Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
07-03-2014, 08:16 AM   #361
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Romania
Posts: 9,103
QuoteOriginally posted by kadajawi Quote
If hiring a couple of software developers who might be glad to get the chance to officially work on a camera, with all the resources that are associated with such a gig, bankrupts Pentax/Ricoh, then they might as well give up. Also, the point wasn't to hurt Canon, that would at most be a side effect (besides Canon does have proper developers for video in house. Keep in mind that Canon is not all too happy about Magic Lantern, they want to sell their more expensive video focused gear instead! Something Pentax doesn't have, so their stills cameras can be as good for video as possible. They can only gain from that).
My point is not that they can't afford to hire a couple of software developers. My point is that they won't do it just to supposedly hurt and help (at the same time! - you're a bit undecided on this one ) Canon.

QuoteOriginally posted by kadajawi Quote
Why wouldn't someone who is not that rich, not that much into photography etc. buy a FF? Why not an APS-C camera?
Or a second hand, older model FF camera. Both will be cheaper than a newly introduced Pentax FF.
Good question.

07-03-2014, 08:36 AM   #362
Senior Member




Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Hamburg
Posts: 287
QuoteOriginally posted by Kunzite Quote
Sorry, the autofocus dilemma was solved decades ago - guess who won
How so? Crippling the viewfinder is not tantamount to solving a dilemma. I have said again and again that if autofocus can be maintained with a full ovf of 100% coverage and 1.0 magnification, wonderful. Now how and when was that solved?

QuoteQuote:
I never said RI should make a "CaNikon knock-off". A competitive model, possibly based on the K-3 - that's not the same.
I never said it's required in order to "save" RI. The sky is not falling, even without a FF.
Big assumption, that it "won't sell in sufficient numbers" (with another implicit big assumption, that a non-competitive camera would).
If it cost MUCH more to develop a modern camera, why everyone is doing it instead of crippling products?
You are proposing a ff K-3 are you not? That qualifies as a CaNikon knock-off. Very, very late to the party with nothing new to show for it. After the first "unboxing" video on Youtube the sobering realization will set in that nothing has changed. We will hear the critics chirp so so autofocus, still no professional flash system, total lack of current generation lenses etc etc. You have heard it many times. Will anyone outside of Pentax jump on that train? Nope. Legacy lens afficionados go to Sony, the rest stay with CaNikon.

Couldn't think of a worse strategy to follow.

QuoteQuote:
They are not sinking the Pentax ship because Pentax (Ricoh Imaging) won't do it.
The obvious way - paved by the K-3 and the preceding K-mount cameras - will not suddenly turn from the way they're surviving into a risky course just by crossing the FF line.
You keep repeating that a ff k-3 is the path forward - I hope I have given you reason to pause.
07-03-2014, 08:42 AM   #363
Pentaxian
philbaum's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Port Townsend, Washington State, USA
Posts: 3,659
QuoteOriginally posted by RonHendriks1966 Quote
Well to make it cheap I would offcourse give up on some futures.


Things to leave out off the camera that make it more expensve:
  • A cheaper shutter that only does 1/4000th as fastest.
  • Small buffer, so no large series off RAW.
  • Just one processor inside to run all processes.
  • Not a DSLR, so no large viewfinder.
  • A mirrorless camera, but no EVF.
  • No PDAF module inside.
  • PRIME M inside, so just 12-bit RAW.
I agree with your intent but not with all your choices.

IMO, eliminating all VF takes away a good deal of the artistry of using a camera. I've shot both a Nex camera, the 5n, without a VF and the Nex 6 with an EVF. And the difference in the ability to frame an image outside is amazing. Also, i've compared at pixel level, the sharpness between using an LCD monitor at arms length and using a EVF against the side of the face. Again, the EVF wins out and it is not that expensive.

