[normhead]

Thanks for a great report, many of us have been sort of waiting on the AF thing, suspecting that our K-3s can handle a faster focusing lens than anything that is currently available. Nice to know we will have a few options in the future, even if there are as yet no primes.

[Class A]

First, thanks a lot for this great report!

It seems that they have not yet decided how to deal with the crop mode.

That doesn't sound good.

In combination with the fact that they unveiled a 3D print, I'm seriously wondering how they are intending to meet their release target. Not that the release is time critical (it will be "too late" in many aspects anyway), but I hope we are not looking at a release for CP+2016 or even later.

Determining how APS-C cropping is going to be handled, seems to be one of the first questions one would want to answer when discussing market viability. So either Kawauchi-san did not want to divulge decisions that have already been made, or they are working in peculiar ways (and have a heck of an efficient production engineering and production process, allowing them to be shipping cameras in less than 9 months while there are still design decisions to be made).

[Class A]

BTW, did you see this Ricoh presentation in which they appear to explain how they are using the SR mechanism to implement a "Foveon simulator". I'm not fond of the latter abbreviation, but it is shorter than saying "sensel-shifting based approach to eliminate demosaicing".

Would be great if you could briefly summarise what they are saying.

[retroflex]

Determining how APS-C cropping is going to be handled, seems to be one of the first questions one would want to answer when discussing market viability. So either Kawauchi-san did not want to divulge decisions that have already been made, or they are working in peculiar ways (and have a heck of an efficient production engineering and production process, allowing them to be shipping cameras in less than 9 months while there are still design decisions to be made).

I guess they have three possibilities more or less:
- Always crop APS-C lenses.
- User decides when to crop APS-C lenses.
- Different crop setting for each unique lens.
Or a combination of them through settings. Also they can play with the amount of crop.

They could have implemented all three already and now just testing it. This isn't one of the more complex tasks when developing a DSLR. Can't see how this would affect the production...

[Barry Pearson]

Determining how APS-C cropping is going to be handled, seems to be one of the first questions one would want to answer when discussing market viability. So either Kawauchi-san did not want to divulge decisions that have already been made, or they are working in peculiar ways (and have a heck of an efficient production engineering and production process, allowing them to be shipping cameras in less than 9 months while there are still design decisions to be made).

It depends how much of the implementation of cropping is fixed in hardware, and how much is controlled by (say) firmware (code and data).

If I were designing the camera, I might choose that the details of the cropping were to be decided per lens and per focal length by data downloaded with the firmware. Then I could make the final decisions just before release.

I guess they have three possibilities more or less:
- Always crop APS-C lenses.
- User decides when to crop APS-C lenses.
- Different crop setting for each unique lens.
Or a combination of them through settings. Also they can play with the amount of crop.

They could have implemented all three already and now just testing it. This isn't one of the more complex tasks when developing a DSLR. Can't see how this would affect the production...

Some lenses need different cropping at different focal lengths. For example, the DA 12-24mm f/4 and the DA 10-17mm Fisheye are both pretty good at FF at the long end, and restricted to APS-C at the short end.

I want the cropping to take the currently-used focal lengths of individual lenses into account. Otherwise I would want to be able to override the default cropping.

(Another thing that would be useful would be different orientations and aspect ratios of cropping. Portrait, landscape, square, etc.)

[Class A]

Can't see how this would affect the production...

I did not say that the cropping philosophy cannot be decided very late in the game.

I said, they really should have an idea regarding their overall philosophy already.

Do they want to cripple all DA lenses, regardless of their true capabilities in order to force users to get new (revenue making) FF lenses?

Do they want to be liberal and allow FF capture for all lenses, in particular third-party lenses?

Do they want to be super user-friendly and support lens-specific, even lens setting specific crops, and thus may hamper future FF lens purchases?

The above imply strategic decisions which I'd expect to be resolved before one decides on a future launch.

N.B., how is cropping indicated in the viewfinder? The most elaborate cropping options require significant viewfinder support. Such support cannot be added late in the design process, let alone during production engineering.

[rawr]

It baffles me why everyone is making such a big deal over cropping.

