[biz-engineer]

Yes, the capability of A7r4 is very very cost effective.

Maybe for you. Not for me, since I haven't found limitations for shooting stills with my Pentax K1, done large prints, can't see any pixels even looking close, even at 150 ppi.

[Dan Rentea]

I think you need to understand the cost / benefit analysis. You could even cram 200Mpixel on a full frame sensor and it's going to make a small difference on images only in a small area of the camera setting triangle (aperture, ISO, shutter speed). Where the A7RIV deliver an appreciable advantage is the crop mode, but there again, if Ricoh releases a camera body with a 24 / 26Mp apsc sensor , and decent speed, it will be cheaper for Pentaxians to keep using their K1 and get the new Pentax apsc flagship for dynamic shooting. I already have 5 new Pentax lenses (7 lenses with MF primes), with silent focusing, WR and very good optically, I would never consider the A7RIV simply because it would cost me a lot of money and it wouldn't make a difference in my photography big enough to justify the money. Diffraction does happen and it reduces the number of cases where 61Mp deliver superior images compared to K1 images. Now if Ricoh makes a new FF DSLR model with a 61Mpixel sensor, again, I already have the lenses, it won't cost me as much as switching to Sony, and I'll still get the little more detail given by the 61Mp sensor in some cases.

You have the lenses in case Pentax will release a 61mp camera, but what happened to "lenses don't resolve 61mp resolution"?

I won't switch to Sony either and I never encourage anyone to switch if there isn't a good reason (or more) to do it. I'm not switching not because I don't need A7R IV or because I can't find a camera suited to my needs in Sony camp. I'm not switching because:
- lenses are more important to me and Canon delivers in this department...
- I rent and play with lots of cameras and it's more fun than changing to a new system This way I know from my own experience with new cameras if the new features help me or not to get faster shots. And I said faster because better it's hard to get as long as I focus on composition and facial expression rather than sharpness and dynamic range or high ISO.

[Serkevan]

Yes, the capability of A7r4 is very very cost effective.

Only if it delivers additional value; if you don't make use of the high specs, it's superfluous cost. You would have to make the value estimation by checking the price difference to, say, an A7iii (to stay in the same system, so ergonomics/size/lenses are equal). Then, see what percentage of good shots/videos/large prints you would get that would be technically impossible (or very difficult) with the cheaper model.

For example, for me the added cropping possibilities would not really influence my (mostly) landscaping/architecture shots. I don't print super large. I would be increasing the cost of the A7iii by 75% to get, maybe, a dozen shots that I wouldn't have managed otherwise. And I would suffer through using an EVF all the same, hah.

I agree that on raw specs it is a reasonable price point, however. More than reasonable, honestly.

[surfar]

- lenses are more important to me and Canon delivers in this department...

Of course,but some $$$ony glass is right up there,as well as Tamron/Sigma for the main 3 FF companies.As well as the AF adapters that make the Canon glass "work better on $$$ony than on Canon"....I cant remember which YT I saw that said that but it might come back.

I rent and play with lots of cameras and it's more fun

I'm envious, I cant do that in the colony down here....so I just have to buy what I want to play with!

---------- Post added 08-14-19 at 11:34 PM ----------

I agree that on raw specs it is a reasonable price point, however. More than reasonable, honestly.

$$$ony will make their big profits on the people who insist on using the GM glass.

What intrigues me the most is WHEN its released and its put to the sprinkler test!

---------- Post added 08-15-19 at 12:04 AM ----------

Maybe for you. Not for me,

Well everyone can look at things from a personal perspective.However,the other view is to look at things from a "starting out" perspective.

Say an Apsc shooter from CaNikOnyUjiTax wants to move to a high resolution FF system,they already shoot 20something on Apsc so that rules out 24/26/31mp....they can then choose 36/42/47 or a whopping 61mp and the prices don't differ lots.(to set up the system to shoot from wide angle to long telephoto).


In the Endagadget video he states that $$$ony has lapped the field,that's a slight exaggeration but the competition is definitely trailing.

[biz-engineer]

they can then choose 36/42/47 or a whopping 61mp and the prices don't differ lots

Not true. The Pentax K1 sells for 1250 euros, and the Pentax K1 II sells for 1650 euros in EU. So if you compare the K1 to the A7RIII and the K1 II to the A7R4, the Pentaxes are less than half the price of the Sony 40Mp or 61Mp camera. Of course, the specs of the Sony's are higher, but what if you don't use those extra spec. What if you are an outdoor shooter and shoot 1 still frame per minute with a rugged weather sealed camera, and case about image quality above all, IMO the Pentax offer is good for that purpose. What's the point to buy a camera that's 2x more expensive and never use the extra specs?

