Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
01-05-2009, 06:45 AM   #106
Site Supporter
Douglas_of_Sweden's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Stockholm
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,347
QuoteOriginally posted by er1kksen Quote
Doug, maybe a DSLR a la the Olympus E-410, without the protruding hand grip? Stick the DA 40 on there, and it might be smaller (almost certainly lighter) than your MX.
Can you recommend a good glue?

01-05-2009, 08:48 AM   #107
Veteran Member
lol101's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Garennes sur Eure France
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 900
QuoteOriginally posted by whatever7 Quote
32mp is way too high. How can you gaurantee better high ISO if the pixel density is the same as the K20D.

Although that would get a lot of new users into K mount.
Well, first of all, if you assume that per-pixel noise will be the same, the "grain" will be finer and less obstrusive (by a factor roughly of 1,5: 50%).

Then you can also group pixels in 2x2 (2 green + 1 red + 1 blue) matrices and do pixel binning to get down to 8MP effective resolution (but generally sharper than a native 8MP sensor due to sub-pixel informations available) with lower noise when approaching ISO 3200/6400.

It's the principle behind the sRaw Canon introduced on the 40D but it becomes only usefull if you have lots of pixels. The 5DII gives sRaw1 10MP images using incomplete bining (full bining gives sRaw2 at 5MP) that some people say (didn't try it myself) are sharper and less noisy than D3/D700 ISO 3200/6400 images.

That way you can have it all: extra resolution at low ISO and relatively low noise high ISO.
01-05-2009, 08:48 AM   #108
Moderator
Site Supporter
Blue's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Florida Hill Country
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 17,166
QuoteOriginally posted by lol101 Quote
. . .

Frankly, I think they lack the technical know-how about how to make these uber AF systems because, unlike Canon or Nikon, they just don't have the experience from decades of developing pro AF systems.
. . .
They did pretty good with the MZ-s, MZ-L and *ist.
01-05-2009, 08:51 AM   #109
Veteran Member
lol101's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Garennes sur Eure France
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 900
QuoteOriginally posted by Blue Quote
They did pretty good with the MZ-s, MZ-L and *ist.
As it has been seen for all makers (including Canon and Nikon), the evolution to digital introduced new requirements (precision?) that led to much slower AF systems.

I tried a 10D once or twice and it was not significantly faster than the Ds I had at the same time. The same cannot be said of the 40D, or even the 30D.

Digital seems to be needing some new tweaks to the AF systems.

01-05-2009, 08:54 AM   #110
Moderator
Site Supporter
Blue's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Florida Hill Country
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 17,166
QuoteOriginally posted by lol101 Quote
As it has been seen for all makers (including Canon and Nikon), the evolution to digital introduced new requirements (precision?) that led to much slower AF systems.

I tried a 10D once or twice and it was not significantly faster than the Ds I had at the same time. The same cannot be said of the 40D, or even the 30D.

Digital seems to be needing some new tweaks to the AF systems.
You are correct in that aspect. I was actually responding to the part of the post about Canon and Nikon having "decades of AF experience" and was merely pointing out that so did Pentax. Those "decades of experience" by those makers was also with film bodies.
01-05-2009, 09:47 AM   #111
Veteran Member
lol101's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Garennes sur Eure France
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 900
QuoteOriginally posted by Blue Quote
You are correct in that aspect. I was actually responding to the part of the post about Canon and Nikon having "decades of AF experience" and was merely pointing out that so did Pentax. Those "decades of experience" by those makers was also with film bodies.
From what I remember, the MZ-S culminated at 2,5fps while the EOS 3 with it's 45 AF points was doing 7 fps (with booster, 4,3 fps without). On the other side, the Nikon F100 was speeding at a respectable 4,5 fps (while the F5 was doing 8fps).

The fastest Pentax AF body was the Z1-P (that I still own) at 4fps circa 1995.

Pentax never had the equivalent of a 1 serie or F5, not even an equivalent of the EOS3 / F100 in the film days. They never developped an AF system able to follow a moving target at more than 4fps.

