[Clavius]

I couldn't agree more. I used to read old articles about the lens designers and how they laboured to not produce a perfect image, but a beautiful image. That's one of the things that brought me to the brand.

The problem that I always had with that concept is the fact that the beauty of the image is formed in front of the lens, not by the lens. It is up to the photographer to select a scene, as beautiful or as horrid as he/she wants. And it's up to the lens and camera to record that scene as accurately as possible. Any additional artsy effect can then be added in post, because what's gone is gone.

---------- Post added 26-09-14 at 08:31 ----------

you need a camera which can capture the quality of light passing through the air, something akin to capturing the wind is the comparison he makes. A nice image and a very telling point against the current mania for sharpness above all else. If the result is lifeless, you've failed and equipment which doesn't major on image quality and rendering has only helped you to fail.

Imagine failing at the Olympics, staring at the podium with all the winners and then saying: "Well I had fun, and that's the most important thing." We all know that's a big fat lie.

Does a painter depend on it's brushes to breathe that life into his paintings? Does a writer depend on his notepad or keyboard for a good storyline? No, they're tools, and need to do their job. The artsy part comes from the human user. The exact same thing goes for cameras. They are tools with only one job to do correctly: record the scene in front of them as accurately as possible. Sharpness is a factor that belongs to that accuracy. Any artsy effects are up to the photographer. The placement of the strobes, the usage of light, camera settings and the effects applied during post process. Any sharpness lost because of bad or artsy lens design is lost forever. If artsy softness is needed, it only requires a few seconds in a free PP-program, not a ~$900,- lens. Claiming they weren't after maximum IQ is like saying you weren't joining to win anyway.

[mecrox]

The problem that I always had with that concept is the fact that the beauty of the image is formed in front of the lens, not by the lens. It is up to the photographer to select a scene, as beautiful or as horrid as he/she wants. And it's up to the lens and camera to record that scene as accurately as possible. Any additional artsy effect can then be added in post, because what's gone is gone.

---------- Post added 26-09-14 at 08:31 ----------



Imagine failing at the Olympics, staring at the podium with all the winners and then saying: "Well I had fun, and that's the most important thing." We all know that's a big fat lie.

Does a painter depend on it's brushes to breathe that life into his paintings? Does a writer depend on his notepad or keyboard for a good storyline? No, they're tools, and need to do their job. The artsy part comes from the human user. The exact same thing goes for cameras. They are tools with only one job to do correctly: record the scene in front of them as accurately as possible. Sharpness is a factor that belongs to that accuracy. Any artsy effects are up to the photographer. The placement of the strobes, the usage of light, camera settings and the effects applied during post process. Any sharpness lost because of bad or artsy lens design is lost forever. If artsy softness is needed, it only requires a few seconds in a free PP-program, not a ~$900,- lens. Claiming they weren't after maximum IQ is like saying you weren't joining to win anyway.

I think you misread it. This isn't about ultimate IQ if all you mean is "sharp". If that's what you want, best to use a macro lens for everything, especially for portraiture. It's about overall rendering depending on the purpose for which the lens is designed, if there is a specific purpose - portraits, landscapes and so forth. Sharpness is important, sure, but it is only one part of the mix. We all know how carefully that mix was assembled from the story of Hirakawa Jun. I think what he's saying is that of course the key element comes from behind the camera, but that the camera/lens needs to help the user to take a stand-out image - and, getting back to the interview, not just an instant selfie which passes a sharp test but nowt besides. If that is what he's saying, and clearly it's hard to be sure because of this thang about always giving interviews in Japanese, then I agree completely. To me, the big fat lie is that the latest and greatest super DxO'd monster graph-passer f0.2 sharpness-fuhrer will answer your prayers and make you $$$. It's b*ll*cks. Glad someone from inside the industry said it, if he did say it. Thing is, with Pentax you can never be sure.

[JPT]

Imagine failing at the Olympics, sd on his notepad or keyboard for a g is a factor that belongs to that accur design is lost forever. If artsy softness is needed, it only requires a few seconds in a free PP-program, not a ~$900,- lens. Claiming they weren't after maximum IQ is like saying you weren't joining to win anyway.

Well, imagine an Olympics where the athletes don't actually compete. They just have their biceps measured, decide who should be the winner and all go home.

I think there is a terrible tendency to measure things based on what is most easily measurable. In the case of lenses, this is sharpness, field curvature, distortion and so on. What is referred to as "pixie dust" is just characteristics that are not really measured, but they are real characteristics nevertheless. I personally feel that sharpness is not that important unless you crop a lot or print really big. Flare issues, however, can completely ruin an image at any size and poor color reproduction can force you to do a lot of compensation in PP that you might not have to do with a better lens. So I also commend Pentax for not being overly focused on competing with the same metrics all the other companies are obsessed with.

