[reh321]

I just see my brand loosing more and more forward momentum and overall appeal ... I find it regrettable and quite avoidable.

so, if you want to complain as a stockholder, go ahead.
As a customer, my way of voting is with my pocketbook.

[Jean Poitiers]

so, if you want to complain as a stockholder, go ahead.
As a customer, my way of voting is with my pocketbook.

Me, too ... and my recent votes are not heading a lot in the Pentax direction ... which I am afraid will be a growing trend for many in the future.

I find it regrettable the old adage that "The Customer is King" seems to have fallen to the wayside in the Pentax mindset.

[BarneyL]

The alternative was to show nothing.

This sounds a bit depressing, doesn't it?

But I guess that's just how it goes in the Pentax land.

[Kunzite]

This sounds a bit depressing, doesn't it?

But I guess that's just how it goes in the Pentax land.

That is reality; no point in hiding from it.
And... I guess the reason for the gap since the K-1ii is that they decided to prioritize the new generation of cameras, rather than launching some "filler". Not so depressing after all

[reh321]

Me, too ... and my recent votes are not heading a lot in the Pentax direction ... which I am afraid will be a growing trend for many in the future.

I find it regrettable the old adage that "The Customer is King" seems to have fallen to the wayside in the Pentax mindset.

not necessarily.
Pentax really does seem to be designing cameras that can give fun to customers.

[ThorSanchez]

so, if you want to complain as a stockholder, go ahead.
As a customer, my way of voting is with my pocketbook.

Companies would like to know ahead of time what their potential customers are thinking. Otherwise they're just guessing, and I'm sure they'd rather not have the feedback on their new idea be nobody buys it after three years and $millions in development costs.

[Starpacer]

Beyond which, a 100 megapixel full frame camera is going to be diffraction limited to f4.I don't care if Pentax bumps up megapixels into the 40 to 60 range, but I really hope they don't go crazy with all of these things. And no, I don't think "the rest of the world" is shooting with 100 megapixel cameras -- or will be in a couple of years for that matter.

Yes, I didn't mean to imply (even though I said exactly this) that 'everyone' is shooting 100MP - what I meant was that, 6-8 years from now, photographers who are trying to produce the absolute best images are going to be using 100MP+ sensors. That group is probably a very small fraction of 'everyone'... I'm essentially thinking of someone who would have been using a 4x5 camera 20 years ago. Point is, I don't think that Pentax aims to keep up, and as others have said, they probably don't have the resources (money, people) to do so even if they wanted to.


I didn't necessarily have this feeling when I bought my K1. With the K1, when released, I felt that I had a camera that was equal to and in most cases superior to every other DSLR available at the time - basically the same sensor as the Nikon D810 at half the price... I don't see a Pentax camera coming that will make me feel that way, given where Pentax is relative to everyone else. That's the crux of my point.

Regarding the diffraction limit at 100MP - absolutely true, a 100MP 'full frame' (24x36) sensor would be pointless (would be diffraction limited at f/4 as you say). Part of where I'm coming from is that there are now other alternatives to the conventional '35mm DSLR' cameras, in packages that are smaller and lighter. The Fuji GFX 100s is actually LIGHTER than a Pentax K1 and uses a 33x44mm array, so the pixel pitch is 3.75 microns, yes that's smaller than the 4.9 micron pitch on the K1, but still usable. By my math, that array would be diffraction limited at f/5.6-f/8 depending on your method.

I'm actually an electo-optical engineer and have always used a simple "two samples per PSF (blur spot)" to choose optics. However, I recently had a project where someone pointed out to me that there can be high-frequency information in the PSF of a lens that can require FOUR samples per 'blur spot' to capture all of the information available (depends on the MTF of the lens). If you believe that logic, and I think it is true for some lenses, then the 100MP array starts to make even more sense.

[reh321]

Companies would like to know ahead of time what their potential customers are thinking. Otherwise they're just guessing, and I'm sure they'd rather not have the feedback on their new idea be nobody buys it after three years and $millions in development costs.

I am quite certain that Pentax has personal contact with Japanese photographers,
and they do have a good understanding ‘ahead of time’ how they {their primary market} will react.
My reaction is purely “gravy” to them.

[lytrytyr]

Try putting the DA 35/2.8 Macro Limited on a Q body. You might find it does the job quite nicely.

Been there, done that.

When I say "convenient", I mean not having to focus at full aperture and then stop down to shoot. That's too slow when you're chasing bug-on-bug action.

[RobA_Oz]

Well, Mr. Ferrang from RI Europe had said it was typical to take 14-18 months to develop a DSLR, with MILCs needing about half a year less. If we assume that the K-1iii will reuse most (if not all) of the electronics present in the K-3iii we might indeed be looking at the shorter end of the range (so late-ish 2022?).

