[normhead]

It isn't surprising that this is mentioned in a lot of threads -- particularly when people think about a sequel to the K3 II.

The issue is ordinary shooters believing that having a camera capable of shooting sports is a necessary thing. For many it isn't.

Someone asks about a camera. If the first thing is "it doesn't do sports and action as well as some", the odds are pretty good that's irrelevant information. It certainly would be for me. I've gone 10 years without taking a sports image. The only action images I've taken have been to show people here on the forum it can be done.

I find it hard to believe I'm the only one for whom this supposed need for better sports and action performance is vastly overstated.

---

Last edited by normhead; 11-11-2018 at 08:51 AM.

[house]

Long lenses are something that ILCs have over phone cameras and will for the foreseeable future. It isn't surprising that this is mentioned in a lot of threads -- particularly when people think about a sequel to the K3 II.

Yes, clearly telephoto is the most difficult to achieve with a phone and of course a camera system should cover (nearly) all bases. It's just that much of the internet camera media, social or otherwise, seem to be interested in very niche things. With very good specs available across the board other less easily defined qualities should become more important. Handling, complete package experience etc.

The issue is ordinary shooters believing that having a camera capable of shooting sports is a necessary thing. For many it isn't.

Someone asks about a camera. If the first thing is "it doesn't so sports and action as well as some", the odds are pretty good that's irrelevant information. It certainly would be for me. I've gone 10 years without taking a spores image. The only action images I've taken have been to show people here on the forum it can be done.

I find it hard to believe I'm the only one for whom this supposed need for better sports and action performance is vastly overstated.

One everyday thing that does demand good AF or exemplary skill is kids... If you want to reliably take sharp photographs of children you do actually need quite the gear.

[Rondec]

The issue is ordinary shooters believing that having a camera capable of shooting sports is a necessary thing. For many it isn't.

Someone asks about a camera. If the first thing is "it doesn't so sports and action as well as some", the odds are pretty good that's irrelevant information. It certainly would be for me. I've gone 10 years without taking a spores image. The only action images I've taken have been to show people here on the forum it can be done.

I find it hard to believe I'm the only one for whom this supposed need for better sports and action performance is vastly overstated.

Well, I think people are wanting certain features on the K-P to be improved, even if you don't end up with a sports camera.

But honestly, even a camera like the A7 III which, I don't think is targeted at the sports market, could function pretty well against some of the sports cameras of by gone days. We've come an awfully long way in what specifications can be expected of a camera at any price point.

[monochrome]

It doesn't work this way. The shop were I bought the K1, didn't source the KP, nor the K1 mark II, they said that the K1 mark doesn't offer enough improvements so that they can justify the price to customers. And they said that the KP doesn't offer enough size reduction compared to the Fuji and Sony X models, so when a customer is coming from DSLR looking to downsize his kit, they offer Sony and Fuji. The shops have limited shelf space, they craft their offering so that it best address customer concerns. When Ricoh will roll out the GRIII then maybe the shop will source it because the size advantage is more significant then most other camera they already offer. So in fact, releasing products without unique selling proposition is a waste of time and money, and the less differentiation a product has the more effort it require to convince dealer to sell it. It's in this forum that customers assume that the flux of new products is what trigger sales, well, doing this way not necessarily pays off.

They only things retailers in America care about are profit per cubic foot and product turn. Unless they’re like my dealer, who carries a small stock of the major current Pentax products in the back room - for dopes like me - and one rank of shelves in the showroom. He just likes Pentax. Has since he opened his first store in1970.

Besides, I don’t think the member is in America.

---

Last edited by monochrome; 11-11-2018 at 09:50 AM.

[lytrytyr]

If you read @monochrome's comments in context, Pentax is doing exactly what he says, but doing it within the context of DSLR (*).

The issues @monochrome raised are fundamental,
and go far beyond the DSLR question.

But even there, Pentax has been back-pedaling their previous APS-C specialization,
along with their neglect of the 645 line.

[normhead]

But even there, Pentax has been back-pedaling their previous APS-C specialization,
along with their neglect of the 645 line.

Doesn't back-peddling imply they are pulling back, as in reducing the available lens and body catalogue?
Pentax is planning to release lenses that increase the available lenses in the APS-c line and MF line. Back peddling would suggest reducing the catalogue for both.

That's kind of glass is half empty argument. The glass is half full argument would be that with every new lens release, there is additional capability added to an already capable lens line up. The K-p is way more capable than a K-x. A K-3 is way more capable than a K20D. Even in the bodies, there may not be as much choice, but there is constantly improving capability. Back-peddling just isn't an accurate description of what's happening.

Especially since some of us suspect Pentax is holding back right now, so they can have a big 100 year anniversary splash and celebration year.

[biz-engineer]

But even there, Pentax has been back-pedaling their previous APS-C specialization,

If manufacturers would keep the pace of apsc upgrades of 5 years ago, we would now have apsc camera with 100Mpixels and 50 frames per second.
What happened, basically, new apsc models from fuji and sony as MILC, and re-spins of the same camera models by Canon, and the D500 by Nikon, with sensor resolution around 20 - 24Mp.

