[kadajawi]

Hire who? Magic Lantern is not a software development company, nor a closed source project. Do you seriously think that Magic Lantern developers would give up on developing for Canon for Pentax? Exclusivity over a GPL project?

Most mirrorless sold don't have a viewfinder. You're thinking too much about video, and see everything from the videographer's perspective.

Using the same mount actually means that APS-C users have the choice of using "full frame" lenses on their camera, beside the APS-C one. Why is that a problem? Besides, only for some (shorter) focal lengths an APS-C lens would be significantly smaller/cheaper.

Yeah, Sony - the company who thinks every problem can be solved by throwing money at it (and they bought Konica-Minolta's camera division some 8 years ago, that's quite a head start) . This and video everywhere, why do I keep having this strong impression that you being with Pentax was a big mistake?

I know it's a lose group of developers, just like CyanogenMod. The head of CyanogenMod was hired by some phone company, and the team in general has worked closely with Oppo for example. The prospect of a full time job at a camera manufacturer to create the tool they want could be tempting for some of the Magic Lantern people.


Oh I was thinking about photography when I talked about the viewfinder. A mirrorless camera that would give photographers the viewfinder they hope to get through a FF without AF.


The problem is that focus would be more put on FF lenses, thus lacking lighter and smaller lenses. Ok, if it doesn't make much difference for longer lenses, then that's not so bad.


I don't like the look of Sony video. And haven't I mentioned how I like how a Pentax feels? Make no mistake. I love my K-5 to death, and before that my *istDs.

[ChristianRock]

Christian that's a dangerous statement as the argument goes both ways.... Equivalence concept may not matter for you, especially if as you say if you shoot mostly at f/8. I do fully agree with you that using equivalence on a superzoom is rather pointless, as you'll probably shoot it at f/8 anyway (see my reply above to ElJamoquio). I'd say that if you shoot mostly stopped down, equivalence is moot.

However equivalence it does matter for some photographers in some situations. In fact it's why I use FF at all. I use 85mm/1.8, 28-75/2.8, and 70-200/2.8 wide open almost exclusively, and I can't achieve the same in APSC without considerable cost / lens changing. While equivalence may have zero effect on your "reality" (pictures), it does on mine.

Ok so maybe I overreacted and forgot to put a smiley at the end but I'm tired of this topic taking over the conversations as if it's the only thing that matters.

Also - you illustrate well my point: anyone who is concerned about shallow DOF, like you, will go and use FF. They won't try to duplicate a FF setup on APS-C, so maybe it's time to try and stop to pretend there's anyone who does...

[ElJamoquio]

This "my full frame f/3.5-5.6 is equivalent to a f/2.3-4 in APS-C" argument is hogwash. Sorry but there's no nicer word I can use for it.

That's OK, you don't have to be nice.

The equivalence argument is completely valid, so I'm not offended.

[Kunzite]

I know it's a lose group of developers, just like CyanogenMod. The head of CyanogenMod was hired by some phone company, and the team in general has worked closely with Oppo for example. The prospect of a full time job at a camera manufacturer to create the tool they want could be tempting for some of the Magic Lantern people.


Oh I was thinking about photography when I talked about the viewfinder. A mirrorless camera that would give photographers the viewfinder they hope to get through a FF without AF.


The problem is that focus would be more put on FF lenses, thus lacking lighter and smaller lenses. Ok, if it doesn't make much difference for longer lenses, then that's not so bad.


I don't like the look of Sony video. And haven't I mentioned how I like how a Pentax feels? Make no mistake. I love my K-5 to death, and before that my *istDs.

Hiring few individuals is quite different than taking over Magic Lantern and preventing it from being further developed for Canon.

Photographers don't hope to get FF without AF. Only few individuals are asking for that, and I'm not convinced they would buy. And there are significant differences between EVFs and OVFs.

We already have those lighter and smaller lenses, e.g. the DA Limiteds. They won't disappear.

Then, go with Panasonic. You'll get over how a Pentax feels, you'll have your video, electronic viewfinder and mirrorless.
Because Pentax is mostly about K-mount, and values stills over video.

[ElJamoquio]

Ok so maybe I overreacted and forgot to put a smiley at the end but I'm tired of this topic taking over the conversations as if it's the only thing that matters.

I wish normhead would stop bringing it up too.

[ChristianRock]

That's OK, you don't have to be nice.

The equivalence argument is completely valid, so I'm not offended.

It is valid, but in reality it doesn't matter because nobody buys a smaller sensor expecting to get the same DOF of a larger sensor. In practice that just doesn't exist.

[normhead]

Friendly!

It's tough to know if you're even serious after you suggested the 6D wasn't a very good value.

