Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
07-27-2016, 10:42 AM   #1576
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,626
QuoteOriginally posted by Simen1 Quote
I don't think the sensor price is what drives the cost up. Sports cameras have in general expensive AF modules that are costly to develop and its not that many cameras sold to share the development costs, compared to low end FF. Sports cameras also have higher built quality, larger battery, very high processing power and huge memory buffers. They are also tested to higher tolerances and usually made in Japan, not Thailand, China and so on. Pentax don't need to (and shouldn't) go in C/N footsteps. If they make a K-1 successor with a D5 sensor it don't need to have all the other features and cost of D5.

Sony are of course constantly developing better sensors. So far it looks like several different lines. 16-21 Mp high speed for D4/D5-series. 20-24 Mp low speed series, and 36-42 Mp high resolution series. There have been some rumors about a 30-32 Mp compromise between high speed and high resolution that might come out soon.
A D5 is basically a D500 with an FF sensor. Still the price difference is huge.

07-27-2016, 02:24 PM   #1577
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Tromsø, Norway
Photos: Albums
Posts: 948
Its much about strategic pricing too. If they can sell it with a huge profit, they will.
07-27-2016, 10:30 PM   #1578
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,626
QuoteOriginally posted by Simen1 Quote
Its much about strategic pricing too. If they can sell it with a huge profit, they will.
But this strategy likely also include their sensor provider
07-28-2016, 02:58 AM   #1579
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Southern Indiana
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 15,541
QuoteOriginally posted by Simen1 Quote
I don't think the sensor price is what drives the cost up. Sports cameras have in general expensive AF modules that are costly to develop and its not that many cameras sold to share the development costs, compared to low end FF. Sports cameras also have higher built quality, larger battery, very high processing power and huge memory buffers. They are also tested to higher tolerances and usually made in Japan, not Thailand, China and so on. Pentax don't need to (and shouldn't) go in C/N footsteps. If they make a K-1 successor with a D5 sensor it don't need to have all the other features and cost of D5.

Sony are of course constantly developing better sensors. So far it looks like several different lines. 16-21 Mp high speed for D4/D5-series. 20-24 Mp low speed series, and 36-42 Mp high resolution series. There have been some rumors about a 30-32 Mp compromise between high speed and high resolution that might come out soon.
I have a hard time knowing what Canon and Nikon could do if they want. Are the sensors in cameras like the 1D series and D5 actually a lot more expensive, is it that all of the other components that end up in a sports type camera are also really expensive, is it that these cameras actually sell relatively small quantities and the only way to make a profit is price them really high, or is it just that this segment of the market has always been priced high and sports photographers don't blink at paying astronomical prices for gear? Whatever the case I think these sensors do not provide any particular benefit over the 36 megapixel sensor that Pentax is using, except for better video and faster frame rates. Dynamic range is actually less at low iso values with these. For general photography purposes, the K-1 is probably a better choice than a camera like the D5.

08-01-2016, 09:29 PM   #1580
Senior Member
Logics's Avatar

Join Date: May 2009
Location: Fort Lauderdale, FL
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 138
QuoteOriginally posted by falconeye Quote
That's because the "workflow" has to deal with 4x the data and has to guess which pixels did change.
Not exactly. Without pixel-shift, (PS), each RAW pixel has 14-bits of data representing the intensity of only one colour at that pixel. With PS, each RAW pixel has 56 bits of data recorded representing the intensity of RGBG, (the green value sampled twice). This is then converted into a 42-bit pixel by disregarding one of the redundant green values and thus stored. If there were only three pixel shifts, a pixel initially blue would capture blue, green, red, while a pixel which was initially red would capture red, green blue. The problem are pixels which were initially green; three shifts would capture green, blue, green or green, red, green. A fourth shift would capture the missing red or blue value respectively. So now you have an image of three four times the data (ignoring overhead, insignificantly less considering overhead).

I also believe (but I am not sure) that the 42-bit pixel is actually further reduced to a 24-bit or 28-bit pixel in a (10,14) or (14,14) bit matrix of (intensity, colour) or an (8,8,8) or (12,12,12) bit (R,G,B) matrix. This may make far more sense since a PS image is not three times the file size of a non-shifted image.

