Pentax K-1 Officially Announced

RonHendriks1966 · 05-02-2016, 11:36 AM

Originally posted by Erictator

And that brings me to a couple questions as a reality check for you:

The ship has sailt and K-1 it is. But for people with some nice glass that doesn't perform to it maximum on K-1 like 50-135 and 60-250 they have to think if investing in K-1 is their route. They can also stay with aps-c or invest in Nikon ff, since they have to start allover again.

The K-1 is already in stock in some places in Europe. Still people are waiting for the pre-order they have with a different store. My thinking is that the K-1 will be on the shelf by the end of may. Finding customers after the summer will be very difficult.

**Erictator** · 05-02-2016, 11:51 AM

That is a total non sequitur! In no way does having some nice APS-C lenses lead to the nonsensical conclusion that you have to either buy more APS-C bodies or jump ship under the fallacy of having to start all over again. You can have your magical APS-H from the K-1, just ignore the unused sensor area! All it will cost you is the price of a K-1. And, with the added benefit of not having wait years, or not having to sell all your excellent DA lenses at a loss to buy a N*kon FF and re-invest in thousands of dollars of pricey N*kon FF glass. Winning!

See, I'm there for you buddy!

Eric

Originally posted by RonHendriks1966

But for people with some nice glass that doesn't perform to it maximum on K-1 like 50-135 and 60-250 they have to think if investing in K-1 is their route. They can also stay with aps-c or invest in Nikon ff, since they have to start allover again.

biz-engineer · 05-02-2016, 12:06 PM

Originally posted by RonHendriks1966

To me it is very clear that for Pentax making an aps-h camera would be the better choice.

Yes and no. The concept of APSH 24Mpixels (D500 style camera with better IQ), is really appealing for some users, and also could be a very smart business decision if introduced at the right time, and technically could reuse of lot of the K3 type cameras (image processor etc). But, there are some issues. First, the AF of APSC lenses is sluggish, so they'd also need to redesign the lenses AF. Second, who makes APSH sensors without having to pay for a full development? Third, how many resources do they have to deliver a FF camera that many were waiting for to use their old K lenses on it, AND deliver an APSH camera in the meantime, too much to swallow for Pentax IMHO. If K-3II would have been APSH it would have been super (resolving some of the shortcomings of the K3) and making FF transition smooth regarding the immediate need of new format lenses. They struggled like hell to deliver a FF, so I don't really see how they could have squeezed an APSH in between.

---------- Post added 02-05-16 at 21:19 ----------

Originally posted by RonHendriks1966

My thinking is that the K-1 will be on the shelf by the end of may. Finding customers after the summer will be very difficult.

K-1 is / going to sell pretty strong from a bubble inflated during two years of marketing tease, then some people will still buy because they are waiting to see a bit of price drop and initial bugs fixed, and then it will go back to traditional Pentax sales rate (proportional to market share). But you don't know, I guess, now that the K-1 design is finished, Ricoh engineers are already working on something else, can be APSH, can be a stripped down FF version, can be a next generation APSC camera, can be a mirrorless, who knows.

Kunzite · 05-02-2016, 12:30 PM - **1 Like**

Let's not forget who insisted Pentax should cancel the K-1, as crowds were gathering with their wallets ready.

We presented him very solid arguments against the nonstandard format, over and over again. It's futile.

Nicolas06 · 05-02-2016, 12:38 PM

Originally posted by falconeye

The difference is 1.22EV ±0.5EV and that's a constant.

As much as people now rave about the K-1 and full frame image quality, as much they rave about D500 and how APSC "now" almost matches full frame.

It is more about wishful thinking than anything else. And the newest firmware for JPG processing.

Wrt raw quality, the best DxO low light score (ISO) for APSC currently is 1438 (D5500, 1235 for Pentax K-5II). According to Photographic Dynamic Range versus ISO Setting , the D500 scores 30% better which would be closer to 1900 (personally, I expect it to score around 1600) and in line with the best full frame scores, scaled to APSC.

The constant indeed is log(864/370)/log(2) that is rougly 1.22, I agree.

But the sensors used and the electronics are different. There no constant or law or whatever that explain that sensor performance variation thanks to different technologies have to be +/-0.5EV.

The difference between a K3-II (latest Pentax APSC) and A7s (best FF reviewed by DxO to date) is 1.74EV for Snr18%. So that would still be 1.22EV +/- 0.5EV...

