Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
10-05-2017, 11:17 AM   #586
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 18,590
QuoteOriginally posted by wjjstu Quote
A hypothetical Pentax APS mirrorless cam in 2011 could have easily used the imaging pipeline and firmware/menu system from the K-5 at the time as its base with other bits like new contrast detect AF (as developed for the Q) bolted on.

The Q is effectively abandoned anyway. It's getting close to 4 years without anything new or a peep from Ricoh. I mean Nikon hasn't said their 1 system is dead either but most people consider it dead and that system comes from a bigger manufacturer and has had a more recent new product release than the Q.
I suppose. I don't feel like that is where the cost is coming from, but I'm not an expert for these sorts of things either.

10-05-2017, 11:31 AM - 3 Likes   #587
Pentaxian
Mistral75's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Paris
Posts: 3,623
QuoteOriginally posted by wjjstu Quote
A hypothetical Pentax APS mirrorless cam in 2011 could have easily used the imaging pipeline and firmware/menu system from the K-5 at the time as its base with other bits like new contrast detect AF (as developed for the Q) bolted on.

(...)
There has been such a camera actually. It was announced, not in 2011 but on February 2, 2012. Its name was Pentax K-01.
10-05-2017, 12:59 PM   #588
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Romania
Posts: 11,033
QuoteOriginally posted by wjjstu Quote
As Pentax did before in the same way that the AF/software/firmware developed for APS DSLR's got re-used in its larger 645-based cousin to cut down on development costs. Why don't you explain to me how designing a small sensor MILC system from scratch requires much less funding than developing a large sensor MILC system from scratch? They had to design new camera bodies, new mount, new glass, and new contrast detect AF system either way.
Just claiming that things are easy don't make them so.
Things are not being equal. A large sensor MILC body is not a glorified compact like the Q; the AF is not the same, the lenses are not the same.

It makes no sense to believe that Pentax had the choice of competing in the large sensor MILC arena but decided to make the Q instead.
But the best hint you could get is that in 2011 Pentax wasn't allowed to launch even one K-mount product.
10-05-2017, 02:50 PM   #589
Senior Member




Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 181
QuoteOriginally posted by Kunzite Quote
Just claiming that things are easy don't make them so.
Things are not being equal. A large sensor MILC body is not a glorified compact like the Q; the AF is not the same, the lenses are not the same.

It makes no sense to believe that Pentax had the choice of competing in the large sensor MILC arena but decided to make the Q instead.
But the best hint you could get is that in 2011 Pentax wasn't allowed to launch even one K-mount product.
CDAF is a computer algorithm not voodoo magic. It takes input from the sensor, does work, and produces output for the AF drive system. In a properly modular design it can be re-used in different devices (and Pentax's camera platform does appear to be modular enough for them to re-use things). What you're saying is like saying a sorting algorithm on a smartphone costs less than a sorting algorithm on a supercomputer because of reasons. Plus as somebody else pointed out, they did end up doing a bastardized version of it for the K-01. The whole Q/K-01 program just seemed like a huge waste in resource allocation, one-offs in trying to be different, and both now abandoned.

No K products in 2011 is irrelevant. They were allowed to launch the entirely new Q mount with cameras and lenses.

10-05-2017, 03:03 PM   #590
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Romania
Posts: 11,033
The CDAF of a compact works with different parameters than that of a large sensor camera. Sorting algorithms used on supercomputers might be quite different than that used on smartphones; at least smartphones don't pose problems with vectorization and parallelism. As for "cost" I'm probably thinking of some different meaning than what you have in mind...

FTR the K-01 wasn't the slowest focusing mirrorless of it's time.

No K products in 2011 is very relevant, it shows that they were operating under some tight constraints.
10-05-2017, 03:56 PM   #591
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: mid nth coast,nsw
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,801
QuoteOriginally posted by wjjstu Quote
voodoo magic
Oh, heres me believing it was!
10-05-2017, 04:14 PM - 2 Likes   #592
Pentaxian
photoptimist's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2016
Photos: Albums
Posts: 2,648
QuoteOriginally posted by wjjstu Quote
CDAF is a computer algorithm not voodoo magic. It takes input from the sensor, does work, and produces output for the AF drive system. In a properly modular design it can be re-used in different devices (and Pentax's camera platform does appear to be modular enough for them to re-use things). What you're saying is like saying a sorting algorithm on a smartphone costs less than a sorting algorithm on a supercomputer because of reasons. Plus as somebody else pointed out, they did end up doing a bastardized version of it for the K-01. The whole Q/K-01 program just seemed like a huge waste in resource allocation, one-offs in trying to be different, and both now abandoned.

No K products in 2011 is irrelevant. They were allowed to launch the entirely new Q mount with cameras and lenses.
Yes, basic CDAF is very simple but it's slow and it hunts a lot. Fast and accurate CDAF is voodoo magic.

Good CDAF depends on choosing a sensor, designing the read-out, and writing data handling algorithms that are much more like those used for video than for still photography because CDAF depends on fast frame rates and fast processing of the framestream. Given that Pentax explicitly picks higher DR over higher framerates for sensors and deprioritizes video in general, they are much less likely to be able to easily create fast CDAF.

BTW, modular design is the last thing you want for fast, real-time CDAF. All the code for sensor operations, frame-stream processing, AF estimation, and lens motor control need to be very tightly coupled to eliminate latency and to choreograph everything with respect to everything else. Modular may be less costly to write, easier to debug, and easier to reuse but it is much slower.
10-05-2017, 04:45 PM   #593
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: mid nth coast,nsw
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,801
QuoteOriginally posted by photoptimist Quote
is voodoo magic.
Everywhere?....seems to be popping up!

