Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
10-20-2020, 02:32 AM   #46
Pentaxian
Lord Lucan's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: South Wales
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,030
QuoteOriginally posted by cometguy Quote
I think that there are really two key obvious ways to improve: more pixels .. and better buffering speeds. As explained in one analysis, it would take a 156-Mpx sensor to equal the resolution of the best film in a 35-mm camera (I STILL SHOOT FILM - The Real Resolution of Film vs. Digital).
That 156Mpx is needed to match film has been challenged, but anyway people are losing interest in the pixel count for the sake of it, as they realise that we now have as many pixels as anyone needs. Pentax only have to match the pixel count of its rivals - after all they buy in their sensors and don't make the things themselves, so those sensors should be available off the shelf already.

What Pentax need more is to improve focusing speed - that is what the independent reviewers home in on these days. Also improve IBIS. The other big sales point for ILCs now is video of course, but I don't think Pentax should chase that. I believe that ILCs for video will evolve in a different direction from stills cameras, mirrorless of course, and it is happening already. Pentax should make stills photography with OVFs their main selling point, at least for now.


Last edited by Lord Lucan; 10-20-2020 at 02:33 AM. Reason: Tpyo
10-20-2020, 02:34 AM   #47
Pentaxian




Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Southeastern Michigan
Posts: 2,764
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by cometguy Quote
I think that this could come full-circle, as you say in your first sentence: Many more people are doing photography today because of their smartphone cameras than were doing photography 15 years ago, and many more people are taking lots more photos than they were 15 years ago, because of good smartphone cameras that have improved in their capabilities. With so many millions of people taking more photos today with smartphones than they were taking 15 years ago, there's a good chance that a small percentage of the younger people will continue to want to move up to better cameras (whether DSLR or mirrorless) in the coming years. Ironically, smartphones could keep some camera companies in business if even a small percentage of these mirrorless-smartphone photographers decide to try DSLRs. And some of these will get interested enough to buy FF cameras after getting into interchangeable-lens cameras, as time goes by.

As for what Pentax could do in a new FF camera, I think that there are really two key obvious ways to improve: more pixels (i.e., smaller pixels) and better buffering speeds. As explained in one analysis, it would take a 156-Mpx sensor to equal the resolution of the best film in a 35-mm camera (I STILL SHOOT FILM - The Real Resolution of Film vs. Digital). But more pixels means you need faster processors and better buffering. It's hard to imagine any two things that would be more important to improve upon in any FF camera such as the K-1 II (which already is a fabulous camera). (Yes, you could say "improve the video capabilities", but I argue that the video in current Pentax cameras is plenty fine for shooting YouTube videos and pretty much anything most people would want to do; if you want more than Pentax can do with video, buy a dedicated Sony video camera.)
Yes, I agree. I have always taken the position, if wanting serious video-use, buy a good video camera. And I think you are right in the shortcomings of smartphone photography might stimulate further interest in superior photography. It has really always been sort of that way right along over the decades. Interest in going beyond the cheapest, simplest, most convenient technology available, arising out of dissatisfaction, has led a fraction of participants into doing so. Getting more advanced equipment has long been a niche interest in itself. Later, came the combination of automation combined with advanced equipment, so one did not need to learn a whole lot to get some benefit of control over factors like focal length, etc. along with "scene" modes, to obtain superior results.

I do believe in the potential resolution of film. I have used a high-res film scanner, and was amazed at the file sizes. But I found there are other aspects at work also for the resultant image quality, like grain, etc. which when comparing images in blowups, etc. will obscure that resolution more in the case of film. It was with sensors of around 10mp or so when images from a DSLR began to satisfy me as much as good film shots. My 35mm film bodies have been my 'full-frame" alternative to my fine APS-C DSLR cameras. But they are not near as efficient in getting my results, seeing what I have quickly, and able to do multiple takes from different angles, different exposures, etc so the end results often turn out to be more satisfying.

Last edited by mikesbike; 10-20-2020 at 07:21 PM.
10-20-2020, 04:34 AM   #48
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Dec 2012
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,650
QuoteOriginally posted by cometguy Quote
As for what Pentax could do in a new FF camera, I think that there are really two key obvious ways to improve: more pixels (i.e., smaller pixels) and better buffering speeds. As explained in one analysis, it would take a 156-Mpx sensor to equal the resolution of the best film in a 35-mm camera (I STILL SHOOT FILM - The Real Resolution of Film vs. Digital).
I think that in practical terms most 6-8Mp sensors give you better results than almost any commonly used film camera. I have nothing from the film era (in my case the 1990s) that is comparable to anything I've shot on a K-30. Most of my results from a 6 Mp Canon point-and-shoot were better than my film efforts.