Mirrorless cameras seem to be dropping quite well in cost, so i think the simpler manufacturing of mirrorless is finally catching up to that type of camera. I have 2 examples, the Sony A6000 is about 25% cheaper than the model it replaced, the Nex 6, and the A7 models are cheaper than the DSLR FF that it replaces. The lack of a mirror box and the careful calibration of phase AF, and the cost of optical prisms seems to be reducing the price. Of course, initially, all the mirrorless technology must be developed at a higher cost.

So my point is, I belive RP can reduce costs and size and weight with a FF camera by going mirrorless - and thats what i would buy. Don't want no heavy FF body to carry around.
07-03-2014, 08:49 AM   #364
Pentaxian
mecrox's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Oxford, UK
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,078
Ricoh are a small outfit compared to some. So far as we know they do not have the capacity to do high volume low margin stuff. So cheap is out, at a guess. Good value is in, but at a full price point neither too low nor too high unlike some we won't mention. K3 and 645z are both examples. Surely this is the approach we should be expecting. An FF Spotmatic respin at say $999.95 would galvanize the industry but Ricoh would run out of production facilities in a few days.

07-03-2014, 09:02 AM   #365
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Romania
Posts: 9,103
QuoteOriginally posted by eyeswideshut Quote
How so? Crippling the viewfinder is not tantamount to solving a dilemma. I have said again and again that if autofocus can be maintained with a full ovf of 100% coverage and 1.0 magnification, wonderful. Now how and when was that solved?
It was solved by people preferring worse viewfinders with autofocus, than better viewfinder without autofocus.
Decades ago.

QuoteOriginally posted by eyeswideshut Quote
You are proposing a ff K-3 are you not? That qualifies as a CaNikon knock-off. Very, very late to the party with nothing new to show for it. After the first "unboxing" video on Youtube the sobering realization will set in that nothing has changed. We will hear the critics chirp so so autofocus, still no professional flash system, total lack of current generation lenses etc etc. You have heard it many times. Will anyone outside of Pentax jump on that train? Nope. Legacy lens afficionados go to Sony, the rest stay with CaNikon.

Couldn't think of a worse strategy to follow.
No. I'm proposing a competitive K-mount full frame DSLR, which is in line with the Pentax products, and with what they said in several occasions.
If launched soon enough, they can (and should) reuse as many components as possible - the processor, for example, which works very well with a 24MP sensor, and should even cope with a 36MP one. I'm definitely not suggesting to reuse components which would make the product noncompetitive. For example, I said with other occasions that I don't agree with just reusing the APS-C autofocus module.

Your answer for people asking for a better autofocus is no autofocus at all? That would help them, for sure! (decide to jump ship).

QuoteOriginally posted by eyeswideshut Quote
You keep repeating that a ff k-3 is the path forward - I hope I have given you reason to pause.
Not a single reason, I'm afraid. I still believe Pentax is doing a good job, and they should continue.

Last edited by Kunzite; 07-03-2014 at 09:11 AM.
07-03-2014, 09:06 AM   #366
Senior Member




Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Hamburg
Posts: 287
QuoteOriginally posted by mecrox Quote
Ricoh are a small outfit compared to some. So far as we know they do not have the capacity to do high volume low margin stuff. So cheap is out, at a guess. Good value is in, but at a full price point neither too low nor too high unlike some we won't mention. K3 and 645z are both examples. Surely this is the approach we should be expecting. An FF Spotmatic respin at say $999.95 would galvanize the industry but Ricoh would run out of production facilities in a few days.
Where do I pre-order before they run out of capacity?
07-03-2014, 09:16 AM   #367
Pentaxian




Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 2,646
QuoteOriginally posted by eyeswideshut Quote
I really think you need to relax about "cheap" and "killing" or "burrying" RP. The ff if it comes will cost what it costs and after a few months, what the market will bear. That's the way it always goes. We will see.

While stripped full format k01 w/o either ovf or evf would not be my cup of tea, it is a perfectly reasonable proposition, filling a void in any manufacturer's current camera line up. R&D would be as low as can be expected.

