mistake? I think it was a test.

I think the goodwill value of the Pentax brand was a fair proportion of the Pentax purchase price. That said, I also think the brand recognition value diminishes daily because the older folks who possess that name recognition are leaving the market due to old age and mortality. If Ricoh did some advertising and effective marketing to promote the brand I may have felt otherwise.

We'll know the gig is up if the Pentax brand is slapped on the same junk "Polaroid" and "Bell and Howell" are.

M

**monochrome** · 09-24-2014, 07:13 AM

Originally posted by Miguel

We'll know the gig is up if the Pentax brand is slapped on the same junk "Polaroid" and "Bell and Howell" are.

WG-M1 - not quite 'brand raider' status but a Kodak by a different name.

I'm not saying the decision is in - so far it feels like Ricoh considers Pentax a viable brand. But we should hope no one in a position to make a decision ever reads this Forum. When even people with legitimate, reasoned opinions such as Falconeye have thrown on the towel . . . . .

D1N0 · 09-24-2014, 07:14 AM

Originally posted by johnmflores

Nobody here in the last few pages have said anything about Fuji's lack of a full-frame sensor as a liability. And then there's this...

Most of the Pentax is doomed hits come from this forum

add -dpreview and it's down to 323

Asahiflex · 09-24-2014, 07:17 AM

"The fullframe smoked beneath the moon;
At Ricoh, they heard the tramp of doom."

rawr · 09-24-2014, 07:22 AM

Originally posted by jcdoss

Here's a complaint you forgot to level against Fuji

My pet hate is that Fuji refuse to publicly release any specifications for the EV sensitivity of their AF or exposure systems. Panasonic, Olympus, Pentax, Sony, Nikon, Canon do, Fuji don't.

johnmflores · 09-24-2014, 07:26 AM

Originally posted by D1N0

Most of the Pentax is doomed hits come from this forum

add -dpreview and it's down to 323

I'm getting different numbers. You should do these searches in Incognito mode so that your own personal web habits or geography don't impact results.

And I'm happy to report that New Camera News has only 3 "Pentax is doomed" results!

NicoleC · 09-24-2014, 07:26 AM

Originally posted by bobdobbs

Maybe. But at some point, you run into those pesky laws of physics. Audiophiles have a saying about speakers that applies to cameras, I think: A good big'un is usually better than a good littl'un.

My eyeballs are considerably smaller than camera sensors, yet far better. Much of that is due to the software behind them. Not being any kind of optical engineer I can't venture to guess the technological breakthroughs needed to get to that level. Then we can work on the full range of incredible eyesight characteristics in the bird world that could be duplicated in a meaningful way to us. I think we are a long way from size being the theoretical limiting factor.

Cynog Ap Brychan · 09-24-2014, 07:30 AM

Originally posted by NicoleC

My eyeballs are considerably smaller than camera sensors, yet far better.

Eyes only have acuity in one small spot - the rest is pretty blurred. You wouldn't want a camera lens like that.

**luftfluss** · 09-24-2014, 07:31 AM

Originally posted by monochrome

Think that little shot on the back of the K-3 was a mistake? I think it was a test.

I think it was a dog pissing on a fire hydrant. Its fire hydrant.

**monochrome** · 09-24-2014, 07:33 AM

Originally posted by NicoleC

My eyeballs are considerably smaller than camera sensors, yet far better. Much of that is due to the software behind them.

Software? There's a long way yet to go.

I have it on good authority humans consciously utilize 5% of our visual capacity*, having through evolution determined post processing the other 95% is not useful for efficient survival.

* I've lost 98% of my visual acuity - 100% in peripheral portions of my Field of View - and I am still fully functional (with slight behavior modifications).

johnmflores · 09-24-2014, 07:35 AM - **3 Likes**

Originally posted by monochrome

Software? There's a long way yet to go.

I have it on good authority humans consciously utilize 5% of our visual capacity*, having through evolution determined post processing the other 95% is not useful for efficient survival.

* I've lost 98% of my visual acuity - 100% in peripheral portions of my Field of View - and I am still fully functional (with slight behavior modifications).

