[Pål Jensen]

In photography, the frame plays an important role in composition. No being able to see the frame prevents to optimize a composition for a specific aspect ratio. Is my message more understandable now?[COLOR=Silver].

All you need to know is that whatever you photograph is in the frame with its original aspect ratio. All other aspect ratios must be included in this. Then you can crop any way you like in Photoshop - even triangular if it suits you.
You won't get all the sensors megapixels if you use another aspect ratio than the original one.
I have no problems visualizing square or whatever aspect ratios within a frame. When shooting the image below it was obvious to me that it wouldn't work in the original aspect ratio as there were too much uninteresting sky and sea, so I cropped in Lightroom. I don't understand why anyone would need a guide as long as you include everything you want in the frame.

[Serkevan]

Now it is Eye AF with OVF.

Unfortunately, Pentax was not the first one there. Nikon was, with the D6 (and had face detection in the D5 and D850, although it apparently could be iffy). Canon's 90D also has face-detect AF through the finder.

[normhead]

In photography, the frame plays an important role in composition. No being able to see the frame prevents to optimize a composition for a specific aspect ratio. Is my message more understandable now?

---------- Post added 06-11-21 at 16:29 ----------


Fair enough. It's not because you have 20z30 images taken with 12Mp that I should be content with the same. No discussion necessary.

You miss the point entirely. The point was, not every image needs the high resolution. Many are just as good as a higher resolution image of the same thing would be in terms of viewer evaluation. This insistence that higher res means better images is misguided.

---------- Post added 11-06-21 at 01:53 PM ----------

I know a guy with his own gallery who sold a 2X3 meter print for $5000 shot with a 8mp Canon.....

Exactly the point. Sometimes it's about the image, not about the camera used.
You can say your K-1 image will always be better than aK-3 image. I've proved the opposite on numerous occasions.

In photography, the frame plays an important role in composition.

Or is it leaving room so you can frame in post the most important thing? I can see it both ways. Neither is absolute.

Higher resolution is more like insurance in case you do get an image that needs it... but it's rarely necessary. You pay more for more opportunities, even though, 90% of the time it makes no difference. Apart from test charts, I've never seen an example of a K-1 image that is better than even a K-5 image for the same scene.

I'm still wondering what images you shoot that take full advantage of a K-1s resolution?
I'd love to be able to run a comparison that demonstrated the FF advantage.

[repaap]

Unfortunately, Pentax was not the first one there. Nikon was, with the D6 (and had face detection in the D5 and D850, although it apparently could be iffy). Canon's 90D also has face-detect AF through the finder.

I did check that from Google, and there is a words: somesort eye priority in 3D tracking. They did not have big enough RGB sensor, obviously.

Now, Pentax does come with actual eye AF. But yes, face and animal tracking has been before, and it might have somewhat worked too. Even Pentax had face/animal detection, but 98K RGB was not really enough..

[RobA_Oz]

For LV it shouldn't (you could simply tell the software to black out appropriate sections of the display, even if you don't actually "crop" them) - VF frame lines are of course a different story.

…and, of course, we are talking about the OVF here, and not some inferior electronic simulation.

[Serkevan]

I did check that from Google, and there is a words: somesort eye priority in 3D tracking. They did not have big enough RGB sensor, obviously.

Now, Pentax does come with actual eye AF. But yes, face and animal tracking has been before, and it might have somewhat worked too. Even Pentax had face/animal detection, but 98K RGB was not really enough..

Sure, the K-3iii does it better, I never claimed otherwise. But it was not the first.

[repaap]

Sure, the K-3iii does it better, I never claimed otherwise. But it was not the first.

Sure. No problemo, point taken

[MMVIII]

Some interesting tidbits from some recent articles might reveal something that industry and marketing driven (new is better profit) newspages might not propagate openly: DSLRs are not suddenly bad. There are many good reasons to keep these systems in the market, many people simply like many of the advantages they offer. Just read it here:
https://www.digitalcameraworld.com/uk/amp/news/i-wish-i-hadnt-sold-my-nikon-...an-you-realize
Or here, the title says it: Shooting experience: The Nikon Z9 is the most DSLR-like mirrorless we've ever seen: Digital Photography Review

The biggest difference that is in the foreground now is partly marketing and tech geekery hype. Sure, an Z9, or a1 or R3 seem to offer all the innovation, but it is just because a lot of development money went into that. And these companies want this money back, there go XXk $ for a camera with two-three lenses (that are also excellent, but so are new DSLR-lenses that came out the last two years).

