[monochrome]

True but competing on price and feature can be a very valid strategy. Sony does it already but remove the OVF, Pentax could do it, keeping the OVF. Counting they would have already many more native AF lense to put on it, no reason they could not get some market share.

As for the lense everybody think it should sell as much as the other... But nobody remember to say the Pentax as no OS, that should allow them to reduce their costs a bit, and sell it for lesser price after 1 year or something.

OK - but the reason there's no OS is because there's IBIS - so they sell the body for less and the lens for less - where do they earn back the investment in the new IBIS?

IMHO they should actually sell their cameras and lenses for a bit MORE (but that will never happen). Where they actually save costs is on marketing expense and the service and support network, especially in North America. My bet is they want to fix those, also, but that will have to be later. Adam says they're already doing better here.

[waterfall]

Starting with the Asahi Pentax S and culminating with the biggest selling SLR of the film era, the Spotmatic, Pentax sold millions of full frame lenses. My point is simply there are millions of S and Spotmatic owners, with FF lenses, and nobody has captured all of them with digital SLR offerings. Speculating about marker share is stupid. Ricoh has researched that issue. They would not release a product without market research first.

[Docrwm]

Both will be internally focusing.

The 70-200 will also be internally zooming, but the 150-450 will protrude during zooming.

THe photos online at Adorama and B&H support that the 150-450 will extend while zooming and the 70-200 will not.

[Nicolas06]

OK - but the reason there's no OS is because there's IBIS - so they sell the body for less and the lens for less - where do they earn back the investment in the new IBIS?

IMHO they should actually sell their cameras and lenses for a bit MORE (but that will never happen). Where they actually save costs is on marketing expense and the service and support network, especially in North America. My bet is they want to fix those, also, but that will have to be later. Adam says they're already doing better here.

They could sell for more, at least at the begining. But truely, having IBIS instead of OS is no reason to ask for more for the lense. The body maybe but all Pentax camera having it already just show this is not even that expensive to have.

But honestly, when you are the challenger you have to offer more, one way or another. SR is part of it, of course, building an interresting offering of FF lenses is another part. Having a body providing the feature of a $3000 body for $2000 street price would be another asset.

And honestly Pentax manage to perform well of build quality, OVFs, ergonomics, size, still features like FPS or braketing options... But other high end FF camera may offer more video support and better AF.

I suppose they would take the time to have something serious for the AF a bit stepped up from K3 (a few more and spreaded for 24x36) as hardware is concerned but much improvement in algorithms too. Not sure they can match the best bodies of Canikon here on the first stroke.

[normhead]

But honestly, when you are the challenger you have to offer more, one way or another.

Naw, you just have to offer something a little different.

Not sure they can match the best bodies of Canikon here on the first stroke.

The best Canon and Nikon systems rival the 645z in price. They've already got something better. Just as the 645D out resolved the 36Mp FF sensors, the 645z will outperform the 50 Mp FF sensors. And with the larger pixels sites, it's going to be easier to use. From what I've seen a 645z is much better a landscape camera than a D810, and a 50Mp F camera is going to be even fussier to use.

Nikon and Canon will go the 50 MP FF route, because they don't have Medium Format. There's no reason for Pentax to copy that. Many of us have noticed that 24 MP on APS-c is running into the law of diminishing returns, and FF users are going to see that with their 50 Mp cameras. Using current technology, 50 MP MF makes more sense than 50 Mp FF.

[reh321]

The best Canon and Nikon systems rival the 645z in price. They've already got something better. Just as the 645D out resolved the 36Mp FF sensors, the 645z will outperform the 50 Mp FF sensors. And with the larger pixels sites, it's going to be easier to use. From what I've seen a 645z is much better a landscape camera than a D810, and a 50Mp F camera is going to be even fussier to use.

Nikon and Canon will go the 50 MP FF route, because they don't have Medium Format. There's no reason for Pentax to copy that. Many of us have noticed that 24 MP on APS-c is running into the law of diminishing returns, and FF users are going to see that with their 50 Mp cameras. Using current technology, 50 MP MF makes more sense than 50 Mp FF.