Nikon/Canon/Sony FF cameras all do it simply and effectively, and have done so for years. And none of them do anything fancy - like customise it's operation for every lens they ever made. So Pentax doesn't need to do anything complicated to deliver a useful crop mode on their FF. Crop mode will just be an option like 'On | Off | Auto' in the menu somewhere, with a standard crop ratio and an ability to detect the current family of lenses. No need to over-analyse it.

[Gimbal]

I agree with rawr, it shouldn't be problem. Either crop all aps-c lenses to aps-c size or don't, a simple users choise. Do as you wish.

[kadajawi]

First, thanks a lot for this great report!


That doesn't sound good.

In combination with the fact that they unveiled a 3D print, I'm seriously wondering how they are intending to meet their release target. Not that the release is time critical (it will be "too late" in many aspects anyway), but I hope we are not looking at a release for CP+2016 or even later.

Determining how APS-C cropping is going to be handled, seems to be one of the first questions one would want to answer when discussing market viability. So either Kawauchi-san did not want to divulge decisions that have already been made, or they are working in peculiar ways (and have a heck of an efficient production engineering and production process, allowing them to be shipping cameras in less than 9 months while there are still design decisions to be made).

Samsung delivered a massive firmware update for the NX1 that added many features, and it appears like they have been in the works for a while, so basically the camera was shipped with an incomplete firmware (though complete enough).

How crop mode is handled shouldn't require much work to implement (unless they let you fine tune the crop for each lens), they can decide on that up until shortly before launch IMHO.

What I suggested, with the fine tuning of crops as to the owners discretion is not crucial, or necessary. It would be nice to have to get the most out of the lenses without having to get more data than you actually need, but well, not necessary. It would just get them ahead of the competitor.

I think the main hardware itself should be getting quite close to done at this point, the firmware not. (Didn't they say a 2015 release is planned?) They haven't finalized the body shape... but it could be just a matter of fine tuning the grip, button placement... there's still some wiggle room.

[JPT]

BTW, did you see this Ricoh presentation in which they appear to explain how they are using the SR mechanism to implement a "Foveon simulator". I'm not fond of the latter abbreviation, but it is shorter than saying "sensel-shifting based approach to eliminate demosaicing".

Would be great if you could briefly summarise what they are saying.

I went in the morning on Saturday and that presentation wasn't going to start until the afternoon, so I decided it would be better to spend the rest of valentines day with my wife.

Actually, I think I summarized the video of that presentation in another thread. I can't remember where it was just now because it's Friday night and I'm full of wine.

I don't think the APS-C crop is anything worth worrying about. Ricoh/Pentax has a good record of respecting their legacy users. When they talk about deciding on the approach to cropping lenses, they may just mean whether the camera defaults to an APS-C crop for any DA lens, or whether it defaults to full frame for lenses that have been proved to cover the circle.

---------- Post added 02-21-15 at 12:14 AM ----------

It depends how much of the implementation of cropping is fixed in hardware, and how much is controlled by (say) firmware (code and data).

If I were designing the camera, I might choose that the details of the cropping were to be decided per lens and per focal length by data downloaded with the firmware. Then I could make the final decisions just before release.



Some lenses need different cropping at different focal lengths. For example, the DA 12-24mm f/4 and the DA 10-17mm Fisheye are both pretty good at FF at the long end, and restricted to APS-C at the short end.

I want the cropping to take the currently-used focal lengths of individual lenses into account. Otherwise I would want to be able to override the default cropping.

(Another thing that would be useful would be different orientations and aspect ratios of cropping. Portrait, landscape, square, etc.)

If the camera was somehow applying a different crop at different focal lengths for zoom lenses, that would confuse me no end. Could you get your head around a variable focal length, variable aperture, variable crop factor lens?

I did mention the idea of different aspect ratios for crop lenses to Kawauchi-san. Someone mentioned it on this forum and I thought it was a great idea, so I made a point of mentioning it.

[monochrome]

Do they want to cripple all DA lenses, regardless of their true capabilities in order to force users to get new (revenue making) FF lenses?

If I read correctly they stated their first goal is to serve their existing users and those who have left Pentax but still have some existing lenses - then attract brand converts. That statement does not seem to infer they want to force me to buy all new FF lenses.

[lukulele]

I went in the morning on Saturday and that presentation wasn't going to start until the afternoon, so I decided it would be better to spend the rest of valentines day with my wife.

