|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
08-17-2010, 08:21 AM
|
| |
Would you list how a person would spend $12000++ on FF equipments? Let's start with a 5D mk II body that is $2500.
Hope the next body is at least a stop better than K-x at ISO 6400 both in terms of DR and noise, without losing details due to NR.
To me, usable high ISO means getting decent 8x12 indoor shots at ISO 3200 to 5000 with NR turned off.
If not in terms of resolution, a 5D mk II certainly can be compared. 21 vs 40 over an increased area of 1.25x is not a lot - even with large, large prints, this difference is easily eclipsed by any small difference in lens quality.
In terms of high ISO, from the 645D samples I've seen, I'm quite sure it will not perform as well as a D3s at ISO 12800, if it even has this setting.
At base ISO, the 645D probably will have the D3s soundly beat, though.
|
|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
08-12-2010, 12:32 PM
|
| |
I don't see how spending $2000-$3000 on an FF body would in any way even get close to "spending MF money on the small format".
I agree with every point that Peter makes in this thread. Shooting at the morning golden hours in the wild - I've been there and *know* that my keeper rate would have been a lot higher if I could shoot at ISO 6400 with impunity.
I've owned the DS, the K10D, the K-7 and now a D700 - and also shot with the D90 extensively (which is supposed to perform almost identically with the K-x at high ISO). Let me tell you the difference in high ISO performance between the D700 and the K-7 is quite a bit more than 1 stop.
Of course the D700 also costs about 3 times the K-7 does, but it's not the point, because it is still a lot closer to APS-C prices than to MF prices. Heck, you could get a used 5D Mk 1 for $1000 and it still performs better than the K-7 at ISO 3200. It's that bad. Even the D3s, which has a 1 stop advantage even over the D700, is still nowhere near the price of a 645D.
Apart from that, the K-7 is the perfect camera - well perhaps I could use a second SD card slot and a wider selection of lenses, but that's about all I could think of.
|
|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
08-12-2010, 12:11 PM
|
| |
Stanic,
It's a trivial knowledge that everyone understands that, *in theory*, DOF changes with subject distance only.
But we don't live in theories. In *practice*, DOF effectively changes with sensor size because you want to keep your composition, i.e. want your subject to fill the frame.
Therefore, with a larger sensor size, it's *way* easier to achieve a shallower DOF with the same f-stop, same ISO, same exposure time, *because* people normally move closer with a larger sensor than with a smaller sensor in order to achieve the same framing.
We all know your theory is correct, but they don't apply to real life at all. In real life, that statement "narrow DOF that you can only get from a full frame camera at the moment" you're trying to "correct" is actually right, unless you don't consider filling the frame as an integral part of photography.
An easy example is if I shoot at 85mm, f/1.2 to capture a headshot FF - so when an eye is in focus, the tip of the nose is out of focus. Try to get the same shallow DOF from any APS-C camera and lens combination, while keeping the head occupy the same portion of the frame.
With APS-C, you have no choice but to move further, which increases your DOF beyond recognition, unless you use a lens that does not exist.
Cheers.
|
|
Forum: Product Suggestions and Feedback
06-12-2010, 09:49 PM
|
| |
I highly doubt it will be done and I think it's the decision made by bean counters, not engineers. We need a non-crippled KAF2 mount!
|
|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
06-04-2010, 02:03 PM
|
| |
Indeed. However...it doesn't explain Nikon users who are happy with their 50mm f/1.8, costing around $130, for not having the problems that the Canon 50/1.8 do. So maybe it's the problems of specific lenses?
|
|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
06-04-2010, 06:00 AM
|
| |
Maybe the unexpected wild success of K-x has created the need of cheaper 35mm prime the demand of which wasn't deemed to exist before?
Just saying.
It seems to be a good thing for Pentax and for consumers in general regardless whether *we* will buy it or not, judging from the reaction of the linked forum.
