Could Pentax/Ricoh do it?

rawr · 11-11-2014, 04:37 AM

Just a note that only one current DSLR supports 4K video - the Canon 1D C.
No other Canons, no Nikons. Then the mirrorless Panasonic GH4, the Sony A7s, and the new Samsung NX1. That's it.

List of 4K video recording devices - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There are probably lots of good reasons why other camera makers have been slow to roll-out 4K video, and why Ricoh may also be slow to offer 4K on any Pentax FF.

Jens Lyn IV · 11-11-2014, 06:04 AM

The Sony A7S captures 4K, but it can only record 1080p60 internally.

RonHendriks1966 · 11-11-2014, 06:52 AM

There are two issues with your demand.

It's the sensor that makes iso 50 an option and currently I don't see Sony offering it.
The PRIME III doesn't offer 4K video. All the rest will be possible from a processing side.

I think the biggest issue will be putting in a SR system that brings enough stabilisation on the bigger and heavier platform that holds the sensor. My guess is that that is the reason we still didn't see any FF offering from Pentax.

Pablom · 11-11-2014, 06:59 AM

To my defense, I believe my post is as informative as any other here

WideOpen · 11-11-2014, 08:13 AM

Originally posted by axelm7

This. 4K video shouldn't be a priority in the brand's first ever FF offering. Everything else is not only possible, it's expected of a flagship Pentax camera. Think of all the features the K3 has plus a faster processor, more cross-type AF points, better high ISO performance (it's a FF sensor after all), even better weather sealing, and a higher-res screen. I tend to think that trademark Pentax features like compatibility with legacy lenses and the 100% viewfinder coverage would really shine in a FF body. The lenses would actually behave like they would on a 35mm camera and the large 100% viewfinder would be glorious to shoot with.

My heart melts when I use my MX. It's the viewfinder -- 95/95 in a "full frame" format. It's also an extremely compact body. How can it be so difficult to duplicate that in 2014?!

JimC1101 · 11-11-2014, 08:25 AM

It is not that, it is just that the Pentax base is not screaming for Ricoh to do it, as the polls showed, video is not a gating factor to a majority of them.

axelm7 · 11-11-2014, 10:36 AM

Originally posted by WideOpen

My heart melts when I use my MX. It's the viewfinder -- 95/95 in a "full frame" format. It's also an extremely compact body. How can it be so difficult to duplicate that in 2014?!

This. I haven't had the chance to shoot through the MX's glorious viewfinder but I have used the next best thing (ME super) and I felt like I was in heaven. It came as such a suprise that something so clear and bright could fit in such a small body. I had previously tried the 6D and that was great because of the sheer size, though my K-50's clarity and brightness is probably better. Nothing compared to my experience with the ME, though.

Now imagine a viewfinder like that in a modern digital body. Pure bliss.

---------- Post added 11-11-14 at 11:44 AM ----------

Originally posted by kooks

Im on the same track... K3 features but some how improved.. like build in wifi, great image quality, TETHERING, something around 36MP, faster AF, crop mode... and all the other nice features that pentax have.. ergonomics, price, size, etc..

Contrary to what most are saying, I think I would rather have a ~24 MP sensor. Pixel pitch stays relatively large, which improves low-light performance. With a faster processor it could also make for a more compelling wildlife/sports photography camera which would definitely attract customers to the Brand (Pentax don't really have a dedicated high-speed shooter). Think 8-10 fps capabilities.

LensBeginner · 11-11-2014, 03:46 PM

Originally posted by axelm7

This. I haven't had the chance to shoot through the MX's glorious viewfinder but I have used the next best thing (ME super) and I felt like I was in heaven. It came as such a suprise that something so clear and bright could fit in such a small body. I had previously tried the 6D and that was great because of the sheer size, though my K-50's clarity and brightness is probably better. Nothing compared to my experience with the ME, though.

Now imagine a viewfinder like that in a modern digital body. Pure bliss.

Trying out a viewfinder hood (magnified) in Yodobashi Kyoto on a K-01 display was as near an experience as I could find as bringing my old KX up to my eye...
No split prism unfortunately...

kooks · 11-11-2014, 04:25 PM

Originally posted by JimC1101

It is not that, it is just that the Pentax base is not screaming for Ricoh to do it, as the polls showed, video is not a gating factor to a majority of them.

well something to take in count is that most current Pentax users ( the base ) when we got this cameras we werent thinking about video.. so for most of us, it doesnt really matter, perhaps we will never scream for video.. but thats just for US... there are some other bunch of people that do care about video ( specially Canon users ), and that they might want to be able to use Pentax as their video camera...

