[panonski]

I'm not sure I understand why?
Why would you expect "a very different result" when in one case the camera software crops the sensor area to 4:3 ratio (what else should the camera software do for a given sensor?) and in the other case the pp-software is used to crop to 4:3?

because I did it.


If you're good in framing, you will notice immediatelly - how different your eyse are "seeking" for the frame.
--
If you have 4:3 in a front of eyes, it's natural to do your framing in 4:3 - So, you will choose the frame from the scene in that way.


---------------------------
In another scenario when you shoot with 3:2 - and later want to crop it to the 4:3 - this would not be the scene you framed, and you may miss some space in vertical area.

---------------------------
Solution
---
Well, you can always crop - so your scene must be larger - or should I say - a little "zoomed out" - so you can later positively frame 4:3 without losing your idea for that frame ratio.
---
It's a little tricky at first.

and
it has not solved one more existing problem.

---
That 's your position when you're taking that shoot.

If you shoot with 3:2 - you will stand at the position which naturally feels and bread with that ratio. You may stay little more right, left, or so.


If you shoot with 4:3 - same thing. But here's the important part - positions wher you standing may differ - and you will notice this.


Afterwards croping - cannot solve it.

because it may be actually - a very different fame.

--
Which you cannot get by croping the first pic from 3:2



------------------------------------------

If you want to try - just bring your Q, and DSLR with only 3:2 - and try to shoot same scene - with both of them. 4:3 on Q,, and 3:2 on another camera

--
Soon,

yoo will may conclude same things as I do.

---

Last edited by panonski; 06-18-2019 at 06:22 AM.

[reh321]

q 7 is mirrorless camera,

and my Ricoh GX 200 - can do that also.

I really don't care abaout your or others techique to get in the different ratio field. Is it PostProcess, or is it something else.

Here we don't disquas about - HOW we can manage things - which are not in Pentax,

but rather - What pentax is lagging behind the others..

Which other DSLR's vary ratio shown in LV?

[normhead]

If you're good in framing, you will notice immediatelly - how different your eyse are "seeking" for the frame.
--
If you have 4:3 in a front of eyes, it's natural to do your framing in 4:3 - So, you will choose the frame from the scene in that way.

This is opinion, but this should be easy. Shoot with a 4:3 camera, shoot the same scene with a 3:2 camera and crop. Run a poll, see if folks can tell the difference. Prove your point. Stop with the unsubstantiated nonsense. I don't believe even you could tell the difference in such a test. .

[panonski]

This is opinion, but this should be easy. Shoot with a 4:3 camera, shoot the same scene with a 3:2 camera and crop. Run a poll, see if folks can tell the difference. Prove your point. Stop with the unsubstantiated nonsense. I don't believe even you could tell the difference in such a test. .

I can prove my point any time.


I ended discusion here.


by

[normhead]

I can prove my point any time.


I ended discusion here.


by

OK then, get her done.
I'm not interested in more talk without evidence. Anyone can say anything.

[volley]

If you want to try - just bring your Q, and DSLR with only 3:2 - and try to shoot same scene - with both of them. 4:3 on Q,, and 3:2 on another camera

--
Soon,

yoo will may conclude same things as I do.

Well, I appreciate your opinion, but my experience is just the opposite (I've tried my Q7 many times with 4:3 ratio).
For me it is easier to find "the best 4:3 crop" during pp of a wider shot.
It's a matter of personal preference I guess

[Rondec]

I wouldn't have a problem with Pentax releasing a 4:3 crop with a viewfinder overlay as a photographer help. I wouldn't use it much as I don't actually crop my images that way very often. I shoot a lot of landscapes and often often for those I end up using something more like 16:9 -- which is a nice viewing size for today's monitors.

Obviously it depends on what print size or viewing size you are using, but 4:3 is actually a really bad fit for most of today's monitors and few photos actually end up being printed.

[normhead]

I wouldn't have a problem with Pentax releasing a 4:3 crop with a viewfinder overlay as a photographer help. I wouldn't use it much as I don't actually crop my images that way very often. I shoot a lot of landscapes and often often for those I end up using something more like 16:9 -- which is a nice viewing size for today's monitors.

Obviously it depends on what print size or viewing size you are using, but 4:3 is actually a really bad fit for most of today's monitors and few photos actually end up being printed.

My problem exactly. I'd just be cropping and throwing away more of my image than I do now.

[Wheatfield]

I certainly think the Pentax brand will be around in 10 - 20 years time. There's too much of a loyal following for it not to be, and that following isn't the odd-ball group of Kool Aid drinking weirdos that some folks would like to believe, but mostly folks who really like and enjoy shooting with the equipment, and mostly get what they want and need from it (with full appreciation that it has weaknesses, like any other gear). I underlined the "enjoy" part, because that's a big part of what Pentax brings to the table for me. I enjoy shooting my Pentax cameras more than the Sony gear I own.