A camera that takes the proposition of 'manual focus' absolutely seriously and has the viewfinder to prove it, that appeals to slow- as opposed to fast food lovers, is also a perfectly reasonable proposition. Again R&D could be minimized, the pressure to come up with a full suite of lenses lessened, Pentax can learn and practice etc etc.

Now just why You think that a $2500 CaNikon knock-off with a k mount with all the bells and whistles will be the road to RP's salvation is still not clear. It will do nothing to attarct anyone from outside Pentax and if intended as an upgrade path, will find that the Pentax user base is just not what it was in the 1970's. Maybe it will sell in sufficient numbers, likely it won't. One thing is absolutely certain. It will cost MUCH more to develop than either of the cameras proposed by Ron or me.

So just stop telling those with different ideas from yours they are sinking the Pentax ship. It is you who proposes the risky course!
You're almost repeating my argument there... a camera that doesn't attract anyone from outside, and not everyone within the Pentax user base will likely not sell in sufficient numbers. That drives up the price.


Selling sufficient numbers in general will be a problem. And that in turn hurts the price tag they can put on the camera without losing money, which PR is unlikely to want. You're proposing a as cheap as can be camera. But a) that's not in the DNA of Pentax and cheapens the brand and b) is also very much related to economies of scale. A Seat is better made and more advanced than say a Peugeot, yet it can be sold for the same price, with Peugeot probably losing money for every car sold. The Seat is basically a Lego car, with Seat just picking components from a shelf within the VW group, that are already developed and mass produced. Peugeot tries that too, but it doesn't go that far because their new shared platform is shared between 2 brands, rather than 4, and doesn't seem to be as flexible.


PR would base a FF DSLR camera on the K-3 I think, trying to share as many components as possible. Canikon already have FF cameras they can use components from, and mix and match them to fill in niches. PR doesn't. Btw., the D600 has the focus points mostly in the center? Maybe the AF sensor is taken from an APS-C camera?


Would R&D be minimized from not having AF?
Say it is a DSLR. Then to save money Pentax can recycle the K-3 AF sensor. Pentax can produce/order more of them, reducing the cost for the K-3 as well. It's not optimal because the points are rather centered, but luckily Pentax spreads them out nicely to begin with, unlike Nikon.
What about mirrorless? There are sensors that have PDAF sensors on the image sensor itself. Pick that one from the supermarket, and you're probably (more or less) good to go.


Btw., there was a Sigma DSLR that had a full frame mirror, and an APS-C sensor. That was a pretty brilliant thing. You could see what was happening outside the frame, and anticipate (if you do sports, wild-life, birding, ...). Imagine the K-3 successor to feature a full sized mirror and viewfinder (hopefully not being any bigger), with the size of the APS-C sensor marked down. Everything else can be laid out for a full frame sensor. Then they can do the same body with a full frame sensor instead. Since pretty much every component is shared between both cameras it could help drive costs down. More things are possible, like a APS-C mode where the viewfinder shows which area is cropped (or perhaps you can adjust the crop to make the most of the lens, i.e. you can set the crop for each lens, so when the APS-C lens actually almost covers full frame, you can use it as an almost full frame lens if you want to, with the camera calculating the focal length equivalent).
If that is how they are going to realize a FF camera I'm all for it.


@eyeswideshut: A FF K-3 is the most reasonable thing they can do, the cheapest thing they can do in terms of development costs and, perhaps, production costs. If you want to attract other customers, you need to improve the K-3 and let the same improvements go into the FF K-3. It can be even sold as a team: The same ergonomics (especially with the proposal in the last paragraph), bigger sensor. So for those who want APS-C and FF they can switch back and forth easily, without having to remember where the buttons on that other camera are.


Not having AF is the stupidest thing. Nikon got a lot of heat for the Df not having video. Try dropping something as common as AF!

Last edited by kadajawi; 07-03-2014 at 09:23 AM.
07-03-2014, 09:21 AM   #368
Senior Member




Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Hamburg
Posts: 287
QuoteOriginally posted by Kunzite Quote
It was solved by people preferring worse viewfinders with autofocus, than better viewfinder without autofocus.
Decades ago.
So it was not solved then.

