[Lev]

It's not necessarily about Sony, although Sony released A7R IV at 3500$ that started this "debate". It's more about what makes people spend more than 3000$ on a camera. I'm sure that there are Pentaxians willing to pay 3000+$ on a Pentax camera that have similar performance with D850 for example. Some paid 2500$ by buying K1 and upgraded it to K1 II a year or two later.

If pentax AF system will be same as Sony's not only Pentax fans but entire globe will buy it for $10,000

[Dan Rentea]

first of all you have been using your K-1 for a good while before that upgrade. AND if one got that upgrade, it is still cheaper than buy second camera(read upgraded model at premium prize), even if you sold your first camera.

Yes, but look at Fuji, Sony, Olympus updates that are possible with mirrorless and are free of charge.

For example and since we talk about Sony, the A7 III which is the lowest priced Sony third generation camera got eye af for animals and real time tracking for free once this feature became available. And it changed the value of the camera to me because the af got close to what I want. They could have implemented this feature only on A9. That's something and for the possibility to get this kind of updates I like mirrorless cameras. The K1 users paid 500$ for the upgrade and depending on where you live you had to wait 3 weeks or a month for your camera to get back to you from service.

Then again you could just buy K-1 m2, and they could be had new for 1700€ at best, even at here in Finland. Now we are talking about small increase of performance, and that prizeis good for what one did get.

Again, K1 II is a wonderfull camera which is priced verry good for its capabilities. But to some it lacks the speed, to some it lacks the video, to some it lacks the silent shutter or all the above. That's why people are willing to spend more money to get these feature. There are lots of people also that don't want these features and they are very happy shooting with K1 II. I get that and I respect their opinions.

What I wanted to say from beginning is that each and everyone of us have reasons to pay or not to pay for some features. I choose to pay for some features each and every time I need those features. Is it wrong? I think I have the rights to be the judge as you have the rights to be the judge for your purchases. Don't you find odd to see people that are not in the market for certain cameras telling to the ones who are in the market for such cameras that:
- they are overspending money without reasons
- they can get cheaper cameras
- there is no advantage going from 36 or 42mp to 61mp
- they don't need Sony pixel shift because the files are too large, etc.
- there is no need for silent shutter
- the eye af is not important because some shoot with manual lenses and don't need af or when they shoot portraits they use f4 or f5.6 and eye af is not important in those circumstances
- etc. ?

Saying that A7R IV is too expensive because you are not in the market (not you in particular) for such a camera is not the right approach in my opinion. I remember when people gave "advices" to Kenspo (a formes Pentax ambassador) regarding how he can walk around the limitations of K1 II when comes to buffer problem (writting speed on memory cards). There were lots of funny comments from people with lack of experience in shooting for a living in the area where Kenspo was shooting (rock concerts if my memory is correct). He changed the system due to slow release of the lenses he needed and because he missed shots due to the slow reading files on cards. And he also got into video a little. Was he fooled also by marketing because he choosed to spend more than 3000$ on a camera that helped him in his work? Just asking...

---------- Post added 07-21-19 at 09:21 AM ----------

If pentax AF system will be same as Sony's not only Pentax fans but entire globe will buy it for $10,000

Even if Pentax has a small market, I'm sure there are photographers willing to spend 3500$ on a camera rather than changing the system and invest more money in a new system. Fortunatelly or unfortunatelly, Ricoh doesn't think that there is a big enough market for such camera among current Pentax users which are their main priority. Their approach may be a good one given the today market and this again it may be the right choice for them and for Pentax users and I hope it is. Time will tell, not ony for Pentax, but for all camera manufactureres.

[Rondec]

Pixel shift has some limitations, but under the right circumstances it can rival a 61MP sensor. How about just using a 61MP sensor that works without limitation on movement? With an A7R4 you could crop nearly 50% of your pixels and still have a file the size of a K-1. You could make some rather nice pano's from a crop of a 61MP image. But if you don't need 40 or 60MPs, then you don't need a feature like pixel-shift.