---------- Post added 07-02-14 at 07:59 AM ----------



It's much, much more compelling, it's just more expensive.

And I said that where? This is why you're on my ignore list. I said if you compare it to a K-3, it's not a good value.

Compared to a K-3

11 point AF compared to 27
20 Mp instead of 24 and less resolution.
Even in quiet mode, not as quiet.
Not Water Resistant
No TAV
4.5 frames per second instead of 8.5
No in body based shake reduction
1080p fps 30 fps compared to 60 fps on the K-3

I'm not sure how you're making this out to be a value when it's inferior on so many levels and costs more.

If it wasn't for you incredible bias that makes you so sure any FF is a good value compared to any APS-c you'd have seen that. In fact if you'd just looked over the spec sheets you would have seen that. What exactly do you do before you make these statements?

OK, now explain to me why you think I'm not serious? Or is just this your usual hatchet job.... "hey, if I insult norm head enough maybe someone will take me seriously, or at least be my friend". Is that your strategy?

[ElJamoquio]

And I said that where? This is why you're on my ignore list.I said if you compare it to a K-3, it's not a good value.

Compared to a K-3

11 point AF compared to 27
20 Mp instead of 24 and less resolution.
Even in quiet mode, not as quiet.
Not Water Resistant
No TAV
4.5 frames per second instead of 8.5
No in body based shake reduction
1080p fps 30 fps compared to 60 fps on the K-3

I'm not sure how you're making this out to be a value when it's inferior on so many levels and costs more.

If it wasn't for you incredible bias that makes you so sure any FF is a good value compared to any APS-c you'd have seen that. In fact if you'd just looked over the spec sheets you would have seen that. What exactly do you do before you make these statements?

OK, now explain to me why you think I'm not serious? Or is just this your usual hatchet job.... "hey, if I insult norm head enough maybe someone will take me seriously, or at least be my friend". Is that your strategy?

I notice you didn't mention that the 6D system often costs less, especially for enthusiast systems, that the 6D IQ is better, that it has a bigger viewfinder. You'd have to spend a lot less time typing if you'd just give pluses and minuses rather than just minuses.

The D600 is better for me than the 6D because it has TAv and WR, keeps the big viewfinder, and the long lenses are thousands of dollars cheaper than either Pentax ones or Canon ones.

Keep the insults to yourself, please.

---------- Post added 07-02-14 at 04:19 PM ----------

If I have a superzoom I'd stick to shooting it at f/8, since I'm guessing that's where they'll perform well. Even at the widest aperture the background separation is very poor anyway. Is the nikon any good wide open? If it's not good, the wider effective aperture argument is pointless as both will be shot stopped down. Can you tell me why the K-3 needs to be 36mp and not 24mp like the D600, assuming we're not suddenly discussing D800 here?

Added: seems pretty typical performance for a superzoom. I can't find any detailed reviews of this lens other than photozone though, so maybe Klaus has a bad sample.
Nikkor AF-S 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR (FX) - Review / Test Report - Analysis

The D600 with a superzoom is not as good as the D600 with primes, that's a given.

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. I'm guessing the bokeh/rendering of the 35mm would be better... it better be? But I don't know. I also didn't look at the numbers at either end of the zoom range, instead of just the middle.

I certainly think the D7000+ a prime is good for more than just F/8.

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.

[jsherman999]

We are there now and have been for a while, imho. I suspect the Canon 6D served notice on high-end APS-C equipment a couple of years ago. The reason is that high-end APS-C bodies have come down in price as a consequence. Were it not for cameras like the 6D, the D600 and the A7, cameras like the K3 or the D7100 would be priced more highly than they are now. A further ratchet an be applied, perhaps by Sony dropping the price of the A7 when new models are introduced, or simply introducing an A7 Lite, or Canon selling the 6D at a discount for a while after its successor is launched. For Pentax an additional catch is that as time goes by folks may become more reluctant to buy APS-C-only lenses for a full-frame mount, especially since some of those lenses are as expensive as or more expensive than their FF equivalents from other brands. It's the famous pincer movement: low-price FF from above and MILCS from below, at least in some parts of the word. For Pentax it could all be a matter of whether they wish to retain their enthusiast clients or live with a hollow middle i.e. above the K50 level and below the 645 level, most folks either don't buy into the brand or if they already own it, they migrate to other brands.

My ears are burning....

---------- Post added 07-02-14 at 08:42 PM ----------

What are the chances of FF sensors becomming so "cheap" that FF cameras will end up in APS-C flagship pricing territory? Because that's the moment where a Pentax company without FF will be in trouble..

Exactamundo.

.