Sounds like you have cropped eyeballs. Can't be a pro then. Condolences.

jsherman999 · 09-24-2014, 07:37 AM

Originally posted by rawr

My pet hate is that Fuji refuse to publicly release any specifications for the EV sensitivity of their AF or exposure systems. Panasonic, Olympus, Pentax, Sony, Nikon, Canon do, Fuji don't.

In my personal testing Fuji was the worst with low-light AF lock. Maybe that's why they want to keep it secret

That was a couple years ago, though, new bodies might be much better.

**monochrome** · 09-24-2014, 07:42 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by johnmflores

Sounds like you have cropped eyeballs. Can't be a pro then. Condolences.

Yep!! Can't shoot for schizz but I've kept the high MTF portion of the image circle so I can comment and review

Glass half full and all that.*

* The new OVF and diopter mechanism on the K-3 actually allows me to use a dSLR without eyeglasses or an antique Correction Lens Adapter M for the first time in 20 years.

09-24-2014, 07:26 AM	#323
johnmflores Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Somerville, NJ Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 5,361	Originally posted by D1N0 Most of the Pentax is doomed hits come from this forum add -dpreview and it's down to 323 I'm getting different numbers. You should do these searches in Incognito mode so that your own personal web habits or geography don't impact results. And I'm happy to report that New Camera News has only 3 "Pentax is doomed" results! Attached Images

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
One more time, but in a funny way: Crop Sensors vs Full Frame	carlosodze	Pentax Full Frame	32	10-16-2014 01:15 PM
From Full-Frame Sony... to Pentax... to Full-Frame Canon	Mr_Canuck	Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands	42	01-21-2014 12:50 AM
Full frame or no full frame....	Deedee	Pentax K-3 & K-3 II	14	10-08-2013 05:39 AM
Vivitar flash no fire, no smoke either!	telfish	Flashes, Lighting, and Studio	10	04-15-2011 08:48 PM
Need more megapix? Future possibilities and no need for full frame!	rburgoss	Pentax DSLR Discussion	57	10-16-2008 03:16 PM

09-24-2014, 06:58 AM	#316
jcdoss Pentaxian Join Date: Nov 2012 Location: Ingelheim am Rhein, Germany Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 6,769	Originally posted by johnmflores It's interesting that within all this defense of Fuji there aren't the standard criticisms that have been levied against Pentax here and elsewhere. Stuff like: - They are short-sighted for not providing an upgrade path to users to full-frame. - APS-C is doomed as full-frame prices come down. They will be doomed if they don't release full frame - They can't be considered a serious camera company if they don't offer a full-frame camera - Pros shoot full frame. As a market they are smaller but they buy products with higher margins and are very influential. If you don't offer full frame then you just can't compete - Full frame is better. I need/want it. If they don't offer full-frame, I won't even consider them. So why do these claimed market dynamics apply to Pentax but not Fuji? Here's a complaint you forgot to level against Fuji, and it's been going on since the S1 Pro days. They inflate their ISO values, then claim they have cleaner high ISO images.

09-24-2014, 07:04 AM	#318
Miguel Site Supporter Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Near Seattle Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,743	Originally posted by monochrome I would permanently relegate the brand name Pentax as well as any unique identifying characteristics (K-mount) to the dustbin and start over with something that has a positive image. Think that little shot on the back of the K-3 was a mistake? I think it was a test. I think the goodwill value of the Pentax brand was a fair proportion of the Pentax purchase price. That said, I also think the brand recognition value diminishes daily because the older folks who possess that name recognition are leaving the market due to old age and mortality. If Ricoh did some advertising and effective marketing to promote the brand I may have felt otherwise. We'll know the gig is up if the Pentax brand is slapped on the same junk "Polaroid" and "Bell and Howell" are. M

09-24-2014, 07:13 AM	#319
monochrome Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Working From Home Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 26,276	Originally posted by Miguel We'll know the gig is up if the Pentax brand is slapped on the same junk "Polaroid" and "Bell and Howell" are. WG-M1 - not quite 'brand raider' status but a Kodak by a different name. I'm not saying the decision is in - so far it feels like Ricoh considers Pentax a viable brand. But we should hope no one in a position to make a decision ever reads this Forum. When even people with legitimate, reasoned opinions such as Falconeye have thrown on the towel . . . . .

