[reh321]

If Sony bought Pentax they would actually have WR cameras and Pentax colours which apparently Sony users lust after... and we would have AF that worked :P

My KP nails focus, both with 18-135 and with 55-300 PLM.

---

Last edited by reh321; 02-01-2019 at 04:21 PM.

[BigMackCam]

The entry level is sort of dying. There is a slow, creeping cancer called cell phones that is eating away at the entry level, killing it by degrees with every new release from Samsung, Huawei and Apple.

I tend to agree, and yet... We - and the brands / manufacturers - would do well to acknowledge (or continue to acknowledge) the difference between "entry level" and "accessible". No matter how committed an enthusiast photographer may be, he or she simply might not be able to justify spending $3k+ on a DSLR or mirrorless camera, and $6k+ on maybe three or four lenses. Most folks just don't have that kind of money to burn on photography as a hobby. Professionals, sure - but hobbyists? Not that many. Most folks would be much happier spending $1k - $2k on a body with good, if not class-leading, specification and features, and $500 - $1,000 per lens, or less. That doesn't mean they're any less committed to their hobby... only that their personal circumstances don't allow for a ~$10k investment in gear. They still want the ability to take outstanding photos, but they can't justify that sort of expense. Of course, they can go to the used market if need be...

[reh321]

I tend to agree, and yet... We - and the brands / manufacturers - would do well to acknowledge (or continue to acknowledge) the difference between "entry level" and "accessible". No matter how committed an enthusiast photographer may be, he or she simply might not be able to justify spending $3k+ on a DSLR or mirrorless camera, and $6k+ on maybe three or four lenses. Most folks just don't have that kind of money to burn on photography as a hobby. Professionals, sure - but hobbyists? Not that many. Most folks would be much happier spending $1k - $2k on a body with good, if not class-leading, specification and features, and $500 - $1,000 per lens, or less. That doesn't mean they're any less committed to their hobby... only that their personal circumstances don't allow for a ~$10k investment in gear. They still want the ability to take outstanding photos, but they can't justify that sort of expense. Of course, they can go to the used market if need be...

That exactly describes me. In the fifty years since I purchased my first 35mm camera, I have never spent more than $700 for a camera kit (*). I thought I would have to raise that implicit limit to include a KP - then Black Friday came!!



(*) I don't remember ever spending more than $500 on a separate lens

[nocturnal]

I am extremely pleased with how the 18-135 works on my KP {I purchased my first Pentax in 1979)

I wasn't saying it was a bad lens or anything and I'm sure you have a ton of glass to use on it. I meant people who bought a K-70 18-135 kit and won't be buying any more lenses. There were quite a few on Black Friday etc.... Non Pentaxians.

[Wheatfield]

I tend to agree, and yet... We - and the brands / manufacturers - would do well to acknowledge (or continue to acknowledge) the difference between "entry level" and "accessible". No matter how committed an enthusiast photographer may be, he or she simply might not be able to justify spending $3k+ on a DSLR or mirrorless camera, and $6k+ on maybe three or four lenses. Most folks just don't have that kind of money to burn on photography as a hobby. Professionals, sure - but hobbyists? Not that many. Most folks would be much happier spending $1k - $2k on a body with good, if not class-leading, specification and features, and $500 - $1,000 per lens, or less. That doesn't mean they're any less committed to their hobby... only that their personal circumstances don't allow for a ~$10k investment in gear. They still want the ability to take outstanding photos, but they can't justify that sort of expense. Of course, they can go to the used market if need be...

The thing is, all that has to happen is for enough of the people who would normally be the entry level customer to be satisfied with what their phone can do for them. Hollow out the market segment enough and it will collapse. Look what happened to the P&S market. I’m sure there are still people who would prefer one, but enough people were satisfied with their phones that sales in that market (which was at the time the real entry level) dwindled until it wasn’t financially viable for manufacturers to keep producing.
Entry level is volume dependent. The manufacturer is trading unit profit for volume sales, and gambling that the entry level user will go upscale at some point, as that is where the real margins are. Take away enough unit sales and the market collapses simply because the margins aren’t there to support the lower volume.

