Ned B. On NDAs, RiceHigh and other things

**Pål Jensen** · 04-29-2009, 11:05 AM

Originally posted by Wheatfield

Links? I'm doing my income tax today, I could use a laugh....

I did mine yesterday and laughed a lot. They owe me $7500...

deejjjaaaa · 04-29-2009, 11:07 AM

Originally posted by Pål Jensen

Nonsense. Pentax have FF stabilization patents from years back. I wouldn't be surprised if Sony is paying Pentax for its use....

care to compare how it is actually realized by Oly vs Sony vs Pentax ?

deejjjaaaa · 04-29-2009, 11:27 AM

Originally posted by thibs

but if I remember well, it goes as far as 0.5-1 EV with FF lens. A gimmick.

I have no read official info on that so until proven it is rumour (c) yours...

you can compare SR test of Pentax cameras and A900 on dpreview:

Sony Alpha 900 Review: 18. Features: Digital Photography Review

you can claim of course that:

1) Amazon was bribed by Sony
2) DPReview can't test things properly
3) you did not read that

thibs · 04-29-2009, 12:07 PM

Originally posted by Wheatfield

Links? I'm doing my income tax today, I could use a laugh....

Sony 35mm f/1.4 G ( SAL-35F14G ) - Review / Test Report

Of course you will dismiss it since it doesn't fit you agenda.

thibs · 04-29-2009, 12:10 PM

Originally posted by deejjjaaaa

I have no read official info on that so until proven it is rumour (c) yours...

you can compare SR test of Pentax cameras and A900 on dpreview:

Sony Alpha 900 Review: 18. Features: Digital Photography Review

you can claim of course that:

1) Amazon was bribed by Sony
2) DPReview can't test things properly
3) you did not read that

Stop changing the words I wrote. I wrote 'as I remember'. Try to find someone to teach you how to read, first.

cousinsane · 04-29-2009, 12:12 PM

Yea, you are right. Screw lens tests. I am gonna drop 2K on a FF body and get myself some Takumar lenses. If someone on the internet said they work well, that's good enough for me.

Originally posted by lol101

Don't be too harsh on yourself, you just probably have a failling eyesight, it's normal after a certain age... I must be experiencing similar problems...

No amount of actual experience of using Pentax 24x36 lenses on FF will do... the Truth has been spoken: Pentax lenses aren't up to the task.

Better get along with it, even if you have countless shots that you find quite OK... it's just a question of you having low standards.

Anyway, did you spend enough time measurbating your gear?... didn't think so!

If you're not able to produce a complete set of brick wall tests shots (preferably with direct comparisons with corresponding DA lenses on K-7), what value does your experience carry...?

Anyway, your 5D is now obsolete and that's probably the reason it's performing acceptably with old glass: better drop it all in the trashbin as I just did.

Wheatfield · 04-29-2009, 12:41 PM

Originally posted by thibs

Sony 35mm f/1.4 G ( SAL-35F14G ) - Review / Test Report

Of course you will dismiss it since it doesn't fit you agenda.

Apparently they didn't think much of it.
Perhaps you'd let me in on what my agenda is.
I'm always eager to learn.

Priyantha Bleeker · 04-29-2009, 02:02 PM

Originally posted by vinzer

Pentax never promised FF to their users, so I don't see why people are taking them to task about it. It will be a nice surprise, sure, but I'll believe it only when they announce it, and maybe not even until they release a FF body will I believe it. I bought Pentax knowing APS-C is all I'll get in the predictable future. There are other options out there if one really wants FF, and others here have already acted on it, and now they're happy people. If I really wanted FF, I would've done what Samsungian, Duplo, and Asahiflex did: go multiple system.

Well I have to do some little corrections here...
No you are right that Pentax didn't promise us a real FullFrame-35mm dSLR...
But ! Pentax did show us 'back in the days...

' a very nice and neet FF 35mm dSLR working Prototype with a Philips 6MP CCD(which was very good @ low ISO but very week @ high ISO...).

Below here is the copy/paste text from a news report from Dpreview about this camera shown at the PMA 2001:

Quote:

PMA 2001: Today we got an exclusive hands-on with Pentax's new 6 megapixel digital SLR. At this stage they have an early working prototype which will power up and operate, the onboard software is still a bit rough but the body, controls and operation are already pretty much there. The camera is much smaller and thinner than any other digital SLR, ergonimically it's well designed and everything is where it should be. Pentax haven't named the camera yet

They claim that the camera is ergonomically designed in a good way, and that the powere will power on and operate and that the controls and operation is there and working.