We're enthusiasts, we pay big bucks for great lenses regardless of the existence of cheaper ones. Sadly, most consumers are not enthusiasts - and I can imagine most of their new customers coming through a K-x body are not enthusiasts. This lens will be for them, and will be a wild success, just like the K-x.
|
|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
06-04-2010, 05:41 AM
|
| |
The C and N world seem to think otherwise. Their 50/1.8 are called "so good and so cheap, it's stupid not to buy one". Almost everyone I know who's buying a C/N system have got their "nifty fifty". Is there a lens on the Pentax lineup with this reputation and ubiquity?
The pro crowd is a small percentage of all customers now, even for higher end DSLR. Most consumers, believe it or not, use a cheap lens like a 50/1.8, believe it or not, on a $1500 or even $2500 body.
Canikon have the market share, so they can leverage. You can also say that having small cheap primes is one reason that helped them achieve their current market share. i.e. if you stagnate due to "the lack of market share", you'll forever stay where you are without the market share.
I don't see it's a problem. If Pentax knows how many of its customers are buying legacy glasses instead of new glasses, it should release the line of cheaper lenses. Why shouldn't it compete with the $90 A50/1.7? Of course it wants people to buy new lenses instead of used ones.
These are high-end lenses. My observation is, people who want a high end lens will get one regardless the existence of cheaper alternatives. What cheaper primes will truly cannibalize, are lenses in the used market. People who're prepared to pay cheap keep paying cheap. People who're prepared to pay a lot will keep paying a lot.
I haven't seen anyone who bought the DA35 and DA40 and DA55 *because* there aren't cheaper alternatives. They buy these lenses because these lenses have other qualities that attract them, qualities unattainable with cheaper lenses.
See, Canikon did not "get their market share". It's just that Pentax is behind ever since it came late in the AF game. However, I suspect its share dwindled further because a lot of great lenses were discontinued without DA replacements. You know, Pentax *used* to make an F50/1.7 (it was as "cheap" as the Canikon 50/1.8s), FA35/2 (it's discontinued and skyrocketed).
Ever noticed the used price of FA*80-200 vs that of Nikon's 80-200 AF-D? The former still go for $1000+ while the former became more affordable at $500. It's also the result of the discontinuation without replacement.
If the 50/1.8 could be made with a metal mount, a 35/1.8 or 35/2 can, too. Remember, the FA35/2 used to sell for $250 new, which is about as cheap as the nikkor 35/1.8. Now it goes for $600 new. Heck, the FA50 used to sell for $250 new. Now $400.
And don't tell me currency exchange is the reason - maybe it's a *small* part of the reason, as I don't see anything else made in Japan getting more expensive in a nearly similar magnitude.
 Quote: I might also point out that Nikon rumours ( Nikon Rumors) has one going of a new Nikon AF-S 35/1.4 for $1,700. Makes the 31 Ltd a bargain. Again, people who're prepared to pay megabucks will continue to. The problem is, when you're prepared to pay >$5000 for a system (a small portion of your customers), Pentax is the bargain system, but when when you're only prepared to pay <$1000 (most customers), Canikon are.
|
|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
06-04-2010, 05:18 AM
|
| |
Costs are lower than you think. Nikon makes a profit every time a $130 50mm f/1.8 is sold. Wait. The camera store makes a profit too. Wait. The ship operator that shipped your product here made a profit, too. Wait. The glass supplier makes a profit, too. Wait. The company that supplies the paper box makes a profit, too. Wait...
Plus, the Nikkor 50mm f/1.8 has a metal mount and metal interior. Only the outside contains some plastic. Optically it's no slough, either.
My $130 Nikkor 50/1.8 AF-D doesn't seem to be of any lower build quality than my $250 FA50/1.4 (now selling for $390, by the way).
You obviously are basing your build quality argument on imagination. Just go out and try a $130 Nikkor 50/1.8 AF-D.