QuoteQuote:
No. I'm proposing a competitive K-mount full frame DSLR, which is in line with the Pentax products, and with what they said in several occasions.
If launched soon enough, they can (and should) reuse as many components as possible - the processor, for example, which works very well with a 24MP sensor, and should even cope with a 36MP one. I'm definitely not suggesting to reuse components which would make the product noncompetitive. For example, I said with other occasions that I don't agree with just reusing the APS-C autofocus module.
Right, like I said a Full Format K-3. You are just using more words to say the same thing. It will as little have an aps-c autofocus module as it will have an aps-c sensor. That goes without saying, doesn't it?
You are not adding to you argument though, and certainly not engaging mine.

QuoteQuote:
Your answer for people asking for a better autofocus is no autofocus at all? That would help them, for sure! (decide to jump ship).
Are you willfully being obtuse? My answer to people asking for better autofocus is choose among any of many, many fine cameras introduced since - and now I quote you the problem 'was solved by people preferring worse viewfinders with autofocus, than better viewfinder without autofocus. Decades ago.'

My answer to people asking for a camera with a better viewfinder than they have today is 'Let's hope Pentax make one'


QuoteQuote:
Not a single reason, I'm afraid.
Now that is obtuse. Simply calling reasons given 'Not a single reason' is also testament to a very high degree of arrog... you get the point.

07-03-2014, 09:45 AM   #369
Pentaxian




Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 2,646
QuoteOriginally posted by eyeswideshut Quote
So it was not solved then.



Right, like I said a Full Format K-3. You are just using more words to say the same thing. It will as little have an aps-c autofocus module as it will have an aps-c sensor. That goes without saying, doesn't it?
You are not adding to you argument though, and certainly not engaging mine.



Are you willfully being obtuse? My answer to people asking for better autofocus is choose among any of many, many fine cameras introduced since - and now I quote you the problem 'was solved by people preferring worse viewfinders with autofocus, than better viewfinder without autofocus. Decades ago.'

My answer to people asking for a camera with a better viewfinder than they have today is 'Let's hope Pentax make one'




Now that is obtuse. Simply calling reasons given 'Not a single reason' is also testament to a very high degree of arrog... you get the point.
Great. You wish to fulfil the needs of literally tens of people. I mean, I do miss those great old viewfinders too, but if the choice is one of those, or AF, then I'll stick with AF. Thank you.


Also, for those who need a full frame AF sensor in the FF K-3... what about creating a sensor that works well for both, so it can be used in a APS-C and a FF camera? The way for Pentax to reach decent economies of scale could be to use the same components in all their cameras, except for the sensor.


And I think Pentax will gladly have so much demand for their cameras that they can't fulfil the orders. They can always try to increase production. And such a demand would also help them in not having to give discounts. They can keep charging list price and earn well. (In Malaysia thanks to some tax discounts for hybrids the entire Mercedes S400L hybrid production until 2016 was sold out within a few weeks. Mercedes isn't complaining, but they are trying to produce more).


I've thought of more things: The K-3 FF would have to have a redesigned SR system, that needs to be stronger for the heavier sensor. Doesn't that mean with the lighter APS-C sensor the sensor can be moved faster, and perhaps further? If you could move it all the way to cover the full frame viewfinder, you can easily have a mode where when you press the shutter 4 photos are taken, basically taking a full frame photo. Best used with stationary motives and on a tripod of course. The stitching can be done on the computer. I've done that by hand (and with not as much coverage) on my interior photos with the K-5.


In any case, a Pentax FF K-3 wouldn't be all that much of a me-too product if it doesn't gain too much fat and keeps the SR and WR. If Pentax also manages to add kick ass video functionality courtesy of Magic Lantern devs, then they could have a winner.


If you want the very best viewfinder there is...
That + a great electronic viewfinder makes manual focusing really easy, especially since the viewfinder can be as large as you can fit into the body.

