[sjwaldron]

The photo got me thinking, what if Pentax makes a mirrorless body (FF or not) with this "pistol" shape. The long shape will allow K mount registration distance to be kept

That's an interesting idea.

Some where in this giant thread I mentioned a TLR (twin lens reflex) styled mirrorless minus the second lens. Another style that would manage the registration distance issue.

[Emacs]

That's an interesting idea.

Some where in this giant thread I mentioned a TLR (twin lens reflex) styled mirrorless minus the second lens. Another style that would manage the registration distance issue.

Oh, well. Still bulky, still giant lenses (or small, but with mediocre IQ and cheap overcontrasted rendering).

[gazonk]

Oh, well. Still bulky, still giant lenses (or small, but with mediocre IQ and cheap overcontrasted rendering).

A lens can have overcontrasted rendering?

Please....

[Emacs]

A lens can have overcontrasted rendering?

Please....

The 15Ltd is one.

[gazonk]

The 15Ltd is one.

I'm sorry, but this reminds me of snake oil like directional speaker cables...

[Clavius]

A lens can have overcontrasted rendering?

Please....

Of course not! That's like saying that a certain lens is to sharp.

It's easier to decontrast in PP and to soften in PP, then it is to add contrast and details.

A lense cannot be to contrasty or to sharp.

[gazonk]

Of course not! That's like saying that a certain lens is to sharp.

It's easier to decontrast in PP and to soften in PP, then it is to add contrast and details.

A lense cannot be to contrasty or to sharp.

Or just mount an uv filter with Vaseline applied like in the good old days

[Emacs]

It's easier to decontrast in PP

1) Contrast ≠ resolution. I need resolution. I don't need contrast
2) It's easier to enhance contrast during the PP. Because with high contrast you are losing midtones.

[Emacs]

I'm sorry, but this reminds me of snake oil like directional speaker cables...

Well, I'm quite expirienced with 15Ltd and know its weaknesses. It's the lens aimed to produce cartoonish pics and that's all.
Today I'm sure it's the lens of their price $500 and nothing more. Sometimes it's capable of produce stunning results. But sometimes you need too much PP to get something appealing.
Of course, I'm not a pro and uses 15Ltd only occasionally, but pros who were using this lens are tend to agree with me.
For example, shooting portrait indoors using dispersed sunlight from the window. All FA Ltds, FA*, A*, zeisses I tried gives picture with soft lightness transition. In such a conditions (which I found to be perfect) 15Ltd manages to get contrast image.
F%ck, I don't need contrast image here, I don't see such a harsh gradient here, and I don't expect to see it on the photo. But this Ltd does it.
I can tell the same about other DA Ltds (although the effect isn't pronounced as strong as on 15), but this makes those ltds being inferior performers which just don't worth their price.
I was amazed how (relatively) popular DA Ltds on this forum. In our Moscow pentaxian club the majority supposes these DA Ltds are not real Ltds. At least they are inferior compared to FA Ltds.
I guess the insane contrast of DA Ltds is the cost for being sharp enough and small at the same time.

[markac]

I used to like the idea of APS-H, but now I think it would only be a stopgap on the way to FF. It might be okay for a mirror less camera, but generally I think it's time has passed. Someone mentioned that 135 was far from being the perfect film format. Perhaps that was the case, but it sold extremely well. APS in comparison, was a sales disaster.

[Clavius]

Well, I'm quite expirienced with 15Ltd and know its weaknesses. It's the lens aimed to produce cartoonish pics and that's all.
Today I'm sure it's the lens of their price $500 and nothing more. Sometimes it's capable of produce stunning results. But sometimes you need too much PP to get something appealing.
Of course, I'm not a pro and uses 15Ltd only occasionally, but pros who were using this lens are tend to agree with me.
For example, shooting portrait indoors using dispersed sunlight from the window. All FA Ltds, FA*, A*, zeisses I tried gives picture with soft lightness transition. In such a conditions (which I found to be perfect) 15Ltd manages to get contrast image.
F%ck, I don't need contrast image here, I don't see such a harsh gradient here, and I don't expect to see it on the photo. But this Ltd does it.
I can tell the same about other DA Ltds (although the effect isn't pronounced as strong as on 15), but this makes those ltds being inferior performers which just don't worth their price.
I was amazed how (relatively) popular DA Ltds on this forum. In our Moscow pentaxian club the majority supposes these DA Ltds are not real Ltds. At least they are inferior compared to FA Ltds.
I guess the insane contrast of DA Ltds is the cost for being sharp enough and small at the same time.

OMG, this is just like those people that complain that certain lenses are to fast. How can a lense be to fast?!? Just use a different F for *** sake.

This is exactly the same thing. How can a lense be to contrasty? If you don't like it, adjust it. You can't make a flat lense produce more contrast, but you can make a contrasty lens produce less. With inbody setting, filters or in PP.

[RonHendriks1966]

wow

this thread is spinning fast.

when was the last time a FF thread was so actively discussed?

Lots of new bussings, all without ground, but giving hope.

Can you say something about the tecknical difference between using CMOS and CCD for a next genereation Full Frame or APS-H?

Can a CCD perform up to iso 6400 or is heat getting in the way when shooting intensively at 8 fps?

[falconeye]

Can you say something about the tecknical difference between using CMOS and CCD for a next genereation Full Frame or APS-H?

Can a CCD perform up to iso 6400 or is heat getting in the way when shooting intensively at 8 fps?

I ignore APS-H.
Theoretically, CCD should provide good sensors with good low iso capabilities. It shouldn't become hot with still photography and quantum efficiency is good.

However, CMOS allows a trick to reduce read-out noise: incorporate the A/D-circuitry right onto the sensor die (something Sony did with the K-5 sensor). That's not possible with CCD.

Therefore, I see CCD become irrelevant in the not too distant future. Where K-5 class sensors are a requirement.

The problem may intensify. Because you can incorporate counter circuitry and 32-bit pixel registers right onto the sensor die (something Sony did not yet do), I foresee CMOS sensors with 32EV dynamic range, very fast electronic shutters (instant read-out) and 2k or 4k cinema HD video streams downsampled on the die prior to reading off chip.


Disclaimer:
This thread spins too fast for me to follow. Don't expect responses.

[Parallax]

............


Disclaimer:
This thread spins too fast for me to follow. Don't expect responses.

That's okay, Falk. The thread wasn't about, or directed at you anyway; so no problem.

[gazonk]

Therefore, I see CCD become irrelevant in the not too distant future. Where K-5 class sensors are a requirement.

I wonder if we'll see CMOS larger-than-FF (MF/cropped MF) sensors soon?