Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
02-21-2016, 02:31 AM   #616
Pentaxian
thibs's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Belgium
Photos: Albums
Posts: 5,267
QuoteOriginally posted by Nicolas06 Quote
Well a K-02 is possible no? They would need a sensor with PDAF bundled and an EVF but this could be done no?
Specifically for video? Maybe.
Otherwise, big NO. They were ridiculed with the K-01 (not that I agree, I really don't).
No way will they try a second time.

02-21-2016, 03:50 AM   #617
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,705
QuoteOriginally posted by thibs Quote
Specifically for video? Maybe.
Otherwise, big NO. They were ridiculed with the K-01 (not that I agree, I really don't).
No way will they try a second time.
We all know why... The design, the lack of viewfinder, the sluggish AF.

All of theses points could be solved quite easily now.
02-21-2016, 05:15 AM   #618
Pentaxian




Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 2,652
QuoteOriginally posted by Nicolas06 Quote
Well stereo jack cost is like 1$ for them so that look bearable. Even 4K, some smartphone have it too.

But what really matter is video with full sensor read and even a GH4 doesn't do it. A7R-II does it but only on a frame sightly bigger than APSC (Super 35) meaning this is not a full sensor read from FF size. Even A7s doesn't do 4K record with full readout if you don't provided an external recorder. An FF still camera is not a tool made for video, whatever the marketing claims. Oh they sell it all they can, but that not really that.

Also to max out 4K quality, that is 8MP as in real pixels, you need to have full read of each color, meaning you need 32MP... And no camera provide 32MP full read for now.

I think Pentax doesn't have 4K on their K-1 for a simple reason: either the sensor or the processor were not made for it at the time they made the design. Sure that if they were willing to put 500$ more into the camera and delay it 6 month more, they could have fixed that, but really that was not worth it

But despite the apparences, no camera out there really push 4K to the max. The problem is 4K just a number in a speak sheet... Likely they start to say 8K when they'll read all the photosites required for perfect 4K than calling it a perfect 4K.

And all of this of course discount that there is not really any broadcast of good diffusion medium for 4K content now. Well outside of cinemas that is.
Yes, there isn't perfection yet. I don't want Pentax to make an Alexa rivaling camera. Well, would be nice, but lets be realistic.

The Samsung NX1 did 28 MP full sensor readout, so that's not too bad. Yes, quality could still be a bit better, but there is always room for improvement. Catching up with everyone else would be a nice start.

I agree, the way the camera is now, at this price point, 4K wasn't doable. The sensor or the processor aren't capable of doing so (I think it is the sensor, because the specs sound identical to 2013's Milbeaut M-7M or so...

The value of 4K is IMHO more in being able to crop, and being able to get really sharp 1080p content. Say you are shooting an interview, with one or two cameras. If they have 4K, you've got at least 4 different angles you can use. If they are 1080p only, you are limited to two. And of course being a bit future proof, which is always nice when you spend quite a lot. My tablet has > 1080p resolution btw. Some smartphones have 4K screens (though that isn't particularly useful, except for VR). Resolutions are going up, a quickly increasing number of TVs, even reasonably priced ones, are 4K these days. Most laptops and tablets are 1080p at minimum, except for the very cheap ones. People kind of like their screens to be sharp.

Anyway it would be nice to see some improvements. Not necessarily 4K, but say 60p. Pixel binning. (Maybe they did that... mentioning it in the press release would have been a nice gesture though). Getting rid of that dreadful, terrible electronic SR. Even if they didn't implement sensor shift SR for video, just getting rid of electronic SR would be an improvement. Just get rid of that option. Of course sensor shift SR would be nice. If they really are so embarrassed about the sounds it makes, just mute the audio when using sensor shift. Compact and bridge cameras have had the same issue with AF and worse zooming for a long time, some manufacturers filtered the audio a bit more, others deactivated zooming and yet others just didn't care and let you zoom. It's not a unique problem, and the K-5s SR is much quieter than zooming. Or even the SR in my Canon SX130. Another thing they could implement is a log picture profile. How much can that cost? It's a picture profile! High bitrates too.