---------- Post added 07-02-14 at 09:14 PM ----------

In the context of his argument I think it's reasonable to say it's not good value relative to APSC. D600 / 6D is not as featured as K-3 is and they're more expensive

I'd say it's a better value, especially when you factor in the cost of the lenses.

A D600 with a $100 50 f/1.8 is a very, very fun combo with a lot of power and simple, but elegant and timeless photographic possibilities. You can keep all your never-used-more-than-once-buried-in-menu K3 "features" that few people even care about - I want the power and fun. (Pentax could deliver an even funner combo, and I think they eventually will.)

I use maybe 1/3 of the 'features' of my D800 or K20D. My takeway these past 9 years of shooting digital is that only a very few things really matter, and those things are described by sensor quality, sensor size, AF-lock speed and accuracy, lens f-stop range, lens resolving power and lens "pixie dust." Everything else barely merits mention.



.

[mecrox]

Food for thought. These are some stats from a well-known photo-sharing site, showing the performance of some recent FF cameras (not older ones like the D700) relative to the Pentax stable, The K3 is not on them because the site does not yet have it on their stats. The figures make the FF arena seem quite large, perhaps because Pentax's market share is still quite small. Even if a Pentax FF did only a tenth as well as a Canon 6D or a Nikon D600, it would still be more popular, on these stats, than any recent Pentax cameras apart from the K5 and the K30. Significantly more popular, in fact, than the K5II/s; and, interestingly, not less popular than the Sony A7. The Sony A7 is quite new but from these figures it does not appear to be in as many users' hands as the brouhaha on the internet would suggest. I wonder if this is the "gearhead distortion field" showing up: in reality, people mostly buy into conventional, well-established systems from the usual suspects. Usual caveats: stats can say anything.

[RonHendriks1966]

What are the chances of FF sensors becomming so "cheap" that FF cameras will end up in APS-C flagship pricing territory? Because that's the moment where a Pentax company without FF will be in trouble.

Exactamundo.

Well then Pentax can bring out the cheapest FF that is possible. In the short run that would give all users a camera to buy and in the long run they have a camera at the bottom pricepoint.


Simply to say, and I stated it earlier: Put a FF sensor inside the K-01 and don't change anything. That camera should cost $ 999 and make a profit.


http://www.mirrorlessrumors.com/let-s-dream-pentax-24-megapixel-full-frame-camera-coming-in-march-2013

[Clavius]

Well then Pentax can bring out the cheapest FF that is possible. In the short run that would give all users a camera to buy and in the long run they have a camera at the bottom pricepoint.


Simply to say, and I stated it earlier: Put a FF sensor inside the K-01 and don't change anything. That camera should cost $ 999 and make a profit.


http://www.mirrorlessrumors.com/let-s-dream-pentax-24-megapixel-full-frame-camera-coming-in-march-2013

About 50 years ago the spotmatic made the 35mm format available to just about everybody. It was affordable without being 'cheap'. Pentax repeating that on the anniversary would be a nice stunt. Not sure about about the K-01 though.

[Andi Lo]

I'd say it's a better value, especially when you factor in the cost of the lenses.

A D600 with a $100 50 f/1.8 is a very, very fun combo with a lot of power and simple, but elegant and timeless photographic possibilities. You can keep all your never-used-more-than-once-buried-in-menu K3 "features" that few people even care about - I want the power and fun. (Pentax could deliver an even funner combo, and I think they eventually will.).

Oh I know, I use that combo 30% of the time In context of the comment though, we're talking about people who buy superzooms; I added that most of them never graduate from their second lens, whatever their second lens is. For these type of people the K-3 will be better value. If they get D600 or 6D, they'll really recoup the intial higher body cost. K-3 is still a better buy for these people. Most of them will be content with the DA 35. The point is it's pointless to talk about whole systems when the consumer never intended to buy a system, just two lenses.

Another member also said above, no one bought APSC thinking to replicate the DOF control of full frame, I think that's quite true. Well there might be some people who are misinformed on how equivalence works who might do so, but I think there shouldn't be that many anyway.

As an addition, many people might actually prefer the reduced MFD from APSC, as opposed to the DOF control of FF.

[eyeswideshut]

About 50 years ago the spotmatic made the 35mm format available to just about everybody. It was affordable without being 'cheap'. Pentax repeating that on the anniversary would be a nice stunt. Not sure about about the K-01 though.

You mean something lilke this:

Asahi Pentax Spotmatic D Concept

(Probably been posted before)

[Clavius]

You mean something lilke this:

Asahi Pentax Spotmatic D Concept

(Probably been posted before)

Eeek! My eyes! Neh, it doesn't have to look like the Spotmatic. Just introduce affordable 35mm format, like the Spotmatic did 50 years ago.