[rawr]

I'm thinking sony but for some reason am doubting myself.

As the iFixit teardown of the D600 linked above (and the ChipWorks microscope) reveal, the Nikon D600 sensor is indeed a Sony:



The D750 has the same chip, I bet. IMHO it would be a fine chip for Pentax to adopt for any FF of it's own. It performs really well.

While 36MP is nice, it creates burdens of it's own in terms of the camera - and user - hardware required to run it. Maybe Pentax could do two FF's like Sony/Nikon - 36MP and 24MP, each with a different user target.

---

Last edited by rawr; 10-12-2014 at 01:13 PM.

[Blue]

And since we already have Sony and Fuji in our Pentax, why not speculate? Samsung could be a better partnership for Pentax. They have made K mount lenses and cameras. Samsung doesn't seem to want to share their lens market with anyone, but since their arch rival is Sony, maybe an alliance with the K mount could make sense. Pentax is hardly a threat. Ricoh's market cap is less than 1/20 of Samsung's. All speculation of course, but why not. It seems like the kind of speculation that makes up the forum. To my mind, Samsung tech in a Pentax sounds better than Sony and Fuji tech in a Pentax.

Samsung never actually "made" a k-mount lens. The merely had some re-badged lenses for a while. Pentax used a few Samsung sensors in a couple of models, but they went their separate ways. As far as Sony tech goes, Pentax engineers adapt the Sensors to there platform. That is why in competing models between Nikon and Pentax, there are differences.

[Clavius]

And since we already have Sony and Fuji in our Pentax, why not speculate? Samsung could be a better partnership for Pentax. They have made K mount lenses and cameras. Samsung doesn't seem to want to share their lens market with anyone, but since their arch rival is Sony, maybe an alliance with the K mount could make sense. Pentax is hardly a threat. Ricoh's market cap is less than 1/20 of Samsung's. All speculation of course, but why not. It seems like the kind of speculation that makes up the forum. To my mind, Samsung tech in a Pentax sounds better than Sony and Fuji tech in a Pentax.

Samsung stabbed Pentax in the back a few years ago. If Pentax ever partners with Samsung again, then they are REALLY very desperate. But imagine if that hadn't happened though. Then they would be in a very good spot.

[mecrox]

Samsung stabbed Pentax in the back a few years ago. If Pentax ever partners with Samsung again, then they are REALLY very desperate. But imagine if that hadn't happened though. Then they would be in a very good spot.

A very partial reading, perhaps. Samsung made their fortune by becoming the kings of copy and undercut. If Pentax didn't know what they were getting into, then they should have done. In the event, both sides went their separate ways and both sides may have got what they wanted from the arrangement, too. Now, it is hard to see why Samsung should share their technology with anyone. They do have an advantage from it and they don't need the money. Yes, they could share their sensors, but the real secret source is in the associated processors and imaging engine. As for expanding their market share and so forth, they likely do not have to do a great deal more than they are doing at the moment beyond stepping on the accelerator a bit. Third-party lens support would be a definite plus but as for the rest, Samsung may not have to do much more than hold their position while the knackered old figs of the traditional camera industry drop off the tree on their own. Camera companies which can barely manage to grapple with wifi are now seeing what happens when one of the world leaders in mobile and technology scratches an itch. God help them if it decides to get up and really make some moves.

---

Last edited by mecrox; 10-13-2014 at 02:25 AM.

[Clavius]

A very partial reading, perhaps. Samsung made their fortune by becoming the kings of copy and undercut. If Pentax didn't know what they were getting into, then they should have done. In the event, both sides went their separate ways and both sides may have got what they wanted from the arrangement, too. Now, it is hard to see why Samsung should share their technology with anyone. They do have an advantage from it and they don't need the money. Yes, they could share their sensors, but the real secret source is in the associated processors and imaging engine. As for expanding their market share and so forth, they likely do not have to do a great deal more than they are doing at the moment beyond stepping on the accelerator a bit. Third-party lens support would be a definite plus but as for the rest, Samsung may not have to do much more than hold their position while the knackered old figs of the traditional camera industry drop off the tree on their own. Camera companies which can barely manage to grapple with wifi are now seeing what happens when one of the world leaders in mobile and technology scratches an itch. God help them if it decides to get up and really make some moves.

Well, I don't see Sony not catching up Samsung on this. The other brands will soon get sensors with this technology from their trusty supplier.

You are right though. The traditional manufacturers should adapt their strategies. In time, maybe the camera manufacturers that can't keep up may become optics companies again?

[rawr]

the camera manufacturers that can't keep up may become optics companies again?

An interesting thought. Everyone who fails to compete at making cameras will become a Sigma - a tiny camera operation, but basically a lens shop.

However I can't help but think that optics is sooooo 20th century. It's all sensors and signal processing now. All the features of modern cameras that folks are demanding - high-ISO performance, wide DR, 64 point tracking AF, WiFi, HD video - aren't being delivered by advances in optics. Focussing the business on optics might mean missing the wave.

[Clavius]

An interesting thought. Everyone who fails to compete at making cameras will become a Sigma - a tiny camera operation, but basically a lens shop.

However I can't help but think that optics is sooooo 20th century. It's all sensors and signal processing now. All the features of modern cameras that folks are demanding - high-ISO performance, wide DR, 64 point tracking AF, WiFi, HD video - aren't being delivered by advances in optics. Focussing the business on optics might mean missing the wave.

What's gone is gone. I don't know of any technology that can restore details that are lost. You can have a camera with the best sensor and lens corrections, but there's a limit to what it can correct when it is fed a bad image by the optics.