I just found it funny to read the article about d7200 nostalgia. My mind just wanted to ask: really? No shit Sherlock...

[Kunzite]

Since you mentioned DPR... they said that, but at the same time they are pushing the Pentax K-3iii review - of the one significant DSLR in the recent years - behind literally everything else.
It's amazing how one could talk about DSLRs as being the benchmark to compare against (in this specific area), yet also rejecting the real thing.

[Serkevan]

Mirrorless have lower manufacturing costs so companies push them. Whether the user partakes of that lower cost is a doubt well answered with a good old "lol, lmao".

Regarding innovation, heck, Canon brought back eye control for the R3, which is like 25 years old now - and it's 100% not mirrorless tech. I'd like to see Pentax implement something like that but I suppose Canon threw a *Lot* (with capital L) of money at making it work. We probably won't see it from other companies in a while at best.

The idea of a shutterless camera like the Z9 is intriguing, as well... and that's also not mirrorless tech.

[Rondec]

Printing at 24x30", the whole K1 resolution is needed, I'm trying to compose so that crop isn't required. I've tried to use card board mask on top of the LCD display, but it wasn't convenient, I'll try again to see how I can fix the card boards on the display.

I understand what you are saying. I just am not usually thinking about specific print sizes when I am shooting. Maybe I should be. It isn't until I get into post where I start playing around with that some. It's just that when the light is changing quickly, early morning or sunset, I want to capture more images, not spend a bunch of time trying a square crop or 4 x 5 crop or whatever.

My goal in shooting is to find something of interest and frame it the best I can with the best light I can and then hope I have enough raw material to work with it in post.

[Smolk]

In photography, the frame plays an important role in composition.

I agree. Perhaps because of shooting slides for years, I want my VF to be accurate. And sometimes I'd like a 1:1, but I want to see that when pressing the release button, not as an afterthought behind my screen. So a 1:1 in the OVF would be welcome.

[reh321]

I don't understand why anyone would need a guide as long as you include everything you want in the frame.

Because I also don’t want to waste pixels.
I don’t mind cropping a little in one dimension, but I hate to unnecessarily crop in both - but if the aspect desired/expected is different than the viewfinder, I have to be ‘generous’ to make sure that everything will fit under the aspect I will actually use.

[LXNights]

They did. No one bought it and it faded away.

---------- Post added Oct 31st, 2021 at 09:27 AM ----------



People haven't been flocking to Pentax in huge numbers when the only competition was other SLR cameras. Now you are saying they will Flock to them if they become a tiny little player in the mirrorless market?
It might happen in some alternate reality.

IMHO, Pentax gave in to the concept that a mirrorless camera somehow had to look and feel different than the DSLR, much like some auto makers felt an electric car had to be different from the gas car. Both were big mistakes. The new design Pentax was promoting was an absolute bust, the K-01 was annoyingly awkward to use, and had little appeal except the images were fairly good for the time. If Pentax could make a more conventional design much like Sony and Canikon did, I am confident it would sell much better. Many manufacturers often forget people will embrace new tech if it can be utilized in accepted conventional ways. GM had to learn the hard way that a viable electric vehicle will grab interest; but if the car looks like a squashed egg, that would kill it. Pentax had to learn a similar lesson.

[reh321]

IMHO, Pentax gave in to the concept that a mirrorless camera somehow had to look and feel different than the DSLR, much like some auto makers felt an electric car had to be different from the gas car.
……………
Pentax had to learn a similar lesson.

I still believe the K-01 was rejected by users because of lack of a viewfinder - just as the Canon EOS-M was. Canon sold the EOS-M2 only in Asia, and the EOS-M family succeeded in the West only when they included viewfinders in some form. Canon had the resources to try variations …. Pentax just gave up.