To me video is not something that i really care about, but its just my case.. if the brand ( Ricoh/Pentax ) wants to increase costumers they need to start thinking of what they want too and not only what we want.

JimC1101 · 11-11-2014, 06:49 PM

Yes but I am sure Pentax has done enough worldwide market research and seem to be fine with what Pentax has. Pentax does support a lot for video users adequately so that is probably why they are not pushing so much for it. Canon is a great example as you say. Yes, you are correct, they do make great video DSLR's but they are extremely lacking in my opinion in still high iso IQ. What is great about the markets is that a user can choose what is most important to them. If I was to go with a camera that I wanted better video, I would choose Canon but what I always wanted was better stills, especially high iso stills and video is ok to me. It is once in a blue moon that I take a video anyways. But to each his own and chose the camera they want accordingly.

**Digitalis** · 11-11-2014, 09:27 PM

6BQ5 · 11-11-2014, 10:57 PM

Can Ricoh make a FF body? Sure.

But, do they really want to? Ehh, maybe - maybe not.

Paul MaudDib · 11-12-2014, 12:59 AM

Originally posted by axelm7

Contrary to what most are saying, I think I would rather have a ~24 MP sensor. Pixel pitch stays relatively large, which improves low-light performance. With a faster processor it could also make for a more compelling wildlife/sports photography camera which would definitely attract customers to the Brand (Pentax don't really have a dedicated high-speed shooter). Think 8-10 fps capabilities.

There's a lot of people on this forum who complain about high resolution sensors. 24mp, 36mp, 50mp - there isn't a high-res FF sensor they WON'T deem to be too high-performing for the plebs.

Real-world: a 16mp sensor is NOT acceptable for a flagship FF product in TYOOL 2015. 24mp is the standard at this point IF NOT HIGHER. My APS-C sensor can produce equal resolution to that grade of sensor - that's not a seriously viable product long term, I'd look for the 24/36mp re-release in a year's time.

kooks · 11-12-2014, 02:31 AM

Originally posted by 6BQ5

Can Ricoh make a FF body? Sure.

But, do they really want to? Ehh, maybe - maybe not.

The thing is that if they dont want to they will keep loosing costumers that look for something better than what the K3 with the APS-C can offer.. at this time there is no APS-C in the world that can match ISO performance that a FF can catch and for a lot of users thats the main reason to switch. for example Nikon users have the D7100 that can match with our K3.. but if they look for something else they have the D610, D750 or D810 and a lot more.. so they do have something else to pick from. We dont have nothing more besides the 645Z, and that means A LOT of $$$$ and a totally new camera system.. so.. i think that they want to, cuz they can see that more and more people gets to the point where APS-C is not enough ( ofcourse, for a lot of other APS-C is just what they need, even a K10D fits their needs, but thats not all ), specially events, portrait, fashion, etc.

It could be funny to ask the people that left Pentax to tell us.. why did they do it? .. and i bet the a good % will say.. pentax doesnt have a FF yet... as simple as that, they were looking for something better and we dont have it, not as Sony, Canon or Nikon do. BUT. we will.

About sensor resolution im expecting someting around the 36MP.. so in "crop mode" we will have something around 20MP +/- both really nice workable sizes for large prints and cropping.

6BQ5 · 11-12-2014, 07:10 AM

Does Ricoh gain more new customers with it's K-3 than it loses due to no full frame?

11-11-2014, 06:52 AM	#18
RonHendriks1966 Banned Join Date: Jan 2009 Photos: Gallery Posts: 9,675	There are two issues with your demand. It's the sensor that makes iso 50 an option and currently I don't see Sony offering it. The PRIME III doesn't offer 4K video. All the rest will be possible from a processing side. I think the biggest issue will be putting in a SR system that brings enough stabilisation on the bigger and heavier platform that holds the sensor. My guess is that that is the reason we still didn't see any FF offering from Pentax.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Could Pentax/Ricoh create a fake FF camera?	drei3	Pentax Full Frame	16	07-08-2014 09:13 AM
Landscape Could be anywhere, or could it?	Ole	Post Your Photos!	5	04-27-2014 10:56 AM
Ricoh working on a dSLR 2009 could it us a K Mount?	Adrian Owerko	Pentax News and Rumors	18	01-17-2009 12:27 PM
If you could do it all over?...	beaumont	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	64	11-02-2008 09:33 PM
If you could do it all again...?	beaumont	Digital Processing, Software, and Printing	18	09-10-2008 04:57 PM