My A9 is only 24MP and I'm pretty happy with that, but I can see a lot of applications for high resolution. Commercial, fashion, photojournalism, landscape, architectural, copy/documentation.... For my work its not exactly a priority. I won't be buying one, but I know people who have already per-ordered. There will be some good deals on the A7r3 very soon.

It is quite different. The whole point of Pentax's pixel shift is to increase color depth and decrease noise while keeping a 36 megapixel image. I don't believe that the 61 megapixels is going to give improved color depth, decreased noise or improved dynamic range. At best it is going to give a hair more resolution (see Canon 5D IV versus 5Ds), possibly with an actual loss of dynamic range.

But as has been said elsewhere this will probably be a boon to birders and wildlife photographers.

It's not necessarily about Sony, although Sony released A7R IV at 3500$ that started this "debate". It's more about what makes people spend more than 3000$ on a camera. I'm sure that there are Pentaxians willing to pay 3000+$ on a Pentax camera that have similar performance with D850 for example. Some paid 2500$ by buying K1 and upgraded it to K1 II a year or two later.

I'm not sure why you keep bringing up the K-1 II. It really is a very different situation. As far as I can tell Sony hasn't offered to upgrade anyone's A7R III to an A7R IV. Obviously the K-1 to K-1 II was a more minor upgrade, but one that did require some updating of hardware. I thought it was nice that Pentax offered such a program.

I bought a K-1 for 1700 dollars so even if I had upgraded it wouldn't have been as much as you said. In fact I did buy a K-1 II to add to my K-1, but if I sold my K-1 I could have gotten 1200 dollars for it easily and then purchased a K-1 II for 1700. That is 500 dollars for a new camera. A lot of people chose to go that way, although plenty went the upgrade path.

Regardless, I just think we are getting to the end of "useful" upgrades. You can always add things. If you want to go to cell phone pixel pitch you can probably get to 100 megapixels on a full frame sensor -- maybe more. You certainly can get even higher frame rates and number of AF points on the sensor, but eventually things are just "good enough." And sometimes pushing the megapixels up too high actually hurts still image quality, which is what I am truly interested in.

[Zooland]

i would like to see the menu on this thing...

[Dan Rentea]

I'm not sure why you keep bringing up the K-1 II. It really is a very different situation. As far as I can tell Sony hasn't offered to upgrade anyone's A7R III to an A7R IV. Obviously the K-1 to K-1 II was a more minor upgrade, but one that did require some updating of hardware. I thought it was nice that Pentax offered such a program.

It was nice that Pentax offered such a program. The reason I bring K1 II into discussion is that people were/are willing to spend more money (500$ in this case) for what you said it was, a minor upgrade.

I bought a K-1 for 1700 dollars so even if I had upgraded it wouldn't have been as much as you said.

Yes, but not everyone paid the same. Some paid the release price which was 1900$ and then paid additional 500$ for what you call and I agree with, a minor upgrade. That's 2400$ that were spent by K1 users for a camera without shipping costs. Regarding this affirmation "As far as I can tell Sony hasn't offered to upgrade anyone's A7R III to an A7R IV", it's true up to a point. When comes to mirrorless it seems that you can add lots of features with simple updates that doesn't require hardware changes. And those updates are free.

And sometimes pushing the megapixels up too high actually hurts still image quality, which is what I am truly interested in.

This will have to wait and see. We even don't know what pixel shift on Sony is going to look like once the camera will be released with the final firmware version.

This sounds interesting in terms of image quality "You can shoot 16 shot mode, you can select either to combine the full 16 captures for a 240.8 mp RAW or if you prefer to keep the file to 60.2 mp, you can select to use just 4 of the 16 images using the upcoming version of Imaging Edge Desktop software". It seems that you have the traditional pixel shift and the new pixel shift where you can choose shifting the sensor between a half pixel or a full pixel between each frame.

[Rondec]

It was nice that Pentax offered such a program. The reason I bring K1 II into discussion is that people were/are willing to spend more money (500$ in this case) for what you said it was, a minor upgrade.




