A corporate continuum?

attack11 · 02-19-2008, 01:09 PM

Originally posted by Tokina

I don't understand how Canon could be "lower resolution". Can Pentax match their L-lenses in resolution?

the sensor resolution is probably what they're talking about. pentax incorporates a weak 2 pass aa vertical filter which gives you higher res images. some people (ricehigh i'm looking at you) consider this a design flaw, which is kinda silly. it was done intentionally.

RiceHigh · 02-20-2008, 06:17 AM

Originally posted by d.bradley

Pentax made a choice NOT to market towards sports shooters.

Not only sport shooter need better AF performance. Casual shooters, say, who shoots pets or childs, or, shoot more dimmer indoor, would require a more reliable AF system which Pentax DSLR lacks.

Quote:

They have money...they could have said "screw off" to samsung and spent the year developing a new AF system and used an old sensor. But they didn't, because their design/marketing philosophy is a far, far cry from that of canon.

Pentax has had their development on their AF system for nearly two decades - similar to that of Canon and Nikon. In fact, they made the first AF SLR in the world in 1981, the ME-F, strictly speaking. So, they have the longest history. But of course, you and me know about that now Canon's AF is the best.

Quote:

"performance" and "accuracy" are relative terms, and this only goes to prove my point. Everyone puts value on different aspects of a camera body, for example, I use m42 lenses exclusively, so AF performance is moot. With all the variables it is virtually impossible to say that one is simply better than another.

Yes, but for typical users, especially new ones, they would use the AF and then they would find them annoying for quite some more difficult situations. I agree on your relativity theory, indeed the film Pentax MZ SLRs are all having faster and more sensitive AF. That's the real problem here.

RiceHigh · 02-20-2008, 06:21 AM

Originally posted by attack11

the sensor resolution is probably what they're talking about. pentax incorporates a weak 2 pass aa vertical filter which gives you higher res images. some people (ricehigh i'm looking at you) consider this a design flaw, which is kinda silly. it was done intentionally.

No matter what you like to call it. I cannot see the point of making a vertically weaker AA filter (which might give you higher res as you said but possibly more color moire) but a horizontally stronger AA filter (which give you lower res but less moire). This is just called inconsistency in my book, which just gives you odd results.

Of course, if we won't do much pixel peeping and just view the photos full screen, nothing can be discover. But then we do not need higher pixel images then, not even require 6MP!

attack11 · 02-20-2008, 07:23 AM

well, the inconsistency as you call it was done to get the most out of the sensor with ideal software. not all raw processors are equal; acr is one of the few that'll get those pixels to your final image. it might not seem like a good idea to you, but when you turn off in-body noise reduction you're left with a very nice raw to work with.

lol101 · 02-20-2008, 08:42 AM

Originally posted by RiceHigh

Of course, if we won't do much pixel peeping and just view the photos full screen, nothing can be discover. But then we do not need higher pixel images then, not even require 6MP!

I think you might be on to something here.... .... but shhht!

I anyone discovers that 99% of the measurbation done over the internet can not even be seen on a good 40x60cm print, you could get in trouble, or worst: blogless!!

attack11 · 02-20-2008, 09:27 AM

you two talk like no one blows up their images. apps like genuine fractals exist for a reason

Gooshin · 02-20-2008, 09:48 AM

one could argue that if you do commercial work and print large images, you would a) have a steady source of income from such work and b) be smart enough to invest into the best tools for the job

anyone that buys a 6mp camera to do billboard work and then complain about image quality of blown up images should re-think their business plan.

attack11 · 02-20-2008, 11:03 AM

huh? no one mentioned any of that.

Gooshin · 02-20-2008, 12:41 PM

Originally posted by attack11

huh? no one mentioned any of that.

you people are talking about blowing stuff up and large scale printing + need for fancy technology... right?

attack11 · 02-20-2008, 01:21 PM

genuine fractals... 10mp can go a long way for a non-pro job.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Pentoya Corporate Culture?	RioRico	Photographic Technique	2	03-18-2010 01:59 PM
Continuum of EMO unique	codiac2600	Post Your Photos!	8	01-19-2008 01:53 PM

02-19-2008, 01:09 PM	#16
attack11 Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Ottawa, ON - Canada Photos: Gallery Posts: 658	Originally posted by Tokina I don't understand how Canon could be "lower resolution". Can Pentax match their L-lenses in resolution? the sensor resolution is probably what they're talking about. pentax incorporates a weak 2 pass aa vertical filter which gives you higher res images. some people (ricehigh i'm looking at you) consider this a design flaw, which is kinda silly. it was done intentionally.

