Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
02-26-2014, 02:52 PM   #31
Site Supporter
K David's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: SF Bay Area
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,312
QuoteOriginally posted by awaldram Quote
Well at 24mp the 24mp sensor is a clear winner as the 16mp sensor is short some 8mp
To my eye, the smaller MP sensors like on the K-5 and K-7 give lenses a smaller aperture at which diffraction softening becomes an issue. Also, the smaller-MP sensors are more forgiving to lenses meaning that more lenses deliver better results in a wider range of settings.

Also, a 16-MP sensor is cheaper, the file size is more manageable for people who don't own computers with Google Data Center-like processing capacities, and the files write faster so burst mode lasts longer. Also, with the exception of a small number of enthusiasts, stupid megapixel numbers don't add any value for users. MOST people who use a camera don't use more than 8MPs anyway -- evidenced by how many photos are taken with phones instead of high-dollar DSLRs. I'd actually be okay with my APS-C sensor being 12 or 14 MPs. I wouldn't even WANT to go beyond 18 or 20 for an FF camera.

No denying that the sensor specs are better for the K-3, but the 24MP file size has a number of drawbacks that actually hinder most users (even the users who don't realize they're being hindered.)

02-26-2014, 05:46 PM   #32
Veteran Member
MJSfoto1956's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Boston
Posts: 1,287
funny, coming from the D800, I find the 24mp sensor to be "cheaper and the file size more manageable" than what I am used to. To each his own.

YMMV

Michael
02-26-2014, 06:01 PM   #33
Veteran Member




Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Manila
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,190
QuoteOriginally posted by Hornet Quote
In addition to the many good suggestions above... if Pentax made their own sensors I would ask for 16bit+ color depth and native ISO 25 or below. Maybe just give us a foveon sensor as an option
Sometimes I wish Ricoh would buy Truesense Imaging... or something. It would be like Pentax getting a Canon/Sony ability- sensor fabrication

QuoteOriginally posted by K David Quote
Also, a 16-MP sensor is cheaper, the file size is more manageable for people who don't own computers with Google Data Center-like processing capacities, and the files write faster so burst mode lasts longer.
I think the 16MP sensor is only cheaper because it's older... but in terms of production (from then and now) am not sure of the costs. But I do agree it's a big jump (16 to 24) for processing load (for the entry- to average- computer person with less than 8GB of RAM and low-range processors mostly.

Otherwise yeah built-in WiFi, like Adam said would prolly solve the wireless tethering option for K-3 successors so you could use both SD slots with bigger capacities
02-27-2014, 09:26 AM   #34
Pentaxian




Join Date: Dec 2013
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 543
* It would be great to see electronic level in the composition adjustment mode. So far it is either or.
* I agree with suggestions regarding the improvement of video. Better autofocus during video shooting would be useful.
* In camera RAW HDR which is supported by raw convertors.
* I would like the camera to produce slightly cooler colours.
* Higher dynamic range.

02-27-2014, 09:13 PM   #35
Senior Member




Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 123
I would like to see faster flash sync speed and the ability to set X mode to a lower shutter speed so I can use my wireless flash triggers without worrying about bumping the shutter speed wheel to a speed that won't sync.
02-28-2014, 01:12 AM   #36
Senior Member
Matthew Saville's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Southern California
Posts: 250
Off the top of my head, here's what I'd like to see:

* 100% zooming during image playback should go to the selected / confirmed focus point, like on Nikon / Canon.

* re-design the AF point selection system, maybe put one of those eye-sensors in that many other DSLRs have to turn off the rear LCD when your eye is to the viewfinder, and reset the 4-way (8-way) controller back to do AF point selection.

* Even more customization for the command dials in relation to exposure control and the direction the dials move.

* Even more customization control for the other function buttons. For example I like to be able to tap the control pad's center button once to zoom in to 100% during image review, and again to zoom all the way back out.

*Better image quality (NO MORE MEGAPIXELS!!!) at higher ISOs.