---------- Post added 14-08-19 at 16:50 ----------

You have the lenses in case Pentax will release a 61mp camera, but what happened to "lenses don't resolve 61mp resolution"?

Thanks for asking. So it will depend. Let's imagine Ricoh would make a DSLR K1 style with a 61Mp sensor with 26Mp crop mode. At that time of release, if I have the new Pentax apsc flag ship 26Mp , I'll just keep it along with the K1 and I'll not buy the new Pentax FF model at 61Mp. But if I have a K1 only, then I may upgrade the Pentax body only to get 26Mp crop mode of the 61Mp sensor. Because...when I use the crop mode type of shots, I am not concerned with depth of field, I don't need to stop down the lens to f16, I shoot at f4 or f5.6 and so I am not subject to diffraction on 3um pixel pitch. It's all logical, it all makes sense. To me it seems you can't comprehend my logic.

[RonHendriks1966]

Not true. The Pentax K1 sells for 1250 euros, and the Pentax K1 II sells for 1650 euros in EU. So if you compare the K1 to the A7RIII and the K1 II to the A7R4, the Pentaxes are less than half the price of the Sony 40Mp or 61Mp camera. Of course, the specs of the Sony's are higher, but what if you don't use those extra spec. What if you are an outdoor shooter and shoot 1 still frame per minute with a rugged weather sealed camera, and case about image quality above all, IMO the Pentax offer is good for that purpose. What's the point to buy a camera that's 2x more expensive and never use the extra specs?

With no promotions running at the moment, the K-1ii is 1.999 euro.
Pentax K-1 Mark II DSLR kopen? | CameraNU.nl

[Chris Mak]

There is nothing in those sentences that consider anything practical of taking pictures. Everything written here is about specifications, and there is nothing in your comment about photography. You mention about how good is the 5.76M EVF, how good is that in practice? How good is 5.76M EVF compared to optical, in practice? Now about Canon, for example, Canon have mostly never cared about their sensor dynamic range, because when you print, or display images on a 4K monitor, the dynamic range is limited to 10ev at most. On the other hand, Canon have cared a lot about the choice of lenses, stability of lenses over temperatures in winter and summer , weather sealing (that's practical). But now, customers care about mega pixels when they never print, they can about dynamic range that they never use and they care about AF full coverage of the sensor area when focusing in the corner will never yield a good photograph because good image are focused around 1/3rd of the frame, most of the time. Canon also offer after sales services better than anyone else, something Sony doesn't offer. Overall, Canon made cameras for being great tool practically, but now cameras buyer mostly readers on online reviews are attracted by Sony, who make camera for looking good on internet abstract vacuum, so in fact you are part of the target market of Sony who care about spec sheets and never confront how the specs translate in real use. Sony are looking after market share, they are doing things to offer camera systems that serve photography well. The motive of the Sony buyer isn't photography, the Sony buyer likes to own high tech. Yeah, that cool to have 500 AF points that cover the whole image frame, but I'd like to know which of those AF point are locked for successful images, most the 1/3th area around the center of the frame, exactly like it is for DSLRs.

Specifications can add up to a very positive photograhic experience. The cutting edge EVF is important, because it is the weaker part of the shooting experience with a mirrorless camera (next to some very strong parts like focus accuracy and consistency in AF ánd MF). I look at things differently, I know, and left Pentax for that. I found it fustrating to go from the K3II to the KP and find myself totally underwhelmed. Pentax has decided not to innovate and ignore the transition to mirrorless, and it is their right to do so, but the consequences were predictable: increased marginalization and resulting stagnation and lack of new products. I applauded Sony for pushing the envelope and bring mirrorless FF to the masses. The "cheap" Sony FF sensor in the K1(II) is directly thanks to Sony's push on getting FF to a larger public.
Canon and Nikon are predictably suspending development of dslr bodies and lenses, but only at a time that they cannot avoid it any longer. Calling Sony a tech/profit oriented company (that disrupts the status quo of the camera world) doesn't sound right to me. Olympus chose mirrorless 7 years ago already, Fuji chose mirrorless, now Panasonic, Canon and Nikon are following suit. Many rely on Sony sensors and the innovation that Sony has brought to the camera market. I have a Canon 7DII, and if only it had had a Sony sensor, I could have shot it for years. Now, if light is not perfect, there is ample option to post process the raw file. I endorse Sony for their efforts, and could not care less really what their "true" motives are. The A7RIV may be a high end machine for a minority, but then, so will any APS-C dslr that Pentax may, or may not, bring out on whatever future time scale.