There are plenty of things that would improve the experience for video that don't require a new processor or sensor, just someone working on a better firmware. That headphone jack etc. costs per camera produced, while the cost of a new firmware would be spread out over all cameras ever produced. And the work spent on that can be used on different cameras too. Or is Pentax writing a new firmware from scratch for each camera?

@monochrome: While I am contemplating cameras with EVF now, and I think the technology has a lot of potential AND is the future, I would much rather have a DSLR right now. I am not convinced yet that the screens are this good. I still prefer the mirror, or, ideally, a mirror that is combined with a screen. Not like in the K-1, but one that can be overlaid with full colors and high resolution, and that also works when the mirror is blacked out and all you see is the screen. That would be perfect. It is possible to make DSLRs that are great for video. And Pentax doesn't even have to do that... just a bit better. Just use the hardware that is already there, and they'd have a winner.

I still don't think they should make a specific video camera, maybe in form of a mirrorless camera. Just improve the firmware of existing and upcoming cameras. That would do nothing to make them worse at stills, while opening a whole new group of potential customers. Plus video is sexy, video gets press exposure. Imagine the kind of ads Pentax could do if a filmmaker uses Pentax cameras. IMHO the K-1 has the potential for that. 24p is enough anyway, SR is useful for small shoots that lack permissions and where you don't want to show up with too much professional looking gear. Likewise the weatherproofing. In general you may get away with more without people noticing when not carrying a serious cinema camera and big rigs.
02-21-2016, 05:56 AM   #619
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,705
QuoteOriginally posted by kadajawi Quote
Anyway it would be nice to see some improvements. Not necessarily 4K, but say 60p. Pixel binning. (Maybe they did that... mentioning it in the press release would have been a nice gesture though). Getting rid of that dreadful, terrible electronic SR. Even if they didn't implement sensor shift SR for video, just getting rid of electronic SR would be an improvement. Just get rid of that option. Of course sensor shift SR would be nice. If they really are so embarrassed about the sounds it makes, just mute the audio when using sensor shift. Compact and bridge cameras have had the same issue with AF and worse zooming for a long time, some manufacturers filtered the audio a bit more, others deactivated zooming and yet others just didn't care and let you zoom. It's not a unique problem, and the K-5s SR is much quieter than zooming. Or even the SR in my Canon SX130. Another thing they could implement is a log picture profile. How much can that cost? It's a picture profile! High bitrates too.

There are plenty of things that would improve the experience for video that don't require a new processor or sensor, just someone working on a better firmware. That headphone jack etc. costs per camera produced, while the cost of a new firmware would be spread out over all cameras ever produced. And the work spent on that can be used on different cameras too. Or is Pentax writing a new firmware from scratch for each camera?
You speak of software.The good thing about software is that copy is free. The bad thing about software, is that it is very expensive and you pay upfront. if you don't have many people to spread it on, it get, very, very expensive. The other issue if that when you target more people, each one want more feature that nobody else really care of. To make software affordable you need to concentrate on a few key features or to sell to many people. Pentax market is maybe simply too small to invest more on video for a product that is branded as a still outdoor/landscape all weather camera.

Say to fix this they needed 3 engineers full time for the say 3 years they worked on the K1. That arround 1000000$ cost. If we spread the cost around 100K unit sold, that true it is only 10$ per unit...

But if they seen that just solving a few video issues without going all the way to 4K would give them only say 1000 more unit sold because most people paying that much for nice video would want something even better anyway, then that now a $1000 investment per unit. That would make them lose money for each additionnal camera sold for theses few guys that are not willing to pay the camera due to too limited video feature now but would accept to buy it if it had 60p, in sensor SR and a few other tricks.