AND the camera did have the FULL KAF2 mount, so the old K and M lenses were usable with right metering.
And they were planning the introducing it back then....
The plan was to introduce it in the summer of 2001.

Some pics:

After that they came with the *ist D, after a lot of years...and they were lagging behind the competition already because they didn't release any dSLR.
Luckely Pentax introduced the K10D back in September 2006, which was the only reason why Pentax did survive. Because the K10D was a big hit and a stellar of a camera in his days.
The K20D introduced in the end of January 2008 wasn't a big success as the K10D I think...and yes the K20D is a great camera. It is a improvement over the K10D, I like it very much and I do use it much.

But a FF 35mm dSLR ? I am willing to pay for it

Asahiflex · 04-29-2009, 02:09 PM

Oooh yes, the Pentax K-1! I'm sure that the K-1 will come eventually, but completely reworked of course.

lol101 · 04-29-2009, 02:19 PM

Originally posted by cousinsane

Yea, you are right. Screw lens tests. I am gonna drop 2K on a FF body and get myself some Takumar lenses. If someone on the internet said they work well, that's good enough for me.

By all means, please don't throw your money away on such things like I foolishly did!

I wouldn't want you to be left in the sand with inadequate gear... I know the feeling all too well...

Seriously though I thought the debate was whether or not the main reason for Pentax choosing not to go FF was that 24x36 Pentax lenses were not "good enough" for FF... and I just don't think it is a valid argument but please, do link to the lens tests you were refering to, I'd love to see how bad these Ol' Takies fared on FF....

And to finish by something more constructive, don't hesitate to drop by the Pentax lens forum on this very site and check out the Takumar club thread: nothing really useful (no formal tests) but some pretty good pictures using those crummy lenses on digital (you can even spot some that were taken on FF...)

Philippos · 04-29-2009, 03:06 PM

Originally posted by Priyantha Bleeker

Well I have to do some little corrections here...
No you are right that Pentax didn't promise us a real FullFrame-35mm dSLR...
But ! Pentax did show us 'back in the days...

' a very nice and neet FF 35mm dSLR working Prototype with a Philips 6MP CCD(which was very good @ low ISO but very week @ high ISO...)

Contax built a camera around this Philips sensor and eventually went bust.
The camera (Contax N - Digital) began selling at over $6500. The Pentax MZ-D (that was supposed to go on sale as K-1), was more advanced than the Contax and would probably sell for $8000. The sensor was not very good @ low iso. It was no good at all. Producing such an exotic beast, Pentax would have probably followed Contax along so many other SLR manufacturers into oblivion.

Yohan Pamudji · 04-29-2009, 03:23 PM

Originally posted by Philippos

Contax built a camera around this Philips sensor and eventually went bust.
The camera (Contax N - Digital) began selling at over $6500. The Pentax MZ-D (that was supposed to go on sale as K-1), was more advanced than the Contax and would probably sell for $8000. The sensor was not very good @ low iso. It was no good at all. Producing such an exotic beast, Pentax would have probably followed Contax along so many other SLR manufacturers into oblivion.

Exactly. Pentax made the right choice.

deejjjaaaa · 04-29-2009, 03:36 PM

Originally posted by thibs

Stop changing the words I wrote. I wrote 'as I remember'.

oh, amnesia

**Pål Jensen** · 04-29-2009, 03:38 PM

Originally posted by Yohan Pamudji

Exactly. Pentax made the right choice.

They may indeed have, but Pentax managed to get the sensor to actually work

. In fact, Contax asked Pentax for "help" but Pentax declined. The "K-1", which I think is the prototype name - it was to be called MD-S, was so close to production before it was axed that the tooling for it had begun. They "wasted" $20.000.000 on the project!

Priyantha Bleeker · 04-29-2009, 03:40 PM

Maybe Pentax made the right choice with not releasing thát K1 yes.
But not the right choice with, not doing anything with it.
They could have done anything with it, with another sensor maybe...the body is ergonomic not bad...it has the only right mount. It has TTL....AND 35mm

But the most important part of it, they showed it with a FILM 50mm F1.4 lens

And wasn't it the case that the film lenses weren't good enough ?

04-29-2009, 03:38 PM	#194
Pål Jensen Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Norway Photos: Albums Posts: 4,371	Originally posted by Yohan Pamudji Exactly. Pentax made the right choice. They may indeed have, but Pentax managed to get the sensor to actually work. In fact, Contax asked Pentax for "help" but Pentax declined. The "K-1", which I think is the prototype name - it was to be called MD-S, was so close to production before it was axed that the tooling for it had begun. They "wasted" $20.000.000 on the project!

