|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
08-12-2012, 05:49 PM
|
| |
Lol, if I had bothered to read his about me it is obvious its a design project, he's still in school! Never mind, nothing to see here...
|
|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
08-12-2012, 05:46 PM
|
| |
The more I look at this, the more I'm convinced this isn't real and the more I believe he'll be in trouble with Pentax. There's no compartment for the battery or memory card. It's also too big. As a design concept, you don't have to worry about details like it being functional. Are the shots being held by a hand photoshop mockups? Did he actually build a box and then paste a lens on it?
|
|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
08-12-2012, 05:25 PM
|
| |
Pentax
I'm assuming this is a designer just showing what he can do, but he has the Pentax brand pasted rather prominently. I wonder if it was just a design exercise, why put a brand on it? Does anyone know anything about this?
|
|
Forum: Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands
06-14-2012, 05:05 PM
|
| |
Have they actually released it? I thought it was more of an announcement. I wonder if they'll include Samsung with the mirrorless mounts. Schneifer and Samsung worked together for a long time. On the other hand, not sure Samsung wants to have another lens manufacturer competing with them. I could see it going either way. I think this is more important for the Sony folks, Samsung lenses seem to have a pretty good reputation already.
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-01
06-14-2012, 04:57 PM
|
| |
| |
|
Forum: Pentax K-30 & K-50
06-13-2012, 10:02 AM
|
| |
| |
|
Forum: Pentax K-30 & K-50
06-13-2012, 05:19 AM
|
| |
I never said the K5 couldn't do it, I thought this was about the K30... Look, I don't know the actual reason why Pentax decided to go with 12 bits, but noise truncating could be one of the reasons. Even if the sensor is exactly the same, the rest of the system is not and therefore it is quite possible to have a higher noise floor in a less expensive camera. Here's a counter argument, those tests of the K5 were done at the lowest ISO, higher ISOs (probably even 200) will lose that useful information. It wouldn't surprise me if the decision was made that prioritized the benefits of smaller file size all the time vs. possible benefit at low ISO only. This kind of decision might be different in a camera like the K5, but they are aiming at different markets. In any case, the fact remains that there can be legitimate reasons for choosing 12 bit raw files over 14. We"ll have to wait and see what the files are like from the K30. I'm betting that they'll be quite good.
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-30 & K-50
06-13-2012, 05:10 AM
|
| |
Right. If the system were able to reduce the noise floor to the point where you could reliably get good information from those 13th and 14th bits, then it certainly makes sense to record that info. Well, at least it does if you're making a product that will appeal to people obsessing over the margins of recording. If the target audience is going to use JPG output exclusively, 12 bits is going to be more than enough, no need to have the processing overhead or crazy design to optimize for information that will never be seen.
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-30 & K-50
06-13-2012, 05:04 AM
|
| |
Technology changes, physics doesn't:) You're right, we don't know how the current cameras stack up but my guess is that they are more similar than different when it comes to the noise floor. All sorts of systems, ranging from audio recorders to all kinds of broadcasts have essentially had the same S/N ratio for quite a while. There is a technological reason behind it but mostly it's because it generally isn't worth the effort to chase down those last bits of info buried in the noise. The vast majority of pictures (especially from low to mid level cameras) are rendered in 8 bits, and they look great. It would be nice to see more measurements of the new cameras but I have a feeling that other practical things like SR, ergonomics, and focussing have a lot larger impact on the image quality.
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-30 & K-50
06-12-2012, 08:16 PM
|
| |
I never said they were all noise, just that noise could be the reason for limiting the bit depth. Limiting noise is expensive, and there are other tradeoffs when it comes to larger files sizes, mostly involving speed but power of processor also comes into it. The more powerful the processor, the more heat is likely to be produced, which can lead to more noise, etc. Take a look at the links I posted before, my musings are hardly controversial. I was engaging in speculation, I was trying to calm some of the more worried folks about 12 bit raw files. Read those and you'll see that there can be some good reasons to limit the bit depth to 12 bits, and noise is primary one.
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-30 & K-50
06-12-2012, 08:08 PM
|
| |
So sorry I didn't cite references... I have more experience with this when it comes to audio, but I assure you that when it comes to sampling, S/N ratio and noise considerations are the same no matter what medium you care to look into. If you want a good primer on these things in photography, you can find it here:
Noise, Dynamic Range and Bit Depth in digital SLRs
This is the discussion about Noise, Dynamic Range and Bit Depth.
Here's the summation of all the math and tests:
"Curiously, most 14-bit cameras on the market (as of this writing) do not merit 14-bit recording. The noise is more than four levels in 14-bit units on the Nikon D3/D300, Canon 1D3/1Ds3 and 40D. The additional two bits are randomly fluctuating, since the levels are randomly fluctuating by +/- four levels or more. Twelve bits are perfectly adequate to record the image data without any loss of image quality, for any of these cameras (though the D3 comes quite close to warranting a 13th bit)."
This is all bog standard stuff for people involved in making things digitally. Sorry I had assumed that people were familiar with things like signal to noise ratios and sampling. No need to get uptight about not understanding how things work, asking a few questions does wonders... My comments were trying to address the wailing and gnashing of teeth about how Pentax was "crippling" their cameras and that there wasn't a good reason to go to 12 bit raw files. I offered up some points as to why they might have done it, and I mused on some ramifications. We don't know the real reasons behind Pentax's decisions, but there's every chance that it is a solid engineering decision.