Another thing that makes me laugh is people who talk about natural reproduction but like the DOF effects of wide aperture lenses. Do your eyes see like that? Mine don't. In a way it's an artsy effect, but one produced by optics. It certainly isn't natural.

[Pål Jensen]

Translating Japanese Idioms into English is perilous at best. My gut and experience in Japan Board rooms tells me that K-3next will be a Big deal,

...isn't it a bit early for the next K-3?
I hope so, as my K-3 Prestige is in the mail....

---------- Post added 09-26-14 at 01:59 PM ----------

Beat the dead horse.....Then beat it some more. The K-mount was designed for the 36x24mm format..

...but for film, not digital. The K-mount is probably ideal for APS digital optimized lenses, but probably smaller than it would have been had been designed for FF digital from ground up.....

[GlassJunkie]

... Insisting on the Zen of the image seems very Japanese - a hard concept for a Westerner to embrace and a hard sell for Pentax here. Personally, I like that, I would buy Pentax JUST FOR THAT DISTINCTION if it was actually true and if that was the understood Pentax reputation. It certainly adds to the ergonomics and menus argument for Pentax - the user experience argument. The question, of course, is how to make the product actually deliver a quantifiably better image consistently.

I conclude that a FF won't happen until it will not just meet, but add to that corporate ethic; until there is a broader lens catalog IN PLACE; and until a FF can be profitably made that is a leapfrog device like the K-3 was.

SO, aside from using the dual processor and dual bus idea from the 645Z (a FAST FF) - my bet is, the FF will be the first Pentax camera with an EVF (or an OVF with some kind of overlay on the focusing screen for focus peaking and/or histogram type information) and it could be the first with a truly functional OLED viewfinder. It could have a different form factor than a traditional dSLR (645Z form? - 645Z-mini? - Hassy form?). It could have a different base ISO and ISO emulation protocol than anything before it; it could have fewer megapixels than the consumer cameras - in short, a different picture-taking experience and truly superior image output.

I could not have said it better... Not sure on the fewer pixels, only due to the requirements of reach.... but that is a boring Physics point

This interview was a blowaway. THIS CEO gets it, knows where he wants to go and will get there.... There is an old expression in Japanese management meetings: "Great leaders always know it is easier to apologize than get permission". They use that expression do describe the biggist CEO (Shacho) risk takers. This gentleman is going to do remarkable things by going upmarket... Time to call my broker...

[Winder]

...but for film, not digital. The K-mount is probably ideal for APS digital optimized lenses, but probably smaller than it would have been had been designed for FF digital from ground up.....

What makes the K-mount better suited for APS digital? The register distance is between Canon and Nikon. The Diameter of the K-mount is 43.8mm so its larger than the Sony FE FF mount on only 2.2mm smaller than Nikon. Is it large enough to accommodate SR? I don't know. Maybe not.

[Belnan]

Beat the dead horse.....Then beat it some more. The K-mount was designed for the 36x24mm format.

---------- Post added 09-25-14 at 11:28 PM ----------



I was looking at A7 tests and found where some one had tested a couple of Pentax lenses on the A7. The 31mm was very good. The DA* 55mm has a big enoung image circle, but showed a lot of distortion. Obviously the A7 doesn't do any lens correction, so I don't know how much of it would be correctable, but I don't think it would be of much use on a FF unless you just wanted a lot of "character". The other lens was the 300mm F/4 and I don't remember how it looked.

I am not sure a k mount lens can be used on an A7 without being affected along the edges. It seems like the sensor it literally to the edge of the mount and could even be blocked somewhat by rays coming in on a bit of an angle. sony lenses would be designed to account for this.

[Winder]

I am not sure a k mount lens can be used on an A7 without being affected along the edges. It seems like the sensor it literally to the edge of the mount and could even be blocked somewhat by rays coming in on a bit of an angle. sony lenses would be designed to account for this.

There are a lot of people using old glass like the 31mm LTD on A7 bodies with good results.

[Mistral75]

I am not sure a k mount lens can be used on an A7 without being affected along the edges. It seems like the sensor it literally to the edge of the mount and could even be blocked somewhat by rays coming in on a bit of an angle. sony lenses would be designed to account for this.

Remember the Asahiflex mount had an external diameter of 37mm and was nevertheless a 24x36 mount...

[Belnan]

Remember the Asahiflex mount had an external diameter of 37mm and was nevertheless a 24x36 mount...

You guys may be correct. ERPhotoReview has some decent review of some pentax mount lenses on the A7. The da* 55 1.4 is comparable to other full frame lenses.

[KDAFA]

The problem that I always had with that concept is the fact that the beauty of the image is formed in front of the lens, not by the lens. It is up to the photographer to select a scene, as beautiful or as horrid as he/she wants. And it's up to the lens and camera to record that scene as accurately as possible. Any additional artsy effect can then be added in post, because what's gone is gone.