Here’s an example. Let’s use sedans as an example, since automobile metaphors seem popular. I’m going to use North America as the marketplace because this is where the trend is.
Treat the compact sedan as the entry level market, the mid sized sport utility as the next tier up, and from there luxury cars and light trucks as the upscale market.

In North America, Ford is out of the entry level market entirely. They have stopped producing sedans in North America. I believe that GM hs shuttered the plant that makes their small sedan, the Cruz, as well. Why is this? Partly because they can’t compete on quality and price with the Japanese and Korean makers, but primarily because the market for small cars has shrunk to the point that making them in North America is no longer viable. People here seem attracted to larger vehicles, and this is sport utility and larger.

Where I am, fully half the vehicles on the road are half ton or larger trucks. The Ford F-150 is the best selling vehicle in the USA and Canada, with the Dodge Ram and GM trucks in second and third place, though not necessarily in the order I mentioned.
Sport utes and minivans make up a very large proportion of vehicles, while sedans and coupes are on the road, though generally hidden behind larger vehicles.

As an aside:
My boss drives a Hyundai Elantra. Today he was parked beside my truck (a Nissan Titan Diesel). I noted as I climbed up into my truck that my floorboard is taller than his wheels.

Anyway, what’s my point you might ask? To which I would reply that I’ve kind of forgotten.
Oh yes, my point is that demand doesn’t have to dry up completely, it just has to dry up enough to make the product, whatever it is, financially unviable.
It also pushes a market upscale. Bigger vehicles, for example, command a higher price tag. A fully equipped F150 series truck will run 75K or more. It doesn’t matter how much lipstick you apply to an entry level sedan chassis, it would be pretty hard to get people to pay 75K for it.’

As always, the used market can provide very good value across a broad range of products, cars and cameras included. Some stuff holds it’s value fairly well, some doesn’t, and how depreciation affects things differs. For example, I am totally shocked at how fast my truck has devalued. Well over 50% in two years, and I expect at the moment that I am somewhat underwater on it. Cameras depreciate the same way for the most part, lenses seem to do somewhat better.

I’m babbling.

[wkraus]

Where do you get this from?When I got a professional to scan some Kodachrome 35mm slides for me, 6mp scans got every bit of detail present. I really doubt Velvia was that much better.

50MP for 35mm film... no chance, where do you get your info from? 50MP from Pentax 67 system is possible, is that what you mean?

Probably simplifying things a lot: The K-1 with its 36 MP has 7360 pixels over its 35,9mm sensor length. That is 205 pixels per mm, so at best 102,5 line pairs per mm. Velvia 50 is rated 160 line pairs per mm. That's all. I don't doubt that the apparent sharpness of digital shots may be higher and they are much cleaner at low ISO, but the pure resolving power of low speed film is hard to beat.

Edit: And while I'm OT, a practical example. I'm digitizing 24x36 negs and slides with the K-1 in Pixelshift mode using an extremely high resolution 1:1 industrial lens from Schneider Kreuznach. I get an effective resolution of about 5000 ppi. On high-resolution copy film I find that the Hasselblad Flextight X1 scanner with its 6300 dpi is able to resolve tiny details that the K-1 with one of the best lenses that money can buy for this purpose just doesn't see. (With normal B&W and colour film I prefer the output from the K-1 and it is much faster.) Back on topic (almost): I did not note which lens I used long ago to make the test shots on the copy film that I used for the comparison but I know for sure it was a 1980s lens.

[Larrymc]

Sony have literally been in the camera business for decades...

Video cameras maybe. Refresh our memory regarding a ILC camera, please.

[reh321]

Probably simplifying things a lot: The K-1 with its 36 MP has 7360 pixels over its 35,9mm sensor length. That is 205 pixels per mm, so at best 102,5 line pairs per mm. Velvia 50 is rated 160 line pairs per mm. That's all. I don't doubt that the apparent sharpness of digital shots may be higher and they are much cleaner at low ISO, but the pure resolving power of low speed film is hard to beat.