Yes, but not everyone paid the same. Some paid the release price which was 1900$ and then paid additional 500$ for what you call and I agree with, a minor upgrade. That's 2400$ that were spent by K1 users for a camera. Regarding this affirmation "As far as I can tell Sony hasn't offered to upgrade anyone's A7R III to an A7R IV", it's true up to a point. When comes to mirrorless it seems that you can add lots of features with simple updates that doesn't require hardware changes. And those updates are free.



This will have to wait and see. We even don't know what pixel shift on Sony is going to look like once the camera will be released with the final firmware version.

This sounds interesting in terms of image quality "You can shoot 16 shot mode, you can select either to combine the full 16 captures for a 240.8 mp RAW or if you prefer to keep the file to 60.2 mp, you can select to use just 4 of the 16 images using the upcoming version of Imaging Edge Desktop software"

Mirrorless "adds" features because it tends to be released with beta software that isn't completed. You can't add 4K video after the fact if the sensor isn't capable of it.

I don't think 16 shots will be much use for real world situations except for product shots and maybe architecture as even on still days there is some movement. But I suppose we will see.

[Dan Rentea]

Mirrorless "adds" features because it tends to be released with beta software that isn't completed. You can't add 4K video after the fact if the sensor isn't capable of it.

Eye af for animals for example it's not a feature added to cameras with a beta software. But if this makes you feel that 3500$ cameras are too expensive, who am I to convince you the opposite?

I don't think 16 shots will be much use for real world situations except for product shots and maybe architecture as even on still days there is some movement. But I suppose we will see.

Those exceptions (product and architectural shooters) may be the ones that were waiting for such camera so that they don't have to spend 15000$ or more on medium format. About K1 pixel shift images some say it can rival medium format quality. This is the same theory with A7R IV, but with additional 30mp.

[biz-engineer]

The boss of Sony presented the A7R4 as giving medium format quality images. This made me laugh out loud. I know what kind of image files comes out of a 645z, GFX50 and X1D, no Sony full frame camera model will make it, simply because the lenses are still FF lenses no matter how many mega of smaller pixels you cram into a FF sensor. What a joke, and who want to believe what the CEO of Sony camera said except people who have never even looked once at medium format images. When will be a time where Sony marketing stops making a lot of smoke to make up asleep? (like when smoke if poured over bee hives to take their honey away...).

[repaap]

Yes, but look at Fuji, Sony, Olympus updates that are possible with mirrorless and are free of charge.

For example and since we talk about Sony, the A7 III which is the lowest priced Sony third generation camera got eye af for animals and real time tracking for free once this feature became available. And it changed the value of the camera to me because the af got close to what I want. They could have implemented this feature only on A9. That's something and for the possibility to get this kind of updates I like mirrorless cameras. The K1 users paid 500$ for the upgrade and depending on where you live you had to wait 3 weeks or a month for your camera to get back to you from service.



Again, K1 II is a wonderfull camera which is priced verry good for its capabilities. But to some it lacks the speed, to some it lacks the video, to some it lacks the silent shutter or all the above. That's why people are willing to spend more money to get these feature. There are lots of people also that don't want these features and they are very happy shooting with K1 II. I get that and I respect their opinions.

What I wanted to say from beginning is that each and everyone of us have reasons to pay or not to pay for some features. I choose to pay for some features each and every time I need those features. Is it wrong? I think I have the rights to be the judge as you have the rights to be the judge for your purchases. Don't you find odd to see people that are not in the market for certain cameras telling to the ones who are in the market for such cameras that:
- they are overspending money without reasons
- they can get cheaper cameras
- there is no advantage going from 36 or 42mp to 61mp
- they don't need Sony pixel shift because the files are too large, etc.
- there is no need for silent shutter
- the eye af is not important because some shoot with manual lenses and don't need af or when they shoot portraits they use f4 or f5.6 and eye af is not important in those circumstances
- etc. ?

Saying that A7R IV is too expensive because you are not in the market (not you in particular) for such a camera is not the right approach in my opinion. I remember when people gave "advices" to Kenspo (a formes Pentax ambassador) regarding how he can walk around the limitations of K1 II when comes to buffer problem (writting speed on memory cards). There were lots of funny comments from people with lack of experience in shooting for a living in the area where Kenspo was shooting (rock concerts if my memory is correct). He changed the system due to slow release of the lenses he needed and because he missed shots due to the slow reading files on cards. And he also got into video a little. Was he fooled also by marketing because he choosed to spend more than 3000$ on a camera that helped him in his work? Just asking...