Actually, I think I summarized the video of that presentation in another thread. I can't remember where it was just now because it's Friday night and I'm full of wine.

I don't think the APS-C crop is anything worth worrying about. Ricoh/Pentax has a good record of respecting their legacy users. When they talk about deciding on the approach to cropping lenses, they may just mean whether the camera defaults to an APS-C crop for any DA lens, or whether it defaults to full frame for lenses that have been proved to cover the circle.

---------- Post added 02-21-15 at 12:14 AM ----------



If the camera was somehow applying a different crop at different focal lengths for zoom lenses, that would confuse me no end. Could you get your head around a variable focal length, variable aperture, variable crop factor lens?

I did mention the idea of different aspect ratios for crop lenses to Kawauchi-san. Someone mentioned it on this forum and I thought it was a great idea, so I made a point of mentioning it.

Thanks for your observations JPT. I think some wine is much more palatable than whine here.

[Barry Pearson]

It baffles me why everyone is making such a big deal over cropping.

Nikon/Canon/Sony FF cameras all do it simply and effectively, and have done so for years. And none of them do anything fancy - like customise it's operation for every lens they ever made. So Pentax doesn't need to do anything complicated to deliver a useful crop mode on their FF. Crop mode will just be an option like 'On | Off | Auto' in the menu somewhere, with a standard crop ratio and an ability to detect the current family of lenses. No need to over-analyse it.

Should Pentax limit itself to what Nikon and Canon do, when there are better options available? (As in this case).

I agree with rawr, it shouldn't be problem. Either crop all aps-c lenses to aps-c size or don't, a simple users choise. Do as you wish.

The problem with simple cropping is that it doesn't make best use of the current lens range. And who is to say what is "an APS-C lens"? Obviously it isn't the same as "DA or DA* lens"!

Some lenses need different cropping at different focal lengths. For example, the DA 12-24mm f/4 and the DA 10-17mm Fisheye are both pretty good at FF at the long end, and restricted to APS-C at the short end. I want the cropping to take the currently-used focal lengths of individual lenses into account. Otherwise I would want to be able to override the default cropping. (Another thing that would be useful would be different orientations and aspect ratios of cropping. Portrait, landscape, square, etc.)

---------- Post added 20th Feb 2015 at 06:21 PM ----------

If the camera was somehow applying a different crop at different focal lengths for zoom lenses, that would confuse me no end. Could you get your head around a variable focal length, variable aperture, variable crop factor lens?

Yes.

(But I wouldn't object if Ricoh put in an extra option to cater for those who can't get their head around it).

[filoxophy]

If the camera was somehow applying a different crop at different focal lengths for zoom lenses, that would confuse me no end. Could you get your head around a variable focal length, variable aperture, variable crop factor lens?

Agreed. My hope is Crop On/Off/Auto (meaning, crop obviously APS-C lenses). A custom function would be nice too, with a user definable crop factor. But I certainly don't see them going through every DA lens per focal length and aperture to see what works.

---------- Post added 02-20-15 at 01:26 PM ----------

Some lenses need different cropping at different focal lengths. For example, the DA 12-24mm f/4 and the DA 10-17mm Fisheye are both pretty good at FF at the long end, and restricted to APS-C at the short end. I want the cropping to take the currently-used focal lengths of individual lenses into account. Otherwise I would want to be able to override the default cropping.

I can't see the first part happening. I do hope there is some user control re cropping, but Ricoh will not release a firmware or document saying "the DA 12-24 is FF compatible from 15mm-24mm, but only from f/5.6 on up" or whatever. Just won't happen.

[Barry Pearson]

I can't see the first part happening. I do hope there is some user control re cropping, but Ricoh will not release a firmware or document saying "the DA 12-24 is FF compatible from 15mm-24mm, but only from f/5.6 on up" or whatever. Just won't happen.

Why not? Information like this has been gathered by several people over several years and published in various places. It is hardly a secret!

Pentax Full Frame tests

Pentax Forums: DA lenses on Full Frame: Test Shots thread

RiceHigh's Pentax Blog: Compatibility of DA Lenses on Full Frame

Karl Knipser - Flickr Set: Many test photos of Pentax lenses on both film and a Canon EOS 5D Mark III

(I expect there are more).