Edit: And while I'm OT, a practical example. I'm digitizing 24x36 negs and slides with the K-1 in Pixelshift mode using an extremely high resolution 1:1 industrial lens from Schneider Kreuznach. I get an effective resolution of about 5000 ppi. On high-resolution copy film I find that the Hasselblad Flextight X1 scanner with its 6300 dpi is able to resolve tiny details that the K-1 with one of the best lenses that money can buy for this purpose just doesn't see. (With normal B&W and colour film I prefer the output from the K-1 and it is much faster.) Back on topic (almost): I did not note which lens I used long ago to make the test shots on the copy film that I used for the comparison but I know for sure it was a 1980s lens.

What I know for certain is that the Pentax-A 50mm f/1.7 lens kitted with my Super Program in 1983 gives sharper photos {determined by seeing which true details are recorded} mounted on my 16mp K-30 than I ever got when using the same lens mounted on my Super Program loaded with Kodachrome 25.

To answer the original question ..... I would be perfectly willing to use an old film lens with a K-1; I am sure it could out-resolve my eyes since I choose not to pixel-peak.

If @Adam had given me a K-1, initially I would have had to use an old film lens - most likely a FA 28-105 - as its primary lens, since I just didn't have the funds available to purchase a whole new set of DFA lenses .... and I don't believe I would have been showing any disrespect to his 'gift'.

[nocturnal]

Probably simplifying things a lot: The K-1 with its 36 MP has 7360 pixels over its 35,9mm sensor length. That is 205 pixels per mm, so at best 102,5 line pairs per mm. Velvia 50 is rated 160 line pairs per mm. That's all. I don't doubt that the apparent sharpness of digital shots may be higher and they are much cleaner at low ISO, but the pure resolving power of low speed film is hard to beat.

Edit: And while I'm OT, a practical example. I'm digitizing 24x36 negs and slides with the K-1 in Pixelshift mode using an extremely high resolution 1:1 industrial lens from Schneider Kreuznach. I get an effective resolution of about 5000 ppi. On high-resolution copy film I find that the Hasselblad Flextight X1 scanner with its 6300 dpi is able to resolve tiny details that the K-1 with one of the best lenses that money can buy for this purpose just doesn't see. (With normal B&W and colour film I prefer the output from the K-1 and it is much faster.) Back on topic (almost): I did not note which lens I used long ago to make the test shots on the copy film that I used for the comparison but I know for sure it was a 1980s lens.

Interesting, I still have all my darkroom equipment etc. developed my own B&W film etc. so I find this great. I have 2 Schneider Kreuznach enlarger lenses.

What I don't get is the advice that says don't enlarge bigger than 13" (around 10x negative enlargement) with 35mm film and I have made 30" x 20" prints with a 16MP K-30 camera in stunning detail (printing done by a professional lab).

I have seen so many graphs/results stating max 35mm film max performance is the equivalent to around 12 - 16 MP

Regarding your lppm statistics though, the best performance from legacy lenses as tested by yoshihiko, the maximum possible result from a 50mm macro lens was 110 lppm (line pairs per mm), well below that stated by you of Velvia as 160 lppm.

The better non-macro lenses score around 98lppm, and if the K1 scores 102.5 lppm for max resolution then there we have it, the better legacy lenses can just about resolve but not out-resolve (exception of 50 macro) the 36MP K1 sensor!

Check out the resolution tests below:

http://www.takinami.com/yoshihiko/photo/lens_test/pentax_normal.html

---------- Post added 02-02-19 at 01:46 AM ----------

What I know for certain is that the Pentax-A 50mm f/1.7 lens kitted with my Super Program in 1983 gives sharper photos {determined by seeing which true details are recorded} mounted on my 16mp K-30 than I ever got when using the same lens mounted on my Super Program loaded with Kodachrome 25.

