Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
01-22-2017, 03:07 PM
|
|
For me a camera is a tool.
I have Canon, Panasonic, Olympus and Pentax and each one has a different sensor format so each one is a different tool for a different purpose.
Brand loyalty is pretty much a marketing humbug - I am "loyal" to my family, friends and pets not to a tool.
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
01-22-2017, 02:34 PM
|
|
Oops. Misread your post :)
|
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
01-22-2017, 01:03 PM
|
|
Brand loyalty can mean a repeat buyer is comfortable and familiar with distinct, embedded brand identifiers, including omissions (core engineering, ergonomics, feature combinations and visual cues), and assumes they will carry over into new products. Such an assumption is efficient - it saves research time, and time spent becoming familiar with a different brand's differences.
Fanboyism is blind, irrational and emotional. It has to do with self-identity rather than product identity.
|
Forum: Pentax K-1 & K-1 II
01-22-2017, 07:00 AM
|
|
My understanding of dynamic range is it's the relationship between the darkest and lightest part of the picture. So with 15 EV if you darkest part of the pictures was 5 lumens, the brightest part would be 5 to the 15th power lumens.
So unless I have this concept wrong it would be un affected by the size of the sensor. A two pixel sensor where one pixel was 5 lumens and the other 5 to the fifteenth power, would still have range of 15th EV would still have a DR 15 EV even though it was minuscule.
Same with ISO and colour depth. These are characteristics of the camera system that are not dependant on the size of sensor.
The only thing you can miss out on is some resolution. But when what you're talking about is a 2 times oversample compared to a 4 times oversample, even then the affects of more resolution are probably imperceptible. It has never been established exactly where it does become perceptible. A 20x30 inch print, 30x40 inch print? Most of us suspect that you took a K-5 image and printed it at 100 DPI, ( 60 inches y 40 inches) and a K-1 image and printed it at the same size, no one has actually demonstrated that the K-1 image would be preferable from more than a foot away.
Yesterday Tess and I ended up shooting pretty much exactly the same scene. Me with a K-1, her with a K-5. We used the same lens and field of view as well. DFA 28-105 her shooting at 37mm, me shooting at 58mm from within 20m of the same spot.
SO I'm going the other way. I consider it to be irresponsible to tell someone a K-1 images is the best image, until I see the parameters that verify that they have a clue what they are talking about and not just speculating. There is for sure a theoretical difference, but when does that difference become real world? I've never seen the question answered.
To me, all this stuff about FF being better is like discussing the size of bacteria and trying to extrapolate. If one bacteria is 10 times the size of another one, which one is more likely to cause a flat tire on your car if you run over them both? (OK that might be a bit extreme, but it's a demonstration of a principal.)
The two images.
There's been a lot of speculation that you gain something using the K-1 image. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say, until I see a verifiable demonstration of that, I'm going to declare that the difference is meaningless.
On my 2700 by 1600 inche screen they look identical, on her 3800 by 2000 pixel screen they look identical. Where is this magic point at which the K-1 advantage is demonstrable? Until that has been established, people who say the K-1 is better are just speculating, and misleading folks. It isn't better on a 3800x200 screen. Where does the "betterness" start? It's an important question, because if in fact it never starts, you can't really say it's better can you?
But here is the killer, at least for me, both images look much better on my low res 103 dpi 27 inch screen, than they do on Tess' 3800 x 2000 221 dpi 21.5 inch screen. The viewing size has more effect on perceived quality than resolution. There are parameters here that have not been explored by the on-line geniuses.
This isn't rocket science. And owning a K-1 has really reinforced what a load of crock folks have been spouting about how marvellous the added resolution between a 36MP file and a 16 MP file is, all these years. For most of these folks, they know there's a difference but they haven't actually seen it. And you haven't seen files like this before, because "everyone needs more resolution" people can't produce an image that demonstrates their point, despite having years to do so.
99% of the people on this forum never produce an image that needs to be more than 12 MP (we have sold 12 MP files printed at 30x20 inches). But 99% of the FF proponents on the forum will try and convince you that they are part of the 1% who might (though it's never been established) need larger files. It gets old.
We sell our prints at 30x20 inches, and my wife sees no need to upgrade from her K-5. There are things I like about my K-1, but it's resolution is grossly under-utilized. I like the camera, that so far that is largely because of the one stop ISO advantage maintaining the same DoF. Not the resolution per se.
The biggest difference in my mind right now, between a K-5 and a K-1 is you have to buy much more expensive lenses on the K-1 to get functionally the same thing. :D
|
Forum: Pentax K-1 & K-1 II
01-22-2017, 06:17 AM
|
|
If you don't use the entire sensor, you will not get the entire performance. It's that simple.
|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
01-20-2017, 11:54 PM
|
|
I thought kids with be like bee to honey on that camera, likes every time a new smart phone comes out.