02-20-2008, 06:17 AM	#17
RiceHigh Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Hong Kong Posts: 1,934	Originally posted by d.bradley Pentax made a choice NOT to market towards sports shooters. Not only sport shooter need better AF performance. Casual shooters, say, who shoots pets or childs, or, shoot more dimmer indoor, would require a more reliable AF system which Pentax DSLR lacks. Quote: They have money...they could have said "screw off" to samsung and spent the year developing a new AF system and used an old sensor. But they didn't, because their design/marketing philosophy is a far, far cry from that of canon. Pentax has had their development on their AF system for nearly two decades - similar to that of Canon and Nikon. In fact, they made the first AF SLR in the world in 1981, the ME-F, strictly speaking. So, they have the longest history. But of course, you and me know about that now Canon's AF is the best. Quote: "performance" and "accuracy" are relative terms, and this only goes to prove my point. Everyone puts value on different aspects of a camera body, for example, I use m42 lenses exclusively, so AF performance is moot. With all the variables it is virtually impossible to say that one is simply better than another. Yes, but for typical users, especially new ones, they would use the AF and then they would find them annoying for quite some more difficult situations. I agree on your relativity theory, indeed the film Pentax MZ SLRs are all having faster and more sensitive AF. That's the real problem here.

02-20-2008, 06:21 AM	#18
RiceHigh Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Hong Kong Posts: 1,934	Originally posted by attack11 the sensor resolution is probably what they're talking about. pentax incorporates a weak 2 pass aa vertical filter which gives you higher res images. some people (ricehigh i'm looking at you) consider this a design flaw, which is kinda silly. it was done intentionally. No matter what you like to call it. I cannot see the point of making a vertically weaker AA filter (which might give you higher res as you said but possibly more color moire) but a horizontally stronger AA filter (which give you lower res but less moire). This is just called inconsistency in my book, which just gives you odd results. Of course, if we won't do much pixel peeping and just view the photos full screen, nothing can be discover. But then we do not need higher pixel images then, not even require 6MP!

02-20-2008, 07:23 AM	#19
attack11 Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Ottawa, ON - Canada Photos: Gallery Posts: 658	well, the inconsistency as you call it was done to get the most out of the sensor with ideal software. not all raw processors are equal; acr is one of the few that'll get those pixels to your final image. it might not seem like a good idea to you, but when you turn off in-body noise reduction you're left with a very nice raw to work with.

02-20-2008, 08:42 AM	#20
lol101 Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Garennes sur Eure France Photos: Gallery Posts: 899	Originally posted by RiceHigh Of course, if we won't do much pixel peeping and just view the photos full screen, nothing can be discover. But then we do not need higher pixel images then, not even require 6MP! I think you might be on to something here.... .... but shhht! I anyone discovers that 99% of the measurbation done over the internet can not even be seen on a good 40x60cm print, you could get in trouble, or worst: blogless!!

02-20-2008, 09:27 AM	#21
attack11 Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Ottawa, ON - Canada Photos: Gallery Posts: 658	you two talk like no one blows up their images. apps like genuine fractals exist for a reason

02-20-2008, 09:48 AM	#22
Gooshin Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Toronto, the one in Canada. Posts: 5,610	one could argue that if you do commercial work and print large images, you would a) have a steady source of income from such work and b) be smart enough to invest into the best tools for the job anyone that buys a 6mp camera to do billboard work and then complain about image quality of blown up images should re-think their business plan.

02-20-2008, 11:03 AM	#23
attack11 Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Ottawa, ON - Canada Photos: Gallery Posts: 658	huh? no one mentioned any of that.

02-20-2008, 12:41 PM	#24
Gooshin Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Toronto, the one in Canada. Posts: 5,610	Originally posted by attack11 huh? no one mentioned any of that. you people are talking about blowing stuff up and large scale printing + need for fancy technology... right?

02-20-2008, 01:21 PM	#25
attack11 Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Ottawa, ON - Canada Photos: Gallery Posts: 658	genuine fractals... 10mp can go a long way for a non-pro job.