Last edited by kadajawi; 07-03-2014 at 10:00 AM.
07-03-2014, 09:56 AM   #370
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Romania
Posts: 9,103
eyeswideshut:
It was solved; people voted with their money. The brands not playing well the AF game suffered, Pentax being one of them; Olympus was a casualty.

The Nikon D610 is using an APS-C autofocus module, the medium format 645D/645Z are using APS-C autofocus modules - so it doesn't go without saying.

If one of us is obtuse and "arrog..." , it isn't me. You're both complaining that people won't accept the product because of the autofocus (which is a bit early to judge ) and claim that it's not an issue if they buy something else.
By the way, a Pentax FF DSLR will have a better viewfinder than the APS-C models. Still not as good as some old manual focus cameras, but better. It'll do.

---------- Post added 03-07-14 at 07:57 PM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by kadajawi Quote
I mean, I do miss those great old viewfinders too, but if the choice is one of those, or AF, then I'll stick with AF. Thank you.
You, me, and most of the market
07-03-2014, 10:00 AM   #371
Senior Member




Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Hamburg
Posts: 287
QuoteOriginally posted by kadajawi Quote
You're almost repeating my argument there... a camera that doesn't attract anyone from outside, and not everyone within the Pentax user base will likely not sell in sufficient numbers. That drives up the price...
Hey Kadajawi, I certainly give you an A for the longest posts today! But what have Seat or Peugeot to do with this? I can only note that you have absolutely no knowledge of the cost structures of either manufacturer or their corporate parent. We should take this armchair ceo / cfo thing only so far.

It would be good too if we simply agreed that there are almost as many potential ff pentaxes as there are potential buyers. There is virtually no feature that is not critically discussed at some point. Me, I'm not into video, but most of my cameras already have it. I love autofocus - but like most people on this forum, I already have many cameras that do that exceedingly well.

What I do not have, is a digital slr that is as beautiful to manually focus as cameras were forty years ago. And say what you will - that is a worthy niche for Pentax to fill. If you look through the viewfinder of a Pentax MX you will immediately understand what I am talking about.

"Not having AF is the stupidest thing. Nikon got a lot of heat for the Df not having video. Try dropping something as common as AF!"

Now that is the kind of comment that can really add fuel to the fire. May I suggest you say 'suboptimal idea' Nikon also got a lot of heat for not reddeming the promise of 'pure photography' sufficiently by creating a mix of extant Nikon cameras in slightly retro clothing!

Not every camera manufactured has to answer every need - in fact none do!

---------- Post added 03-07-14 at 19:03 ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by kadajawi Quote
Great. You wish to fulfil the needs of literally tens of people. I mean, I do miss those great old viewfinders too, but if the choice is one of those, or AF, then I'll stick with AF. Thank you.


Also, for those who need a full frame AF sensor in the FF K-3... what about creating a sensor that works well for both, so it can be used in a APS-C and a FF camera? The way for Pentax to reach decent economies of scale could be to use the same components in all their cameras, except for the sensor.


And I think Pentax will gladly have so much demand for their cameras that they can't fulfil the orders. They can always try to increase production. And such a demand would also help them in not having to give discounts. They can keep charging list price and earn well. (In Malaysia thanks to some tax discounts for hybrids the entire Mercedes S400L hybrid production until 2016 was sold out within a few weeks. Mercedes isn't complaining, but they are trying to produce more).


I've thought of more things: The K-3 FF would have to have a redesigned SR system, that needs to be stronger for the heavier sensor. Doesn't that mean with the lighter APS-C sensor the sensor can be moved faster, and perhaps further? If you could move it all the way to cover the full frame viewfinder, you can easily have a mode where when you press the shutter 4 photos are taken, basically taking a full frame photo. Best used with stationary motives and on a tripod of course. The stitching can be done on the computer. I've done that by hand (and with not as much coverage) on my interior photos with the K-5.