Chris

[biz-engineer]

With no promotions running at the moment, the K-1ii is 1.999 euro.

No, the K1 II sells at 1650 in France. You need to check prices across EU, some countries are more expensive than others , especially in the UK after Brexit.

---------- Post added 14-08-19 at 17:00 ----------

The cutting edge EVF is important

No, the cutting edge viewfinder is optical , it resolves 250Mega pixels. Never say again that 5.6Mpixel EVF is cutting edge, it is a poor substitute to an OVF and the OVF has the time tag of the speed of light, not like 200mS delay of an EVF.

---------- Post added 14-08-19 at 17:05 ----------

I found it fustrating to go from the K3II to the KP and find myself totally underwhelmed.

Yes, but what do you expect of photography? I don't hear gear talk and frequent camera upgrade from photo artists, a lot of them use what they have, often underdog cameras and they create outstanding photographs.

Pentax has decided not to innovate and ignore the transition to mirrorless

How is that related to photography? Do you think photography is about camera specifications? How does mirrorless create better photographs?

---------- Post added 14-08-19 at 17:12 ----------

I applauded Sony for pushing the envelope and bring mirrorless FF to the masses. The "cheap" Sony FF sensor in the K1(II) is directly thanks to Sony's push on getting FF to a larger public.Canon and Nikon are predictably suspending development of dslr bodies and lenses,

Pushing the envelope? How do it relate to photography? So in fact , you are sensitive to brand image, a sort of fuzzy concept on which you select a product, with at not point in time a single reference to whether the product fit perfectly for capturing images and why.

[photoptimist]

Specifications can add up to a very positive photograhic experience. The cutting edge EVF is important, because it is the weaker part of the shooting experience with a mirrorless camera (next to some very strong parts like focus accuracy and consistency in AF ánd MF). I look at things differently, I know, and left Pentax for that. I found it fustrating to go from the K3II to the KP and find myself totally underwhelmed. Pentax has decided not to innovate and ignore the transition to mirrorless, and it is their right to do so, but the consequences were predictable: increased marginalization and resulting stagnation and lack of new products. I applauded Sony for pushing the envelope and bring mirrorless FF to the masses. The "cheap" Sony FF sensor in the K1(II) is directly thanks to Sony's push on getting FF to a larger public.
Canon and Nikon are predictably suspending development of dslr bodies and lenses, but only at a time that they cannot avoid it any longer. Calling Sony a tech/profit oriented company (that disrupts the status quo of the camera world) doesn't sound right to me. Olympus chose mirrorless 7 years ago already, Fuji chose mirrorless, now Panasonic, Canon and Nikon are following suit. Many rely on Sony sensors and the innovation that Sony has brought to the camera market. I have a Canon 7DII, and if only it had had a Sony sensor, I could have shot it for years. Now, if light is not perfect, there is ample option to post process the raw file. I endorse Sony for their efforts, and could not care less really what their "true" motives are. The A7RIV may be a high end machine for a minority, but then, so will any APS-C dslr that Pentax may, or may not, bring out on whatever future time scale.

Chris

A "cutting edge EVF" is just an expensive bandaid to cover what many consider to be an intrinsic flaw in the design of all mirrorless cameras. For some of us, MILCs are not innovations but degradations of the photographic process.

I've always seen Pentax as the better innovator than the other brands in it's development of IBIS, astrotracer, pixelshift, TAv mode, the green button, night mode, the K-1's stilty-tilty screen, etc., etc.

That said, different photographers want different things -- one person's idea of game-changing innovation is another person's idea of superfluous costs or even bad design.

[Dan Rentea]

Because...when I use the crop mode type of shots, I am not concerned with depth of field, I don't need to stop down the lens to f16, I shoot at f4 or f5.6 and so I am not subject to diffraction on 3um pixel pitch. It's all logical, it all makes sense. To me it seems you can't comprehend my logic.

This "diffraction argument" is in my opinion just an excuse for saying that high resolution cameras brings no benefit to landscape photographers. It's similar with the "eye af argument" when comes to shooting portraits. People don't need eye af until they test it on newer cameras and then they start to change their opinion (I'm not including landscape photographers here).