I suppose details are lost depending on the film development process (high acutance vs low acutance solutions), resolution lost through the enlargement lens, paper development etc. etc.

vs

Digital pixel peeping where what you see is exactly what the sensor recorded with zero loss.

[monochrome]

Ten years ago there were vigorous discussion threads here and Photo.net and other forums on the subject of whether the FA35/2 was a good substitute for the FA31/1.8 Limited for those with tight budgets. In general the FA35/2 was judged an outstanding optic, sharp, colorful and yes, a worthy compromise.

I’m disheartened to read the same lens with better coatings questioned as a valid offering by Pentax. I owned one before I bought my 31 and to my way of thinking Pentax has actually provided a fine FF wide angle for those who don’t have $800 for the best wide in the current catalog. We should be applauding them for not just trashing the machines and moving on.

[c.a.m]

We should be applauding them for not just trashing the machines and moving on.

Hear, Hear. I totally agree. I would bet that many fine pictures will be taken with the HD FA 35/2.

[northcoastgreg]

I wonder how much Pentax DNA you and other folks think is in the K-3II, KP and K-1II, besides the mount and the brand name?

I don't think either Ricoh or Hoya messed with the Pentax DNA. On their current website, I find the following:

Even though the noise of RAW-format image data was reduced, the goal of ISO 204800, two steps higher than a top sensitivity of the PENTAX K-3 and PENTAX K-5, was still very difficult to reach. An engineer in charge of image processing spent most of his time fine-tuning a new noise-processing technology. The PENTAX image processing team believed that, by improving this technology, they could effectively eliminate the low-frequency noise, which is more noticeable in high-sensitivity photography.

If the team members had been concerned about the numeral assessment alone, they could have easily attained high sensitivity by suppressing all types of noise. The result, however, would have been flat images not only free of noise, but lacking in details and gradation. In scenic photography, for instance, every leaf of a tree should have subtle textures and its own original pattern. Even in high-sensitivity photography, he could not lose texture and reality by making the image too flat. What counted most was not the numerical values, but a good balance in the noise-processing stage that could make the most of the exceptional imaging power delivered by 36.4 effective megapixels.

This is all part of Pentax's traditional philosophy, of the company's conviction that image quality cannot be solely defined by numerical assessment, that we find, for example, in Jun Hirakawa's white paper on the FA 77. It's still there after all these years. I see this philosophy played out in the image processing of Pentax cameras and in the rendering of the lenses. I've also shot Olympus m43, and the images are just not as good as what I get out of Pentax gear. Anything much higher than ISO 400 with Olympus is often flat and dry and uninspired in its rendering and color, probably because Olympus is trying to artificially reduce noise in order to get higher ISO scores over at dxomark. I had a local photographer who shoots Sony FF email me asking how I created images that had a certain kind of smoothness to them while still be sharp. She sent me some images from her Sony taken with the 50mm macro, and I was shocked at how flat they were. In the design of the 50 macro, Sony was catering to the review sites, which care only about measurements, because that's "scientific" and "objective."

Incidentally, Minolta, like Pentax, historically looked to Leica as their model for lens design. In fact, Minolta designed at least one lens for Leica's R system. I don't find any part of that legacy left at Sony. As far as I can make out, Sony lenses are designed to score well on resolution tests, not to render beautifully like Minolta lenses of old.

[monochrome]

I don't think either Ricoh or Hoya messed with the Pentax DNA. On their current website, I find the following:



This is all part of Pentax's traditional philosophy, of the company's conviction that image quality cannot be solely defined by numerical assessment, that we find, for example, in Jun Hirakawa's white paper on the FA 77. It's still there after all these years. I see this philosophy played out in the image processing of Pentax cameras and in the rendering of the lenses. I've also shot Olympus m43, and the images are just not as good as what I get out of Pentax gear. Anything much higher than ISO 400 with Olympus is often flat and dry and uninspired in its rendering and color, probably because Olympus is trying to artificially reduce noise in order to get higher ISO scores over at dxomark. I had a local photographer who shoots Sony FF email me asking how I created images that had a certain kind of smoothness to them while still be sharp. She sent me some images from her Sony taken with the 50mm macro, and I was shocked at how flat they were. In the design of the 50 macro, Sony was catering to the review sites, which care only about measurements, because that's "scientific" and "objective."