11-11-2014, 04:37 AM	#16
rawr Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 11,913	Just a note that only one current DSLR supports 4K video - the Canon 1D C. No other Canons, no Nikons. Then the mirrorless Panasonic GH4, the Sony A7s, and the new Samsung NX1. That's it. List of 4K video recording devices - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia There are probably lots of good reasons why other camera makers have been slow to roll-out 4K video, and why Ricoh may also be slow to offer 4K on any Pentax FF.

11-11-2014, 06:04 AM	#17
Jens Lyn IV Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2014 Location: Ringsted, Denmark Photos: Albums Posts: 260	The Sony A7S captures 4K, but it can only record 1080p60 internally.

11-11-2014, 06:59 AM	#19
Pablom Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: Usa Posts: 1,940	To my defense, I believe my post is as informative as any other here

11-11-2014, 08:13 AM	#20
WideOpen Junior Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Ottawa, ON Photos: Gallery Posts: 38	Originally posted by axelm7 This. 4K video shouldn't be a priority in the brand's first ever FF offering. Everything else is not only possible, it's expected of a flagship Pentax camera. Think of all the features the K3 has plus a faster processor, more cross-type AF points, better high ISO performance (it's a FF sensor after all), even better weather sealing, and a higher-res screen. I tend to think that trademark Pentax features like compatibility with legacy lenses and the 100% viewfinder coverage would really shine in a FF body. The lenses would actually behave like they would on a 35mm camera and the large 100% viewfinder would be glorious to shoot with. My heart melts when I use my MX. It's the viewfinder -- 95/95 in a "full frame" format. It's also an extremely compact body. How can it be so difficult to duplicate that in 2014?!

11-11-2014, 08:25 AM	#21
JimC1101 Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Fremont, Ca Photos: Albums Posts: 395	It is not that, it is just that the Pentax base is not screaming for Ricoh to do it, as the polls showed, video is not a gating factor to a majority of them.

11-11-2014, 10:36 AM	#22
axelm7 Forum Member Join Date: Dec 2013 Posts: 95	Originally posted by WideOpen My heart melts when I use my MX. It's the viewfinder -- 95/95 in a "full frame" format. It's also an extremely compact body. How can it be so difficult to duplicate that in 2014?! This. I haven't had the chance to shoot through the MX's glorious viewfinder but I have used the next best thing (ME super) and I felt like I was in heaven. It came as such a suprise that something so clear and bright could fit in such a small body. I had previously tried the 6D and that was great because of the sheer size, though my K-50's clarity and brightness is probably better. Nothing compared to my experience with the ME, though. Now imagine a viewfinder like that in a modern digital body. Pure bliss. ---------- Post added 11-11-14 at 11:44 AM ---------- Originally posted by kooks Im on the same track... K3 features but some how improved.. like build in wifi, great image quality, TETHERING, something around 36MP, faster AF, crop mode... and all the other nice features that pentax have.. ergonomics, price, size, etc.. Contrary to what most are saying, I think I would rather have a ~24 MP sensor. Pixel pitch stays relatively large, which improves low-light performance. With a faster processor it could also make for a more compelling wildlife/sports photography camera which would definitely attract customers to the Brand (Pentax don't really have a dedicated high-speed shooter). Think 8-10 fps capabilities.

11-11-2014, 03:46 PM	#23
LensBeginner Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2014 Photos: Albums Posts: 4,696	Originally posted by axelm7 This. I haven't had the chance to shoot through the MX's glorious viewfinder but I have used the next best thing (ME super) and I felt like I was in heaven. It came as such a suprise that something so clear and bright could fit in such a small body. I had previously tried the 6D and that was great because of the sheer size, though my K-50's clarity and brightness is probably better. Nothing compared to my experience with the ME, though. Now imagine a viewfinder like that in a modern digital body. Pure bliss. Trying out a viewfinder hood (magnified) in Yodobashi Kyoto on a K-01 display was as near an experience as I could find as bringing my old KX up to my eye... No split prism unfortunately...