I know your type of guys, we have the same as client. People that want features but basically don't want to pay for them. They try to make other customers pay for them, because you know is cheap and usefull for everybody. Were I work, we don't have enough budget to do all the things client willing to pay good money ask. We don't have enough budget to invest on all the things we think are key to our company future. The requirement and features from client that want very specific feature for free so they can spend give us less money in the long run is a pure loss. Theses kind of people will never have money, they will never give you a lot and if you do something for them, in 2 year they'll switch because the competitor has something a bit cheaper. Implementing a specific fearture for a set of people willing to pay for it and pay again make sense. But working for people that want more for free or paid by other customers doesn't. That a good way to go bankrupt.

Sign me a contract that if we do it we would sell 10000 unit to you, 500$ more than the normal price so we can make a return on investment, and show us you'd willing to buy more unit in the years to come and we can justify to hire people to do what you require and make money out of it. That's how business work. You don't make money by giving away things for free and concentrating on the things your competitors are much better positionned to leverage than yourself.

Pentax has many things to invest on. It is not like they have everything perfect, a pile of money waiting to be spent at the bank. The engineer working on that are not working to make the AF better, to improve pixel shift so you it better handle case where the subject moved or improving the noise handling of the camera...

It is easy for you to ask for Pentax to invest 1 million $ on a small fearture you think they should have. You are the one giving promize you would buy it, you are not the ones investing money on it to discover after nobody wanted to pay for it.


Last edited by Nicolas06; 02-21-2016 at 06:18 AM.
02-21-2016, 07:31 AM   #620
Pentaxian
JimmyDranox's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Ploiesti, Romania
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,614
In my opinion, there are only two business models. Static, and dynamic. The static business consider that their business is good, that growing and/or developing something new is too expensive, or will be needed but too few people, so they put their faith in the existing client base, thinking that this base is stable, and will not evolve on long term. This kind of business always get smaller, and smaller, slowly but surely, until they fade away.

My impression about Ricoh is they use the dynamic model. Maybe they are not developing with the speed that some people would like, but still, they are working on new thing, but with some kind of restrains in the expenses. For this new K-1, they have built 2 new lenses, and borrowed another 2 existing design from Tamron, which is certainly more efficient, especially in terms of time, and maybe even money, than developing new designs by themself.
02-21-2016, 07:35 AM   #621
Pentaxian




Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 2,652
QuoteOriginally posted by Nicolas06 Quote
...
Maybe I am underestimating the work that enabling a feature that was there on older cameras cost. One that is in the bloody camera (at least the K-3), and that we know actually works. And where Pentax said they deactivated it. Intentionally. Not because they can't do it, but because it is a bit problematic for audio quality. But it seems to me that the cost of "implementing" that is not going to be 3 engineers working full time for 3 years.

The people working on Magic Lantern did much greater things. Without having access to the source code! In their spare time. For free. And they had to figure things out, because, well, they had no access. An engineer that does have access to specs and source code etc. should have it much easier. The processor that Pentax uses (or a very similar one) got hacked to record raw files for video. Again, that guy didn't have access to the camera internals. And had to figure out how to even make the camera run code.

The things asked for seem a little easier to implement than making the camera do something it was never supposed to in the first place, while tinkering around in assembler and decompiled code.
02-21-2016, 07:59 AM   #622
Pentaxian
Fogel70's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,748
QuoteOriginally posted by Nicolas06 Quote
We all know why... The design, the lack of viewfinder, the sluggish AF.

All of theses points could be solved quite easily now.
This has been solved on all K-mount cameras released after K-01.
02-21-2016, 08:29 AM   #623
Loyal Site Supporter
monochrome's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Kirkwood (St. Louis) MO
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 20,455
I seriously doubt there will ever be another K-mount Pentax MILC.