However, there is significantly less processing to be done because there is no issue of blocks, maze nor coloured moire artefacts with which to mitigate with the various bayer transform approximation (BTA) algorithms. Indeed, with any given BTA algorithm, one is actually computing more data because with every pixel, one may have to deal with the data of a minimum of four neighbouring colours and as many as sixteen, each having 14-bits of data. That is a minimum of 56 bits per pixel and up to 224 bits per pixel. With the full colour, full luminance information of each pixel, none of that extra processing of neighbouring pixels is needed.

And, no, there aren't any “changed” pixel. Each pixel is accurately recorded.

QuoteOriginally posted by falconeye Quote
The immense success of the Bayer pattern has to do with its efficient "workflow", needing much less original data for the same perceived image quality.
Again, it is not for the same perceived image quality. It is for a far superior image quality with more detail and less noise and no artefacts. And unless you treat your mostly monotone, low contrast, simple scene the exact same way (same algorithm) you treat your high contrast, multi colour transition, complex scenes, the BTA workflow is far from efficient. This is what PS reduces.

QuoteOriginally posted by falconeye Quote
The real merit of pixel-shift is an absolute better image quality at the pixel-level than a single capture with a Bayer filter could provide.
True: better image quality in terms of colour accuracy, luminance accuracy, (ergo details), noise reduction, artefact reduction, etc., all reducing the effort needed in the workflow.

Well, pixel shift the way Pentax does it and not the way Sony does it. They actually do pixel shift quite differently and the Sony method does in fact create an image of four times the resolution —a 20mp image becomes an 80mp image— while the Pentax method starts and ends with a 24mp or 36mp (K-3 II or K-1) image respectively.

[CORRECTIONS]

Handling of a 130mb image is not really an issue if your computer can handle it. (I currently have 32GiB RAM and about 5TB HDD space for data plus eSATA III and USB 3.0). It may mean more time in importing or running standard scripts on each image but the same added time exists when going from a 6mp workflow to a 24mp workflow. The complexity of the workflow however decreases.

Last edited by Logics; 08-02-2016 at 04:20 PM. Reason: Corrected some of my own misconceptions.
08-01-2016, 11:38 PM   #1581
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,626
QuoteOriginally posted by Logics Quote
Again, it is not for the same perceived image quality. It is for a far superior image quality with more detail and less noise and no artefacts. And unless you treat your mostly monotone, low contrast, simple scene the exact same way (same algorithm) you treat your high contrast, multi colour transition, complex scenes, the BTA workflow is far from efficient. This is what PS reduces.
In theory that may be true. In practice... Most people will never see the difference outside of looking at 100% crops.

More, you don't especially need pixel shift to achieve theses results or even better.

Dynamic range, all camera I think have a HDR mode anyway that allow for much more dynamic range than what pixel shift allow, this work handled even. At worst shoot 3 or 5 exposure and you can get 4 or 8 EV more of dynamic range. That much more that pixel shift provide.

For Color deph and noise, nothing prevent you to take 4 pictures (or 32) on your tripod and stack them for improved quality. People have been doing that for astro shots for years. While it is not as automated, any camera firmware could be updated for it. And because there no limit to number of photos, there no limit to the noise reduction and improved color deph.

Do a panorama, and you can scale the resolution without limit. Some people have produced gigapixels photographs this way.

I agree that for some case pixel shift is simpler/easier and provide nice results, but this is not a game changer. This is just a feature like many others.
08-02-2016, 02:34 AM - 2 Likes   #1582
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Southern Indiana
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 15,541
QuoteOriginally posted by Nicolas06 Quote
In theory that may be true. In practice... Most people will never see the difference outside of looking at 100% crops.

More, you don't especially need pixel shift to achieve theses results or even better.

Dynamic range, all camera I think have a HDR mode anyway that allow for much more dynamic range than what pixel shift allow, this work handled even. At worst shoot 3 or 5 exposure and you can get 4 or 8 EV more of dynamic range. That much more that pixel shift provide.

For Color deph and noise, nothing prevent you to take 4 pictures (or 32) on your tripod and stack them for improved quality. People have been doing that for astro shots for years. While it is not as automated, any camera firmware could be updated for it. And because there no limit to number of photos, there no limit to the noise reduction and improved color deph.

Do a panorama, and you can scale the resolution without limit. Some people have produced gigapixels photographs this way.

I agree that for some case pixel shift is simpler/easier and provide nice results, but this is not a game changer. This is just a feature like many others.
I don't know what "game changer" means in this context. I would just say that in my experience pixel shift is a lot easier to use than shooting panoramas and gives better results than shooting HDR -- by better, I mean it gives more natural looking results. I don't need more than 36 megapixels of data, but having a mode that increase color depth and dynamic range while reducing noise to zero is pretty nice. My goal is to have a really high quality image file to start with that I can then process in a way that fits my vision. HDR modes and HDR software don't usually do this very well.