In any case, a Pentax FF K-3 wouldn't be all that much of a me-too product if it doesn't gain too much fat and keeps the SR and WR. If Pentax also manages to add kick ass video functionality courtesy of Magic Lantern devs, then they could have a winner.


If you want the very best viewfinder there is...
A7r Voigtlander Lens Manual Focus Demo - YouTube
That + a great electronic viewfinder makes manual focusing really easy, especially since the viewfinder can be as large as you can fit into the body.
Look, don't patronize.
Most of my shooting is done with a OM-D. I am quite familiar with an electronic finder, like it even.
But I'd also like a large optical finder. It's not always one vs. the other, sometimes it's either - or both.

---------- Post added 03-07-14 at 19:11 ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by Kunzite Quote
eyeswideshut:
It was solved; people voted with their money. The brands not playing well the AF game suffered, Pentax being one of them; Olympus was a casualty.

The Nikon D610 is using an APS-C autofocus module, the medium format 645D/645Z are using APS-C autofocus modules - so it doesn't go without saying.

If one of us is obtuse and "arrog..." , it isn't me. You're both complaining that people won't accept the product because of the autofocus (which is a bit early to judge ) and claim that it's not an issue if they buy something else.
By the way, a Pentax FF DSLR will have a better viewfinder than the APS-C models. Still not as good as some old manual focus cameras, but better. It'll do.

---------- Post added 03-07-14 at 07:57 PM ----------


You, me, and most of the market
To you I repeat (in bold)

Not every camera manufactured has to answer every need - in fact none do!

and again: Noone wants to deprive you of autofocus but there is a market for just one camera that excells at something else (if that choice in fact has to be made, the question is still unanswered)

But weren't you going to explain how your ff k-3 will become the resounding success you imply. Where will the customers come from?

Last edited by eyeswideshut; 07-03-2014 at 10:14 AM.
07-03-2014, 10:29 AM   #372
Pentaxian




Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 2,646
QuoteOriginally posted by eyeswideshut Quote
Hey Kadajawi, I certainly give you an A for the longest posts today! But what have Seat or Peugeot to do with this? I can only note that you have absolutely no knowledge of the cost structures of either manufacturer or their corporate parent. We should take this armchair ceo / cfo thing only so far.

It would be good too if we simply agreed that there are almost as many potential ff pentaxes as there are potential buyers. There is virtually no feature that is not critically discussed at some point. Me, I'm not into video, but most of my cameras already have it. I love autofocus - but like most people on this forum, I already have many cameras that do that exceedingly well.

What I do not have, is a digital slr that is as beautiful to manually focus as cameras were forty years ago. And say what you will - that is a worthy niche for Pentax to fill. If you look through the viewfinder of a Pentax MX you will immediately understand what I am talking about.

"Not having AF is the stupidest thing. Nikon got a lot of heat for the Df not having video. Try dropping something as common as AF!"

Now that is the kind of comment that can really add fuel to the fire. May I suggest you say 'suboptimal idea' Nikon also got a lot of heat for not reddeming the promise of 'pure photography' sufficiently by creating a mix of extant Nikon cameras in slightly retro clothing!

Not every camera manufactured has to answer every need - in fact none do!

---------- Post added 03-07-14 at 19:03 ----------


Look, don't patronize.
Most of my shooting is done with a OM-D. I am quite familiar with an electronic finder, like it even.
But I'd also like a large optical finder. It's not always one vs. the other, sometimes it's either - or both.

---------- Post added 03-07-14 at 19:11 ----------


To you I repeat (in bold)

Not every camera manufactured has to answer every need - in fact none do!

and again: Noone wants to deprive you of autofocus but there is a market for just one camera that excells at something else (if that choice in fact has to be made, the question is still unanswered)
The point about Seat and Peugeot was that, if these car manufacturers, and where they are heading, are any indication on how it is for camera makers, then the more parts can be shared, the more of them can be produced and only have to be developed once, the lower the cost. Dropping the AF sensor means a different focusing screen, different mirror (though simpler), etc. Small production runs of these parts. Cost savings, yes, but perhaps not quite as big as hoped.


