[monochrome]

I have a really hard time with that on so many levels.

[melvis2]

I have a really hard time with that on so many levels.

A world where we define our own reality? I can't see the problem with that monchrome. I mean it works so well for me from a moralistic standpoint, why not cameras.

[Digitalis]

You just stated one of the problems we have in our society creating an ordered meritocracy (deciding what is "the best").

There must be a logical progression to the order, such that there is a

• Standard, then a
• Comparative, then THE
• Superlative

In common parlance we refer to this progression as

• Good leads to
• Better leads to
• Best

Unfortunately unless all participants agree on the Standard we can never rank the members of the Class against each other fairly. We can't create an ordered meritocracy.

Until we agree on what is Good we can never agree on what is Best.

This problem exists in virtually every argument in our modern society - and the problem all stems from a Logic Innovation that swept Law Schools in the sixties - Critical Thinking.

The central tenet of Critical Thinking is that your preconceived assumptions are incorrect. You must examine them, question them, identify their faults and replace your assumptions with the correct assumptions (which we will teach you). Then , using these new, correct assumptions, using this new notion of what is Good, you will create a proper ordering of things. You will find a new Best.

So we can't agree on whether FF or APSc or m4/3 or 1/2" or Medium Format is the Standard against which everything else shall be measured.

There is no "Best" camera. There is no "Best" anything.

Because there is no Good.

Bloody hell, all I said is that i'm prejudiced against 4/3rds. All I did was express my opinion, I didn't expect to derail the discussion over a full flung argument over quantifying what is "best".

Don't confuse me for an expert, an expert is someone who has found one thing that is more interesting than sex, and as far as I can see i'm a long way off from being an expert.

okay: now back to full frame cameras. It should be possible for pentax to keep the form factor of the K5, with only a few adjustments to the mirror box and pentaprism housing. However there are some limitations how big they can make it before it makes the whole camera unwieldy, I consider the viewfinder on the ME super to be excellent for students - it has one of the highest magnification viewfinders* in 35mm photography however the coverage isn't stellar (92%). I don't really consider a high eyepoint to be all that critical to my work, though there are many that aren't as lucky as I am with their eyesight.

For my work I won't accept anything lower than .8X unless the frame coverage is 95% or greater, if a camera has .7X it is critical that it has 100% coverage.

The D800E: .7X at 100% coverage (Nikon D4 is identical), Canon 1Ds MK III: .75X with 100% coverage, Sony A900: .74X with 100% coverage - just for reference the K5II has a Viewfinder with .92X magnification at 100% coverage

*and for this reason it is excellent for accurately focusing faster lenses.

[Alizarine]

When was the last time Pentax had trouble fulfilling pre-orders?

Took Pentax a month to get me my K-5 IIs, and two for my DA*50-135. But then again, I'm only one person.

[Winder]

I have a really hard time with that on so many levels.

Why? You chose what is best for you all the time and what is best can change relative to your needs at that time or what you think your future needs may be. Would it be better if someone else chose what is best for you?

[ihasa]

just for reference the K5II has a Viewfinder with .92X magnification at 100% coverage

*and for this reason it is excellent for accurately focusing faster lenses.

Was thinking about your examples, and it strikes me that if you factor in the crop factor and the K5 is more like .92X at 66% coverage (of what you'd see on a FF).

[Digitalis]

Was thinking about your examples, and it strikes me that if you factor in the crop factor and the K5 is more like .92X at 66% coverage

well that is certainly one way of looking at it, however the pentaprism is of proportional size for the APS-C format, to produce a viewfinder similar to what the K5 already has the pentaprism and mirror box have to be at least 1.5X bigger.

[KungPOW]

Was thinking about your examples, and it strikes me that if you factor in the crop factor and the K5 is more like .92X at 66% coverage (of what you'd see on a FF).

The coverage for the k-5 is always 100%

But it gets a "boost" to its magnification number because of the crop factor.

Camera viewfinder magnification is determined with a 50mm lens on the camera.

But with a 35mm lens, to get equivalent field of view the magnification drops to .7x (more or less).

So you can't really compare FF viewfinder magnification directly to aps-c viewfinder magnification.

[cmohr]

Don't confuse me for an expert, an expert is someone who has found one thing the is more interesting than sex, and as far as I can see i'm a long way off from being an expert.

Coffee out my nose!!!!!!!!!!

[Digitalis]

So you can't really compare FF viewfinder magnification directly to aps-c viewfinder magnification.

No, you can't. It isn't fair to compare them really because there is no true 50mm equivalent lens for APS-C*. The viewfinder is perhaps the thing I that gets in the way the most when I switch between APS-C and FF, and again when I use the Leica S2 or Pentax 645D and then use a D800E. I get the same feeling when I switch between my Leica M9 and M8

Coffee out my nose!!!!!!!!!!

Sorry about that, I hope you weren't wearing a white shirt...

*The DA 35mm f/1.8 comes the closest having an equivalent FOV as a 52mm FX lens

[ogl]

The name of thread is changed. It's all right.

Next Pentax camera will be ~20+MP APS-C top-camera. This spring IMO.

[Digitalis]

Next Pentax camera will be ~20+MP APS-C top-camera.

Any indication on whether the camera will have a Bayer AA filter? From what I have heard the K5IIs outsold the K5II in the Japanese market. And we have been hearing rumors of pentax developing methods of suppressing moire in-camera.

[gazonk]

Any indication on whether the camera will have a Bayer AA filter? From what I have heard the K5IIs outsold the K5II in the Japanese market.

It would be silly of them not to make an "s version". It just seems obvious to introduce a 24mp K-5-based camera in two versions now. IMHO 24mp APS-C is currently the sweet spot for quite a few applications, for instance if you're into birding or wildlife in general or have some other need for long lenses (16mp APS-C isn't quite as unique, as a D800E will give the same amount of pixels per cropped area).

To make their APS-C lineup look attractive while we wait for an FF Pentax, a few new fast lenses would also help, e.g. a new 24mm f/2 (or faster).

Edit/afterthought: If they don't introduce two versions, they should at least make the AA filter less weak than on the original K-5. The NEX-7, for instance, has a very weak AA filter, similar to the K10D.

[Winder]

Sony makes the 16MP sensor in the OM-D. That sensor technology would produce a 28MP+/- APS-C sensor. Sony also has a new 20MP sensor that is coming out in the A5x body. Then you have the new Toshiba 24MP and the existing Sony 24MP.

The K-5IIs is selling very well here in the USA from what I have heard. Better than the K-5II. A 24MP +/- APC-C camera makes a lot of sense.

Pentax needs to produce a real competitive AF (predictive) if it is going to produce a FF and I would think Pentax would put it in a new high end APS-C body first to work all of the bugs out of the AF system. Pentax can't afford to put a FF body on the market with a new untested AF system. That is a pretty big gamble.

[Ratmagiclady]

What you describe sounds wonderfull! I almost voted Falconeye to be head of the Pentax FF developementteam.

Could be interestingly doable, if they wanted.

Why would a mirrorless camera have a mirrorbox? I didn't understand that about the K-01 either. Only to enable mounting K-mount lenses without adapter?

Why not? Making a whole new mount only means you've got to stick an adapter about the same size to use most lenses on the camera anyway, and if you'd have to make special lenses to take the size advantage for your mirrorless system, why not just make those so the bulk of them goes into the camera body anyway? Kind of six of one, half dozen the other, especially if you're packing a full frame sensor in there. That could only get so small to begin with.