Anyway, the mode is present on the K3 II and by downloading the most recent version of DCU, if you own a K3 II, you can use motion correction on your RAW files.
08-02-2016, 03:27 AM   #1583
Pentaxian
Zygonyx's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Ile de France
Posts: 3,022
Interesting, i didn't know this was OK on K-3II.

08-02-2016, 05:46 AM   #1584
Pentaxian
Dan Rentea's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Bucharest
Posts: 534
QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
I don't know what "game changer" means in this context. I would just say that in my experience pixel shift is a lot easier to use than shooting panoramas and gives better results than shooting HDR -- by better, I mean it gives more natural looking results. I don't need more than 36 megapixels of data, but having a mode that increase color depth and dynamic range while reducing noise to zero is pretty nice. My goal is to have a really high quality image file to start with that I can then process in a way that fits my vision. HDR modes and HDR software don't usually do this very well.

Anyway, the mode is present on the K3 II and by downloading the most recent version of DCU, if you own a K3 II, you can use motion correction on your RAW files.
For some photographers (especially for the ones who print large sized images), pixel shift can be a game changer. I much prefer pixel shift than HDR if I have to choose between these two options, although I'm not in the category of the ones who needs pixel shift (or HDR).

On the other hand, D5/D500 can fine-tune autofocus automatically, option which I would really love to see in the future cameras because I often use rented lenses.

The expression game changer is so easily used these days for almost every new camera launched. It's true that every manufacturer come with some new functions on their new cameras, but I haven't seen a game changer camera for a while... The DSLR market has become mature and innovations come in small packages. But, let's see what Photokina brings next month.
08-02-2016, 11:34 AM - 1 Like   #1585
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,626
Game changer is something that will heavilly change the market, how people use their camera, approach photography as a whole. This is disruptive product.

First iphone was a game changer it redefined the whole industry and now 3/4 of all the phones sold are basically iphones clones. Android was game changer because it allowed to get iphones clones for $100.

In photography, smartphones were maybe the biggest change we have seen since digital but we also had seen quite big change that can be arguably a game changer: CMOS vs CCD, cameras with great video or mirrorless bodies with EVF. That changes that shaped the market.

Pixel shift is just a feature among the hundred other features each camera has. Is it far better than a 50 iso setting? Is it better than a high burst rate or better OOC Jpegs? This will depend of each user but this isn't huge. Give a D810 or a K1 with the equivalent lenses to a good photographer he'll give you quite similar photographs from both. The biggest difference is the mount with the associated echosystem.

Last edited by Nicolas06; 08-02-2016 at 11:41 AM.
08-02-2016, 05:04 PM - 1 Like   #1586
Senior Member
Logics's Avatar

Join Date: May 2009
Location: Fort Lauderdale, FL
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 138
QuoteOriginally posted by Nicolas06 Quote
More, you don't especially need pixel shift to achieve theses results or even better.

Dynamic range, all camera I think have a HDR mode anyway that allow for much more dynamic range than what pixel shift allow, this work handled even. At worst shoot 3 or 5 exposure and you can get 4 or 8 EV more of dynamic range. That much more that pixel shift provide.
HDR mode does not actually change the dynamic range of an image per se, rather it gives the appearance of a higher dynamic range by mimicking within the picture what our brain does automatically. It makes the shadows not so shadowy (more exposure) so we can see details and the highlights not so highlighty (less exposure) so we can see more details but still, only 14-bit RAWs and 8-bit JPEGs.

QuoteOriginally posted by Nicolas06 Quote
For Color deph and noise, nothing prevent you to take 4 pictures (or 32) on your tripod and stack them for improved quality. People have been doing that for astro shots for years. While it is not as automated, any camera firmware could be updated for it. And because there no limit to number of photos, there no limit to the noise reduction and improved color deph.
Again, no improvement here in colour depth, only in noise reduction. And, yes, it is automated in Pentax cameras such as the K-3 and others with interval shooting and composite mode (and AstroTracer™).