If you want the beauty of manually focusing an old camera... why not use one? Yes, you shoot film, but that's beautiful too.


Picking up a camera for $200 to experience that, fine. But I'd guess for many when they spend $2000 on a camera they expect it to be a jack of all trades. Something they can use all the time.


Keep in mind that such a MF focused camera without AF would appeal to a small group of people only who are willing to spend so much money on a camera without AF. It competes with film cameras, which are very appealing too. Plenty of people out there shooting film these days. And amongst those few who want digital but no AF some will fall away cause they are having Canon, Nikon or Minolta lenses, and as much as they want such a camera, it should have their mount instead, or else it's no use to them. Pentax might as well do a handbuilt run of the FF K-3 where they replace the focusing screen with one with focusing aids and the mirror with one that's not translucent. Put a viewfinder loupe in the box, glue the AF switch to MF and call it a day.
07-03-2014, 10:52 AM   #373
Pentaxian




Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Eureka, CA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,938
QuoteOriginally posted by ElJamoquio Quote
The D600+superzoom's performance wide open at 50mm (F/4.5) is better in the center than the D7000+35mm F/1.8 stopped down to F/2.8. The performance of the 35mm F/1.8 is a bit better on the edges and corners... Get a set of 5-8 primes and the D7000, or get a D600+28-300mm. Neither would be my option, but I can understand either decision. Personally I feel a superzoom with resolution comparable to a quality prime is pretty impressive. It's amazing what that extra surface area on the sensor can get you.
Not a valid comparison. If you want to know which combination "performs" better, you have to look at images produced by the respective lenses being compared. Numerical evaluations, whether they are based on resolution tests or equivalence, never trump what people experience visually. Photos are produced, images are made, to look at, not to fill counters on quantitative charts.

It's possible that images from Nikon's 28-300 superzoom shot on a D600 might (more or less) look the same as images shot with Nikon's 35/1.8. The Nikon 28-300 is the best FF superzoom ever made; and the 35/1.8, although a nice lens, is still a budget prime. But if instead of comparing a superzoom to a budget prime, we compare the zoom to high end primes, then the advantage swings toward the primes, regardless of whether the images were shot with APS-C or FF sensors. I've seen images from both combinations, and high end glass on APS-C sensors produce better images than superzooms and kit glass on FF sensors. In other words, lens performance often trumps sensor size. You'll often get better looking images (more microcontrast and "pop," richer color, better overall rendering) shooting a Zeiss, or Fuji, or Pentax limited prime on APS-C than shooting the Nikon superzoom on FF. Indeed, you'd get better images from SHG Olympus glass on four-thirds sensor. Even if the superzoom/FF combo yielded more resolution, the superior rendering characteristics of that high-end SHG glass would carry the day.
07-03-2014, 10:59 AM   #374
Senior Member




Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Hamburg
Posts: 287
QuoteOriginally posted by kadajawi Quote
The point about Seat and Peugeot was that, if these car manufacturers, and where they are heading, are any indication on how it is for camera makers, then the more parts can be shared, the more of them can be produced and only have to be developed once, the lower the cost. Dropping the AF sensor means a different focusing screen, different mirror (though simpler), etc. Small production runs of these parts. Cost savings, yes, but perhaps not quite as big as hoped.
Every manufacturer in every line of work will allways seek to recycle as many parts and tech in as many products as possible. That was not discovered when Pentax reused portions of the K-3 in the 645 and platform cars are nothing new either.
A 100% finder at 1.0 magnification is not cheap - or so they say, particularly now that none are manufactured. But then I have never argued for a rock bottom cheap ff pentax either.