In fact, I think they never really cared, and I am not sure they will ever. Their strength lies elsewhere (ie ergonomics and IQ I think).

Hence my (still valid I think) point that Pentax has no experience in developping the kind of AF some people want (ala D300: 6-8 fps 51 points) whereas Canon and Nikon do.

But when it comes to do a nice camera with outstanding IQ... they have all it takes.
01-05-2009, 10:12 AM   #112
Senior Member




Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 278
QuoteOriginally posted by lol101 Quote
Well, first of all, if you assume that per-pixel noise will be the same, the "grain" will be finer and less obstrusive (by a factor roughly of 1,5: 50%).

Then you can also group pixels in 2x2 (2 green + 1 red + 1 blue) matrices and do pixel binning to get down to 8MP effective resolution (but generally sharper than a native 8MP sensor due to sub-pixel informations available) with lower noise when approaching ISO 3200/6400.

It's the principle behind the sRaw Canon introduced on the 40D but it becomes only usefull if you have lots of pixels. The 5DII gives sRaw1 10MP images using incomplete bining (full bining gives sRaw2 at 5MP) that some people say (didn't try it myself) are sharper and less noisy than D3/D700 ISO 3200/6400 images.

That way you can have it all: extra resolution at low ISO and relatively low noise high ISO.
If Pentax has that technology, they would have offer it in K20D and let you take a 4mp image with better high ISO. And fact of the matter is Pentax/Samsung don't have it, or have no access to the patent.

I am only awared of Fujifilm working on the subpixel merging technology, but the announcement was very recent. We haven't seen anything from Fuji digicam yet. This is first time I heard of 5D2 has better high ISO than D3/D700. I will believe it when I see it.
01-05-2009, 10:14 AM   #113
Inactive Account




Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Nanaimo, BC
Posts: 261
QuoteOriginally posted by lol101 Quote
From what I remember, the MZ-S culminated at 2,5fps while the EOS 3 with it's 45 AF points was doing 7 fps (with booster, 4,3 fps without). On the other side, the Nikon F100 was speeding at a respectable 4,5 fps (while the F5 was doing 8fps).

The fastest Pentax AF body was the Z1-P (that I still own) at 4fps circa 1995.

Pentax never had the equivalent of a 1 serie or F5, not even an equivalent of the EOS3 / F100 in the film days. They never developped an AF system able to follow a moving target at more than 4fps.

In fact, I think they never really cared, and I am not sure they will ever. Their strength lies elsewhere (ie ergonomics and IQ I think).

Hence my (still valid I think) point that Pentax has no experience in developping the kind of AF some people want (ala D300: 6-8 fps 51 points) whereas Canon and Nikon do.

But when it comes to do a nice camera with outstanding IQ... they have all it takes.
I agree with this, but the problem (if you could call it that) is that people want everything, and they want it now. The word "compromise" seems to have slipped from the consumer's vocabulary the last fifteen years or so, and I think that sad. Pentax is trying to sell their strengths, and are asking people to put up with their weaknesses at the same time, while the outfits across the street are selling their cameras to the tune of "It does it all, and then some".

Now, like I said, this might not be a bad thing. This ship is going to take some turning around, to be sure, but good things could come out of it. What Pentax needs to do right now is stop listening to the market. When they were on top of their game (and I'm going to say, with reasonable examples available, that was between 1961 and 1980) they could have gone a number of directions with the brand recognition they had build for themselves, but they instead tried to please everyone doing everything, and subsequently lost their identity. It doesn't help that the people at the top had also forgotten, or so it seemed.

Pentax seems best remembered for their products from this era, so why not go back to the drawing board with these designs as a basis? Build solid, high quality, no-plastics glass and cameras, charge people appropriately, and market them as "The grandchildren of the indestructible K1000", or similar. And advertise the crap out of it.