---------- Post added 07-21-19 at 09:21 AM ----------



Even if Pentax has a small market, I'm sure there are photographers willing to spend 3500$ on a camera rather than changing the system and invest more money in a new system. Fortunatelly or unfortunatelly, Ricoh doesn't think that there is a big enough market for such camera among current Pentax users which are their main priority. Their approach may be a good one given the today market and this again it may be the right choice for them and for Pentax users and I hope it is. Time will tell, not ony for Pentax, but for all camera manufactureres.

Now, let’s clear it up a little a bit. this camera is upgrade to previous model, right. that was 42 MP, with much other things on the list just little upgraded, and then that 60 MP sensor with whopping 10 FPS. ”Medium format quality.”
previuos model 3500€(not so long a go), now it would be fine to upgrade to this again 3500€. This is actually what we are talking about?

As one can see already from the prize K-1 is not really up there competing with this, either is your RP. or Olympus or ... wait Fuji actually is. But is quite different horse.

I’m actually with in budget of 5000€ to get more out of pixels when I’m PP ing my shots. Again, I’m not looking at this segment, I’m looking at little higher, where I can get more usable pixels from Pentax, or Fuji(look at my budget). But I was looking at the pictures taken with FF mirrorless gear with that prize. Really actually thinking that I can get a lot of my money worth with my K-1 already. I have shot with mirrorless and there is something lacking(that is why I have to give a Fuji a try before going any further of planning). It also com downto things like this when taking pictures. There are few like me, and there are lot of guys liking that mirrorless thing with a lot of performance.

How is that so hard to understand.

when it comes down to shooting silent, and or taking mirrorslapping during concert, it really depends on the gig if it is needed. Sometimes having photographer going around is even more disturbing. but then again. One can always just rent MILC if is needed.

[biz-engineer]

Don't you find odd to see people that are not in the market for certain cameras telling to the ones who are in the market for such cameras that:- they are overspending money without reasons- they can get cheaper cameras- there is no advantage going from 36 or 42mp to 61mp- they don't need Sony pixel shift because the files are too large, etc.

No it's not strange at all. When we are no in the market for a new camera, we look at things without desires, just plain objective thinking. Whereas when customers are seduced, their rational brand disconnects.
It's easy, when we are rational, we check boxes, for example:
- Is 2G file two big? Yes/No. Answer is Yes (pragmatic).

and so on.

When something looks splashy... we should say "Oh wait a minute... how is it in practice, does it really bring an advantage? etc.
When I go shopping, sometimes I see a nice cake, and of course my brain tell me that I want it, then I wait for a moment, "is it good for my health?" and the logical answer is "No, I have desire for it, but it's not healthy".

I have a lot of experience with new camera models: on the day of release, it's the dream camera, not even 6 months late it's not the dream camera anymore. Just be aware of that, don't fall into that trap of the elusive best camera. Pentax K1 retail for 1249 Euros now, has 36Mpixels, some of the best dynamic range and feature pixels shift, that's not the highest specs, but that the best camera for the money, especially when considering practical shooting situation... that is you don't need to tell your model to gesticulate, blink eyes, move head and turn around all the time to take portrait shots like Sony are doing, a model with normal behavior in good light and appropriate background will be fine. Why are Sony female models moving so much , do they have something itching somewhere in their bodies?

[Dan Rentea]

Now, let’s clear it up a little a bit. this camera is upgrade to previous model, right. that was 42 MP, with much other things on the list just little upgraded, and then that 60 MP sensor with whopping 10 FPS. ”Medium format quality.”
previuos model 3500€(not so long a go), now it would be fine to upgrade to this again 3500€. This is actually what we are talking about?

We are talking about if there is a market for a 3500$ Sony A7R IV or if it's worth the upgrade from another camera or from another system. Not everybody was shooting A7R III and to those that were shooting with a A7 II, A7 III, A6500, 5D Mark IV, D800, K3 II, K1, etc. is this new A7R IV worth the investment or not?!