It can be made cheaper because an f/1.8 lens can be designed to use less glass - check its smaller front element. The plastic mount may be accounting for $10 max in saving. The reason Nikon might have put a plastic mount on their 35/1.8 is purely for market differentiation, period. Just like the DA*55/1.4 has weather sealing over the FA50. After all, the weather sealing does not cost a lot (witness the waterproof Optio WP line), but will create the differentiation to let you price the lenses $100s apart.
|
|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
05-29-2010, 06:32 PM
|
| |
I consider the strobe-controlled solution quite adequate for my use. Of course, a non-strobe protocol in P-TTL would be great.
And no "release/focus priority" to choose. Z-1's predictive focus was quite primitive compared to Nikon's offerings, so it needs to be redeveloped, with more focus points. If you try any of the early AF lenses on Nikon (earlier than AF-D), e.g. the 80-200 f/2.8 AF, it's ridiculously slow, and hunts more than its AF-D and AF-S counterparts, on the same body (the one I tried was a D300, I now shoot with a D700 but it's reasonable to assume the slow lens will focus just as slow there, too) So, lens gearing is an important factor, too. If you try the FA35-80, it focuses lightening fast, faster than a lot of Nikon AF-D lenses.
In the shutter noise department, the grass is not always greener over there. For example, I'm quite fond of the D70s' shutter sound. Although it's still not as quiet as K-7's, it's very mushed, damped, and makes you wonder if the lack of MLU on that body is really a disadvantage at all. OTOH the D700's shutter noise is a disaster even compared to the D70s'.
|
|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
05-28-2010, 01:59 PM
|
| |
Well, with the K-7...I consider the AE and flash exposure partially fixed. All it needs now is a flash exposure *lock*, a non-suck flash selection, and a metal locking pin.
AF, I agree there's still some way to go :\ I suspect though it has more to do with lens gearing, because I have shot with dog-slow AF lenses on a D300, too...
I'm not sure how DOF can be fixed with APS-C. Maybe release faster lenses?
So you're highlighting a multitude of problems that a body alone cannot fix. However, if the progress from K10->K20->K-7->Kx gives any indication...the next time should have almost everything fixable on the body fixed.
The rest of the job is to fix the *system*, which takes quite a bit more effort than releasing a single body.
|
|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
05-27-2010, 02:36 PM
|
| |
These are valid reasons to not want to increase ISO and not want to stop down, but in doing so, you'll not get a worse image quality than you could otherwise be able to achieve using an APS-C body.
It is because by increasing the ISO, we're simply offsetting the ISO advantage of the 24x36 sensor, and stopping down, by the same token as well because 24x36 has a higher diffraction limit than APS-C with the same amount of MP on the sensor.
At the end, you'll get exactly the same image quality as if you can do on APS-C - i.e. if you want to go deeper and get exactly the same composition as you do on APS-C: FOV, distance, shutter time, you'll *have* to stop down, turn up the ISO, and lose the inherent IQ advantage 24x36 over APS-C.
However, in real life, there are different ways of achieving the same thing if you allow any of FOV/distance/shutter time to change slightly. So you'll have the option to either go shallower/less noise/higher IQ if you want that combination.
I'm not sure if I've explained adequately, but the gist is, FF's main advantage regarding DOF is the option to go shallower, or if you want as deep, fine, but you'll lose the noise and diffraction limit advantages.
|
|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
05-26-2010, 07:18 PM
|
| |
What I meant is, when you shoot at f/2.8 on 24x36, vs shooting f/2.8 on APS-C, although the DOF are very close that both will be quite thin, and too close to be noticeable in most cases, if you look at the out of focus background, you'll find it quite obvious that the one shot with 24x36 is "blurrier".
Ouch. I know how it feels. I usually try to keep them on the same plane by as much as possible.
|
|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
05-26-2010, 03:47 PM
|
| |
Agreed. No great shot in particular is limited by not having a razor-thin DOF either. So the DOF control on. The larger sensor is not important/noticeable to most people.