QuoteOriginally posted by Nicolas06 Quote
Do a panorama, and you can scale the resolution without limit. Some people have produced gigapixels photographs this way.
True but this is not about gaining megapixels. A 36mp image before PS is still a 36mp image after PS. Pentax pixel shift is about automated improved details and colour accuracy of a 36mp image (or 24mp in the case of the K-3 II). But pixel shift the way Sony does it, is somewhat like this. This method is superior to what Sony does but Sony's method is easier than this.

QuoteOriginally posted by Nicolas06 Quote
I agree that for some case pixel shift is simpler/easier and provide nice results, but this is not a game changer. This is just a feature like many others.
Yeah, right. Like a pentaprism for eye-level viewing or auto focus, or programmed mode or SR or SMC or round aperture blades or oil resistant coating or trailing curtain sync or HSS or TTL or OTF metering or any other non-game-changing feature because it is just a feature like any other feature. Every innovation is a game changer because it introduces to the game a new rule which was not there before.

None of what you described as being what we had already is what we have now. Pixel shift, the way Pentax does it anyway, is a game changer in so many regards and it does things that no current technique can reproduce. [EDIT] To clarify, the Foveon sensor actually changed the game this way before. This is really not that new but it does it at higher resolution with lower noise, better low-light response and less cost per pixel. To be fair, Foveon were the leaders here.

Last edited by Logics; 08-02-2016 at 05:46 PM. Reason: Mentioned the Foveon as being first to market in this area.
08-02-2016, 07:49 PM - 1 Like   #1587
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Southern Indiana
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 15,541
QuoteOriginally posted by Nicolas06 Quote
Game changer is something that will heavilly change the market, how people use their camera, approach photography as a whole. This is disruptive product.

First iphone was a game changer it redefined the whole industry and now 3/4 of all the phones sold are basically iphones clones. Android was game changer because it allowed to get iphones clones for $100.

In photography, smartphones were maybe the biggest change we have seen since digital but we also had seen quite big change that can be arguably a game changer: CMOS vs CCD, cameras with great video or mirrorless bodies with EVF. That changes that shaped the market.

Pixel shift is just a feature among the hundred other features each camera has. Is it far better than a 50 iso setting? Is it better than a high burst rate or better OOC Jpegs? This will depend of each user but this isn't huge. Give a D810 or a K1 with the equivalent lenses to a good photographer he'll give you quite similar photographs from both. The biggest difference is the mount with the associated echosystem.
None of these things will change the market as a whole -- not iso 50, not pixel shift. If that is the benchmark, then full frame and APS-C cameras are mostly failures. People are looking at the whole package, though, not an individual feature when they choose a camera and the pixel shift is a nice feature to have.

Looking at the comparison of the DXO One camera versus the Super Raw it features, you can see the sort of improvement in high iso performance, color depth and dynamic range one can see with it. On the other hand, the difference between iso 100 and iso 50 on the D810 is about 0.4 EV of dynamic range. Significantly less, then the bump from having pixel shift.

Anyway, as I said above, it is one feature that the k-1 offers that isn't widely available from other manufacturers. If you shoot much landscape or macro photography, it could be useful.
08-02-2016, 10:51 PM   #1588
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,626
QuoteOriginally posted by Logics Quote
HDR mode does not actually change the dynamic range of an image per se, rather it gives the appearance of a higher dynamic range by mimicking within the picture what our brain does automatically. It makes the shadows not so shadowy (more exposure) so we can see details and the highlights not so highlighty (less exposure) so we can see more details but still, only 14-bit RAWs and 8-bit JPEGs.
Let's no mix up things. Shooting several exposure of the same scene give you drastically more dynamic range. If you have 5 exposures separated by 2EV each, you gain 8EV. You can't store this information in a single raw/jpeg but a standard exist for 32 bit per pixel HDR files instead of 8bit jpeg or 12,14 or 16 bit raws. Pixel shift keep 14 bit raws.

Whatever the technique, standard raws or pixel shift or HDR once you recorded the information the issue is what to do with it as prints 5-8EV and screen 8-10 EV with an upcoming standard for 12EV but anyway you export the final image as JPEG that is made for 8-9EV of dynamic range with the proper gamma curves.

You can push shadows, tone down the highlight on your raw. Or you can apply a tone mapping curve... But the final product still limited to 8-9EV anyway. You use trick to stay in that range and give the impression of additionnal dynamic range and use the defficiancies of human vision to trick it.

