[Breakfastographer]

If I wasn't clear, I didn't mean that Sigma was going to go away as a brand, just that they might consider stopping making ILCs at some point in the future. I could be wrong, but my guess is that they make significantly better revenue on their lenses than on their camera bodies. They are privately held and so they can continue to do what they want.

Olympus as a company always made money, it is just that the camera side of things didn't and so eventually was sold off. Sigma's cameras are even smaller fish, but it still takes a certain amount of R and D to get a camera to launch and I can't imagine either that (1) they are money makers or (2) they sell many more lenses because of their cameras (particularly now that they've ditched the SA mount).

As far as I'm aware, the SD Quattros are still in production, and they use the SA mount. L-mount is just the next new game now, and Sigma will be the company selling the most lenses out of the three.

I believe Yamaki-san has stated in interviews that they regard gaining a foothold in the camera market as a long-term, slow-burn project. Not in those exact words, but that has been the gist for the last... decade? They were making analog SLRs back in the day, too.

I'd like to see more Foveon cameras. It will be an awesome technology once they can get it to work to usable standards of dynamic range at elevated sensitivity.

[clackers]

Phase One has been selling "real" medium format stuff for a while and they don't need a lot of volume for it. As long as their stuff is more or less needed for certain stuff they'll be in business - a friend sent me a month ago some photos of the photo session his company had commissioned to make a product catalogue. The photographer was using a 150MP Phase One with Schneider lenses - a tidy 50K € setup .

Yeah, they're not cropped sensors, as you say, they're the real deal for a top commercial photographer.

Leica is Leica. If Rolex or other watchmakers haven't quite gone out of business, I doubt Leica will either. Although they are collaborating with other companies.

Did you know they went broke and had to be saved, despite the reputation? I think they can certainly find shelter in a bigger organization, and they already have links with Panasonic. To get the loans for their next projects they're currently at the whim of an equity group, I think. Much safer to be with Panny or similar, who can much more easily go to a banker and extend credit.

If I had to predict, I'd say Sony goes first if only because they can drop the division and buy another to chase the next "it" market. Nikon is in real danger too if they cannot stabilize and fast. Although I'd think they'll try to downsize to preserve the company - they can't just drop the camera market like Sony because it's their biggest part.

Completely agree, mate.

[clackers]

Just for completeness, it should be mentioned that Gannon Burgett of DPReview made a claim about this that is probably flawed in its wording:
"will feature an entirely redesigned 26-megapixel CMOS sensor"

I also think it will be an off the shelf sensor. The times that I've read Mr. Burgett's articles, I've not always found them to stand up to rigorous fact-checking.

The Pentax-specific magic will happen elsewhere in the imaging pipeline.

I think people don't really get what that phrase means when used by a camera company.

Nikon will say they have this new sensor, Pentax will have designed an 'all new' sensor, etc.

They're wrong if we think the sensor is just the pixel array itself, the thing in Sony's catalogue. The Sony A7R and Pentax K-1 have the same wafer.

But on top of that wafer, the layers are individualized by the purchaser, and there can be different outputs, too - dual gain and so on. Forum member pinholecam had the microlens array taken off his A7 because he was sick of the artifacts caused by it on wide angle shots. Others do IR photography by having another layer removed, AFAIK.

So, from that perspective, Nikon can claim that it's *their* sensor in the D5, and *they* designed it.

I think we all understand that today camera manufacturers are assemblers, like car manufacturers. AFAIK, there are only two shutter manufacturers, for instance, and for a while pretty much every EVF was a Panasonic.

[clackers]

How many of you are for sure going to pick up the K3-iii?

On behalf of almost all our members, not everyone's a Lexus driver, Lee.

Let's say I would if I had the cash.

Some owners with older cameras have said that for the price they may as well upgrade to the K-1, which might even be cheaper.

Ricoh would actually be over the moon with that. Someone purchasing the K3 III might quite reasonably stick to their existing lens collection accumulated over decades, someone buying a K-1 will always be tempted to eventually get glass to go with it.

---

Last edited by clackers; 10-29-2020 at 05:02 PM.

[clackers]

As far as I'm aware, the SD Quattros are still in production, and they use the SA mount. L-mount is just the next new game now, and Sigma will be the company selling the most lenses out of the three.

I believe Yamaki-san has stated in interviews that they regard gaining a foothold in the camera market as a long-term, slow-burn project. Not in those exact words, but that has been the gist for the last... decade? They were making analog SLRs back in the day, too.

I'd like to see more Foveon cameras. It will be an awesome technology once they can get it to work to usable standards of dynamic range at elevated sensitivity.

I think it's a vanity project, the Foveon cameras, and sadly, commercial success for the L mount stuff seems to me wishful thinking.

Weren't the Quattros more the old man's obsession, not so much the son, who has to think about how precarious the family business is? It's not just camera sales that have plunged, but lens ones too.