* 1/250 or 1/500 sec. native flash sync speed.

* Better AF, especially tracking and accuracy in very dim light.

Honestly, when comparing what the K-3 offers at it's current price (often around $1100) against what Nikon and Canon used to charge for their D300s and 7D when they first came out, I think that a slightly improved K-3 could easily command a $1500 price and sell very well. I think the main thing holding them back right now is that maybe they feel stuck in a lower price bracket because they have to fight harder to sell volume compared to Canon / Nikon.

Ironically, if Pentax would also create a full-frame version of the K-3, that would help boost their popularity overall and would increase sales of this fantastic crop-sensor body as well, IMO. I know I'd sure buy BOTH a full-frame and crop-sensor version of this camera! Especially if they could shave a few ounces off the K-3 in the process, and keep the weight of a full-frame body to approximately that of the Nikon Df / Canon 6D...

BTW, I think that a tilt-swivel LCD will, unfortunately, never come to such a "flagship" type camera. Don't get me wrong, I really love having it on my Nikon D5300 and I miss it when using the D7100. (Both have a similar sensor to the K-3) However I feel that Pentax will probably keep this feature for a more compact, beginner style camera body. I'd be fine with that, because for adventure / travel photography lighter is always better, ...except they inevitably remove some of the best functionality or performance when making these more beginner-oriented cameras. But who knows, Pentax has always been known to put things like weather sealing and a big bright viewfinder in even their beginner bodies. Basically, give me a Nikon D5300 with Pentax-quality weather sealing and viewfinder, and I'd be the first in line!!!

=Matt=
02-28-2014, 04:10 AM   #37
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 16,213
QuoteOriginally posted by K David Quote
To my eye, the smaller MP sensors like on the K-5 and K-7 give lenses a smaller aperture at which diffraction softening becomes an issue. Also, the smaller-MP sensors are more forgiving to lenses meaning that more lenses deliver better results in a wider range of settings.

Also, a 16-MP sensor is cheaper, the file size is more manageable for people who don't own computers with Google Data Center-like processing capacities, and the files write faster so burst mode lasts longer. Also, with the exception of a small number of enthusiasts, stupid megapixel numbers don't add any value for users. MOST people who use a camera don't use more than 8MPs anyway -- evidenced by how many photos are taken with phones instead of high-dollar DSLRs. I'd actually be okay with my APS-C sensor being 12 or 14 MPs. I wouldn't even WANT to go beyond 18 or 20 for an FF camera.

No denying that the sensor specs are better for the K-3, but the 24MP file size has a number of drawbacks that actually hinder most users (even the users who don't realize they're being hindered.)
Diffraction may "set in sooner," but it isn't as those you will get worse performance at f11 on a K3 than on a K5, for instance, it just may not have any more detail due to diffraction. But if you shoot at f8, you will see more detail on the K3.
02-28-2014, 04:32 AM   #38
Senior Member
Matthew Saville's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Southern California
Posts: 250
QuoteOriginally posted by K David Quote
To my eye, the smaller MP sensors like on the K-5 and K-7 give lenses a smaller aperture at which diffraction softening becomes an issue. Also, the smaller-MP sensors are more forgiving to lenses meaning that more lenses deliver better results in a wider range of settings.

Also, a 16-MP sensor is cheaper, the file size is more manageable for people who don't own computers with Google Data Center-like processing capacities, and the files write faster so burst mode lasts longer. Also, with the exception of a small number of enthusiasts, stupid megapixel numbers don't add any value for users. MOST people who use a camera don't use more than 8MPs anyway -- evidenced by how many photos are taken with phones instead of high-dollar DSLRs. I'd actually be okay with my APS-C sensor being 12 or 14 MPs. I wouldn't even WANT to go beyond 18 or 20 for an FF camera.

No denying that the sensor specs are better for the K-3, but the 24MP file size has a number of drawbacks that actually hinder most users (even the users who don't realize they're being hindered.)
This does bring up a very good point that I totally forgot to mention.