---------- Post added 10-20-20 at 07:39 AM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by Lord Lucan Quote
What Pentax need more is to improve focusing speed - that is what the independent reviewers home in on these days.
Reviewers and consumers. I would like focusing abilities of my next camera that will help me improve the 30%+ missed focus reject rate I get from a batch of 100 or 200 soccer photos with a K-3ii and a 55-300PLM.
10-20-2020, 05:01 AM   #49
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
pres589's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Baltimore, MD
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,218
QuoteOriginally posted by ThorSanchez Quote
I think that in practical terms most 6-8Mp sensors give you better results than almost any commonly used film camera. I have nothing from the film era (in my case the 1990s) that is comparable to anything I've shot on a K-30. Most of my results from a 6 Mp Canon point-and-shoot were better than my film efforts.
This would be an interesting thing to to test today. Go get a K100D and then a few rolls of film and shoot some shots with the same glass on a k-mount film camera and see who likes what better. Would be kind of fun actually and something to do, say in a city when things are a little less crazy out there. Or a long day in the woods.


I think for color photos the K100D might get the nod. For black and white (obviously converted in the case of the digitals) that film would be more to a wide audience's liking. But those are just my own thoughts.

10-20-2020, 05:12 AM   #50
retired sw engineer
Loyal Site Supporter
reh321's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: South Bend, IN, USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 17,451
QuoteOriginally posted by cometguy Quote
I think that this could come full-circle, as you say in your first sentence: Many more people are doing photography today because of their smartphone cameras than were doing photography 15 years ago, and many more people are taking lots more photos than they were 15 years ago, because of good smartphone cameras that have improved in their capabilities. With so many millions of people taking more photos today with smartphones than they were taking 15 years ago, there's a good chance that a small percentage of the younger people will continue to want to move up to better cameras (whether DSLR or mirrorless) in the coming years. Ironically, smartphones could keep some camera companies in business if even a small percentage of these mirrorless-smartphone photographers decide to try DSLRs. And some of these will get interested enough to buy FF cameras after getting into interchangeable-lens cameras, as time goes by.

As for what Pentax could do in a new FF camera, I think that there are really two key obvious ways to improve: more pixels (i.e., smaller pixels) and better buffering speeds. As explained in one analysis, it would take a 156-Mpx sensor to equal the resolution of the best film in a 35-mm camera (I STILL SHOOT FILM - The Real Resolution of Film vs. Digital). But more pixels means you need faster processors and better buffering. It's hard to imagine any two things that would be more important to improve upon in any FF camera such as the K-1 II (which already is a fabulous camera). (Yes, you could say "improve the video capabilities", but I argue that the video in current Pentax cameras is plenty fine for shooting YouTube videos and pretty much anything most people would want to do; if you want more than Pentax can do with video, buy a dedicated Sony video camera.)
I don’t know where your 156mp comes from, but I differ from practical issues. Before I ever purchased a digital camera, I had a professional scan some Kodachrome 25 35mm slides, then compared the scans to my slides, and found that 6mp scans captured every detail I could find on the slides, so I decided that any digital camera with at least a 3000x2000 image would give me sharper images than I then getting from film. Later - once I had the 16mp K-30 - I found that using it with the 50mm f/1.7 Pentax-A lens gave sharper images than I ever got with that lens using it on my “Super Program” loaded with Kodachrome 25.
10-20-2020, 05:56 AM   #51
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Pål Jensen's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Norway
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,740
QuoteOriginally posted by reh321 Quote
I don’t know where your 156mp comes from, but I differ from practical issues. Before I ever purchased a digital camera, I had a professional scan some Kodachrome 25 35mm slides, then compared the scans to my slides, and found that 6mp scans captured every detail I could find on the slides, so I decided that any digital camera with at least a 3000x2000 image would give me sharper images than I then getting from film. Later - once I had the 16mp K-30 - I found that using it with the 50mm f/1.7 Pentax-A lens gave sharper images than I ever got with that lens using it on my “Super Program” loaded with Kodachrome 25.

True. My K-3 has more resolving power than my 645 film body with the finest films. Not to mention dynamic range and high ISO performance....

Last edited by Pål Jensen; 10-20-2020 at 06:13 AM.
10-20-2020, 07:13 AM   #52
Pentaxian
LeeRunge's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Northern Alabama
Posts: 524
QuoteOriginally posted by cometguy Quote
I think that this could come full-circle, as you say in your first sentence: Many more people are doing photography today because of their smartphone cameras than were doing photography 15 years ago, and many more people are taking lots more photos than they were 15 years ago, because of good smartphone cameras that have improved in their capabilities. With so many millions of people taking more photos today with smartphones than they were taking 15 years ago, there's a good chance that a small percentage of the younger people will continue to want to move up to better cameras (whether DSLR or mirrorless) in the coming years. Ironically, smartphones could keep some camera companies in business if even a small percentage of these mirrorless-smartphone photographers decide to try DSLRs. And some of these will get interested enough to buy FF cameras after getting into interchangeable-lens cameras, as time goes by.