I do need to say that however, "DOF control" might be a misnomer, because when photographers shoot wide open for a "thin DOF", what they're usually, actually after is "creamier bokeh". (so the 1 inch vs 1.5 inch argument can fall apart - even the DOF is too close to be noticeable, the background blurring often behaves otherwise). In fact, they usually want both eyes to be in focus, thus creating a self-contradicting situation.
You may achieve the same with APS-C, but must pay more attention in choosing your background. 24x36 shooters need to pay more attention to keep things in focus. Some find one easier to achieve than the other.
|
|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
05-26-2010, 03:01 PM
|
| |
It is the ability to go shallower and you're not forced to - if you want as deep, just stop down by 1.3 stops and up the ISO by 1.3 stops.
Unless you constantly shoot at f/16 at 3200 ISO, there is always a setting on a 24x36 to match whatever DOF you can achieve on APS-C. This, is what I call "control".
|
|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
05-26-2010, 01:36 PM
|
| |
36x24 has the advantage of DOF control - not just simply "DOF will be shallower". If you use a lens with the same aperture, same shutter time, and shoot at the same distance and lenses that give you the same FOV, then yes the DOF will be shallower.
e.g. 50/2.8 on APS-C vs 77/2.8 on 24x36, same shutter time, distance, both at ISO 400, for example.
If you desire a DOF the same as what you get on APS-C, it can be achieved on the 24x36 by stopping down by 1.3 stops and turn up the ISO respectively.
e.g. 50/2.8 on APS-C vs 77/4.4 on 24x36, same shutter time, distance, but while remaining at ISO 400 on the APS-C, turn up ISO to 1000 on the 24x36.
You'll get the same DOF. So, until you use up the aperture stops all the way to f/16 or f/22 on most lenses, you can achieve the whatever APS-C DOF you want on a 24x36.
On the other hand, if you want shallower, you have no recourse on APS-C except to pay for a faster lens - but in this case, 24x36 will benefit, too - not to mention a faster lens usually makes the APS-C system larger and heavier.
|
|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
05-25-2010, 09:11 PM
|
| |
You can't, unless all of your lenses are APS-C lenses. Any 35mm lens that you use on an APS-C body, you're wasting some money buying portion of the lens you are not able to use.
Medium format is not a standard, not by any measure. I'd say currently the standards are APS-C and 36x24.
Quote: 36x24 vs APS-C
Anyway, what is so special about the 36x24 sensor? NOTHING. Again, it means nothing only if none of your lenses are from the film era.
Quote: I'm not saying that 36x24 doesn't have some advantages. It does and I'm aware of them: - Possibility of shallower depth of field, other things being equal.
- Possibility of less noisy shots in low-light, high-ISO shooting conditions.
- Possibly higher dynamic range in high-contrast shooting conditions
Nice set of advantages and I would not mind having all of these advantages myself. But they are all incremental or comparative advantages, not absolute advantages. Interchangeable lens cameras (including DEVIL/EVIL bodies) have an absolute advantage over fixed-lens cameras. But 36x24 has no absolute advantages over APS-C, and no advantages that you don't get in spades with medium format (at least none I can think of). Advantage is advantage - all advantages are comparative advantages, and all comparative advantages are advantages. There is no such a thing called "absolute" advantage in the world. So just call it advantage.
Most of the time, amateurs want to do more than what pros do, so judging on what the general public need by what the pros do is not usually the right thing to do. For example, wealthy members of the general public usually pay for the most expensive lenses they can afford, while pros usually go for the cheapest reliable gear for the job.
36x24 does not demand more expensive lenses - it is a myth. The bodies are bigger, but lenses that are need to achieve the same composition as APS-C bodies can be smaller and cheaper. For example, what you usually need a f/2.8 lens on an APS-C body for, on 24x36 the same can be achieved with an f/4 lens, most likely a smaller and cheaper one at that. So the system weight and price balance out. Plus, if you decide to pay for faster and heavier glass, 24x36 gives you the option to. With APS-C there's no such option.