Yes! FF advocates like to talk about Image Quality and how a FF sensor does much better than a cropped sensor because the pixel sites are larger ... but then they start to babble when you mention that a 36 mp FF sensor has pixel sites roughly the same size as a 16 mp cropped sensor does, so the new "wonderful" 50 mp cameras will work against their own arguments.

[Nicolas06]

Yes! FF advocates like to talk about Image Quality and how a FF sensor does much better than a cropped sensor because the pixel sites are larger ... but then they start to babble when you mention that a 36 mp FF sensor has pixel sites roughly the same size as a 16 mp cropped sensor does, so the new "wonderful" 50 mp cameras will work against their own arguments.

From a practical point of view this issue of quality is most visible at high iso and only slightly.

A 55MP FF would have same pixel density as a K3 (that think is as good as D600 24MP FF at low isos) but would also have the high iso performance of an FF... After all the high iso perf of D810E is very slightly better than D600, despite having the more pixels.

For the final output quality, there less difference between MF an FF than APSC and FF... And the added quality comes as much from the body than the lenses.

But The Pentax MF has slow FPS, subpar AF (much better than other MF through) and is even bigger. Users take it for the sensor, the price and because it is better than the other MF.

For landscape, the only issue I see with APSC is that the wide angle lenses are somewhat soso sharpness wise or big. But if you don't plan to print huge, any APSC can do the work quite well already and 24MP is already a lot. Don't feel like I need MF to take a great picture of a landscape...

I might see more the difference in the end on picture with at least a bit of bokeh for the rendering or picture with high iso needss.

[monochrome]

How often do actual users talking about the K-3 say, "That file is luscious?"

[timcatn]

How often do actual users talking about the K-3 say, "That file is luscious?"

But is that due to the camera/lens or the photographer? Is it the same People that shoot K3 and 645D/Z?

[reh321]

From a practical point of view this issue of quality is most visible at high iso and only slightly.

A 55MP FF would have same pixel density as a K3 (that think is as good as D600 24MP FF at low isos) but would also have the high iso performance of an FF.

Are you sure of that.

FF advocates have always told me that their superiority in high ISO / low light settings comes from their having larger pixel sites. By definition, having the same pixel density as a K3 means that they would have the same sized pixel sites, so their high ISO / low light performance should also be the same, thereby canceling the usual FF advantage.

[derekkite]

But is that due to the camera/lens or the photographer? Is it the same People that shoot K3 and 645D/Z?

No, the files from the 645z are better in noise, dynamic range, ability to pull details out of shadows.

[Gimbal]

FF advocates have always told me that their superiority in high ISO / low light settings comes from their having larger pixel sites. By definition, having the same pixel density as a K3 means that they would have the same sized pixel sites, so their high ISO / low light performance should also be the same, thereby canceling the usual FF advantage.

They might have told you that, but then they where wrong. It's the total area of the sensor that counts, not the size of one pixel.

[timcatn]

No, the files from the 645z are better in noise, dynamic range, ability to pull details out of shadows.

I get that, but are you saying you cant have a "luscious" image With APS-c?

[monochrome]

I get that, but are you saying you cant have a "luscious" image With APS-c?

Here's the reference to luscious files from 645Z.

Note next line: "Watch for something similar with their full frame offerings."

[reh321]

They might have told you that, but then they where wrong. It's the total area of the sensor that counts, not the size of one pixel.

We may have to agree to disagree on this one.

When digital cameras first came out, and most available systems had roughly 1/2.5 sensors, I was told by an astronomer that these cameras were OK as long as you didn't exceed 5 mp; his experience was that ability to handle noise, low-light, etc depended on pixel cell size on the sensor. When I've raised this issue the past few days with FF advocates, they have babbled. You're the only one I've discussed this with who believes that total area, not pixel cell size, is what matters.