02-21-2016, 08:39 AM   #624
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Tromsų, Norway
Photos: Albums
Posts: 956
I think its only a matter of time before we get a stylish EVF K-02 with APS-C and improved video
02-21-2016, 09:25 AM   #625
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,705
QuoteOriginally posted by kadajawi Quote
The people working on Magic Lantern did much greater things. Without having access to the source code! In their spare time. For free. And they had to figure things out, because, well, they had no access. An engineer that does have access to specs and source code etc. should have it much easier. The processor that Pentax uses (or a very similar one) got hacked to record raw files for video. Again, that guy didn't have access to the camera internals. And had to figure out how to even make the camera run code.
I really hate this kind of stuff. Not what they guys do, but how people that did nothing leverage the excelent work of other and heavy work their done to conclude that was easy after all and so should be done for free or almost nothing. Because if a team of geek does it for free, why ever pay somebody to do it? Turn out the geek often well paid and often have insider information too. Turn out their are not the average joe and might be quite dedicated and skilled.

Most poeple do require to be paid to work, otherwise they don't do it or might not do it the way you want, when you want or how you want; Like they could not care one bit of video features for example And that's legitimate. Also if they hack it fast in their basement, there may be bugs, no support etc. If it make the sensor overheating and the camera need to be changed after 2 years of if 5% of camera doesn't work anymore once the software is run on them, they don't have to spend 1 cent to fix the situation.

Your point is people at Pentax or magic lantern could have done it for free in their spare time. Sure that's a possibility. Or they could have been paid a little bit for it, but not much. Sure. But why ? Maybe the guys that worked extra hours at pentax for free decided to improve the pixel shift algorithm instead or whatever else. Too bad they didn't volonteer to implement the thing YOU wanted and not just what he wanted to do ! This guy really worth nothing if he can't benevolate a bit more of his time to do what YOU want. After all that so easy why would he ever complain having to do it?

If it is that easy, do it yourself and stop complaining other don't work well or didn't work enough or didn't do it cheap enough. Then make it public and endure people complaining that this is not good enough, you could have done better etc and that they would like it more if you spent time on the feature they cared of instead.

I know people that work a lot at work, they do 3 time what other do, sometime 10. They are more efficient. What you call their spare time mean they don't take that many vacations, don't spend as much time with their familly etc. i know a guy at work he is divorsed because he worked too much 8am - 8pm everyday. While it is nice to have them onboard and leverage their work, to convince them to give away their time. I think they are more likely to listen to their managers or work on their own agenda than yours.

As long as you think this should be cheaper or free, that people should do it because it is easy, nobody has a reason to spend 1 second of their time on your case. Do it yourself and stop asking other to work for free for you.
02-21-2016, 12:40 PM   #626
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: NJ
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 4,882
QuoteOriginally posted by monochrome Quote
i seriously doubt there will ever be another k-mount pentax milc.


QuoteOriginally posted by simen1 Quote
i think its only a matter of time before we get a stylish evf k-02 with aps-c and improved video
02-21-2016, 12:48 PM   #627
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: South Bend, IN, USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,983
QuoteOriginally posted by Nicolas06 Quote
As long as you think this should be cheaper or free, that people should do it because it is easy, nobody has a reason to spend 1 second of their time on your case. Do it yourself and stop asking other to work for free for you.
Maybe yes, maybe no. There are companies now, including my most recent employer before I retired, that base their entire line on Linux, which was developed by "volunteers". Likewise, gimp is very popular. Sometimes the best software is developed by "volunteers", because they are developing it for themselves. If some talented person wants what you want, then you may be in luck. Otherwise ... otherwise.
02-21-2016, 12:53 PM   #628
Loyal Site Supporter
monochrome's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Kirkwood (St. Louis) MO
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 20,455
QuoteOriginally posted by luftfluss Quote




45.46. Once down that road was enough.
02-21-2016, 01:15 PM   #629
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,705
QuoteOriginally posted by reh321 Quote
Maybe yes, maybe no. There are companies now, including my most recent employer before I retired, that base their entire line on Linux, which was developed by "volunteers". Likewise, gimp is very popular. Sometimes the best software is developed by "volunteers", because they are developing it for themselves. If some talented person wants what you want, then you may be in luck. Otherwise ... otherwise.
That's it, when you don't pay for it, you can't complain or ask... But even thinking that things are really 100% free is a bit naive. The linux you install for free doesn't do what most company need. It is not configured and 100% ready.