10-05-2017, 05:11 PM - 3 Likes   #594
Pentaxian
johnmflores's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Somerville, NJ
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,264
QuoteOriginally posted by RGlasel Quote
Exactly.

The ILC market would be a small fraction of its already diminished size if hobbyist photographers only replaced their equipment when it either quit working or there was new technology that truly enhanced their photographs. There are new buyers who want to take up photography as a hobby and there are emerging global markets where increased disposable income is generating new buyers for photographic equipment, but those people are too few to make a big difference in year to year industry trends. All the marketing and R&D efforts aimed at new buyers won't move the needle enough to justify the expense. Basically, to stay in the photographic equipment manufacturing business requires appealing to the kind of people who would check out PentaxForums if they wanted to get more out of their Pentax equipment.

As for Ricoh's lack of activity since the beginning of this year, don't forget that the photocopier business is stagnant and Ricoh replaced its CEO because it was becoming obvious that the company was about to hit a brick wall. In those kind of conditions, the bar for getting internal capital to launch new products that aren't essential to the company's core business is set much higher than it was in 2016.
QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
I refuse to believe that people truly interested in photography will be satisfied with the fake blur that these cameras offer. Yes, they satisfy, but they satisfy in the same way that instagram and snapchat filters do and if people are interested in "better" images, they will eventually move away from cell phone cameras.
QuoteOriginally posted by Kunzite Quote
@johnmflores:
Good answer... how did we get to the L16 in the first place?

Computational photography is an interesting subject, but I'm not seeing any proof that it could replace "traditional" photography in the next years. What I'm seeing is potential for improvements addressed to those already using a smartphone, and making them better as a compact camera replacement.
OTOH I'm rather interested in what can - and should - be done with ILCs. As Rondec said, faking it is no good, and there's no added value for us.

How could you be realistic when you admitted the impossibility to predict the future? People predicting more than 5 years ago that MILCs would replace DSLRs thought they were realistic, too... but it's the enthusiasm speaking, not realism. It's the "I want that, faster".
IMHO technology should be promoted (or discussed) without declaring it a "winner" a priori - or without declaring the competing, existing, working technologies "losers". Just on its technical merits.
No, computational photography as seen in phones is not likely to convince users of this forum to give up their cameras and nice glass, but it may convince a whole bunch of phone users that they don't need to upgrade to a costly and bulky ILC after all.

That's the continued risk of improving phones.
10-05-2017, 05:22 PM   #595
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: mid nth coast,nsw
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,801
QuoteOriginally posted by johnmflores Quote
That's the continued risk of improving phones.
Next year@ CES, will see the rumoured new Samsung, it may be the one with the sensor size the same as Q7/QS1???...only online rumours at this stage but they seem reasonable.
10-05-2017, 07:07 PM   #596
Pentaxian
johnmflores's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Somerville, NJ
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,264
QuoteOriginally posted by surfar Quote
Next year@ CES, will see the rumoured new Samsung, it may be the one with the sensor size the same as Q7/QS1???...only online rumours at this stage but they seem reasonable.
My Q7 with the 01 Prime used to be my constant companion. But I leave it home now because my Samsung shoots stills that are nearly as good and video that is considerably better and has a touch screen that is much bigger, brighter, and higher resolution. I still haven't used the Samsung for a paid assignment but I've thought about it...
10-05-2017, 07:47 PM - 1 Like   #597
Moderator
Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
MarkJerling's Avatar

Join Date: May 2012
Location: Wairarapa, New Zealand
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 9,163
My daughter has just gone from a phone to a large, heavy SLR. One of my (several) SFX bodies and a couple of lenses. Film is making a comeback it seems - lots of her student friends are shooting film now. There's no telling what the future holds.
10-05-2017, 09:46 PM - 1 Like   #598
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: mid nth coast,nsw
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,801
QuoteOriginally posted by MarkJerling Quote
Film is making a comeback it seems
It didnt go away,just had a bit of a holiday!
10-05-2017, 10:42 PM   #599
Pentaxian




Join Date: Feb 2015
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 4,868
QuoteOriginally posted by photoptimist Quote
Modular may be less costly to write, easier to debug, and easier to reuse but it is much slower.
I don't see reuse of XQD modules being slower than reuse of UHS-I modules
10-06-2017, 01:46 AM - 1 Like   #600
Moderator
Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
MarkJerling's Avatar

Join Date: May 2012
Location: Wairarapa, New Zealand
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 9,163
QuoteOriginally posted by surfar Quote
It didnt go away,just had a bit of a holiday!
Yup. A bit like records.
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!
3d, business, businesses, camera, cameras, company, components, devices, environment, equipment, f2.8, figures, i.e, images, lenses, money, pentax, pentax news, pentax rumors, people, period, photography, products, profit, q1, ricoh, semiconductor, vision
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Nikon's Year (Financial Results) - an analysis interested_observer Non-Pentax Cameras: Canon, Nikon, etc. 10 05-13-2017 05:49 AM
Ricoh Financial results - FY2017/03 Kunzite Pentax News and Rumors 373 04-28-2017 06:10 AM
Sony financial results - A7 etc. camera collapse with interesting insights beholder3 Photographic Industry and Professionals 29 12-10-2016 01:55 AM
Ricoh Imaging is not doomed (or: Ricoh Financial Results Q1 2016) Kunzite Pentax News and Rumors 69 10-24-2015 10:31 AM
Pentax Financial results Q1 FY14 Zav Pentax News and Rumors 38 08-20-2013 05:44 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:10 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