Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
02-16-2009, 12:02 PM   #76
ogl
Pentaxian
ogl's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Siberia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 7,114
DA14, DA15, DA18-55, DA17-70, DA16-50, DA16-45, DA17-70 can't work at 23.5*23.5 mm sensor.
It's hard to say about 12-24 and 50-135.
The primes will work.

I think if such camera is true, there will be 3 mode.

APS-C - main mode for all lenses, 23.5*23.5 mm for FF lenses, 18*18 mm for DA lenses.

02-16-2009, 12:08 PM   #77
Pentaxian
falconeye's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Munich, Alps, Germany
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,863
QuoteOriginally posted by jeffkrol Quote
So you want a 100mm dia sensor?
I actually thought of 300mm. I would consider a chip made from a 200mm wafer of having a crop factor of 1.5
02-16-2009, 12:28 PM   #78
Veteran Member
Caat's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: United Kingdom
Photos: Albums
Posts: 897
QuoteOriginally posted by ogl Quote
DA14, DA15, DA18-55, DA17-70, DA16-50, DA16-45, DA17-70 can't work at 23.5*23.5 mm sensor.
It's hard to say about 12-24 and 50-135.
The primes will work.

I think if such camera is true, there will be 3 mode.

APS-C - main mode for all lenses, 23.5*23.5 mm for FF lenses, 18*18 mm for DA lenses.
It really depends how bad the vignetting is likely to be. Pentax could easily load the camera with the coverage information for each specific DA lens and enable the camera to auto-correct any vignetting that occurs tailored to the specific lens in use.

This would be a user-selectable option of course ;-)
02-16-2009, 12:56 PM   #79
Veteran Member
jeffkrol's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Wisconsin USA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,434
QuoteOriginally posted by falconeye Quote
I actually thought of 300mm. I would consider a chip made from a 200mm wafer of having a crop factor of 1.5
And only 14MP,,, BIG pixels. Make the pixel density people happy.... Can you say ISO 100000.... 52 micron dia pixels...


Last edited by jeffkrol; 02-16-2009 at 03:16 PM.
02-16-2009, 04:32 PM   #80
jay
Inactive Account




Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Lincoln, Nebraska, USA
Posts: 65
QuoteOriginally posted by ogl Quote
APS-C - main mode for all lenses, 23.5*23.5 mm for FF lenses, 18*18 mm for DA lenses.
18mm X 18mm ?

...What's the point? I'll just crop my damn photos square in photoshop, then.

And no one has said anything about the petal lens hoods we all have with our lenses. I don't care if it's full-frame or DA or whatever -- the lens just isn't physically designed to project a circular image with its lens hood on.
02-16-2009, 06:11 PM   #81
Veteran Member
awo425's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: NYC, USA
Posts: 481
The guy who is begging change across the street from the B&H store told me last Friday that the new DA* 60-250/4 is delayed because Pentax engineers spent the last year designing square lens elements for this lens to match new square 22MP censor. Starting with the K3D we will have to refer to it as image square, instead of image circle.
02-16-2009, 06:16 PM   #82
Moderator
Site Supporter
Blue's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Florida Hill Country
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 17,181
QuoteOriginally posted by awo425 Quote
The guy who is begging change across the street from the B&H store told me last Friday that the new DA* 60-250/4 is delayed because Pentax engineers spent the last year designing square lens elements for this lens to match new square 22MP censor. Starting with the K3D we will have to refer to it as image square, instead of image circle.
I'm going to hold out for a full-framed pentagon sensor.
02-16-2009, 09:28 PM   #83
jay
Inactive Account




Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Lincoln, Nebraska, USA
Posts: 65
QuoteOriginally posted by Blue Quote
I'm going to hold out for a full-framed pentagon sensor.
And I'm holding out for a sensor in the shape of the Star of David.

02-16-2009, 10:11 PM   #84
Inactive Account




Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Brisbane, QLD, AUS
Posts: 3,262
Square Formats: They're a bastard to print!

I wonder if someone like Benji can verify, but the reason that the Pentax 67's took the magazine world by storm wasn't due to the fact that they were cheaper or had sharper lenses than the Hasselblads; it was because they weren't square.