QuoteOriginally posted by Logics Quote
Again, no improvement here in colour depth, only in noise reduction. And, yes, it is automated in Pentax cameras such as the K-3 and others with interval shooting and composite mode (and AstroTracer™).
Shooting several pictures and averaging them reduce noise and increase color deph. This the same idea as of using a different iso. Take a longer exposure for increased quality. Taking 2 pictures of the same shutter speed increase exposure time by a factor of 2 and taking 4 by a factor of 4.

You can try for yourself, take a high iso setting with noise (say 6400 iso) on that K3 or K1, stack 64 pictures and see how the noise and color deph reduced.

QuoteOriginally posted by Logics Quote
True but this is not about gaining megapixels. A 36mp image before PS is still a 36mp image after PS. Pentax pixel shift is about automated improved details and colour accuracy of a 36mp image (or 24mp in the case of the K-3 II). But pixel shift the way Sony does it, is somewhat like this. This method is superior to what Sony does but Sony's method is easier than this.
If you look at a gigapixel panorama, you'll find ton more details than in any of thoses pixels shift technology. The final image may be composed of hundred or thousand tiles. A pano like that bring more resolution if viewed at 100%. If you resample to a samller size because you'll not going to print it 120x160" and 300dpi anyway, then you also get increased color deph and reduced noise.

QuoteOriginally posted by Logics Quote
Yeah, right. Like a pentaprism for eye-level viewing or auto focus, or programmed mode or SR or SMC or round aperture blades or oil resistant coating or trailing curtain sync or HSS or TTL or OTF metering or any other non-game-changing feature because it is just a feature like any other feature. Every innovation is a game changer because it introduces to the game a new rule which was not there before.
Nope. Everybody here want a K1 because it is an FF. This is important. But if the K1 had no pixel shift people would still want it exactly the same. If the K1 had no pixel shift, no astrotracer etc but was stiff FF people would still buy it. A bit the same like K1 has slow FPS and no on board flash compared to K3 or even more trivial USB2 instead of USB3, but this doesn't prevent people from still wanting the K1 instead of K3.

Something that is game changing mean everybody want to upgrade and the what you can do drastically change. Pixel shift only improve still subjects but the world not still... That's why this is not a game changer.

QuoteOriginally posted by Logics Quote
None of what you described as being what we had already is what we have now. Pixel shift, the way Pentax does it anyway, is a game changer in so many regards and it does things that no current technique can reproduce. [EDIT] To clarify, the Foveon sensor actually changed the game this way before. This is really not that new but it does it at higher resolution with lower noise, better low-light response and less cost per pixel. To be fair, Foveon were the leaders here.
The difference is foveon does that naturally as a sensor. Pixelshift simulate that by moving the sensor and taking several photographs so that really work only on still subjects. People claim it work on moving subject but they just say really that there not too many artifact anymore. If the photo changed drastically between 2 shots, there no possibility to merge anything and you gained nothing.

As an emulation, this is just that emulation. It bring far less for dynamic range than HDR, it is limited to stacking 4 pictures so it bring far less than old stacking features were you could stack hundred of image if you wanted. For sharpness again the same it bring far less than existing stiching technologies.

Last edited by Nicolas06; 08-02-2016 at 10:57 PM.
08-02-2016, 10:59 PM   #1589
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,626
QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
Anyway, as I said above, it is one feature that the k-1 offers that isn't widely available from other manufacturers. If you shoot much landscape or macro photography, it could be useful.
I agree this can be useful.
08-05-2016, 10:20 PM - 1 Like   #1590
Senior Member
Logics's Avatar

Join Date: May 2009
Location: Fort Lauderdale, FL
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 138
QuoteOriginally posted by Nicolas06 Quote
Let's no mix up things.
I had a misunderstanding about what you meant here but let us not mix things up. Pentax PixelShift takes you from a 14-bit RAW to a 42-bit RAW. PS was not designed for dynamic range increase, but for detail and colour accuracy increase. With 42-bits of data at each pixel, that is a great deal of dynamic range. For stacking techniques where your camera saves all the exposures in one RAW file, (Pentax does not do that and I do not know any camera that does), sure. Stack as much as you want but the whole, “file too large for my workflow”, argument goes out the window. What you are speaking of is taking several pictures, saving them on a computer as a collection, then using software to create a EXR file or something of the sort. Been done since the dawn of cameras. (Yes, I have done a similar darkroom technique with negative/film; complex, difficult, time-consuming, error prone).

