[vinzer]

Gary, I actually think RiceHigh gets the aggressive posts directed at him because he dares poke the balloon of the allmighty Pentax.
It's the whole shoot the messenger syndrome playing out.
I've been the target of a few myself for similar (though not exactly the same) reasons.
I've pulled some pretty feisty responses out of the FanBoy group with what I thought were some fairly reasonable concerns.

It's probably the presentation of the message that probably gets people all riled up. I have come across quite a number of your posts, and I think you speak from experience when you do find fault with Pentax. That's not to say that RH doesn't speak from experience also (I think he does), but probably the constant linking to his own blog instead of the original sources of the material probably ticks a lot of people off, not to mention his past reputation with people. I'm actually thankful that he tries to translate Japanese articles. They're worlds better than the current Google translation tool.

I'm okay with finding faults with Pentax. They really do need to be chastised for a number of issues. It's probably the presentation that's amiss at times.

[Wheatfield]

BTW, I'm surprised no one has mentioned the FF part of Ned's post. The way I read it, their engineers have played w/ FF but think all current glass will be outresolved by the sensor, so they have no plans to produce FF until they run out of room w/ APS-C. What I don't get is why Canikon's FF systems seem ok (no one claiming the lens is outresolved by the sensor)?

Personally, I think Ned is full of bollocks on this one. A full frame camera with the same pixel density as a 15MP APS C sensor would end up being about the same pixel count as the Nikon D3X.
His argument also completely ignores the advantage of a lower pixel count full frame sensor WRT noise control, such as what Nikon has done with the D3.

[lol101]

BTW, I'm surprised no one has mentioned the FF part of Ned's post. The way I read it, their engineers have played w/ FF but think all current glass will be outresolved by the sensor, so they have no plans to produce FF until they run out of room w/ APS-C. What I don't get is why Canikon's FF systems seem ok (no one claiming the lens is outresolved by the sensor)?

The only thing I can tell from experience is that good M42 lenses (yes, the ones from the 70s) do get along pretty well with a FF sensor (5D) so I really don't think that "modern era" lenses (like the FA ones for instance) would be "outresolved" by a FF sensor, even a 32MP one.

Older AF Canon designs (like the 50f1.4 or 35f2 I have) also give excellent results on FF: a non issue IMHO.

[falconeye]

Personally, I think Ned is full of bollocks on this one.

Yeah, there is something rather strange going on.

If he says that maybe even a FA31 Ltd. may be outresolved by a FF sensor we can clearly see that he was pushed into some irrational thinking about this topic by ... who?

If Ned would start to do his own tests with Pentax full frame glass (and even some DA glass) on a full frame digital body or high resolution black & white film (as some here in the forum have done) he would know that he is rather wrong here.

[Wheatfield]

Yeah, there is something rather strange going on.

If he says that maybe even a FA31 Ltd. may be outresolved by a FF sensor we can clearly see that he was pushed into some irrational thinking about this topic by ... who?

If Ned would start to do his own tests with Pentax full frame glass (and even some DA glass) on a full frame digital body or high resolution black & white film (as some here in the forum have done) he would know that he is rather wrong here.

Consider the growing cult of people who are modifying older Pentax glass to go onto full frame Canons. I suspect they know something that Ned is pretending doesn't exist.

[Aristophanes]

As far as Ned's comments go on FF, was he telling us to go buy a N. D3x, D3 or D700 if the K20D doesn't have enough performance for us?
I am curious about the "glass" and resolution issues also. That implies that Pentax has tested "Legace" glass and I'm wondering if they have done those tests with the M* A* etc as well as some of the other better glass.

Yes, Ned was saying that if you want FF now you will need to move to another brand.

The reasoning to avoid FF is that the increase in costs to develop would not be recouped by small market sales. It's a tiny sector of the photo biz.

What Ned really emphasizes is that the quality increases between APS-C and FF are marginal, and that the glass Pentax currently makes may not be up to the task. Current and legacy lenses would eventually need to be replaced with lenses dedicated to a FF system. For everyone—including Pentax—this would cost a lot more money. Go to a Nikon forum and scope the discussions about how the D3 screams for new, FF-specific glass for digital backs. Then more screams as the costs are revealed. The issues are not necessarily the glass itself, but the drive mechanisms, shake reduction, battery life, EXIF data, etc. It's not just about resolution.

Pentax cannot make money selling backs only for legacy glass that may or may not be up to the power of the new, FF sensors. They would have to sell a whole system including new glass to make the investment pay off. Ned doesn't exactly say this, but a reverse engineered business analysis demonstrates this to be the core of his reasoning. The company may not have the resources to support 4 product lines—compact, APS-C, and MF. So FF is the one left out. Pentax is clearly putting its efforts into APS-C and the Digital 645D medium format and has basically outsourced its compact systems more to keep the name in the market in that commodity biz. No FF. Not in the "near term".

[deejjjaaaa]

What Ned really emphasizes is that the quality increases between APS-C and FF are marginal

sales/marketing people will emphasizes anything based on what they sell... since when do they care about what we will get for our money unless they don't have the product in question to sell ?

[kenyee]

I'm actually thankful that he tries to translate Japanese articles. They're worlds better than the current Google translation tool.

I always thought ricehigh was chinese, not japanese....

I always thought ricehigh was chinese, not japanese....

And I thought that when confronted directly by Mike Cash he admitted he doesn't speak Japanese but he's helped by some friends. Presumably the same under NDA, of course.

Radu

[ogl]

The cardboard boxes with new K-7, promotion materials in black bags, and kits and double-kits are on the way to all dealers...Wait!