---------- Post added 26-09-14 at 08:31 ----------



Does a painter depend on it's brushes to breathe that life into his paintings? Does a writer depend on his notepad or keyboard for a good storyline? No, they're tools, and need to do their job. The artsy part comes from the human user. The exact same thing goes for cameras. They are tools with only one job to do correctly: record the scene in front of them as accurately as possible. Sharpness is a factor that belongs to that accuracy. Any artsy effects are up to the photographer. The placement of the strobes, the usage of light, camera settings and the effects applied during post process. Any sharpness lost because of bad or artsy lens design is lost forever. If artsy softness is needed, it only requires a few seconds in a free PP-program, not a ~$900,- lens...

I understand and appreciate where you're coming from, and in one sense what you've said is all true.

However, I do see another side to the story, and the thing is, neither side necessarily cancels out the other. Both perspectives are valid!

I've found it to be true that in certain cases, the tools themselves might impart a certain (desirable) character of their own. One could say they are thus "non-linear", and that's true, but if we recognise the fact, and intentionally take advantage of it - with the key aim of producing beautiful results - then it is certainly one way of working.

I'm no PP expert, but from what I've seen so far, it does seem extremely hard to recreate by PP certain rendering characteristics of particular lenses, for which those lenses have gained a reputation.

Maybe this illustration will prove helpful:

A similar situation exists in the audio recording world. Certain microphones, equalisers, reverb units, even formulations of magnetic recording tape have gained a reputation in the industry over the years for a "signature sound" they impart. It's extremely hard to recreate their effect via outboard digital signal processing (this would be analogous to photographic PP). Precisely for this reason, said equipment is routinely requested by recording engineers when they want to create a particular sonic flavour. And yet, the very same engineers will sing the praises of an ultra high-resolution, super linear A-D convertor, PRECISELY because it digitally captures as close as possible a musical performance, as faithfully as current technology allows, with an absolute minimum of colouration and fantastic degree of fine audio detail (analogous to lens sharpness). Mind you, said performance captured may very well include musicians utilising those "characterful" pieces of equipment earlier mentioned.

Having said that, certain record producers opt to use good old fashioned magnetic tape (hardly the last word on linearity), simply because it subjectively sounds "good".

Both approaches can (and i think should) be used, symbiotically, with the ultimate aim of creating a beautiful result, whether a photograph or a music recording.

[monochrome]

Time was every single thread eventually develoved into FF.

Now every single thread devolves into Sony A7.

[luftfluss]

Does a painter depend on it's brushes to breathe that life into his paintings?

Actually, yes. Brushes made from different substances - for example, horse hair vs nylon - affect the stroke width and spread and bleed and texture. For a painter,using a brush can be an organic experience.

re lenses, you should check out the comparisons Digitalis made between the FA31 and Sigma 18-35. The Sigma does some remarkable things, but there's a reason why the FA31, despite similar measureables, can make images "more beautiful".

---------- Post added 09-26-14 at 11:57 AM ----------

Time was every single thread eventually develoved into FF.

Now every single thread devolves into Sony A7.

I have to go run some errands, taking the K-01 and a couple lenses with me. I won't think about the Sony A7 or A-1 Steak Sauce or Freaky Friday at all...

[KDAFA]

...Sharpness is important, sure, but it is only one part of the mix...

Agree fully.

Carl Weese did a field test of the DA35 Macro Ltd. f2.8. Like many others he found it plenty sharp, but - and here's the key part - he then goes on to say: 'Once we pass a certain threshold of "sharp enough," though, sheer resolution isn't anywhere near as interesting as other aspects of lens performance... ' , and he talks about fine subtleties in the tonal rendering of the DA35 Ltd., moving him to call it "something really special".

---------- Post added 09-27-14 at 03:09 AM ----------

... Hirakawa Jun

This gentleman is a genius.

I use three of his lenses: FA*24 f2.0, FA43 f1.9 Ltd, FA77 f1.8 Ltd.

The rendering character of all three is nothing short of remarkable.

Here is a man who knew very specifically what he was aiming for, and intentionally designed his lenses to achieve that desired rendering.

[IchabodCrane]

The problem that I always had with that concept is the fact that the beauty of the image is formed in front of the lens, not by the lens. It is up to the photographer to select a scene, as beautiful or as horrid as he/she wants. And it's up to the lens and camera to record that scene as accurately as possible. Any additional artsy effect can then be added in post, because what's gone is gone.

The lens on a camera has never been designed to record a scene "as accurately as possible" unless it's stopped down to some unbelievably small aperture. In the real world, there's no such thing as depth of field but in photography you can't escape it. How the lens handles DOF and other parameters is something the designer has some control over.