QuoteQuote:
If you want the beauty of manually focusing an old camera... why not use one? Yes, you shoot film, but that's beautiful too.
But I do. About ten rolls p.a. - I just want it digital. You do have a hard time dealing with people who do not see a part of the world in exactly your terms, eh?
So let me repay the compliment - why don't you get a Sony A7, Panasonic GH4 or Blackmagic or GoPro? Or indeed a Bolex (film that is)

QuoteQuote:
Picking up a camera for $200 to experience that, fine. But I'd guess for many when they spend $2000 on a camera they expect it to be a jack of all trades. Something they can use all the time.
Should I just pass on 'jack of all trades' or add master of none? Anyway, good point - Kunzite and you will probably still explain where the requisite number of customers will come from - relying on the existing Pentax user base will mean very slim pickin's for Ricoh. Enlarging the K-3 with some sort of magic lantern open source video api or such will not bring in very many new customers. Like I said before, late to the party with little to show for it.

QuoteQuote:
Keep in mind that such a MF focused camera without AF would appeal to a small group of people only who are willing to spend so much money on a camera without AF. It competes with film cameras, which are very appealing too. Plenty of people out there shooting film these days. And amongst those few who want digital but no AF some will fall away cause they are having Canon, Nikon or Minolta lenses, and as much as they want such a camera, it should have their mount instead, or else it's no use to them. Pentax might as well do a handbuilt run of the FF K-3 where they replace the focusing screen with one with focusing aids and the mirror with one that's not translucent. Put a viewfinder loupe in the box, glue the AF switch to MF and call it a day.
No need to drop af if it can be avoided. Maybe someone knows a way. I am saying that if a compromise needs to be made it should be made in favor of the viewfinder. Let's not pretend like that would be the last camera on earth. Even Pentax will continue to develop cameras - despite what Kunzite says.
07-03-2014, 11:09 AM   #375
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Romania
Posts: 9,103
QuoteOriginally posted by eyeswideshut Quote
To you I repeat (in bold)

Not every camera manufactured has to answer every need - in fact none do!

and again: Noone wants to deprive you of autofocus but there is a market for just one camera that excells at something else (if that choice in fact has to be made, the question is still unanswered)

But weren't you going to explain how your ff k-3 will become the resounding success you imply. Where will the customers come from?
By your own admission, Pentax does not have to answer the supposed need for expensive cameras with no autofocus.

By the way, are you talking about a camera to be used with old lenses (because AF ones are terrible for manual focusing), or a camera and a new line of lenses?

Again, I'm not talking about a "ff k-3". You're doing this intentionally, while accusing me of being obtuse and "arrog..." - how nice. I'm talking about a competitive FF DSLR, which could use K-3's platform (but hopefully not the AF). It could also use a next-gen platform.
I never said such a product would be a "resounding success" - that is your strawman. I'm saying it might work (partly because I would buy one, and new lenses made for it).
It's not rocket science - Pentax made quite a few K-mount DSLRs so far, those are working - we have something to extrapolate from. I'm talking about expanding the product line upwards, not a complete departure into the unknown.

P.S. You're asking me questions but you won't say where will the non-AF customers come from... double standards?

QuoteOriginally posted by eyeswideshut Quote
Let's not pretend like that would be the last camera on earth. Even Pentax will continue to develop cameras - despite what Kunzite says.
I hate lies.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
24x36mm, adapter, af, aps-c, bodies, body, cameras, ergonomics, film, frame, full frame camera, full-frame, k-01, lcd, lenses, market, micro four thirds, mirroless camera, mirrorless, pentax, people, ricoh, sensor, shutter, size, struggle, time
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The Full Frame NEX is going to be announced in October ! jogiba Non-Pentax Cameras: Canon, Nikon, etc. 30 09-15-2013 03:23 PM
Pentax does not care about Full Frame Watson Pentax Full Frame 88 08-19-2013 04:53 AM
Are Any of The 17-50 (or in that range) Lenses Full Frame? reivax Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 12 02-04-2013 07:38 PM
Do you think in the long run, DA lenses are a bad buy? Size of CCDs in the future Capslock118 Pentax DSLR Discussion 28 11-07-2010 06:46 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:36 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top