I’ve wondered for a while exactly what he meant by that statement, mainly whether or not he was talking about a completely new product, in each case. The new pentaprism in the K-3iii I can see would have taken greater effort, mainly because of the different medium used, but also because of the change in viewfinder information projection. Aside from that, the difference between the two systems is largely about the mirror and separate AF input components in the case of the DSLR, versus the EVF and on-sensor AF inputs for the MILC. Both require firmware changes, of course. If you aren’t making great changes in those areas (and the K-3iii certainly has them) I can’t see there needing an additional six months in the case of the DSLR, but perhaps I’m understating the effort needed. As you point out, the changes to the K-3iii are almost certain to be scaled up for the K-1ii replacement (and maybe for the 645Z replacement, assuming there is one), which should shorten the development time, unless there are other big developments to come.

[Wheatfield]

Makes you wonder how photographers of old took the world famous shots they did with such old tech. They didn't even have 200+ focus points!

I don't think this is quite fair.

Equipment changes make for expectation changes. Quite honestly, it's pretty doubtful that a guy standing on the sidelines of a football game with a 4x5 Speed Graphic would be taking the kind of pictures that the editors of Sports Illustrated are expecting to publish, even though that camera and the pictures coming from it were the norm in the 1950s for that publication.
The world has moved on because the technology has opened doors that were simply not even framed in 50 or more years ago.

One could equally say how did they get across country when they didn't have interstate highways and cars that got 60mpg, having to do it with a team of horses and a covered wagon.?
The answer was it was very difficult, took a very long time, and many of the people who tried, died in the attempt.
Technology has moved the goal posts, and the expectation now is that if you jump into your car in Boston on Monday morning, you will be swilling beer with your pals in Los Angeles on Friday night.

And that's doing it the slow way now. It's more likely that you will board an airliner on Monday morning and have 4 days to wander around Los Angeles before hooking up with your buds for that beer on Friday night.

Years ago I read an essay by Ansel Adams. It was late in his life in the early 1980s, and very early in the life of digital photography. We didn't have digital cameras, but negative scanning was in it's infancy. Adams saw digital photography as the future of photography, and lamented somewhat that he wasn't going to live long enough to see where it went.

Having said that, people do want the latest and greatest, though quite often it's for bragging rights as much as for need. I doubt very much that the average Sony A1 owner is using the camera to it's maximum abilities, or ever will. It's all well and good to marvel at how fast the camera snaps into focus on the cat sleeping on the couch, but is it necessary to have that responsiveness to photograph an inert object?

If a person has a genuine need, that's great, but if they have a genuine want, that's fine too, and there are people out there who want the result without the hard work. That's why airplanes and cars exist. It's also why very advanced cameras exist.

[Wheatfield]

True, and I guess I didn't explain my point very well. What I'm saying is that if I want to continue making images like this one (which I'd gladly compare to anything from a Sony/Nikon/Canon), at some point there's going to be a need to upgrade my camera to higher resolution, a need to upgrade to the very sharpest lenses (which I'm assuming the D FA 21mm will be - someday)... You can say that 36MP is "all you need", and that the m20 is a great lens, but if the rest of the world is shooting with 100MP cameras and lenses designed in the 2020's, then your images WILL be noticeably inferior (in large prints, etc). I'm just getting this bad feeling that Pentax is getting further and further behind and doesn't seem to be inclined to keep up. I understand the argument that they've really chosen a niche that focuses on lightweight APS-C cameras, light lenses, etc - and I'll always use my APS-C Pentax cameras for hiking and a lot of travel... But if I want absolutely the best image quality possible, I'm not sure I can stick with Pentax, as much as I want to...

What you are missing is that unless you are making very large prints, something that is very definitely a very small niche market, 100mp is wasted. A K1 will print to 16x24 @ 300DPI, and will print double that if one is using the newest version of Camera Raw which does a stellar job of quadrupling the pixel count of the camera. 36MP comes very close to the pixel count of an 8K monitor, which is probably how most really high end viewing is done now.
At some point it becomes about want vs. need for the photographer, but from the manufacturer's perspective it is about saleability. Will Ricoh sell enough cameras overall to recoup the cost of a 100mp camera?
I seriously doubt it. I don't think Ricoh sells enough cameras to underwrite what you are talking about, and while Fuji would get away with pricing such a beast as a money maker, Pentax wouldn't be allowed to in the present marketplace.
I don't often hear people complaining that Fuji's gear costs to much, it's just accepted that it is what it is.
I never stop hearing people complain about how much Pentax gear costs. For some reason, people seem to think that Pentax being profitable is some sort of crime against humanity.

That is the reality. 36MP is more than enough for the vast majority of users, and with Camera Raw being able to take the files up to 144MP, there really isn't a lot of reason to buy a 100MP camera except for the bragging rights that go along with it.

If all that mattered was size, we would all be using city busses as our daily drivers.

[Rondec]

Yes, I didn't mean to imply (even though I said exactly this) that 'everyone' is shooting 100MP - what I meant was that, 6-8 years from now, photographers who are trying to produce the absolute best images are going to be using 100MP+ sensors. That group is probably a very small fraction of 'everyone'... I'm essentially thinking of someone who would have been using a 4x5 camera 20 years ago. Point is, I don't think that Pentax aims to keep up, and as others have said, they probably don't have the resources (money, people) to do so even if they wanted to.