True, most general photographers would be happy with 12-16 MP however I kinda feel like the intended audience of the K-3 is at least some part landscape photographers or adventure photographers who are happy to have as many megapixels as possible.

So at the very best, we can hope that a successor to the K-3 doesn't have MORE than 24 MP. However in the entire history of DSLRs I don't think a lineup has gone backwards in MP count. Maybe if you count the Canon 1Ds mk3 -> Canon 1DX but that is IMO a whole new class of camera.

Anyways, here is what I was going to say. One thing that I'd love to see on the K-3 is expanded DNG options. The DNG format is very versatile, and they could probably pull off a 16 MP or 12 MP capture mode with minimal loss of overall image quality.

On top of that, for example Nikon offers the option to switch back to 12-bit RAW capture, AND the option to turn on lossy compression for extremely high-volume gigs. I've been using this feature for many years as a Nikon wedding shooter who cranks out 100,000 images per year on 12-24 megapixel cameras, and it is a huge help. Sure, for landscapes or fine art or editorial you can use 14-bit lossless RAW, but if you're concerned about space then you can almost cut your filesize in half by using those other RAW options.

That, IMO, is the best that Pentax users can hope for. That they keep the sensor at 24 MP and add filesize options to the PEF format, and/or additional DNG options.

=Matt=

PS if it's diffraction you're worried about, rest assured that more MP is still not a bad thing. You could just down-size everything to 16 MP in ACR and still come out way ahead. Personally, I extensively shoot various 24 MP crop sensors (K-3 and three misc. Nikons with similar sensors) at apertures like f/8 and f/11 without diffraction getting too ugly. The lack of an AA filter really helps to maintain per-pixel detail. :-)

02-28-2014, 11:05 PM   #39
Senior Member
scole's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Everett, WA
Posts: 216
I'm surprised no one has brought up the UI and/or menu system and all the extra button clicks they introduced with the K-3 (compared with the same operation on the K-5). I'm always grumbling when I switch modes from bracketing back to 2 second timer or cycling through the various review modes during image playback.

All that is relatively minor- they could fix all that with a firmware update but probably won't. As for a "real" improvement, I want cleaner high ISO. I know it's been explained many times that the higher MP count eventually provides slightly cleaner high ISO compared with the K5 but I want cleaner RAWs to begin with. These are the only disappointments on my end.
03-06-2014, 02:29 AM   #40
Senior Member
Matthew Saville's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Southern California
Posts: 250
QuoteOriginally posted by scole Quote
I'm surprised no one has brought up the UI and/or menu system and all the extra button clicks they introduced with the K-3 (compared with the same operation on the K-5). I'm always grumbling when I switch modes from bracketing back to 2 second timer or cycling through the various review modes during image playback.

All that is relatively minor- they could fix all that with a firmware update but probably won't. As for a "real" improvement, I want cleaner high ISO. I know it's been explained many times that the higher MP count eventually provides slightly cleaner high ISO compared with the K5 but I want cleaner RAWs to begin with. These are the only disappointments on my end.
I do prefer, of all the cameras that I've ever tried, the playback interface that Nikon has developed. On the 4-way controller, left and right navigate from image to image and up/down navigates between viewing info. Also, there is the ability to view not just an RGB histogram, but blinking highlight warnings for each individual channel. This is really helpful if you want to check only the red channel in portraits and stuff.

One thing I like about Canon's interface, on the other hand, is the new dedicated magnify button that the 6D has. Even if the LCD is currently off, one tap of the magnify button will show you your most recent image at 100%, and if an off-center focus point was used it will go to that focus point. Another feature that is VERY useful for portraiture!

I really, really wanted to be able to use the K-3 for my profession, wedding photography. I could probably get used to it with time, and maybe even replace my full-frame Nikon system for at least 50-75% of the time during an average wedding day. However the interface is the one thing that is making any possible switch a little less of a no-brainer. Part of it is certainly the fact that I'm simply very used to one system, however it is definitely also a matter of simply missing a few features that I really kinda need in order to do my job as efficiently as possible.