Sigma and Tamron now have to sell to ... what was my phrase? The Lexus drivers, not the ordinary Joes, or they'll die.

[Serkevan]

Did you know they went broke and had to be saved, despite the reputation? I think they can certainly find shelter in a bigger organization, and they already have links with Panasonic.

Hah, I had no idea. Today I learned...

[Class A]

The 'accelerator' seems to improve color fidelity...

"Seems" is the operative keyword here.

It cannot really improve colour fidelity because it has no idea what the original colour was.

As for "DR improvements", it does it in the same way a user "increases DR" with Lightroom or Photoshop.

Let's not downplay the convenience of off-loading some image processing to the camera, but let's not construe it as something it isn't.

[reh321]

"Seems" is the operative keyword here.

It cannot really improve colour fidelity because it has no idea what the original colour was.

Let's not downplay the convenience of off-loading some image processing to the camera, but let's not construe it as something it isn't.

I have taken photos in our own house, where I can compare a photo to the actual object.
I knew precisely what the original color was.
I am not using the word "fidelity" loosely.

[Class A]

I knew precisely what the original color was.

I'm not disputing that.

I'm also not disputing that the "accelerator unit" can alter the colours such that they are closer to the original in some cases. For instance, if the unaltered image suffers from a bit from desaturation, the "accelerator unit" can push the colour back to a more saturated state.

However, the "accelerator unit" cannot do this with accuracy in all cases, nor can it always shift hue in the right direction, etc. Truly and reliably increasing "fidelity" requires information about the original, which the "accelerator unit" does not posses.

[reh321]

I'm not disputing that.

I'm also not disputing that the "accelerator unit" can alter the colours such that they are closer to the original in some cases. For instance, if the unaltered image suffers from a bit from desaturation, the "accelerator unit" can push the colour back to a more saturated state.

However, the "accelerator unit" cannot do this with accuracy in all cases, nor can it always shift hue in the right direction, etc. Truly and reliably increasing "fidelity" requires information about the original, which the "accelerator unit" does not posses.

I stand by my original statement.
You will believe what you believe.
I will not quibble with you.
Punct.

[normhead]

It cannot really improve colour fidelity because it has no idea what the original colour was.

Yet the last test shots I took with y K-1 and K-3 to go with another thread





I compared K-3 and K-1 images to the original subjects, and in the glittery purple of the mask, the K-1 is accurate, the K-3 is odd. The camera may not know what colour it's supposed to be, yet, some cameras are better at it than others.

Let's not pretend things do not exist that do.

As for "DR improvements", it does it in the same way a user "increases DR" with Lightroom or Photoshop.

The output of computer monitors or 4k TV is at best around 500:1. Outside you can get values of 20,000:1 and EV values of 14 on your camera. 500:1 would be approximately 9 EV,. You don't increase DR with Lightroom or photoshop, you actually compress to it fit into a smaller DR value.

[Class A]

Let's not pretend things do not exist that do.

Comparing two different cameras is irrelevant to a discussion about the "accelerator unit" (which neither the K-1 nor the K-3 have).
Never have I claimed that one camera cannot be more accurate (have higher fidelity) than another.

You don't increase DR with Lightroom or photoshop, you actually compress to it fit into a smaller DR value.

The fact that the input DR has to be compressed to an output DR is irrelevant.

Take any input or output DR you like, e.g. 7EV. You can artificially increase that to say 8EV by using image processing. That's what the "accelerator unit" does as well. It performs a post-processing step.

[SteveinSLC]

The question of the Sigma or Tamron 150-600, or perhaps the upcoming Nikon Z 200-600, may be what decides for me on the K3-3.
I've been into wildlife lately, and frankly, the idea of having more reach than the 150-450 is appealing. Having faster tracking autofocus would be helpful. But having a modern long zoom would as well. Agree that a Pentax branded version of the Tamron 150-600 G2 would be very appealing to go along with the K3-3. But I'd be surprised, as it would cut into 150-450 sales.

[lotech]

On behalf of almost all our members, not everyone's a Lexus driver, Lee.

Let's say I would if I had the cash.

Some owners with older cameras have said that for the price they may as well upgrade to the K-1, which might even be cheaper.

Ricoh would actually be over the moon with that. Someone purchasing the K3 III might quite reasonably stick to their existing lens collection accumulated over decades, someone buying a K-1 will always be tempted to eventually get glass to go with it.

If Ricoh museum willing to take my 7yrs. old, battered but still ticking K3 Gen 1 to put in the section "Pentax Reliability", in return half price to me the new beast, I will not complain

[clackers]

If Ricoh museum willing to take my 7yrs. old, battered but still ticking K3 Gen 1 to put in the section "Pentax Reliability", in return half price to me the new beast, I will not complain

Wow, lot of war wounds on that veteran, Lotech!