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Ricehigh: No More Hope With Pentax	Asahiflex	General Talk	143	07-11-2009 12:14 PM
is RiceHigh the new benjikan of rumors?	vitalsax	Pentax News and Rumors	19	04-30-2009 01:56 PM
A question for RiceHigh and other 5D/Pentax users	lol101	Pentax DSLR Discussion	22	04-09-2008 10:12 AM
Well done, RiceHigh...	klopus	General Talk	10	08-05-2007 05:40 AM

04-29-2009, 11:05 AM	#181
Pål Jensen Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Norway Photos: Albums Posts: 4,371	Originally posted by Wheatfield Links? I'm doing my income tax today, I could use a laugh.... I did mine yesterday and laughed a lot. They owe me $7500...

04-29-2009, 11:07 AM	#182
deejjjaaaa Veteran Member Join Date: May 2007 Location: steel city / rust belt Posts: 2,043	Originally posted by Pål Jensen Nonsense. Pentax have FF stabilization patents from years back. I wouldn't be surprised if Sony is paying Pentax for its use.... care to compare how it is actually realized by Oly vs Sony vs Pentax ?

04-29-2009, 11:27 AM	#183
deejjjaaaa Veteran Member Join Date: May 2007 Location: steel city / rust belt Posts: 2,043	Originally posted by thibs but if I remember well, it goes as far as 0.5-1 EV with FF lens. A gimmick. I have no read official info on that so until proven it is rumour (c) yours... you can compare SR test of Pentax cameras and A900 on dpreview: Sony Alpha 900 Review: 18. Features: Digital Photography Review you can claim of course that: 1) Amazon was bribed by Sony 2) DPReview can't test things properly 3) you did not read that

04-29-2009, 12:07 PM	#184
thibs Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Belgium Photos: Albums Posts: 7,001	Originally posted by Wheatfield Links? I'm doing my income tax today, I could use a laugh.... Sony 35mm f/1.4 G ( SAL-35F14G ) - Review / Test Report Of course you will dismiss it since it doesn't fit you agenda.

04-29-2009, 12:10 PM	#185
thibs Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Belgium Photos: Albums Posts: 7,001	Originally posted by deejjjaaaa I have no read official info on that so until proven it is rumour (c) yours... you can compare SR test of Pentax cameras and A900 on dpreview: Sony Alpha 900 Review: 18. Features: Digital Photography Review you can claim of course that: 1) Amazon was bribed by Sony 2) DPReview can't test things properly 3) you did not read that Stop changing the words I wrote. I wrote 'as I remember'. Try to find someone to teach you how to read, first.

04-29-2009, 12:12 PM	#186
cousinsane Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: madison Posts: 239	Yea, you are right. Screw lens tests. I am gonna drop 2K on a FF body and get myself some Takumar lenses. If someone on the internet said they work well, that's good enough for me. Originally posted by lol101 Don't be too harsh on yourself, you just probably have a failling eyesight, it's normal after a certain age... I must be experiencing similar problems... No amount of actual experience of using Pentax 24x36 lenses on FF will do... the Truth has been spoken: Pentax lenses aren't up to the task. Better get along with it, even if you have countless shots that you find quite OK... it's just a question of you having low standards. Anyway, did you spend enough time measurbating your gear?... didn't think so! If you're not able to produce a complete set of brick wall tests shots (preferably with direct comparisons with corresponding DA lenses on K-7), what value does your experience carry...? Anyway, your 5D is now obsolete and that's probably the reason it's performing acceptably with old glass: better drop it all in the trashbin as I just did.

04-29-2009, 12:41 PM	#187
Wheatfield Moderator Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: The wheatfields of Canada Posts: 15,987	Originally posted by thibs Sony 35mm f/1.4 G ( SAL-35F14G ) - Review / Test Report Of course you will dismiss it since it doesn't fit you agenda. Apparently they didn't think much of it. Perhaps you'd let me in on what my agenda is. I'm always eager to learn.