09-24-2014, 07:14 AM	#320
D1N0 Pentaxian Join Date: May 2012 Location: --- Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,802	Originally posted by johnmflores Nobody here in the last few pages have said anything about Fuji's lack of a full-frame sensor as a liability. And then there's this... Most of the Pentax is doomed hits come from this forum add -dpreview and it's down to 323

09-24-2014, 07:17 AM	#321
Asahiflex Pentaxian Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Netherlands Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,795	"The fullframe smoked beneath the moon; At Ricoh, they heard the tramp of doom."

09-24-2014, 07:22 AM	#322
rawr Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 11,913	Originally posted by jcdoss Here's a complaint you forgot to level against Fuji My pet hate is that Fuji refuse to publicly release any specifications for the EV sensitivity of their AF or exposure systems. Panasonic, Olympus, Pentax, Sony, Nikon, Canon do, Fuji don't.

09-24-2014, 07:26 AM	#324
NicoleC Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2013 Location: Madison, AL Posts: 448	Originally posted by bobdobbs Maybe. But at some point, you run into those pesky laws of physics. Audiophiles have a saying about speakers that applies to cameras, I think: A good big'un is usually better than a good littl'un. My eyeballs are considerably smaller than camera sensors, yet far better. Much of that is due to the software behind them. Not being any kind of optical engineer I can't venture to guess the technological breakthroughs needed to get to that level. Then we can work on the full range of incredible eyesight characteristics in the bird world that could be duplicated in a meaningful way to us. I think we are a long way from size being the theoretical limiting factor.

09-24-2014, 07:30 AM	#325
Cynog Ap Brychan Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2012 Location: Gloucester Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,199	Originally posted by NicoleC My eyeballs are considerably smaller than camera sensors, yet far better. Eyes only have acuity in one small spot - the rest is pretty blurred. You wouldn't want a camera lens like that.

09-24-2014, 07:31 AM	#326
luftfluss Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: NJ Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 11,619	Originally posted by monochrome Think that little shot on the back of the K-3 was a mistake? I think it was a test. I think it was a dog pissing on a fire hydrant. Its fire hydrant.

09-24-2014, 07:33 AM	#327
monochrome Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Working From Home Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 26,276	Originally posted by NicoleC My eyeballs are considerably smaller than camera sensors, yet far better. Much of that is due to the software behind them. Software? There's a long way yet to go. I have it on good authority humans consciously utilize 5% of our visual capacity, having through evolution determined post processing the other 95% is not useful for efficient survival. I've lost 98% of my visual acuity - 100% in peripheral portions of my Field of View - and I am still fully functional (with slight behavior modifications).

09-24-2014, 07:35 AM - 3 Likes	#328
johnmflores Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Somerville, NJ Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 5,361	Originally posted by monochrome Software? There's a long way yet to go. I have it on good authority humans consciously utilize 5% of our visual capacity, having through evolution determined post processing the other 95% is not useful for efficient survival. I've lost 98% of my visual acuity - 100% in peripheral portions of my Field of View - and I am still fully functional (with slight behavior modifications). Sounds like you have cropped eyeballs. Can't be a pro then. Condolences.

09-24-2014, 07:37 AM	#329
jsherman999 Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Photos: Gallery Posts: 8,237	Originally posted by rawr My pet hate is that Fuji refuse to publicly release any specifications for the EV sensitivity of their AF or exposure systems. Panasonic, Olympus, Pentax, Sony, Nikon, Canon do, Fuji don't. In my personal testing Fuji was the worst with low-light AF lock. Maybe that's why they want to keep it secret That was a couple years ago, though, new bodies might be much better.

09-24-2014, 07:42 AM - 1 Like	#330
monochrome Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Working From Home Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 26,276	Originally posted by johnmflores Sounds like you have cropped eyeballs. Can't be a pro then. Condolences. Yep!! Can't shoot for schizz but I've kept the high MTF portion of the image circle so I can comment and review Glass half full and all that.* * The new OVF and diopter mechanism on the K-3 actually allows me to use a dSLR without eyeglasses or an antique Correction Lens Adapter M for the first time in 20 years.