As for what Pentax could do in a new FF camera, I think that there are really two key obvious ways to improve: more pixels (i.e., smaller pixels) and better buffering speeds. As explained in one analysis, it would take a 156-Mpx sensor to equal the resolution of the best film in a 35-mm camera (I STILL SHOOT FILM - The Real Resolution of Film vs. Digital). But more pixels means you need faster processors and better buffering. It's hard to imagine any two things that would be more important to improve upon in any FF camera such as the K-1 II (which already is a fabulous camera). (Yes, you could say "improve the video capabilities", but I argue that the video in current Pentax cameras is plenty fine for shooting YouTube videos and pretty much anything most people would want to do; if you want more than Pentax can do with video, buy a dedicated Sony video camera.)
I think having a ILC camera with seamless integration with the phone for sharing would go a long way toward assisting smart phone users into combining an ILC to go further with photography. I really would like to have a FN button that I could hit playback and as I reviewed images I could tap and those would go right into my iphoto's with no further effort. From there I can edit in that app or further in lightroom. I think the younger generation grew up with cell phones and fiddling with SD cards, readers or windows isn't less likely to be something they want to deal with to get into photography. Right now most of the apps (I have Olympus and Nikon's) are basic and kinda a pain to use.

I would even go as far as adding a SIM card and being able to text photo's right off the camera or to social media.

As for massive megapixels the problem is where do you view them? A 4k monitor is just 8 megapixels. Most won't go through the expense of printing a huge print (expensive). So all those megapixels are kinda wasted and really more useful for cropping power. On the flip side you have massive RAW files to deal with which slows down everything in post processing and the camera itself needs more computing power to deal with it.
10-20-2020, 11:03 AM - 1 Like   #53
Otis Memorial Pentaxian
stevebrot's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Vancouver (USA)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 37,937
QuoteOriginally posted by Lord Lucan Quote
This thread has drifted into the same discussion by largely the same people (including me) that has been going on for months now, across a dozen different threads under various titles (eg Is there a Pentax camera shortage due to the pandemic? - PentaxForums.com ). I think these points are taken as read by now.
To repeat my comment above...
Deja vu all over again...


Steve

10-20-2020, 11:32 AM   #54
Otis Memorial Pentaxian
stevebrot's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Vancouver (USA)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 37,937
QuoteOriginally posted by mikesbike Quote
I have used a high-res film scanner, and was amazed at the file sizes.
Ha! Ha! File size only tells one how many pixels the scanner spits out. My Epson V700 provides a nominal 6400dpi scan resolution with a real world performance of no better than about 2300dpi. That said, I use the Epson to scan 6x7 and 4x5 and 2300dpi is quite enough, thank you!

QuoteOriginally posted by ThorSanchez Quote
I think that in practical terms most 6-8Mp sensors give you better results than almost any commonly used film camera.
The break point is about 20Mpx for 35mm film and "no point for comparison" for 6x7 and larger negatives if scanned at or near the limits of current tech.

QuoteOriginally posted by pres589 Quote
I think for color photos the K100D might get the nod. For black and white (obviously converted in the case of the digitals) that film would be more to a wide audience's liking. But those are just my own thoughts.
I tend to agree. My color film work is generally done for subjects that I don't use my K-3 for. Most of my film shooting is B&W with most of my shared B&W work being digital. I am pretty good at monochrome conversions. That said, I am willing to share my monochrome album on Flickr for comparison between the two. The film images tend to occur in clusters, to make it easier.

Fotostevia on Flickr | Monochrome






Steve
10-20-2020, 11:38 AM   #55
Otis Memorial Pentaxian
stevebrot's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Vancouver (USA)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 37,937
QuoteOriginally posted by LeeRunge Quote
I think having a ILC camera with seamless integration with the phone for sharing would go a long way toward assisting smart phone users into combining an ILC to go further with photography. I really would like to have a FN button that I could hit playback and as I reviewed images I could tap and those would go right into my iphoto's with no further effort.
Canon's got a Rebel for you!


Steve
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!
body, boy, camera, canon, dslr, ff, film, gadget, market, milc, models, nikon, noise, pentax, pentax ff, people, photography, pixels, quality, resolution, results, slide film, sony, time
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Buy K-1 on sale? or wait for possible K-1 II sale? or maybe new FF next year? PPPPPP42 Pentax Full Frame 25 11-30-2018 07:39 PM
Pentax FF next generation fantasy - change of camera paradigm acoufap Pentax Full Frame 31 07-09-2017 10:32 AM
Chasseur d'Images announces Pentax FF for the next Photokina Couscousdelight Pentax Full Frame 85 06-09-2014 09:51 PM
Next Next Pentax. Now MJB DIGITAL Photographic Technique 16 02-12-2008 07:00 PM
Lets talk about the next-next Pentax codiac2600 Pentax News and Rumors 63 01-14-2008 08:01 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:10 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