Incidentally, Minolta, like Pentax, historically looked to Leica as their model for lens design. In fact, Minolta designed at least one lens for Leica's R system. I don't find any part of that legacy left at Sony. As far as I can make out, Sony lenses are designed to score well on resolution tests, not to render beautifully like Minolta lenses of old.

As I recall it, Jun Hirakawa was ‘retired’ by the President of Pentax (son of the Chairman of Hoya - who chose K-7 for the new platform as a nod to the mountain) because Hirakawa refused to design lenses explicitly to score high on the objective tests. He held to the quality of the final image as the design standard.

[alcstudios]

Video cameras maybe. Refresh our memory regarding a ILC camera, please.

Sony's first ILC was launched in 2005 or 2006. Does it matter who has done it longer or who has done it better?

[BigMackCam]

I don't think either Ricoh or Hoya messed with the Pentax DNA. On their current website, I find the following:

...

This is all part of Pentax's traditional philosophy, of the company's conviction that image quality cannot be solely defined by numerical assessment, that we find, for example, in Jun Hirakawa's white paper on the FA 77. It's still there after all these years. I see this philosophy played out in the image processing of Pentax cameras and in the rendering of the lenses. I've also shot Olympus m43, and the images are just not as good as what I get out of Pentax gear. Anything much higher than ISO 400 with Olympus is often flat and dry and uninspired in its rendering and color, probably because Olympus is trying to artificially reduce noise in order to get higher ISO scores over at dxomark. I had a local photographer who shoots Sony FF email me asking how I created images that had a certain kind of smoothness to them while still be sharp. She sent me some images from her Sony taken with the 50mm macro, and I was shocked at how flat they were. In the design of the 50 macro, Sony was catering to the review sites, which care only about measurements, because that's "scientific" and "objective."

There are certainly some products in the current catalogue that contain Pentax DNA, but these were developed in the days before Hoya - the FA and DA Limited lenses, for instance. Has the philosophy behind their design continued? I don't see that it has. Indeed, I'm not sure what the market and photography press would make of it if Ricoh designed a completely new lens with the optical qualities of, say, the FA43 today. Many of us here might applaud it - I certainly would - but it would hardly meet the demands of folks who want edge to edge sharpness and almost zero CA at maximum aperture. Hence we have a new lens - the D*FA 50mm f/1.4 which keeps everyone happy (optically, at least) - sharp edge to edge at f/1.4, minimal aberrations, beautiful out-of-focus rendering. Then we have zoom lenses produced in co-operation with Tamron that are undoubtedly excellent, but have more of Tamron's DNA in them than Pentax. No bad thing, since they're excellent.

I'd like to believe there's strong Pentax DNA in recent products, but I fear that's a romantic notion. That doesn't make me any less of a fan, though... I love what Ricoh has done so far, and I look forward to more of it

Incidentally, Minolta, like Pentax, historically looked to Leica as their model for lens design. In fact, Minolta designed at least one lens for Leica's R system. I don't find any part of that legacy left at Sony. As far as I can make out, Sony lenses are designed to score well on resolution tests, not to render beautifully like Minolta lenses of old.

Sony's lens catalogue, whilst extensive (arguably to the point of bloating), has striking similarities to Pentax. There are lenses that are simply re-clothed versions of old Minolta models (some excellent, others not quite so by modern standards)... others that are re-badged and re-clothed Tamron designs... still others that are intended to be sharp edge to edge yet offering beautiful out-of-focus rendering (several of the Sony G and Zeiss models, for example). Sure, there are some Sony lenses that do well on resolution tests but aren't so great on out-of-focus rendering. I guess the difference with Pentax is, those models wouldn't make it to market... So I do see a distinction there.