01-05-2009, 10:17 AM   #114
Veteran Member
nostatic's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: socal
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,576
QuoteOriginally posted by lol101 Quote
Their strength lies elsewhere (ie ergonomics and IQ I think).

Hence my (still valid I think) point that Pentax has no experience in developping the kind of AF some people want (ala D300: 6-8 fps 51 points) whereas Canon and Nikon do.

But when it comes to do a nice camera with outstanding IQ... they have all it takes.
Even Pentax could come out and say that but there would still be people here complaining about the "horrible AF" on the Pentax they just bought...

imho Pentax will be a niche company for the foreseeable future. My guess is that Hoya knows this and is ok with it. Niche companies can be fairly profitable. So if a user fits into the niche, then everyone is happy.
01-05-2009, 10:49 AM   #115
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Colorado USA
Posts: 1,337
I still own Eos-3 film body & 7fps drive

I'm not shooting film thesedays but you're right Eos-3 is crazy fast and has accurate af. However Canon 1V is (((faster))) at 9 frames per second, 10 frames per second. At $1,699 BRAND NEW I think it proves the canon flagship 1Ds markIII at $6500 now, $8,000 issue makes canon a tidy profit inspite of what I read about flagships being money loosers on these internets.

I had the chance locally to buy a like new 1V for $450 a couple months ago, but I just don't think I'll use film again. Heck of a deal though.

Canon | EOS-1v Camera Body | 2043A005 | B&H Photo Video

QuoteOriginally posted by lol101 Quote
From what I remember, the MZ-S culminated at 2,5fps while the EOS 3 with it's 45 AF points was doing 7 fps (with booster, 4,3 fps without). On the other side, the Nikon F100 was speeding at a respectable 4,5 fps (while the F5 was doing 8fps).

The fastest Pentax AF body was the Z1-P (that I still own) at 4fps circa 1995.

Pentax never had the equivalent of a 1 serie or F5, not even an equivalent of the EOS3 / F100 in the film days. They never developped an AF system able to follow a moving target at more than 4fps.

In fact, I think they never really cared, and I am not sure they will ever. Their strength lies elsewhere (ie ergonomics and IQ I think).

Hence my (still valid I think) point that Pentax has no experience in developping the kind of AF some people want (ala D300: 6-8 fps 51 points) whereas Canon and Nikon do.

But when it comes to do a nice camera with outstanding IQ... they have all it takes.
01-05-2009, 11:03 AM   #116
Veteran Member
lol101's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Garennes sur Eure France
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 900
QuoteOriginally posted by Samsungian Quote
I'm not shooting film thesedays but you're right Eos-3 is crazy fast and has accurate af. However Canon 1V is (((faster))) at 9 frames per second, 10 frames per second. At $1,699 BRAND NEW I think it proves the canon flagship 1Ds markIII at $6500 now, $8,000 issue makes canon a tidy profit inspite of what I read about flagships being money loosers on these internets.

I had the chance locally to buy a like new 1V for $450 a couple months ago, but I just don't think I'll use film again. Heck of a deal though.

Canon | EOS-1v Camera Body | 2043A005 | B&H Photo Video
I think it's a mistake to think that "flagships" don't earn profits.


Generally speaking, the higher the profile, the bigger the margin per camera.

Hence the extremes of the equation are: sell a lot of low end/small margin cameras (Canon) or sell much fewer high margin products (Leica).

Of course, the best is to sell a lot of small margin camera PLUS fewer but still a significant number of high margin ones: that's what makes the success of Canon and Nikon...
01-05-2009, 11:04 AM   #117
Veteran Member
deejjjaaaa's Avatar

Join Date: May 2007
Location: steel city / rust belt
Posts: 2,046
QuoteOriginally posted by lol101 Quote
Then you can also group pixels in 2x2 (2 green + 1 red + 1 blue) matrices and do pixel binning to get down to 8MP effective resolution (but generally sharper than a native 8MP sensor due to sub-pixel informations available) with lower noise when approaching ISO 3200/6400.