Luckily I am wrong :p
|
Forum: Pentax K-1 & K-1 II
01-20-2017, 02:57 PM
|
|
Exactly. "Physics. Not just a suggestion. Its a law." :cool:
|
Forum: Pentax K-1 & K-1 II
01-20-2017, 02:36 PM
|
|
Nothing changes except the amount of pixels recorded if you are in crop mode. If you place the camera in FF mode then the camera will record the full 36mp but the image will vignette. You can then crop out the vignette and you will get an image that uses all of the lens image circle of that particular lens. It might be 15mp, or 18mp, or 20mp or 28mp or whatever. Each lens will be different. But in crop mode the camera restricts the image to the 15mp approximate.
But nothing else changes as far as the quality of the pixels produced. What you are asking about are camera functions, not lens functions. Those things would be the same with a FF lens, a APS-C lens or plastic pin hole lens. The lens is just a chunk of glass in front of the sensor.
|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
01-19-2017, 07:17 AM
|
|
I don't see any mystery in why Canon is doing so well in these shops with the M cameras. I think they are perfectly designed for the target. They are small, simple to use, have a good touch screen and are fairly priced in Japan. Bear in mind that this is basically before the M5 came out, so I can only imagine that Canon will get stringer next year. Compare that with the other mirrorless manufacturers, who have been trying to push everything upmarket, and fight amongst themselves over the enthusiast market. It's a completely different approach.
With regards to the real consumer market, I think Ricoh has also got it wrong with cameras like the K-30, K-50, K-S2 and K-70. These have got bloated with enthusiast features to the extent that they put off the average consumer. They have WR, but I don't think average consumers subject their cameras to that much punishment. They have second control wheel, but this is hardly a selling point if you don't know what the first one is for. They have a pentaprism finder, but it's a bit of an esoteric advantage over pentamirror. IBIS too is a difficult advantage to sell at that level. This series of cameras is more appealing to the enthusiast on a budget than the average consumer. And for enthusiasts there is the secondary problem that the K-5/K-3 range has been such good value that most enthusiasts would rather dig a bit deeper to buy one of those instead. I did when I bought a K-5iis over a K-S2 last year.
Pentax has had some smaller, simplified cameras in the past like the K-r and the K-S1, but not every year. Look at the figures for 2011 and 2015. These were when the K-r and the K-S1 were on the market for the whole calendar year. Pentax/Ricoh had about 7% in those years. There a lot of chuckling about simple low end cameras and their green modes, but they sell. Thom Hogan said something similar about the Pentax share, "Pentax, meanwhile, is bouncing around in a fairly narrow single digit market share, dictated a bit by when they launch new consumer-oriented DSLR products." Nikon's Slow Failure in Japan | DSLRBodies | Thom Hogan
My opinion is that Ricoh need to have at least one small and light camera in their line-up, below the K-70. Ideally it would have a good touch screen control, good wi-fi integration and be available in different colours. And it kit lens should focus silently. I don't think it's wise to avoid the low end, because it's the entry point into the system for a lot of people.
By the way, when I say "average consumer", I mean people who have no real aspiration to being great photographers or artists, but by cameras to record their vacations, children, events and so on. As I said in a previous post, BCN figures are skewed to shops in the suburbs where most serious camera buyers would not be looking.
Sorry. Long ponderous post. Congratulations if you made it this far. I am fun at parties. Honest.
|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
01-18-2017, 11:54 PM
|
|
Main Nikon problem here, that got a lot of people mad and frustrated , was policy of persuading client its their fault for all that factory failures in cameras, then it falls from client onto shop sellers,product menagers etc- it gets them into promoting one brand over another even in entry level line-just stay out from the line of fire. Most common problem in Nikon system is camera body rubber to peel off. And its not releated to DSLR level- if it has any rubber, there is a good chance it will just fall off.
|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
01-18-2017, 03:09 PM
|
|
My friend, a Canon 7D (not the mark II, the original) shooter, has 4 beautiful 20" x 30" metallic prints hanging on her wall which she took. I doubt that if I took it with my K-1 the prints would be that much better, if at all. Perhaps i could get away with less aggressive noise reduction, but even then I don't think it would make hardly any difference.
My point is that yes Nikon and Pentax do have sensors which have higher signal to noise ratios and also have higher dynamic range. But in real life prints, with post processing software as advanced as it is today, it rarely comes into play.
A more important factor is that any newbie can walk into any Best Buy, Target, Walmart Etc and buy a Canon.
And even if that newbie didn't buy it there at a brick and mortar store, he would go home and buy it on Amazon because he knew what a Canon looked like because he saw one at a store...or his other friends had one...or one of the salesman tried to sell him one etc.
And for the small percentage of newbies that progress and buy more than the kit lens, it will be from then on Canon gear.
|
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
01-17-2017, 11:53 AM
|
|
Or, they might opt for an even larger format, no?
To be fair to the OP, the K-3 and K-1 each have their own strengths and weaknesses or pros/cons. For example, the K-3/K-3 II is significantly lower in cost than the K-1 - the cost difference is greater if lenses are factored in. The difference in mass/weight may be an important consideration for some users. Neither should be classified as 'better' than the other without giving consideration to the various characteristics.
I think this thread is showing that although the K-1 has distinct advantages, the K-3/K-3 II also has strengths.
- Craig
|