The Hassies did have sharper lenses. Carl Zeiss. But any extra resolution you gained on the lens was lost when you cropped it to fit on the paper. Pentax didn't have this problem (and they larger negs helped as well.)

So with a square sensor: lose resolution on cropping, or waste money on printing. Your call.
02-17-2009, 04:30 AM   #85
Veteran Member
benjikan's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Paris, France
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 4,309
QuoteOriginally posted by lithos Quote
Square Formats: They're a bastard to print!

I wonder if someone like Benji can verify, but the reason that the Pentax 67's took the magazine world by storm wasn't due to the fact that they were cheaper or had sharper lenses than the Hasselblads; it was because they weren't square.

The Hassies did have sharper lenses. Carl Zeiss. But any extra resolution you gained on the lens was lost when you cropped it to fit on the paper. Pentax didn't have this problem (and they larger negs helped as well.)

So with a square sensor: lose resolution on cropping, or waste money on printing. Your call.
I find square format totally useless. It is rare that my images get published in a square format. The only magazine I know of that is square format is "Dealer Deluxe" in France. In some ways I wish there was a sensor closer to 645. That format is almost a perfect fit for all media being published.

Ben
02-17-2009, 04:45 AM   #86
Veteran Member




Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 1,934
Pure *Imaginations*

QuoteOriginally posted by cateto Quote
i am a bit surprised that this rumour is not being discussed here (yet), or at least i couldn't find the discussion:

22mp dfx body: Pentax slr talk forum: Digital photography review

any further rumblings, or is this just an invented story?
why bother?
02-17-2009, 05:10 AM   #87
Senior Member




Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Spain
Posts: 189
Original Poster
^ If you mean reading your posts, RH, don't worry: I don't bother doing it.
02-17-2009, 05:40 AM   #88
Site Supporter
Douglas_of_Sweden's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Stockholm
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,348
QuoteOriginally posted by benjikan Quote
I find square format totally useless. It is rare that my images get published in a square format. The only magazine I know of that is square format is "Dealer Deluxe" in France. In some ways I wish there was a sensor closer to 645. That format is almost a perfect fit for all media being published.

Ben
Kind of agree. Though liking the old Hasselblads in other ways, I always got negative surface left over. Most motives appeared to be better framed in rectangels than in squares. And it was not insignificant were I placed that extra surface. If I filled it with sky or ground affected the exposure (come to think of it, would not a camera with that many alternative crops have some difficulties weigthing exposure and selecting focus points as the crop change...doable but a bit messy, don't want for example an APS-C crop exposed partly according to light outside that frame...).

Why do we prefere rectangels in cameras, publications, printer paper, paintings... I think it may have something to do with that we have two eyes so our field of view is wider than it is high, so a rectangel is a better proxy to that. Had the cyclops that Oddysevs met developed a more advanced civilisation I'm sure they would have had square format in their cameras and printed square pictures in their magazines, even their printers would have used some square equivalent to A4.
02-17-2009, 06:25 AM   #89
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Borås, Sweden
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,165
QuoteOriginally posted by jay Quote
18mm X 18mm ?

...What's the point? I'll just crop my damn photos square in photoshop, then.

And no one has said anything about the petal lens hoods we all have with our lenses. I don't care if it's full-frame or DA or whatever -- the lens just isn't physically designed to project a circular image with its lens hood on.
Not always limited to the lens hoods; check out the back of a 200/4 SMC-M sometime.
02-17-2009, 07:13 AM   #90
Veteran Member
GoldenWreckedAngle's Avatar

Join Date: May 2008
Location: Abilene, TX
Posts: 341
I'm holding out for a sensor in a 1:1.618034 ratio myself.
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!
pentax news, pentax rumors, rumour
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Quick question: why K7D not K3D? Ivan Glisin Pentax News and Rumors 35 05-04-2009 08:12 AM
Time for a new rumour on K30D welshwizard645 Pentax News and Rumors 34 04-24-2009 01:33 PM
Wow...the NEW K3D Next Week!!! benjikan Pentax News and Rumors 72 04-04-2009 11:53 AM
Pentax square format sensor -- or is it Nikon? filmamigo Pentax News and Rumors 5 02-17-2009 07:39 AM
Rumour Geyst Pentax News and Rumors 41 10-09-2007 09:39 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:08 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.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