The APS-C format has some advantages, though - size-wise, it's achieved when you mount small primes such as pancakes on them. It also lets you fill the frame fuller with macros or provide you with higher resolution than if you crop a 24x36 image.
Quote: With my current Pentax APS-C cameras, I can take photos and make large prints that nobody in the world could tell were not taken with a full-frame camera. Yes, if I'm shooting in a badly lit church, I do kind of wish that the results I got at ISO 2000 were cleaner. But I sell a fair number of prints of photos taken with a K20D at ISO 2000 (I seldom go higher than that).
Price
Say Pentax releases a 36x24 body for about $1500. I'll be happy, I guess, but not because I'll run out and buy one. I'll be happy because the price of the K-7 (or its APS-C successor) will come down to where I can't afford NOT to pick one up. If the D700's price drops close to $1500, the D300's price will drop close to $1000.
And then I'm switching to Nikon. :-)
Will Right now I have switched Nikon for its 36x24 solution. However, when it is affordable for Pentax to do so again, I suspect I'll be among the first to jump back. I just like Pentax ergonomics better.
|
|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
05-25-2010, 08:55 PM
|
| |
Pre-AI is not needed.
AI lenses date back to 1977. K-mount was created in 1975.
I'd take 33 years of directly controllable lenses over 35 years of green-button-controllable lenses any day.
Plus, as of year 2000, there were still AIS lenses still in production, while KA/KM lenses have gone out of production for years.
Fuller support at least on flagships (the single digit D) and numerous less than flagship cameras, such as a Dx00. I wished Pentax added the aperture coupler for *one* camera only, the flagship - it never happened.
|
|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
05-25-2010, 07:33 AM
|
| |
Supporting millions of cheap lenses out there is not a strength of the Pentax system - Nikon has more old lenses out there, for cheaper, and with fuller support - just turn that aperture ring and the body will detect the aperture (well, after setting a wide open aperture on the body). No need to press that green button crap.
Does it hurt Nikon in new lens sales? Certainly. But clearly they understand what attract users - their AF is so good that there's a compelling reason to upgrade from MF lenses.
|
|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
04-28-2010, 07:13 AM
|
| |
My prediction for the K-5 is simple:
1. body design almost identical to the K-7, sealed
2. polycarbonate instead of metal
3. single control wheel. Has P-shift instead of HyperP. Batter grip available.
or
3. double control wheel with HyperP. No battery grip.
4. no User mode, add picture modes.
5. K-x sensor or better, because they always pick the best sensor available at the time.
6. A 95% prism.
7. AF microadjustment.
8. K-7's SAFOX VIII+, however, use strobe instead of dedicated AF assist light.
|
|
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
04-28-2010, 06:58 AM
|
| |
With all these rumour threads running rampant, I might contribute my share of prediction/wishlist of the K-7 replacement:
Prediction:
1. APS-C body based on Sony's CMOS. 16-18 Mpix.
2. K-7 based body, same weather sealing, same viewfinder, same quiet shutter
3. 5-6 fps
4. shares battery grip with K-7
5. 1080p video at 30fps
6. latest firmware goodies, like the cross-processing colour mode
7. faster processor
8. Vignetting correction
9. Further AF improvements
Wishlist:
1. Totally switch off DFS. Not likely to happen.
2. Aperture ring coupler. Not likely to happen, but hey, Nikon has been doing it!!!
3. Dual PRIME II processing giving instant CA, distortion, vignetting correction, and faster contrast-detect AF.
4. 60 fps video under *some* resolution
5. Unlimited pictures in time lapse mode
6. Tethering
7. Photographer-controlled top LCD illumination
8. multi-functioned battery grip (e.g. geotagging)
9. Dual SD slot
10. Ability to use screw drive on SDM lense
11. "Eye-start SR" to eliminate the SR delay
12. Automatic AF adjustment using contrast-detect AF
13. reduced resolution RAW. Better if it's multisampled from the full res photo so print noise will not increase.