For example, Sony has been bashed for depending to much on corrections to make the FE 35 workable. Under certain conditions the flaws of that lens become uncorrectable and become very noticable.

[mecrox]

An interesting thought. Everyone who fails to compete at making cameras will become a Sigma - a tiny camera operation, but basically a lens shop.

However I can't help but think that optics is sooooo 20th century. It's all sensors and signal processing now. All the features of modern cameras that folks are demanding - high-ISO performance, wide DR, 64 point tracking AF, WiFi, HD video - aren't being delivered by advances in optics. Focussing the business on optics might mean missing the wave.

Who knows but that might be why Sigma decided to step up their game and produce some top-drawer lenses with more to follow. Looking further down the road, they might see their neighbourhood starting to become a little crowded in the future. As you say in another post, the output from lenses with average performance can be tarted up somewhat with clever software, and increasingly this is being done, so why would someone buy an average third-party lens just for that since it probably wouldn't interface with the camera software. thus no "make up" applied. They might, however, buy a third-party lens if either a) their camera brand simply didn't make one like it; or b) the third-party lens delivered very, very good quality and at an attractive price compared to the camera brand's offerings. Optics will still tell, at least at the high-end, but they may have be really pretty special optics. Even then, one guesses that only a small number of camera buyers will ever dabble very far in that world. As electronics get more and more of a grip on photography, and so volume production starts to become more and more of a factor, I guess that rather depressing old law will surface: "The good enough drives out both the bad and the good".

[kadajawi]

Well, I don't see Sony not catching up Samsung on this. The other brands will soon get sensors with this technology from their trusty supplier.

You are right though. The traditional manufacturers should adapt their strategies. In time, maybe the camera manufacturers that can't keep up may become optics companies again?

They will catch up, eventually, but right now Samsung seems to have quite a lead. And what Sony, if I understand them correctly, said was that they will use their latest and greatest to themselves. Stuff where they may not have such a lead will be available to others. But if they think they gain more by keeping things to themselves, they will.


I have an older superzoom from Canon, which can be hacked to output raw. Well, the raw files have certain advantages... for example the noise filtering kicks in way too early and way too much in camera, but the picture is very distorted, has massive amounts of vignetting etc. All looks good though in the JPEGs.


What I personally hope for is lenses that come with a Lightroom profile. That willingly made trade-offs where it doesn't hurt the overall result, i.e. that they save space, weight and money when it can be automatically fixed in post.

[Clavius]

What I personally hope for is lenses that come with a Lightroom profile. That willingly made trade-offs where it doesn't hurt the overall result, i.e. that they save space, weight and money when it can be automatically fixed in post.

The lens itself? But I would prefer a DxO profile. And user C would like a profile of program X. And next year, a new graphics program is launched and we would like to add those profiles to our lenses... That's lens correction should be done in PP, be it on the computer, tablet or by the camera body. Not in the lens.

Secondly, look at the FE 35mm. It depends heavily on software corrections. But the user quickly hits circumstances in which the flaws of the lens become overly visible due to the fact that too much processing is needed. But I'd swallow all that for a $250,- dollar lens though.

[normhead]

What I personally hope for is lenses that come with a Lightroom profile. That willingly made trade-offs where it doesn't hurt the overall result, i.e. that they save space, weight and money when it can be automatically fixed in post.

Funny thing to post in a Pentax thread.
Lightroom is not the be all and end all of PP software....

This is how the market works... boycott products that don't support your brand, and tell them why. If you keep giving them your money, why would they care. I've written DxO a number of times with the lenses I own, and told them I won't even download the trial software, until Im 'processing on a level footing with their Canon and Nikon customers.

I don't need them, they need me... let's just keep it straight who's doing who a favour.

[kadajawi]

The lens itself? But I would prefer a DxO profile. And user C would like a profile of program X. And next year, a new graphics program is launched and we would like to add those profiles to our lenses... That's lens correction should be done in PP, be it on the computer, tablet or by the camera body. Not in the lens.

Secondly, look at the FE 35mm. It depends heavily on software corrections. But the user quickly hits circumstances in which the flaws of the lens become overly visible due to the fact that too much processing is needed. But I'd swallow all that for a $250,- dollar lens though.

What I mean is that Pentax sells the lens, and in the box is a CD with the profile. It should be updated for new software of course, or can include newer updates. And perhaps some software that does these corrections to a DNG while remaining a DNG more or less...


Of course there'll be trade-offs... it's up to the lens maker to find a compromise that works well for their users. i.e. do some correction in the lens, but not go all the way. The new Samsung sensor allows the rays to come in at an angle, so the parts that make the light come in straight isn't needed.


Lightroom is just an example for commonly used software... DxO shoudn't be forgotten either of course.

[normhead]

Lightroom is just an example for commonly used software... DxO shoudn't be forgotten either of course.

Ya well, it's quite possible to forget both of them.

In all seriousness, I'd want Aperture and Pixelmator profiles, everybody has their own software, is it really feasible for Pentax to include profiles for every piece of PP software out there in the box?

[Clavius]

In all seriousness, I'd want Aperture and Pixelmator profiles, everybody has their own software, is it really feasible for Pentax to include profiles for every piece of PP software out there in the box?

That's why it doesn't belong in the lens. It belongs in the PP software package. In future, the camera body will download the appropriate and latest version of lens profiles itself... But I would still prefer good optics that need as little correction as possible. Inentionally sacrificing lens quality to correct it by software later is a bit like de-fishing images taken with a fisheye lens. Such software "correction" isn't good for the image quality. Selecting the right lens in the first place is.

[normhead]

I've never felt the need to use correction software... so, I'm outta here.