To me there will always be a market for such cameras and seeing people who haven't put their hands on this camera giving verdicts and so called arguments about how this camera is not worth the money it's weird.

This A7R IV vs. other cameras is like saying that since there are Pentax 645z or Fuji GFX 100 available there isn't a market anymore for Hasselblad H6D-100c or for a Phase One XF IQ4 150MP camera. Those Hasselblad and Phase One owners must be marketing victims.

I’m actually with in budget of 5000€ to get more out of pixels when I’m PP ing my shots. Again, I’m not looking at this segment, I’m looking at little higher, where I can get more usable pixels from Pentax, or Fuji(look at my budget). But I was looking at the pictures taken with FF mirrorless gear with that prize. Really actually thinking that I can get a lot of my money worth with my K-1 already. I have shot with mirrorless and there is something lacking(that is why I have to give a Fuji a try before going any further of planning). It also com downto things like this when taking pictures. There are few like me, and there are lot of guys liking that mirrorless thing with a lot of performance.

How is that so hard to understand

It's not hard to understand. It's easy to understand once you actually shoot with the cameras you are interested in for more than 2-3 days. This way you have a direct experience and you realize if A7R IV or K1 II or D850 or Fuji XFC is the right tool for you given the budget you have. Because this time is Sony A7R IV, tomorow maybe Canon, Ricoh or Nikon will release a 4000$ specialised camera with 70mp and 12fps and hibrid viewfinder and people will start over again with how useless it is or on the contrary, how good it is because it has hibrid viewfinder.

[Rondec]

Eye af for animals for example it's not a feature added to cameras with a beta software. But if this makes you feel that 3500$ cameras are too expensive, who am I to convince you the opposite?



Those exceptions (product and architectural shooters) may be the ones that were waiting for such camera so that they don't have to spend 15000$ or more on medium format. About K1 pixel shift images some say it can rival medium format quality. This is the same theory with A7R IV, but with additional 30mp.

Eye AF for animals is definitely the feature that Pentaxians are waiting for.

I don't know how to explain what I am saying better. If Sony had released the A7r IV in a vacuum it would be a great camera. But they didn't. They released it in a situation where there are already 40 to 50 megapixel cameras on the market, many of which have excellent auto focus capabilities, 4K video and even pixel shift. And most of what Sony could think of to add was extra megapixels and an extra 12 frames in pixel shift mode. It all just feels like they don't know where else to go, but they have to keep releasing cameras at a high pace, even if they don't really have much to really improve over past iterations of their cameras.

K1 with pixel shift gives excellent quality, but it certainly isn't going to get you to medium format level, except maybe with the DFA *50. Medium Format is about the lenses as much as anything.

[Dan Rentea]

No it's not strange at all. When we are no in the market for a new camera, we look at things without desires, just plain objective thinking. Whereas when customers are seduced, their rational brand disconnects.
It's easy, when we are rational, we check boxes, for example:
- Is 2G file two big? Yes/No. Answer is Yes (pragmatic).

and so on.

When something looks splashy... we should say "Oh wait a minute... how is it in practice, does it really bring an advantage? etc.

When I go shopping, sometimes I see a nice cake, and of course my brain tell me that I want it, then I wait for a moment, "is it good for my health?" and the logical answer is "No, I have desire for it, but it's not healthy".

Do I need 10fps? Yes/No.
Do I need writting speed of files on memory cards? Yes/No.
Do I need 4k video with 10bit Log? Yes/No
Do I need silent shutter? Yes/No
Do I need eye af for shooting with fast lenses on moving subject at wide apertures? Yes/No.
Do I need specialized lenses for our cameras? Yes/No
Do I need the option to choose from traditional 4 shots pixel shift and new 16 shots pixel shift? Yes/No
Do I have the budget to buy all of the above if we need them? Yes/No
Do this investment will be covered in the next 3-4 years and still make profit? Yes/No
Does my clients want high resolution prints? Yes/No

And the list of yes and no it's way bigger than that, but someone who is not in the market will not be objective because he simply doesn't know the needs of others.