14. H.264 compressed video in addition to MJPEG
15. faster flash sync
16. more User modes. Not likely to happen because it's trivial yet they haven't done it.
17. Flash exposure bracketing. Now I'm asking for too much so I'd better stop.
Feel free to add/delete.
|
|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
04-28-2010, 06:23 AM
|
| |
Why limit other people's choices? As long as they make a black one you should be happy. Nobody forces you to buy all the other colours.
If you have no use of these features, just don't use them. Having effects and video will not make the camera any more expensive than not having them.
So advanced customers should not have any preference in the body colour, I guess it's your implication?
This "absolutely full featured" camera is not likely to be more expensive than the bare-bone camera.
What you haven't realised is that these features you don't want only contributes to a negligible cost of the body. Mostly the money goes to features that the purists lust after:
1. better sensor
2. better VF
3. tighter build quality
These are the costly items. Not video. Not live view. Because they incur a one-time R&D cost and that's it. MJPEG is trivial to implement. A microphone only costs a few cents. All modern sensors support LV and video. More output channels are needed by both high fps and video.
|
|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
04-28-2010, 06:07 AM
|
| |
definitely
Live view is a must.
I hope you realise the tech behind 5 fps and video have so much in common, that taking away video is not going to make the camera any cheaper.
They can make a slightly bigger camera, but please don't make it nearly as large as the K10D. That size is a disaster for the market they're trying to break into.
As for sensor size, anything larger than APS-C is a pipe dream.
|
|
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
04-27-2010, 08:23 AM
|
| |
Well...size, weight and cost are a given. I also find that I like Pentax's auto ISO, shake reduction, tighter weather sealing (the 7D is only partially sealed with some "enforced seams". It's not splash-proof.), quieter shutter, and SD cards a lot more desirable than the 7D's counterparts.
Quote: 1) Significantly faster AF in low light (Elwood's link above shows that pretty clearly, and it is my experience as well.) This is useful in many more applications than simply sports. You don't see the difference as much in bright light, but in dim light, the outdated SAFOX shows its limitations.
2) Significantly better tracking AF
3) Much better high-ISO noise control without loss of detail
4) Much faster FPS
5) Better control of exposure for video, and full HD.
6) Access to a much wider range of in-production lenses.
7) No SDM! All EOS cameras use lens motors, so there is no moving mechanical connection whatsoever between the lens and the camera. In all but the cheapest lenses, the EOS lens drive motors are true ring-type ultrasonic, and have been since 1987. Amen. These are all true, sadly.
This one I cannot agree. My K-7's flash exposure is worlds better than the K10D's. In fact, it's scarily accurate. I'd say the 77 segment has put the K-7 in Nikon category in terms of flash exposure.
However, Canon's flashes do have faster cycle times and juicier batteries available than Pentax's.
Amen. That's the single reason why Pentax is no longer my only system.
However, the size/weight of the 7D, although looks like only one disadvantage, will be the one fatal flaw of it: it's the same size as the 5Dmk2. Given that the bodies are only $1K apart, I don't see a lot of reason why anyone would choose the 7D instead of 5Dmk2 at all.
|
|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
04-21-2010, 10:57 AM
|
| |
I still don't understand what's the big fuss of "without video mode". I mean, is there something about the existence of a video mode that annoys you?
If you don't like video, simply don't use it.
|
|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
04-20-2010, 03:11 PM
|
| |
SR is one of the few occasions where having to choose it in a quick menu is thought by some to be better than a hardware switch on the exterior. I belong to the group and I welcome the change. I still remember switching off SR by accident by brushing through the switch on my K10D.
Other ideas:
1. Eliminate SR lag with something similar to "eye start".
2. Automatic AF calibration.
3. More than one USER mode.
4. Top LCD illumination turned on and off manually instead of automatically.
5. Completely disable DFS.
|