But if we look at the dynamic range, the A7S maintain 8 bit of dynamic range at 45000 isos while on K3 it is 7000. That 2.6EV of difference, quite far from the +/-0.5EV. For the tonal range at 6 bits, we are at 1.83EV...

DxO does raw mesurement, not JPEG so that not the JPEG engine.

Pentax explained how they optimized their FF to use the right substrate, reduce noise and get the best possible results. If their research gave then even just 0.5EV gain compared to what they does on the K3-II, I really want that for the next APSC. And if it is combined with a modern sensor like the Sony one, this maybe grow to 0.7-0.8 EV. Whatever you might think that would be significant improvement, well worth to take...

biz-engineer · 05-02-2016, 02:20 PM

Originally posted by Nicolas06

Pentax explained how they optimized their FF to use the right substrate, reduce noise and get the best possible results.

According to recent publications from ISSCC, and patent here: https://www.google.com/patents/US6853044. Biasing the sensor substrate with other than 0V (refer to latest ISSCC design conference papers) allows more dynamic range without exceeding the breakdown voltage of the PIN junctions. I think it was likely implemented on some of the latest APSC DSLR. But if the same technique is applied to FF sensors, then you are back to square 1, the difference between the better APSC sensor and the better FF sensor remains the same.

D1N0 · 05-02-2016, 02:20 PM

The vignetting on the 50-135 is rectangular. Why is that? I think it is full frame but there is something in the way. uhhhh huhhhh.

MarkJerling · 05-02-2016, 02:25 PM

Originally posted by D1N0

The vignetting on the 50-135 is rectangular. Why is that? I think it is full frame but there is something in the way. uhhhh huhhhh.

The lens hood?

Class A · 05-02-2016, 02:32 PM

Originally posted by MarkJerling

The lens hood?

I was about to ask the same question.

It is not an FF lens, that's for sure.

thibs · 05-02-2016, 02:56 PM

Some food for thoughts: Fuji uses Sony sensors and changes the filter to a non Bayer one but the sensor itself is usual Sony. See the price difference?

Now let's make a custom Pentax only Aps-H and ask ourselves why on earth does it cost 2x a FF sensor price.

The FF adds on ApsH and throws nothing. Furthermore it adds little (reality) and stupidly nothing (marketing-wise) and lastly, a lot of APS lenses would NOT be compatible. Yeah, SR here we are.

What an excellent way of losing on EVERY points.

falconeye · 05-02-2016, 03:50 PM

Originally posted by Nicolas06

There no constant or law or whatever that explain that sensor performance variation thanks to different technologies have to be +/-0.5EV.

Correct.

±0.5EV was a ballpark figure which seems to be rather accurate today (wrt 18% gray noise). It used to be larger in the past and will aproach 0EV in the future, as we approach the limits of physical feasibility.

And as I explained some time ago, please forget that "substrate" nonsense.

D1N0 · 05-02-2016, 03:58 PM

Originally posted by MarkJerling

The lens hood?

Doesn't look like the hood to me:

Winder · 05-02-2016, 04:32 PM

Originally posted by D1N0

Doesn't look like the hood to me:

Does t have a baffle at the rear of the lens?

http://www.photoclubalpha.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/70300gmount.jpg

**Mikesul** · 05-02-2016, 05:05 PM

The DA*50-135 is definitely not a full frame lens. There probably is a baffle on the rear end.

MarkJerling · 05-02-2016, 06:01 PM

Originally posted by Winder

Does t have a baffle at the rear of the lens?

http://www.photoclubalpha.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/70300gmount.jpg

Originally posted by Mikesul

The DA*50-135 is definitely not a full frame lens. There probably is a baffle on the rear end.

I do not believe the DA 50-135 has a baffle at the rear. And, without the lens hood, the vignetting will be regular round. That lens does not have a huge amount of vignetting, so - most likely - it's that lovely deep hood on the front.