---------- Post added 07-21-19 at 12:10 PM ----------

Eye AF for animals is definitely the feature that Pentaxians are waiting for.

I don't know how to explain what I am saying better. If Sony had released the A7r IV in a vacuum it would be a great camera. But they didn't. They released it in a situation where there are already 40 to 50 megapixel cameras on the market, many of which have excellent auto focus capabilities, 4K video and even pixel shift. And most of what Sony could think of to add was extra megapixels and an extra 12 frames in pixel shift mode. It all just feels like they don't know where else to go, but they have to keep releasing cameras at a high pace, even if they don't really have much to really improve over past iterations of their cameras.

K1 with pixel shift gives excellent quality, but it certainly isn't going to get you to medium format level, except maybe with the DFA *50. Medium Format is about the lenses as much as anything.

Everything is about the lenses. I value lenses more than any body out-there.

I understand your point or at least I think I did and even if it seems that companies has nowhere to go, resolution, video and high frame rate are in demand. I don't know why in the era of Facebook and Instagram resolution is such an important aspect, but that's another story. Even the big boys from Hasselblad or Phase One or even Fuji released 100 and 150mp beasts.

[Rondec]

Do I need 10fps? Yes/No.
Do I need writting speed of files on memory cards? Yes/No.
Do I need 4k video with 10bit Log? Yes/No
Do I need silent shutter? Yes/No
Do I need eye af for shooting with fast lenses on moving subject at wide apertures? Yes/No.
Do I need specialized lenses for our cameras? Yes/No
Do I need the option to choose from traditional 4 shots pixel shift and new 16 shots pixel shift? Yes/No
Do I have the budget to buy all of the above if we need them? Yes/No
Do this investment will be covered in the next 3-4 years and still make profit? Yes/No
Does my clients want high resolution prints? Yes/No

And the list of yes and no it's way bigger than that, but someone who is not in the market will not be objective because he simply doesn't know the needs of others.

---------- Post added 07-21-19 at 12:10 PM ----------



Everything is about the lenses. I value lenses more than any body out-there.

I understand your point or at least I think I did and even if it seems that companies has nowhere to go, resolution, video and high frame rate are in demand. I don't know why in the era of Facebook and Instagram resolution is such an important aspect, but that's another story. Even the big boys from Hasselblad or Phase One or even Fuji released 100 and 150mp beasts.

There are always a few wealthy photographers/top end photographers who have to have the best no matter what the cost. But if this camera sells on the level of most medium format cameras it will be a loss for Sony.

[Lev]

Do I need 10fps? Yes/No.
Do I need writting speed of files on memory cards? Yes/No.
Do I need 4k video with 10bit Log? Yes/No
Do I need silent shutter? Yes/No
Do I need eye af for shooting with fast lenses on moving subject at wide apertures? Yes/No.
Do I need specialized lenses for our cameras? Yes/No
Do I need the option to choose from traditional 4 shots pixel shift and new 16 shots pixel shift? Yes/No
Do I have the budget to buy all of the above if we need them? Yes/No
Do this investment will be covered in the next 3-4 years and still make profit? Yes/No
Does my clients want high resolution prints? Yes/No

And the list of yes and no it's way bigger than that, but someone who is not in the market will not be objective because he simply doesn't know the needs of others.

---------- Post added 07-21-19 at 12:10 PM ----------



Everything is about the lenses. I value lenses more than any body out-there.

I understand your point or at least I think I did and even if it seems that companies has nowhere to go, resolution, video and high frame rate are in demand. I don't know why in the era of Facebook and Instagram resolution is such an important aspect, but that's another story. Even the big boys from Hasselblad or Phase One or even Fuji released 100 and 150mp beasts.

I would understand if Sony released some special model with these high res features and so on but they kept that in A7 lineup which is like hey guys, now you have 61MP!! What are you waiting for? Comon man, this is how Arnold Shwarzenegger would say - Mickey mouse stuff. Sony is not a photo camera company, it is consumer electronics company which made their ugly bodies around their beautiful sensors.