There are companies like redhat that provide supported version, such a kind that are key to get the PCI DSS certification... So if you want to handle credit cards on your system, it kind of mandatory to give money to your operating system provider anyway as well as the whole software stack.

Managing a set of servers is never free anyway, you need to have engineers that update the software, look for attacks, configure the application ensure the backups are done. Many company work in that area, providing this kind of service. The whole cloud thing. Google also contribute with Android. We speak of many billion market. Linux may be free but companies pay for it anyway.

Here what the point to spend time to implement a feature of somebody that would not pay for it and keep complaining? That not fun for geeks and that not good business neither.

The geek would do it for themselves or as a way to get known and get a better job and the business would do it if they would see a worthwhile market. None would do it for the guy complaining.
02-21-2016, 01:56 PM   #630
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: South Bend, IN, USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,983
QuoteOriginally posted by Nicolas06 Quote
That's it, when you don't pay for it, you can't complain or ask... But even thinking that things are really 100% free is a bit naive. The Linux you install for free doesn't do what most company need. It is not configured and 100% ready. There are companies like redhat that provide supported version, such a kind that are key to get the PCI DSS certification... So if you want to handle credit cards on your system, it kind of mandatory to give money to your operating system provider anyway as well as the whole software stack. Managing a set of servers is never free anyway, you need to have engineers that update the software, look for attacks, configure the application ensure the backups are done. Many company work in that area, providing this kind of service. The whole cloud thing. Google also contribute with Android. We speak of many billion market. Linux may be free but companies pay for it anyway.
I don't totally agree, but this is not the place to discuss such matters, so I won't. (the profession I'm now retired from is as a Software Developer/Engineer)

QuoteOriginally posted by Nicolas06 Quote
Here what the point to spend time to implement a feature of somebody that would not pay for it and keep complaining? That not fun for geeks and that not good business neither. The geek would do it for themselves or as a way to get known and get a better job and the business would do it if they would see a worthwhile market. None would do it for the guy complaining.
Again, maybe yes, maybe no. If I were into developing this sort of thing, I would be interested in what others wanted, as well as what I wanted to do, and I certainly won't "waste electrons" here telling others what they should or should not ask /pine for, just as I won't tell others what hardware they should publicly express an interest in. Once you try to put limits like that in place, there is very little to discuss, and this place is a discussion forum.
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!
a7000, aps, aps-c, apsc pentax, budget, camera, delay, dollar, dslr, ff, frame, generations, glass, info, k-3, k-5, pentax, pentax news, pentax rumors, people, photography, product, quality, release, replacement, request, ricoh, rumor, sensor, sony, sources, sub, time, weight
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
New Pentax 645D2014 also uses the 50MP Sony CMOS sensor! ElJamoquio Pentax News and Rumors 442 03-21-2014 12:57 AM
Using 67 lenses on Pentax APSC bodies-focal length setting cleffa Troubleshooting and Beginner Help 2 11-26-2013 05:22 AM
K-3 with 24mp Sony A77 sensor will be announced in early October jogiba Pentax News and Rumors 35 10-01-2013 02:07 PM
Behold! Sony's new trojan horse DSLR, the A7000 Z-shift JohnBee Non-Pentax Cameras: Canon, Nikon, etc. 4 09-02-2013 06:26 AM
New APSC/FF sensor news beginning to take shape... JohnBee Non-Pentax Cameras: Canon, Nikon, etc. 4 07-06-2011 04:11 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:14 PM. | 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