Whether that future is under Ricoh's ownership, who knows? It was bought by Hoya previously, then Ricoh who - in spite of a brutal stripping of brand value by Hoya - made a success of it... not at the same level as the old film days, but enough to be an interesting and viable brand that continues to be profitable enough to be worthwhile.

So long as Pentax stays relevant and true to a significant bunch of photographers - and I believe it will - it has a future, IMHO.

To drill down on your point a bit further, Hoya wanted Pentax for the medical imaging division. At no time did they want the camera part of the business. Ricoh actually wanted the camera division and actively sought it out and purchased it from Hoya. I'm not terribly concerned regarding whether Pentax exists in 20 years. I fully expect I will have shuffled off to that great darkroom in the sky by then.
What Ricoh has done is started making products that are decent quality, something that Hoya wasn't able to do.
With Hoya, we got the K20D with it's wandering hot pixels, the K7 with it's noisy Samsung sensor (gorgeous skin tones at base ISO though), the K5 with it's cargo ship of problems, lenses that gave us the term "decentered" as part of normal conversation and the Q, a system that was pretty questionable from the start, though apparently it did well enough in the home market. Granted they did also give us the 35/2.8 Macro, so a few bones were mixed in with the boners.
Ricoh took the division, it had been stripped to the point that it was only worth some US$120 million and started rebuilding it. The K5II was everything the K5 should have been, and on we go.
The economic downturn of the past few years has hurt everyone. With every country on the planet either hit by economic warfare or worried about being targeted, people are closing their wallets. R&D, which was admittedly slow with Ricoh anyway seems to have ground to a virtual halt, but if they don't think new product will sell in numbers great enough to make the cost of tooling worthwhile, it's no surprise they are holding off.

The companies to watch closely are Sony, as they will be out of cameras entirely if the division stops making a profit for very long, Canon, who has fired the first shot across the EF mount's bow, and Nikon, who, while one of the larger manufacturers, is now involved in a second mount which may not be easily compatible with most of the F mount cameras. While Nikon hasn't said anything, if their mirrorless models start to outsell their SLRs by a wide enough margin, it's quite possible that they will relegate the F mount to the boneyard. I have more confidence in Nikon keeping the F mount around than Canon keeping the EF mount, but they do have these pesky things called shareholders to keep happy.

One of the advantages of being a very small part of a very large company is that shareholders are not as likely to put the division under a microscope. I think Pentax is actually very well positioned at the moment to enjoy a long life with Ricoh, but the user base might get a bit frustrated by slow product introduction.

[reh321]

Well, I appreciate your opinion, but my experience is just the opposite (I've tried my Q7 many times with 4:3 ratio).
For me it is easier to find "the best 4:3 crop" during pp of a wider shot.
It's a matter of personal preference I guess

I used the 4:3 crop several times on my Q-7, but I kept forgetting to switch it back to 3:2; even though the difference should be obvious on the LCD, it wasn't so obvious to me, and I accidentally used it that way for several different days before I noticed. I really don't need another camera with yet another detail to keep track of.

[Rondec]

To drill down on your point a bit further, Hoya wanted Pentax for the medical imaging division. At no time did they want the camera part of the business. Ricoh actually wanted the camera division and actively sought it out and purchased it from Hoya. I'm not terribly concerned regarding whether Pentax exists in 20 years. I fully expect I will have shuffled off to that great darkroom in the sky by then.
What Ricoh has done is started making products that are decent quality, something that Hoya wasn't able to do.
With Hoya, we got the K20D with it's wandering hot pixels, the K7 with it's noisy Samsung sensor (gorgeous skin tones at base ISO though), the K5 with it's cargo ship of problems, lenses that gave us the term "decentered" as part of normal conversation and the Q, a system that was pretty questionable from the start, though apparently it did well enough in the home market. Granted they did also give us the 35/2.8 Macro, so a few bones were mixed in with the boners.
Ricoh took the division, it had been stripped to the point that it was only worth some US$120 million and started rebuilding it. The K5II was everything the K5 should have been, and on we go.
The economic downturn of the past few years has hurt everyone. With every country on the planet either hit by economic warfare or worried about being targeted, people are closing their wallets. R&D, which was admittedly slow with Ricoh anyway seems to have ground to a virtual halt, but if they don't think new product will sell in numbers great enough to make the cost of tooling worthwhile, it's no surprise they are holding off.

The companies to watch closely are Sony, as they will be out of cameras entirely if the division stops making a profit for very long, Canon, who has fired the first shot across the EF mount's bow, and Nikon, who, while one of the larger manufacturers, is now involved in a second mount which may not be easily compatible with most of the F mount cameras. While Nikon hasn't said anything, if their mirrorless models start to outsell their SLRs by a wide enough margin, it's quite possible that they will relegate the F mount to the boneyard. I have more confidence in Nikon keeping the F mount around than Canon keeping the EF mount, but they do have these pesky things called shareholders to keep happy.

One of the advantages of being a very small part of a very large company is that shareholders are not as likely to put the division under a microscope. I think Pentax is actually very well positioned at the moment to enjoy a long life with Ricoh, but the user base might get a bit frustrated by slow product introduction.