11-11-2014, 04:25 PM	#24
kooks Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2011 Location: San José, Costa Rica Photos: Albums Posts: 794	Originally posted by JimC1101 It is not that, it is just that the Pentax base is not screaming for Ricoh to do it, as the polls showed, video is not a gating factor to a majority of them. well something to take in count is that most current Pentax users ( the base ) when we got this cameras we werent thinking about video.. so for most of us, it doesnt really matter, perhaps we will never scream for video.. but thats just for US... there are some other bunch of people that do care about video ( specially Canon users ), and that they might want to be able to use Pentax as their video camera... To me video is not something that i really care about, but its just my case.. if the brand ( Ricoh/Pentax ) wants to increase costumers they need to start thinking of what they want too and not only what we want.

11-11-2014, 06:49 PM	#25
JimC1101 Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Fremont, Ca Photos: Albums Posts: 395	Yes but I am sure Pentax has done enough worldwide market research and seem to be fine with what Pentax has. Pentax does support a lot for video users adequately so that is probably why they are not pushing so much for it. Canon is a great example as you say. Yes, you are correct, they do make great video DSLR's but they are extremely lacking in my opinion in still high iso IQ. What is great about the markets is that a user can choose what is most important to them. If I was to go with a camera that I wanted better video, I would choose Canon but what I always wanted was better stills, especially high iso stills and video is ok to me. It is once in a blue moon that I take a video anyways. But to each his own and chose the camera they want accordingly.

11-11-2014, 09:27 PM	#26
Digitalis Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Melbourne, Victoria Photos: Gallery Posts: 11,694

11-11-2014, 10:57 PM	#27
6BQ5 Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2013 Location: Nevada, USA Photos: Albums Posts: 3,348	Can Ricoh make a FF body? Sure. But, do they really want to? Ehh, maybe - maybe not.

11-12-2014, 12:59 AM	#28
Paul MaudDib Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Michigan Posts: 294	Originally posted by axelm7 Contrary to what most are saying, I think I would rather have a ~24 MP sensor. Pixel pitch stays relatively large, which improves low-light performance. With a faster processor it could also make for a more compelling wildlife/sports photography camera which would definitely attract customers to the Brand (Pentax don't really have a dedicated high-speed shooter). Think 8-10 fps capabilities. There's a lot of people on this forum who complain about high resolution sensors. 24mp, 36mp, 50mp - there isn't a high-res FF sensor they WON'T deem to be too high-performing for the plebs. Real-world: a 16mp sensor is NOT acceptable for a flagship FF product in TYOOL 2015. 24mp is the standard at this point IF NOT HIGHER. My APS-C sensor can produce equal resolution to that grade of sensor - that's not a seriously viable product long term, I'd look for the 24/36mp re-release in a year's time.

11-12-2014, 02:31 AM	#29
kooks Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2011 Location: San José, Costa Rica Photos: Albums Posts: 794	Originally posted by 6BQ5 Can Ricoh make a FF body? Sure. But, do they really want to? Ehh, maybe - maybe not. The thing is that if they dont want to they will keep loosing costumers that look for something better than what the K3 with the APS-C can offer.. at this time there is no APS-C in the world that can match ISO performance that a FF can catch and for a lot of users thats the main reason to switch. for example Nikon users have the D7100 that can match with our K3.. but if they look for something else they have the D610, D750 or D810 and a lot more.. so they do have something else to pick from. We dont have nothing more besides the 645Z, and that means A LOT of $$$$ and a totally new camera system.. so.. i think that they want to, cuz they can see that more and more people gets to the point where APS-C is not enough ( ofcourse, for a lot of other APS-C is just what they need, even a K10D fits their needs, but thats not all ), specially events, portrait, fashion, etc. It could be funny to ask the people that left Pentax to tell us.. why did they do it? .. and i bet the a good % will say.. pentax doesnt have a FF yet... as simple as that, they were looking for something better and we dont have it, not as Sony, Canon or Nikon do. BUT. we will. About sensor resolution im expecting someting around the 36MP.. so in "crop mode" we will have something around 20MP +/- both really nice workable sizes for large prints and cropping.

11-12-2014, 07:10 AM	#30
6BQ5 Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2013 Location: Nevada, USA Photos: Albums Posts: 3,348	Does Ricoh gain more new customers with it's K-3 than it loses due to no full frame?