---

Last edited by biz-engineer; 11-11-2018 at 10:39 AM.

[normhead]

If manufacturers would keep the pace of apsc upgrades of 5 years ago, we would now have apsc camera with 100Mpixels and 50 frames per second.

I've read a couple of papers that claimed APS_c didn't increase resolution after about 50 MP (16 MP in the red spectrum). theoretically. In this case, because of the full size of the receptor sites is less than the size of the actual receptor, it's likely you can't actually get very close to those theoretical limits. APS-c is pretty much optimized for red, yellow and green at 24 MP. Only blue can add resolution beyond that point.

That's a really good reason to go FF 36 MP as opposed to APS-c 28 MP. And also why after 36 MP FF it's good idea to look at 51 MP MF if you need more resolution. I'm sure when Nikon went 42 MP on the D850 they were paying attention to max. resolutions at various spectrums of light and how far they could go while mainitaining a unified composite image with varying degrees of resolution in the different spectrums. It also explains why no one has matched the 51 MP of their FF camera several years later.

The K-3 was delayed 6 months while they worked out the cross talk and other issues with APS-c 24mm, and the accelerator chip is almost certainly the end result of those issues and needing to get them under control, even at 24 MP.

Looking at some of the test shots from the Canon 51 MP, it looks like Canon just plowed ahead ignoring those issues, the same way for years they just ploughed ahead with industry worst dynamic range. They aren't known to be the company most concerned about producing cutting edge image quality. Their focus has been on how you take a picture, not how good it is after you do.

[biz-engineer]

APS-c is pretty much optimized for red, yellow and green at 24 MP. Only blue can add resolution beyond that point.

For sure, diffraction at the bayer array kicks in, which then make the local image look more like a phone image with some ghosting. It seems that the pixel size is that maxes out image quality is around 5um +-1.5um. Some of the newer models of compact / action cameras and smarphone now use sensor with less pixels compared to previous models. I don't remember which phone model, but there was a model with 20Mpixels and the model of 2018 is back down to 12Mp and when I compared images, the 12Mp image was better than the 20Mp image.

[reh321]

The issues @monochrome raised are fundamental,
and go far beyond the DSLR question.

But even there, Pentax has been back-pedaling their previous APS-C specialization,
along with their neglect of the 645 line.

I didn't say anything about APS-C.
The best way to advance in DSLR may be to go FF.

[lytrytyr]

Doesn't back-peddling imply they are pulling back, as in reducing the available lens and body catalogue?

Back-pedaling implies applying the brakes (an old cycling term?),
e.g., not releasing the DA 11-18 ("yet," I will add optimistically!).

[normhead]

Back-pedaling implies applying the brakes (an old cycling term?),
e.g., not releasing the DA 11-14 ("yet," I will add optimistically!).

Which reminds me of learning to ride a bike. I wouldn't put the brakes on because I thought if I did, the bike would go backwards. I eventually slowed as much as I could and grabbed a telephone pole and hung on. Everyone kept yelling "pedal backwards." I thought they were all nuts.

[lytrytyr]

I didn't say anything about APS-C.

You said "DSLR", which used to mean APS-C in Pentaxland,
and the dedicated line of DA lenses to go with that.

The best way to advance in DSLR may be to go FF.

Like Nikon, Canon, etc., so only minor brand differentiation there.

The APS-C DSLRs that Pentax has previously offered,
along with lenses like the DA Limiteds,
have been a good compact alternative to mirrorless cameras.
FF DSLRs won't help advance that compact sector.

[reh321]

You said "DSLR", which used to mean APS-C in Pentaxland,
and the dedicated line of DA lenses to go with that.

But "DSLR" does not have to mean APS-C.
They may have pushed APS-C about as far as I can go.

Like Nikon, Canon, etc., so only minor brand differentiation there.

The APS-C DSLRs that Pentax has previously offered,
along with lenses like the DA Limiteds,
have been a good compact alternative to mirrorless cameras.
FF DSLRs won't help advance that compact sector.

We do not know that. Look how compact my "FF" Super Program was.
Yes, IBIS adds to the size, but we don't know how much it must add.
Canikon doesn't provide a FF DSLR with IBIS.
At one time people thought the K-3 was a minimal APS-C DSLR size - then Pentax came out with the KP.
We don't know yet what Pentax could do if they apply the same thinking to FF.

[reh321]

At one time people thought the K-3 was a minimal APS-C DSLR size - then Pentax came out with the KP.
We don't know yet what Pentax could do if they apply the same thinking to FF.

Regularly we see members here complaining about size of the KP - perhaps Pentax has stood for smaller cameras, but users are willing to accept only so much of that. Often I find myself using my Super Program to "defend" the KP {which is larger than the Super Program}, saying that the body does not have to "balance" a long lens - that with the Super Program I routinely held the lens with one hand and the body with the other ... exactly as would be true with the KP. Perhaps a 24mp FF variant of the KP would be the size of a K-3 .... smaller than the K-1 but not so small as to create the problems users expect to have with a KP.