[kenyee]

And I thought that when confronted directly by Mike Cash he admitted he doesn't speak Japanese but he's helped by some friends. Presumably the same under NDA, of course.

LOL. Some of the japanese written language is actually the same as chinese. The simpler notation isn't related though, nor is the simpler notation of chinese. I hate languages w/o an alphabet

[jeffkrol]

Gary, I actually think RiceHigh gets the aggressive posts directed at him because he dares poke the balloon of the allmighty Pentax.
It's the whole shoot the messenger syndrome playing out.
I've been the target of a few myself for similar (though not exactly the same) reasons.
I've pulled some pretty feisty responses out of the FanBoy group with what I thought were some fairly reasonable concerns.

The reasons are as follows:
quote:
Assuming that your DSLR's sensor has been calibrated to comply the 18% standard and the exposure control of your DSLR is accurate, you should be able to get a peak somewhere close enough to the 128 at the centre in the camera's histogram, like this:
Answer: WRONG....
1. The most unreliable DSLR in the exposure accuracy department is the Pentax K20D;

2. The King of Underexposure belongs to the Pentax! The K20D underexposes pictures in an unbelievable large percentage of 44.4%, which is very far more than the underexposure failure rate of all other DSLRs under test, which are all able to keep a very low percentage of underexposure;

3. The amount of underexposure for the Pentax is in a great amount of 0.7EV, also, in addition to the huge number of underexposed shots recorded (as they could be if not compensated);
I think technically there must be something wrong inside their metering/exposure system in their DSLRs (and/or digital lenses) which only Pentax themselves would know (for why their this metering/exposure system is inferior). But anyway I still hope that they can improve and will improve, in the near future, and in the coming next models (although I have been rather disappointed and desperate for long already).
I could go on for, literally, days.....
If anyone believes (without putting it in perspective about the "flaws" of other cameras) why are any of you even buying Pentax????
Go get a Canon or Nikon, or Olympus (which actually seems like the more perfect system, too bad about their small sensor...
I'm done w/ this.... we shall see what happens w/ the K whatever...
Not to mention the tungsten BF... Canon has a tendency to FF under flourescent light.. but put this in the RH spotlight and you would think Pentax is the ONLY problematic brand.....

[Wheatfield]

What Ned really emphasizes is that the quality increases between APS-C and FF are marginal, and that the glass Pentax currently makes may not be up to the task.

Ned really needs to try using a D3 at 1600iso or higher sometime.
The marginal increase in quality is about as wide as the Mississippi river.
They would have to ramp up production on glass that would cover the full frame again, so he is correct that their present lens line isn't up to the task.

[falconeye]

The reasoning to avoid FF is that the increase in costs to develop would not be recouped by small market sales. It's a tiny sector of the photo biz.

What you say sounds logical.

However ... it is all a matter of time and buying glass is a long-term investment.

What Pentax REALLY cannot afford is to ONLY sell glass which is to be deprecated. Well, it is ok for $300 glass. Not $1000+ glass. Not selling expensive glass anymore -- is what is killing Pentax -- now!

I, for my part, would be happy if $1000+ glass except for ultra-wide angle would again be certified FF-suitable. I need no body (now).


There is a precedent ...

At some time in history, all microprocessor manufacturers went 32 Bit. All but Intel. They kept saying "16 Bit is enough for the foreseeable future, there isn't enough memory anyway" ...
Intel almost died.
Up to a now legendary marketing campaign centered around a 32 Bit roadmap fallen from sky with no products to announce. Still, it changed the game and Intel prospered ever since.

[KungPOW]

What you say sounds logical.

However ... it is all a matter of time and buying glass is a long-term investment.

What Pentax REALLY cannot afford is to ONLY sell glass which is to be deprecated. Well, it is ok for $300 glass. Not $1000+ glass. Not selling expensive glass anymore -- is what is killing Pentax -- now!

I, for my part, would be happy if $1000+ glass except for ultra-wide angle would again be certified FF-suitable. I need no body (now).


There is a precedent ...

At some time in history, all microprocessor manufacturers went 32 Bit. All but Intel. They kept saying "16 Bit is enough for the foreseeable future, there isn't enough memory anyway" ...
Intel almost died.
Up to a now legendary marketing campaign centered around a 32 Bit roadmap fallen from sky with no products to announce. Still, it changed the game and Intel prospered ever since.

You have nailed the dilema I find myself in.

If I buy new glass, I would like it to be FF glass so that in 5 years from now, when FF cameras are as affordable as APS-C camers, I do not find myself with a stable of APS-C glass that I have little use for.

So, I've been waiting, and waiting, to see if Pentax shows ANY interest in developing a FF camera. Even if I cannot afford to buy it today, at least I know that I will be staying with Pentax. But right now, I am stuck.

The number one lens that I would use is the 16-50 DA*. But I have not bought this lens for two reasons. Quality issues and its APS-C. For my budget, $1000.00 is allot of cash to have to do my own QA, and expect that I will be selling the lens in 5 or 6 years. So I have not bought. The number two lens I want is the 31 FA ltd. But why shell out for this lens ($1300.00) when I may not stay with Pentax DSLR's?

Now with the third strike of the MASSIVE price jump of lenses in Canada, I am forced to rethink my system choice. I could move to either of the Big Two, loose the features that make Pentax great, but gain the stability of long term lens purchases.

This leaves the new K-7. It will really need to be special for me to stay long term with Pentax DSLR's. I don't ever expect to give up my Pentax film SLR's.