04-29-2009, 02:02 PM	#188
Priyantha Bleeker Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Amsterdam Posts: 190	Originally posted by vinzer Pentax never promised FF to their users, so I don't see why people are taking them to task about it. It will be a nice surprise, sure, but I'll believe it only when they announce it, and maybe not even until they release a FF body will I believe it. I bought Pentax knowing APS-C is all I'll get in the predictable future. There are other options out there if one really wants FF, and others here have already acted on it, and now they're happy people. If I really wanted FF, I would've done what Samsungian, Duplo, and Asahiflex did: go multiple system. Well I have to do some little corrections here... No you are right that Pentax didn't promise us a real FullFrame-35mm dSLR... But ! Pentax did show us 'back in the days... ' a very nice and neet FF 35mm dSLR working Prototype with a Philips 6MP CCD(which was very good @ low ISO but very week @ high ISO...). Below here is the copy/paste text from a news report from Dpreview about this camera shown at the PMA 2001: Quote: PMA 2001: Today we got an exclusive hands-on with Pentax's new 6 megapixel digital SLR. At this stage they have an early working prototype which will power up and operate, the onboard software is still a bit rough but the body, controls and operation are already pretty much there. The camera is much smaller and thinner than any other digital SLR, ergonimically it's well designed and everything is where it should be. Pentax haven't named the camera yet They claim that the camera is ergonomically designed in a good way, and that the powere will power on and operate and that the controls and operation is there and working. AND the camera did have the FULL KAF2 mount, so the old K and M lenses were usable with right metering. And they were planning the introducing it back then.... The plan was to introduce it in the summer of 2001. Some pics: After that they came with the *ist D, after a lot of years...and they were lagging behind the competition already because they didn't release any dSLR. Luckely Pentax introduced the K10D back in September 2006, which was the only reason why Pentax did survive. Because the K10D was a big hit and a stellar of a camera in his days. The K20D introduced in the end of January 2008 wasn't a big success as the K10D I think...and yes the K20D is a great camera. It is a improvement over the K10D, I like it very much and I do use it much. But a FF 35mm dSLR ? I am willing to pay for it

04-29-2009, 02:09 PM	#189
Asahiflex Pentaxian Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Netherlands Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,795	Oooh yes, the Pentax K-1! I'm sure that the K-1 will come eventually, but completely reworked of course.

04-29-2009, 02:19 PM	#190
lol101 Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Garennes sur Eure France Photos: Gallery Posts: 899	Originally posted by cousinsane Yea, you are right. Screw lens tests. I am gonna drop 2K on a FF body and get myself some Takumar lenses. If someone on the internet said they work well, that's good enough for me. By all means, please don't throw your money away on such things like I foolishly did! I wouldn't want you to be left in the sand with inadequate gear... I know the feeling all too well... Seriously though I thought the debate was whether or not the main reason for Pentax choosing not to go FF was that 24x36 Pentax lenses were not "good enough" for FF... and I just don't think it is a valid argument but please, do link to the lens tests you were refering to, I'd love to see how bad these Ol' Takies fared on FF.... And to finish by something more constructive, don't hesitate to drop by the Pentax lens forum on this very site and check out the Takumar club thread: nothing really useful (no formal tests) but some pretty good pictures using those crummy lenses on digital (you can even spot some that were taken on FF...)

04-29-2009, 03:06 PM	#191
Philippos Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Volos - Greece Posts: 178	Originally posted by Priyantha Bleeker Well I have to do some little corrections here... No you are right that Pentax didn't promise us a real FullFrame-35mm dSLR... But ! Pentax did show us 'back in the days... ' a very nice and neet FF 35mm dSLR working Prototype with a Philips 6MP CCD(which was very good @ low ISO but very week @ high ISO...) Contax built a camera around this Philips sensor and eventually went bust. The camera (Contax N - Digital) began selling at over $6500. The Pentax MZ-D (that was supposed to go on sale as K-1), was more advanced than the Contax and would probably sell for $8000. The sensor was not very good @ low iso. It was no good at all. Producing such an exotic beast, Pentax would have probably followed Contax along so many other SLR manufacturers into oblivion.

04-29-2009, 03:23 PM	#192
Yohan Pamudji Inactive Account Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Mississippi Posts: 184	Originally posted by Philippos Contax built a camera around this Philips sensor and eventually went bust. The camera (Contax N - Digital) began selling at over $6500. The Pentax MZ-D (that was supposed to go on sale as K-1), was more advanced than the Contax and would probably sell for $8000. The sensor was not very good @ low iso. It was no good at all. Producing such an exotic beast, Pentax would have probably followed Contax along so many other SLR manufacturers into oblivion. Exactly. Pentax made the right choice.

04-29-2009, 03:36 PM	#193
deejjjaaaa Veteran Member Join Date: May 2007 Location: steel city / rust belt Posts: 2,043	Originally posted by thibs Stop changing the words I wrote. I wrote 'as I remember'. oh, amnesia

04-29-2009, 03:40 PM	#195
Priyantha Bleeker Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Amsterdam Posts: 190	Maybe Pentax made the right choice with not releasing thát K1 yes. But not the right choice with, not doing anything with it. They could have done anything with it, with another sensor maybe...the body is ergonomic not bad...it has the only right mount. It has TTL....AND 35mm But the most important part of it, they showed it with a FILM 50mm F1.4 lens And wasn't it the case that the film lenses weren't good enough ?