PS allows you to do that in camera in one of two RAW formats. One file out of camera. Simpler workflow! BTW, PS does not keep 14-bit per pixel files; it keeps 14-bits per (R,G,B) per pixel per file and a 32-bit per pixel HDR file keeps 8-bits per (R,G,B,A) per pixel and a 48-bit keeps 12-bits per (R,G,B,A) per pixel, both less than a Pentax PS RAW, even if I told my K-3 to shoot 5 image brackets at 2ev difference.

QuoteOriginally posted by Nicolas06 Quote
Shooting several pictures and averaging them reduce noise and increase color deph.
I misunderstood again, what you meant by colour depth. Clearly, within this context, you are speaking about the colour accuracy and not digital file storage. Yes, you can stack 64 images from a Bayer Sensor and get better colour accuracy (in-camera or PP) from sampling the same colour pixels many times to get a more accurate average than two green and one each red and blue from neighbouring pixels. Each additional image will add to your file(s) size and only marginally increase the colour accuracy. Sony PS does a slightly better job by shifting the pixel about half way in each direction and able to produce a better approximation of actual colour and intensity (and with that, quadruple the image size and file size).

Pentax PS does quadruple the file size but you get completely accurate colour and intensity data at each pixel in one file with no approximation algorithm. Simplified workflow! And all these techniques require still subjects …UNTIL NOW with the Pentax K-1 (within obvious limitations).

QuoteOriginally posted by Nicolas06 Quote
If you look at a gigapixel panorama, you'll find ton more details than in any of thoses pixels shift technology.
True but again it requires a still subject as does both Pentax and Sony PS, and it does so by a multiple factor (depending on how many images you stitch) to both image size and file size. Pentax PS increases the file size by a multiple of four but the image size does not change and it is all done in-camera, no PP, simplified workflow!

QuoteOriginally posted by Nicolas06 Quote
Everybody here want a K1 because it is an FF.
Again, a misunderstanding on my part. I was saying that Pentax's PS is a game changer and on the K-1 with motion sense technology, even more so. I was not saying that the K-! specifically is a game changer. I held out for the Pentax K-3 —still using my film camera for important shoots until the K-3— because it (and the K-5 IIs before it) was a game changer with no AA filter; vastly improving detail. Then the K-3 II came out and the PS was a game changer for me. I still stayed out of the game waiting for a high res FF and here it is. (I waited for the K-3 instead of the K-5 IIs because without an AA, I wanted higer res to help avoid moire).

The K-5 IIs/K-3 were not the game changers; the lack of AA filter was. The K-3 II/K-1 are not the game changers; the PS technology (with motion sense) is.

QuoteOriginally posted by Nicolas06 Quote
The difference is foveon does that naturally as a sensor. Pixelshift simulate that by moving the sensor and taking several photographs so that really work only on still subjects.
Which is what makes the Foveon a game changer. Full colour and intensity information at every pixel of every picture. What made me not choose the Sigma as my first DSLR was ① my investment in Pentax gear and ② not totally satisfied with resolution and IQ. Had they come out with a 16mp Foveon in time, I might be at the SigmaForums message board right now. Foveon is a game changer.

I Think the Sigma SD1 is a better camera than the K-3 but at 15mp images (12-bit per (R,G,B) per pixel) for US$2,000.00, versus the K-3 II 24mp + PS at $850.00 or the K-1 36mp + PS at $1,700; I'll stick with Pentax. To be honest, If I had enough disposable income to run two kits, I would still get it; simplified workflow! (But a full SD1 kit with battery grip and the holy trinity is about US$4k (without an S-TTL flash) and since I already have glass & two P-TTL flashes, a K-1 investment is only about $2.3k with battery grip, etc.).
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!
auto, base, camera, company, compression, d810, design, dr, electrons, fa, hardware, iso, k-1, k-3, lenses, pentax, pentax body, pentax k-1, pentax news, pentax rumors, photos, pre-order, risk, sensor, specifications, timelapse, trip, vs
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Pentax K-3 II Officially Announced Adam Pentax News and Rumors 1015 07-03-2015 10:55 PM
Pentax K-S2 Officially Announced Adam Pentax K-S1 & K-S2 12 05-23-2015 06:49 AM
Pentax K-30 Officially Announced! Adam Pentax News and Rumors 245 09-12-2012 08:32 PM
Pentax K-5 Officially Announced Adam Pentax News and Rumors 533 03-06-2012 05:45 AM
K-5 Firmware 1.02 Officially Announced Ole Pentax K-5 50 01-20-2011 10:05 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:30 AM. | 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