05-02-2016, 12:06 PM	#1353
biz-engineer Pentaxian Join Date: Feb 2015 Photos: Gallery Posts: 12,247	Originally posted by RonHendriks1966 To me it is very clear that for Pentax making an aps-h camera would be the better choice. Yes and no. The concept of APSH 24Mpixels (D500 style camera with better IQ), is really appealing for some users, and also could be a very smart business decision if introduced at the right time, and technically could reuse of lot of the K3 type cameras (image processor etc). But, there are some issues. First, the AF of APSC lenses is sluggish, so they'd also need to redesign the lenses AF. Second, who makes APSH sensors without having to pay for a full development? Third, how many resources do they have to deliver a FF camera that many were waiting for to use their old K lenses on it, AND deliver an APSH camera in the meantime, too much to swallow for Pentax IMHO. If K-3II would have been APSH it would have been super (resolving some of the shortcomings of the K3) and making FF transition smooth regarding the immediate need of new format lenses. They struggled like hell to deliver a FF, so I don't really see how they could have squeezed an APSH in between. ---------- Post added 02-05-16 at 21:19 ---------- Originally posted by RonHendriks1966 My thinking is that the K-1 will be on the shelf by the end of may. Finding customers after the summer will be very difficult. K-1 is / going to sell pretty strong from a bubble inflated during two years of marketing tease, then some people will still buy because they are waiting to see a bit of price drop and initial bugs fixed, and then it will go back to traditional Pentax sales rate (proportional to market share). But you don't know, I guess, now that the K-1 design is finished, Ricoh engineers are already working on something else, can be APSH, can be a stripped down FF version, can be a next generation APSC camera, can be a mirrorless, who knows. Last edited by biz-engineer; 05-02-2016 at 12:22 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Pentax K-3 II Officially Announced	Adam	Pentax News and Rumors	1014	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 & K-5 II	50	01-20-2011 10:05 PM

05-02-2016, 11:36 AM	#1351
RonHendriks1966 Banned Join Date: Jan 2009 Photos: Gallery Posts: 9,675	Originally posted by Erictator And that brings me to a couple questions as a reality check for you: The ship has sailt and K-1 it is. But for people with some nice glass that doesn't perform to it maximum on K-1 like 50-135 and 60-250 they have to think if investing in K-1 is their route. They can also stay with aps-c or invest in Nikon ff, since they have to start allover again. The K-1 is already in stock in some places in Europe. Still people are waiting for the pre-order they have with a different store. My thinking is that the K-1 will be on the shelf by the end of may. Finding customers after the summer will be very difficult.

05-02-2016, 11:51 AM	#1352
Erictator Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2011 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,349	That is a total non sequitur! In no way does having some nice APS-C lenses lead to the nonsensical conclusion that you have to either buy more APS-C bodies or jump ship under the fallacy of having to start all over again. You can have your magical APS-H from the K-1, just ignore the unused sensor area! All it will cost you is the price of a K-1. And, with the added benefit of not having wait years, or not having to sell all your excellent DA lenses at a loss to buy a Nkon FF and re-invest in thousands of dollars of pricey Nkon FF glass. Winning! See, I'm there for you buddy! Eric Originally posted by RonHendriks1966 But for people with some nice glass that doesn't perform to it maximum on K-1 like 50-135 and 60-250 they have to think if investing in K-1 is their route. They can also stay with aps-c or invest in Nikon ff, since they have to start allover again.

05-02-2016, 12:30 PM - 1 Like	#1354
Kunzite Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Romania Posts: 15,132	Let's not forget who insisted Pentax should cancel the K-1, as crowds were gathering with their wallets ready. We presented him very solid arguments against the nonstandard format, over and over again. It's futile.

05-02-2016, 12:38 PM	#1355
Nicolas06 Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2013 Posts: 4,854	Originally posted by falconeye The difference is 1.22EV ±0.5EV and that's a constant. As much as people now rave about the K-1 and full frame image quality, as much they rave about D500 and how APSC "now" almost matches full frame. It is more about wishful thinking than anything else. And the newest firmware for JPG processing. Wrt raw quality, the best DxO low light score (ISO) for APSC currently is 1438 (D5500, 1235 for Pentax K-5II). According to Photographic Dynamic Range versus ISO Setting , the D500 scores 30% better which would be closer to 1900 (personally, I expect it to score around 1600) and in line with the best full frame scores, scaled to APSC. The constant indeed is log(864/370)/log(2) that is rougly 1.22, I agree. But the sensors used and the electronics are different. There no constant or law or whatever that explain that sensor performance variation thanks to different technologies have to be +/-0.5EV. The difference between a K3-II (latest Pentax APSC) and A7s (best FF reviewed by DxO to date) is 1.74EV for Snr18%. So that would still be 1.22EV +/- 0.5EV... But if we look at the dynamic range, the A7S maintain 8 bit of dynamic range at 45000 isos while on K3 it is 7000. That 2.6EV of difference, quite far from the +/-0.5EV. For the tonal range at 6 bits, we are at 1.83EV... DxO does raw mesurement, not JPEG so that not the JPEG engine. Pentax explained how they optimized their FF to use the right substrate, reduce noise and get the best possible results. If their research gave then even just 0.5EV gain compared to what they does on the K3-II, I really want that for the next APSC. And if it is combined with a modern sensor like the Sony one, this maybe grow to 0.7-0.8 EV. Whatever you might think that would be significant improvement, well worth to take...