It's the principle behind the sRaw Canon introduced on the 40D but it becomes only usefull if you have lots of pixels. The 5DII gives sRaw1 10MP images using incomplete bining (full bining gives sRaw2 at 5MP) that some people say (didn't try it myself) are sharper and less noisy than D3/D700 ISO 3200/6400 images.

That way you can have it all: extra resolution at low ISO and relatively low noise high ISO.
that can be done in post processing... resize and you will get a sharper and less noisy image... what is the point, unless there are extra circuitry on a sensor that can do some extra things (
01-05-2009, 11:25 AM   #118
Veteran Member
lol101's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Garennes sur Eure France
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 900
QuoteOriginally posted by deejjjaaaa Quote
that can be done in post processing... resize and you will get a sharper and less noisy image... what is the point, unless there are extra circuitry on a sensor that can do some extra things (
Well one point is to carry a smaller raw file when you don't need a big one since you're going to downsample it anyway

Then some people seem to think that they get better images out of sraw than out of a resized initial raw... but there I would have to try it because I have no idea why... all I can say is that I saw some pretty convincing examples on "the other site"...
01-05-2009, 01:59 PM   #119
Veteran Member
er1kksen's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Staten Island, NY
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,663
QuoteOriginally posted by Douglas_of_Sweden Quote
Can you recommend a good glue?
Well, if you really want to glue a DA 40 onto an E-420, I suppose Gorilla Glue has a good reputation. Or you could always just buy a k-mount adaptor, as some have.

Of course, I was talking about a DSLR shaped similarly to the E-420 but with an APS-C sensor, a k-mount on the front, and a pentax badge up top.
01-06-2009, 04:13 PM   #120
Site Supporter
Douglas_of_Sweden's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Stockholm
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,347
QuoteOriginally posted by er1kksen Quote
Well, if you really want to glue a DA 40 onto an E-420, I suppose Gorilla Glue has a good reputation. Or you could always just buy a k-mount adaptor, as some have.

Of course, I was talking about a DSLR shaped similarly to the E-420 but with an APS-C sensor, a k-mount on the front, and a pentax badge up top.
Some problems:
With a k-mount-Olympus 4/3 adapter I would loose autofocus and only be able to shoot wide open since the adapter only allows completely manual exposure at the mechanically set aperture, and since the DA40 has no aperture ring...

Lets say I go Olympus 4/3 fully...yes the body is thin, but they have only one lens that is thin enough to use this advantage, the 25/2.8 pancake, a lens which correspond to a 50mm/5.6 on 35mm film or 37.5/4.2 on APS-C. Do I want such a slow lens anyway? It makes the Pentax pancakes look fast. And Pentax has three DA pancakes + the FA50 which would also be thin enough.

So while considering if the DA40 on my *istDS (which is 1.5mm thinner than the K-m) would be small enough, I keep using my MX and Super-A bodies with smallish 28 and 55mm lenses as my pocket SLRs, and with this I'm getting more functionality on these old bodies than these lenses would have on a 4/3 olympus with adapter.

Yet would like to see that Pentax DSLR that goes thinner than the K-m and *istDS. Is it possible or is the thickness of the APS-C sensor the limiting factor? Is the 66-67.5mm of the *istDS and the K-m the thinnes possible? Anyone who knows?
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
cameras, pentax, pentax news, pentax rumors, pma, statement, types
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Nikon Rumors Know Pentax fwbigd Pentax News and Rumors 42 03-06-2009 07:55 AM
PMA 2009 - rather disappointing so far... alexeyga Photographic Technique 26 03-06-2009 01:54 AM
pma rumors philmorley Pentax News and Rumors 33 09-21-2008 12:47 PM
Pentax news and rumors - everything goes there Matjazz Site Suggestions and Help 7 04-02-2008 07:17 PM
Rumors confirmed! The new Pentax will be FF! B051LjKo Pentax News and Rumors 7 01-11-2008 04:10 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:46 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top