I feel like we are hitting a point in camera development where there is less clear of a way forward for many of the brands. Rumors are that Sony is working on an A9 II, but what is it going to have that makes A9 users want to jump to it? 25 fps? A jump of megapixels to 42? The addition of 6K video? Going from 690 auto focus points to 2000? It could be all of those things and it still could just sit around on store shelves and collect dust because those aren't real improvements that most photographers are particularly interested in. That is the problem when you build camera brands based on tech.

Pentax still has a lot of improvements possible and a lot of lens development possible as well. Slow and steady is probably the best way forward for them and as long as they make sure each release is solid and sells well for a profit, as you say, they should be fine. Nikon is actually the brand I would be most worried about as they are going to be sinking a bundle into the Z mount and their position in the market already feels tenuous.

[gatorguy]

With every system, Canon, Sony, Nikon, pick your poison, selecting more squares impedes subject acquisition, possible tot he point with wildlife that you never achieve a focus lock. Some top cameras are as much as 3x slower with their famous 39 or 56 squares selected at focus acquisition than a Pentax is with single point acquisition. There is a price to be paid for enabling AF tracking, and it's missed images in some circumstance, those where single point would have nailed an image that tracking would have missed.

I 100% agree Norm.

On the K1 II I've been using I had it initially set to use all the focus points in "auto" having read about how efficient it was. I personally found it untenable. I've become so used to single point focus on my other cameras, locate a point/focus/recompose, that trying to use multiple points and isolating the area I intended rather than what the camera thought required sometimes several attempts. I honestly found it frustrating. Changing to single point made it all well. Suppose it comes down to your personal shooting style.

FWIW I rarely miss eye-focus on portraits either, more often than not matching those vaunted Sony Eye-focus shooters. Focus, compose, shoot in literally a couple of seconds when required. while for whatever reason the Sony shooter next to me is still composing a shot. It's allowed me to capture some expressions and looks that others miss by not being ready on the shutter.

TBH I don't recall the last time I needed more than a single focus point even on moving subjects other than photographing flying terns a couple months back where I used center-weighted. Suckers are fast LOL! Otherwise I could do quite nicely using only single-point, and this is with old eyes. If I were frequently shooting sports I might change things up of course, but I don't.

On a side note MILC shooters seem to take so much time to get their shots. Is the lack of an eyepiece slowing things down or am I imagining it? I don't personally know.

[Merv-O]

I feel like we are hitting a point in camera development where there is less clear of a way forward for many of the brands

Nailed it. I previously stated that as we reach the zenith of DSLR development, the manner of newer and better and improved camera bodies will be less and less. Instead, it will merely be replacing a similar product that has reached its pinnacle. Examples: roofing with fiberglass roof shingles, in 20 years, little improvement seen or needed; totilets: porcelain water vessels to flush waste; pretty much the same since Thomas Crapper perfected his in the 1870's; Bridges: bridge design has been in place for thousands of years, and the materials may change but the design is consistent; how about internal combustion engines: fairly well perfected over tthe past 100 years--there you have it, etc.

So it is with DSLRs: format will stay the same (APS-c, FF, Medium), pixels may increase, bodies may get somewhat smaller/lighter, but the camera's bones will remain the same. Hell, there may actually come a time, when camera phones are studio standard. RICOH knows this and, if your K-3 wears out, buy a KP or a K-1 (with the built in "K-5iii" crop). But unless you have a robotic camera, we are at the edge of the design--

[photoptimist]

I feel like we are hitting a point in camera development where there is less clear of a way forward for many of the brands. Rumors are that Sony is working on an A9 II, but what is it going to have that makes A9 users want to jump to it? 25 fps? A jump of megapixels to 42? The addition of 6K video? Going from 690 auto focus points to 2000? It could be all of those things and it still could just sit around on store shelves and collect dust because those aren't real improvements that most photographers are particularly interested in. That is the problem when you build camera brands based on tech.

Pentax still has a lot of improvements possible and a lot of lens development possible as well. Slow and steady is probably the best way forward for them and as long as they make sure each release is solid and sells well for a profit, as you say, they should be fine. Nikon is actually the brand I would be most worried about as they are going to be sinking a bundle into the Z mount and their position in the market already feels tenuous.

Exactly!

A good chunk of the technology world is like this, now. Sales of PCs, laptops, tablets, and even smartphones are declining because there's not much room for creating more "must-have" upgrades. That does not mean the products are dying, only that the technology and the market is maturing.

The challenge for camera makers is to keep their fixed costs (e.g., R&D, marketing, factory assets, headcount) under control because there will be both lower unit sales and lower gross margins to cover them.

[John777]

I have not given up on my pentax kit but recently traded in my K1 for a fujifilm xt30. I am left with numerous film cameras. Fuji have already updated the software. I was very disappointed when the upgrade price of £600 for the k1 to become a k2 and the lack of new lenses being developed. Still the best value full frame camera, but i go very light and the fuji suits my needs better.