In octomber there's going to be a landscape workshop and more than certain a photo store will bring a Sony A7R IV for tests (I do't think that is going to be available for rent sooner). I will ask a friend of mine who's going at that workshop to shoot side by side with D850 and A7R IV and I will put the RAW files here and see how much better the file from Sony will be compared to D850 file and if this famous already diffraction will have such a huge impact on files at f8-f11. I suspect it won't matter that much and I also suspect that the G master lenses will have no trouble getting the most out of the 61mp sensor. But then again, we will see after A7R IV will be available.

---------- Post added 08-14-19 at 05:57 PM ----------

.

I've always seen Pentax as the better innovator than the other brands in it's development of IBIS, astrotracer, pixelshift, TAv mode, the green button, night mode, the K-1's stilty-tilty screen, etc., etc.

That said, different photographers want different things -- one person's idea of game-changing innovation is another person's idea of superfluous costs or even bad design.

If you need astrotracer and pixel shift, then yes, Pentax innovates. If you need speed, af, video...Pentax is behind in these departments. With practice and proper technique you can make Pentax work in some categories that weren't in Ricoh plans when they designed K1. And given its current price, some are willing to work a little harder to make it work. Others just spend 1000$ more to get a camera suited to their needs. There is a guy Le Roi or something who shoot portraits and had great results using Pentax. Now it seems to shoot with Fuji and with A7 III not because he will get better results but because his job became easier with the other cameras. Others come from Canon 6D or 5D Mark III to Pentax for the features you mentioned above: pixel shift, astrotracer, etc. The same will happen with A7R IV: some will buy it for resolution, pixel shift, af, fps and others will buy the A7 III or A7 IV when it will become available.

Regarding TAV mode, it does exists on almost all cameras but it's called Manual with Auto ISO. In Manual with Auto ISO you control shutter speed, aperture and exposure compensation and camera will take care of ISO. Pentax added a dial for this, others just press a button to put ISO in auto mode and that's it. I shoot only in Manual with Auto ISO (TAV mode on Pentax) because I don't care about ISO.

[biz-engineer]

This "diffraction argument" is in my opinion just an excuse for saying that high resolution cameras brings no benefit to landscape photographers

I'm not saying that. What I am saying is about the law of diminishing returns relative to cost. Beyond a certain resolution, more resolution is less and less usable. So for me, the question is, why should I spend 3600 Euros (for the body only), to get a little more detail in 20% area of 10% of my photos? For eye AF , same story, I don't want to pay 3600 Euros + price of 4 new Sony lenses, for one feature that will help me in 5% of pictures, especially when the max aperture I shoot is f2.8, I have never had a problem of eye not in focus because I like to shoot my portraits at f4 in order to have nose and ears in focus. If I buy a new camera system, it's not going to be for one feature, so most likely if I'd have 10 000 to spent on a Sony system , I'd rather buy into a medium format. Medium format smokes Sony FF anytime, medium format images are clearly superior and it is visible.

Your thinking Dan, looks like that you have GAS (Gear Acquisition Syndrome), is like you go to a restaurant, you order a 300gr grilled steak for 25 Euros without sauce, then you want a tea spoon of mustard added to the steak but the waiter tells you that you can't have mustard without ordering a second steak. A restaurant that forces me to buy a new steak when I want a bit of mustard... first I'll eat my steak without mustard and second I will never go again to that restaurant. I will go to the restaurant that offer me mustard supplement for 1 euros extra. For cameras, if I already have a good Pentax FF system and if I want eye AF I have to buy an entire new system and pay not only the price of the one feature but I have to pay the price of the full new system.

What I could do is go to Sony, offer them my K1 system and Pentax glass, get the Sony A7R4 and 5 Sony lenses for 500 euros, since 500 euros is the value I give to the eye AF feature. But Sony don't agree of my proposal, they are like the bad restaurant who want me to buy a new steak for having a tea spoon of mustard.

[Dan Rentea]

I'm not saying that. What I am saying is about the law of diminishing returns relative to cost. Beyond a certain resolution, more resolution is less and less usable. So for me, the question is, why should I spend 3600 Euros (for the body only), to get a little more detail in 20% area of 10% of my photos? For eye AF , same story, I don't want to pay 3600 Euros + price of 4 new Sony lenses, for one feature that will help me in 5% of pictures, especially when the max aperture I shoot is f2.8, I have never had a problem of eye not in focus because I like to shoot my portraits at f4 in order to have nose and ears in focus. If I buy a new camera system, it's not going to be for one feature, so most likely if I'd have 10 000 to spent on a Sony system , I'd rather buy into a medium format. Medium format smokes Sony FF anytime, medium format images are clearly superior and it is visible.