I didn't necessarily have this feeling when I bought my K1. With the K1, when released, I felt that I had a camera that was equal to and in most cases superior to every other DSLR available at the time - basically the same sensor as the Nikon D810 at half the price... I don't see a Pentax camera coming that will make me feel that way, given where Pentax is relative to everyone else. That's the crux of my point.

Regarding the diffraction limit at 100MP - absolutely true, a 100MP 'full frame' (24x36) sensor would be pointless (would be diffraction limited at f/4 as you say). Part of where I'm coming from is that there are now other alternatives to the conventional '35mm DSLR' cameras, in packages that are smaller and lighter. The Fuji GFX 100s is actually LIGHTER than a Pentax K1 and uses a 33x44mm array, so the pixel pitch is 3.75 microns, yes that's smaller than the 4.9 micron pitch on the K1, but still usable. By my math, that array would be diffraction limited at f/5.6-f/8 depending on your method.

I'm actually an electo-optical engineer and have always used a simple "two samples per PSF (blur spot)" to choose optics. However, I recently had a project where someone pointed out to me that there can be high-frequency information in the PSF of a lens that can require FOUR samples per 'blur spot' to capture all of the information available (depends on the MTF of the lens). If you believe that logic, and I think it is true for some lenses, then the 100MP array starts to make even more sense.

If you are looking at medium format gear, then you'll be spending a chunk for it, once you include both body and lenses. I do imagine that as time goes by, Pentax will improve pixel shift (which is already excellent) and that can given close to medium format quality with a K-1. In addition, stitching photos or investing in a piece of software like Topaz's Gigapixel could give really similar results for the occasional situation where you are desperate for more megapixels than what your 50-ish megapixel full frame camera offers.

I do a lot of landscape photography and I stop down at least to f8 and sometimes f11 on my K-1 and for that reason, I am not terribly interested in going with really high megapixel counts. The nice thing about pixel shift is that it gives the same number of pixels -- just much higher quality ones.

[Starpacer]

What you are missing is that unless you are making very large prints, something that is very definitely a very small niche market, 100mp is wasted. A K1 will print to 16x24 @ 300DPI, and will print double that if one is using the newest version of Camera Raw which does a stellar job of quadrupling the pixel count of the camera. 36MP comes very close to the pixel count of an 8K monitor, which is probably how most really high end viewing is done now.At some point it becomes about want vs. need for the photographer, but from the manufacturer's perspective it is about saleability. Will Ricoh sell enough cameras overall to recoup the cost of a 100mp camera?I seriously doubt it. I don't think Ricoh sells enough cameras to underwrite what you are talking about, and while Fuji would get away with pricing such a beast as a money maker, Pentax wouldn't be allowed to in the present marketplace.

All very good points... I've been printing some large panoramas of cityscapes (up to 40" wide), lots of fine detail, so very high res files are needed for tack sharp lines in buildings, etc. At 300 DPI, the 40" print would require a 'native' 12,000 pixels, which is about where the 100MP camera is... of course as you point out, stitching and/or interpolation could easily provide that, assuming the subject is stationary.

I threw out the 100MP figure as an example of where Pentax isn't likely to go, or even be capable of going, even while others DO deliver, as an example of issues that will eventually face the company. Remember, the reason this topic wound up in this thread? It was the apparent inability of Pentax to deliver the promised 21mm D FA Limited in a timely manner.

For me, the 21mm Limited is very, very exciting, a game changer. With that lens and my K1, I would have been mostly satisfied for another few years, until a truly upgraded full frame camera is introduced (using say a 50-60 MP sensor, probably the maximum practical for 36x24 sensor). This all seemed like a great plan, but then I realized, oh wait, the 21mm was announced almost a year ago, now zero mention.. No mention of a new full frame camera... I'm not getting any younger, can't wait forever...hopefully we hear something about the 21mm soon!

[reh321]

All very good points... I've been printing some large panoramas of cityscapes (up to 40" wide), lots of fine detail, so very high res files are needed for tack sharp lines in buildings, etc. At 300 DPI, the 40" print would require a 'native' 12,000 pixels, which is about where the 100MP camera is... of course as you point out, stitching and/or interpolation could easily provide that, assuming the subject is stationary.

I threw out the 100MP figure as an example of where Pentax isn't likely to go, or even be capable of going, even while others DO deliver, as an example of issues that will eventually face the company. Remember, the reason this topic wound up in this thread? It was the apparent inability of Pentax to deliver the promised 21mm D FA Limited in a timely manner.

For me, the 21mm Limited is very, very exciting, a game changer. With that lens and my K1, I would have been mostly satisfied for another few years, until a truly upgraded full frame camera is introduced (using say a 50-60 MP sensor, probably the maximum practical for 36x24 sensor). This all seemed like a great plan, but then I realized, oh wait, the 21mm was announced almost a year ago, now zero mention.. No mention of a new full frame camera... I'm not getting any younger, can't wait forever...hopefully we hear something about the 21mm soon!

For what my ‘iPhone 8’ is {a tiny sensor behind a fixed wide angle lens}, it gives good pictures.
That is because like it is built around a true computing processor with prodigious power for its size.
If Pentax would make a processor like that the heart of a true camera, perhaps they could provide what you desire,
but I don’t see that happening any time soon.