=Matt=
03-06-2014, 05:28 AM   #41
Pentaxian




Join Date: Dec 2013
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 543
I would like to see aperture and white balance bracketing. Although it is not something I would use on a regular basis, in some situations it is very useful.
03-06-2014, 05:54 AM   #42
Pentaxian
bdery's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Quebec city, Canada
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 5,826
There is nothing wrong with the camera per se. It's am amazing, plainly amazing, tool.

What I would like to see from Pentax is:

-a better TTL flash system (metering is now excellent, but faster sync, groups would be fantastic).

-WR limited lenses

For the rest, really, I can't complain.
03-06-2014, 07:17 AM   #43
Veteran Member
MJSfoto1956's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Boston
Posts: 1,287
Matthew Saville brings up a good point: Camera manufacturers are notoriously bad when it comes to GUIs. My recommendation to Pentax (and everyone else): make your interfaces customizable (and please publish your RESTful APIs). Nikon's "My Menu" is a small step that would be easy to implement. U1, U2, and U3 are helpful. Assignable buttons also are nice. But they all only take you halfway there. If they don't make the jump you better believe both Google and Apple are willing to and capable of competing.

Michael
03-08-2014, 02:41 AM   #44
Junior Member




Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Hey! Click.
Photos: Albums
Posts: 38
How I see it

Physical: ISO button placement. I've big hands, and tiny buttons... in awkward positions are a PITA!

ISO 80. Experimental firmware upgrade enabling it (pwlleeaaase)? I just want it

Theoretically possible? In-camera (noise) dithering algorithms, and the ability to switch in between them, making your own/or-community-based ones.

Dreaming: Shake reduction patterns. I'm fairly certain right to left, and left to right, or right to right coordination: will impact the (shake type).
Obviously something like a; shake reduction simulator, where you can customize the (shake) pattern to your style.

The next step would be to have it calibrate this information whit things like AF-micro-adjustments. Bracing against: a-left-wall shake pattern,
where you eliminate, or indicate most likely shake directions and so forth (directional, shake reduction, strength).

Or to put it bluntly more user control, and interaction whit the shake reduction system.
03-08-2014, 03:12 AM   #45
Veteran Member
starbase218's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Planet Earth, Sol system, Milky Way galaxy, Universe
Posts: 1,110
QuoteOriginally posted by atomx Quote
Agree with the flash sync speed.. At least bring it inline with the Canikon at 1/250th/sec.
While 1/250 may be inline with Canikon functionally, technically Pentax will probably have to go a bit further. I think Pentax shutters need to be bigger because of the SR, and as such, the curtains have to travel a greater distance, taking more time to do so. The Sony A580, which also has anti-shake built into the body, only manages 1/160.

Not saying it's not possible (the fullframe Z1 already had a 1/250 max sync speed) but it would probably be more expensive.

As for what I'd like on the K-3 (purely based on what I have seen/read; I don't own one myself):
- Tilty/swively screen;
- AF points spread out to cover a bigger area of the viewfinder;
- GPS built-in so that I can have GPS while using flash.

I'd also like the following things:
- Faster AF, but I think that's more in the lenses;
- More long glass, like a 100-400, but once again, that's lenses;
- Update the DA* line, but well... that's lenses.
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!
dan, dslr, e.g, k-3, k3, lcd, pentax k-3, video
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
How would YOU market the Pentax Q? cheekygeek Pentax Q 41 06-11-2014 04:23 PM
B exposure for K-30, how long would you.... wed7 Pentax K-30 & K-50 12 10-06-2013 07:38 PM
How would you rate the video from the Pentax K-30? memo90061 Pentax K-30 & K-50 23 11-05-2012 11:42 PM
People How would you improve this? bdtalley Photo Critique 9 06-13-2012 10:03 PM
How would you import the GPS-track to lightroom 3? Wick Nole Digital Processing, Software, and Printing 2 02-17-2011 06:44 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:50 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