Your thinking Dan, looks like that you have GAS (Gear Acquisition Syndrome), is like you go to a restaurant, they offer 300gr steak for 25 Euros without sauce, but if you want pepper sauce you can't have pepper sauce without ordering a new steak. A restaurant that forces me to buy a new steak when I want pepper sauce... first I'll eat my steak without sauces and second I will never go again to that restaurant. I will go to the restaurant that offer me pepper sauce for 1.5 euros extra. For cameras, if I already have a FF system and I want one more feature, I have to buy an entire new system and pay not only the price of the one feature but I have to pay the price of the full new system. It's not like at the restaurant where I can get the pepper sauce for 2 euros extra. So, my answer to camera makers is "you will not get my 10 000 euros for eye AF").

What I could do is go to Sony, offer them my K1 system and Pentax glass, get the Sony A7R4 and 5 Sony lenses for 500 euros, since 500 euros is the value I give to the eye AF feature.

Depends on the importance of the feature. You speak about eye af or resolution. I understood, you don't need them and you rather find walks around to make your gear work for you.

I on the other hand have different approach. I never blinked when I sold all my Pentax gear because at that time I needed a solid flash system for corporate portraits. That single feature made me spend aditional money for a new body from other brand, lenses, flashes and triggers. Those Godox flashes paid for all the gear I bought at that time. You called it GAS. To me it was a practical decision.

Another reason I switched was the lack of new fast lenses for Pentax. I shoot portraits between f1.4 and f4, depending on situation. In studio I may go to f5.6 or f7.1. All the fast lenses I bought were fast to focus (the body helped also), with no chromatic aberations and with gorgeous bokeh. You called it GAS. To me was the choice of shooting fast and get consistent results or deal with chromatic aberation, slow focusing and lack of sharp images shooting wide open with FA 77mm f1.8 lens for example. DA 70mm f2.4 was better in terms of focus an CA and I keept it over FA 77mm.

I started to shoot wildlife later. The bird that I chased 4 years and I still go for 3-4 days at 300km away from home just to get a shot of it needs a fast cameras and a fast lens to get consistent results. Yes, I got shots of it with 6D, but I missed lots of shots also. For that bird (the kingfisher) I upgraded my camera without a blink. I don't make money out of wildlife images, but for that bird I pay anytime 3500$ for a camera. This can be a bad investment financially speaking, but I live once. A Pentax K1 probably would have ended on the bottom of the lake if I had it. Why? Because for kingfisher you have to stay on a hide and hope it will come on the branch and with a bit of luck the bird will catch some fish also. Imagine staying still for 6-7 hours and then the kingfisher comes. You take a burst and then another burst because it can be gone after 40 seconds. Waiting for K1 to clear the buffer will make me throw the camera away in a moment like this.

As I said many times, I don't care about ISO, dynamic range or image quality because there isn't a full frame camera these days that can't satisfy me in these aspects. But yes, if I need a specific feature or a specific lens, I'll buy them knowing that will help me on the long term. Simple as that. I know photographers who switched to Canon just for the 11-24mm f4L lens.

Yes, I have GAS, but not the regular one. I don't buy gear that I don't want or need. I rent gear that I don't need because it's fun to shoot with different cameras/lenses and I like knowing from direct experience rather than internet reviews what's new in this market when comes to features. And I rent those 10.000$ lenses when I know I have some interesting wildlife I want to photograph.

[surfar]

Not true.

Like many of your posts!

[biz-engineer]

Like many of your posts!

Can't stop laughing after I read your comment. At least, I know the shots I get, even if for you all my posts are not true, the photos I see on my display prove that what I think for myself is 100% right. In front on me, I have a picture shot at f11 and the foreground is out of focus, I should have stopped down the lens to f16 or f22, at f16 and f22 forget about the 61Mpixels, forget it, they'll all be blurred. You are very good at provocating, and in fact your comments are borderline insulting. The best way to deal with you is to ignore you, because what you write is pure provocation, there is nothing in your comment that's valuable in any way.

[surfar]

Can't stop laughing

Can you hear yourself laughing?...It would be difficult with that broken record playing...."the K-1 gets me shots, but nothing else on earth can get shots like a K-1"

BA HA HA HA

---------- Post added 08-15-19 at 07:40 AM ----------

the 61Mpixels, forget it, they'll all be blurred.

Those 16shot HiRes images look mighty blurred too...ba ha ha ha