05-02-2016, 02:20 PM	#1356
biz-engineer Pentaxian Join Date: Feb 2015 Photos: Gallery Posts: 12,247	Originally posted by Nicolas06 Pentax explained how they optimized their FF to use the right substrate, reduce noise and get the best possible results. According to recent publications from ISSCC, and patent here: https://www.google.com/patents/US6853044. Biasing the sensor substrate with other than 0V (refer to latest ISSCC design conference papers) allows more dynamic range without exceeding the breakdown voltage of the PIN junctions. I think it was likely implemented on some of the latest APSC DSLR. But if the same technique is applied to FF sensors, then you are back to square 1, the difference between the better APSC sensor and the better FF sensor remains the same.

05-02-2016, 02:20 PM	#1357
D1N0 Pentaxian Join Date: May 2012 Location: --- Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,802	The vignetting on the 50-135 is rectangular. Why is that? I think it is full frame but there is something in the way. uhhhh huhhhh.

05-02-2016, 02:25 PM	#1358
MarkJerling Moderator Site Supporter Join Date: May 2012 Location: Wairarapa, New Zealand Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 20,422	Originally posted by D1N0 The vignetting on the 50-135 is rectangular. Why is that? I think it is full frame but there is something in the way. uhhhh huhhhh. The lens hood?

05-02-2016, 02:32 PM	#1359
Class A Pentaxian Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Wellington, New Zealand Posts: 11,251	Originally posted by MarkJerling The lens hood? I was about to ask the same question. It is not an FF lens, that's for sure.

05-02-2016, 02:56 PM	#1360
thibs Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Belgium Photos: Albums Posts: 7,001	Some food for thoughts: Fuji uses Sony sensors and changes the filter to a non Bayer one but the sensor itself is usual Sony. See the price difference? Now let's make a custom Pentax only Aps-H and ask ourselves why on earth does it cost 2x a FF sensor price. The FF adds on ApsH and throws nothing. Furthermore it adds little (reality) and stupidly nothing (marketing-wise) and lastly, a lot of APS lenses would NOT be compatible. Yeah, SR here we are. What an excellent way of losing on EVERY points.

05-02-2016, 03:50 PM	#1361
falconeye Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Munich, Alps, Germany Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,871	Originally posted by Nicolas06 There no constant or law or whatever that explain that sensor performance variation thanks to different technologies have to be +/-0.5EV. Correct. ±0.5EV was a ballpark figure which seems to be rather accurate today (wrt 18% gray noise). It used to be larger in the past and will aproach 0EV in the future, as we approach the limits of physical feasibility. And as I explained some time ago, please forget that "substrate" nonsense.

05-02-2016, 03:58 PM	#1362
D1N0 Pentaxian Join Date: May 2012 Location: --- Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,802	Originally posted by MarkJerling The lens hood? Doesn't look like the hood to me:

05-02-2016, 04:32 PM	#1363
Winder Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: Tennessee Posts: 6,617	Originally posted by D1N0 Doesn't look like the hood to me: Does t have a baffle at the rear of the lens? http://www.photoclubalpha.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/70300gmount.jpg

05-02-2016, 05:05 PM	#1364
Mikesul Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Phoenix, AZ Posts: 7,594	The DA*50-135 is definitely not a full frame lens. There probably is a baffle on the rear end.

05-02-2016, 06:01 PM	#1365
MarkJerling Moderator Site Supporter Join Date: May 2012 Location: Wairarapa, New Zealand Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 20,422	Originally posted by Winder Does t have a baffle at the rear of the lens? http://www.photoclubalpha.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/70300gmount.jpg Originally posted by Mikesul The DA*50-135 is definitely not a full frame lens. There probably is a baffle on the rear end. I do not believe the DA 50-135 has a baffle at the rear. And, without the lens hood, the vignetting will be regular round. That lens does not have a huge amount of vignetting, so - most likely - it's that lovely deep hood on the front.