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-30 & K-50
06-12-2012, 09:15 AM
|
| |
The bottom line in the 12 vs. 14 bit raw decision is that it's complicated. Sampling theory, the effects of noise on digital signal processing, and issue of what things should look like like leave a lot of room for judgement calls to be made. There will always be compromises, and more of them in a mid level product. The good news is that it seems that the bit depth of the raw files are rather low on the importance of the general quality of the files made. Let's wait and see to see what the files look like. If they aren't good enough, then we can speculate about the decisions they made.
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-30 & K-50
06-12-2012, 08:38 AM
|
| |
As others have said, it's most likely a marketing decision. Considering that it isn't clear that the T3 actually makes better files, the bit depth probably isn't all that important in the comparison.
Thinking out loud, I can imagine a situation where 12 or 14 bit raws could be a trade off of slightly better dynamic range under some conditions vs. more noise or possibly less accurate colors in some other conditions. I'm not an engineer, but I would think that higher bit depths could possibly have a benefit when dealing with lots of light. Any residual noise could be swamped by a strong enough signal coming off the chip. On the other hand, truncating the last two bits in a low light situation could avoid some of the effects of noise when there is a weak signal.
At any rate, those two bits have shown to be really marginal in any case. The point is that there are potential advantages going either way but having a good 12 bit output is always going to be easier, and therefore less expensive, then a good 14 bit output. When designing mass market electronics, a more consistent good is usually a better compromise than a potential better in some situations and worse in others. I don't know what the actual decision making was of course, but all of this makes sense to me, and a the price of the k30 I'm not going to gnash my teeth over a comparison to the k5.
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-30 & K-50
06-11-2012, 05:16 PM
|
| |
Well sure, but that was the K-5, a much more expensive camera when it was released. My comments were about the K30. It isn't clear if the 14 bit raw contributed to the score, but in any case we should wait and see what Pentax does with their new flagship camera.
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-30 & K-50
06-10-2012, 08:28 AM
|
| |
And it isn't just the A/D convertor, it's the entire system. Power supplies, heat, RF, all can add noise to the system. It's a complicated thing, pursuing the cleanest possible signal requires looking at the entire camera and all of its systems.
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-30 & K-50
06-10-2012, 06:49 AM
|
| |
Oh I'm sure they've thought about it a lot. It's all a matter of trade offs. Clearly, the k-30 is meant to sell at a certain price point. Going from 14 to 12 bits is, even in an ideal situation, a marginal difference in image quality. In the end, I think we'll find that it is more or less a "costless" way of economizing so that money can be spent on other things like the focussing system.
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-30 & K-50
06-09-2012, 10:34 AM
|
| |
In an ideal world, having 14 bit raw files would give you more information and thus more wiggle room for PP. in the real world, the information in those last 2 bits is competing against the noise in the system. If you are going to have worthwhile 14 bit output, you have to gave a system with a much better signal to noise ratio. The analog part, and it's conversion to digital is the problem here. Lots of things can put more noise into the sytem before it is converted to digital, even heat causes problems. To get clean 14 bit files requires quite a bit more engineering. That is doable, but it costs more money.
This is a big reason why the visable difference between 12 and 14 bit raw files is so slight. The extra bits don't help if there isn't useable information in it or if the information is swamped by noise. This is why even if a sensor is cabable of recording in 12 bits, it may make sense to limit the output to 12 bits. Smaller files, faster processing, same image quality given the state of the imaging system. I can even imagine a situation where eliminating the last 2 bits could improve the image quality if there is too much noise in them.
|
|
Forum: Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands
06-05-2012, 08:09 AM
|
| |
Yeah, the defocus control was a really interesting experiment. Set at zero, the 135mm f2 is a blazingly sharp lens. The DC adjustment allows you to add more aberations to the image, mostly spherical aberations if I remember correctly. Goes to show that the sharpest lenses aren't always the best choice.
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-01
04-04-2012, 08:19 AM
|
| |
I'm a big supporter of the k-01! I I do disagree with you on what to expect from MJ's blog. It is most definitely his blog, not a camera news blog. I get more information about cameras from other places, I go to TOP to read what Mike has to say about things. Your concerns would be much more valid if places like DPR, Engadget, Mirrorless Rumors, etc. ignored the camera, but they didn't. They are camera news sites and they do indeed cover just about every camera that comes out. TOP doesn't. I think the reactions you are getting in this thread aren't because of hatred for the k-01 (certainly not from me) but because you are talking about Mike Johnson. It is one thing to critique a website, it is quite another to criticize one person, especially when you don't have any information.
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-01
04-03-2012, 08:15 PM
|
| |
More like omitting an opinion in order to not piss off a sponsor. I'm not going to judge him, it's quite clear that he is making enough to get by, but he may not have the luxury to take stands. That is, of course, assuming that there is any kind of stand to be made. It's quite possible that he doesn't think the k-01 is worth making a stand over. It is just a camera after all. Don't get angry at him just because he doesn't have as much interest in your camera as you do. His blog is about photography in general and while I too find it odd that he hasn't said anything about the k-01, it isn't as though he doesn't have anything else to write about. As has been mentioned, he has been getting his print sale together and he's bound to have other things on his plate. We don't know what he thinks about the k-01, but for whatever reason he has deemed it less important than other things. If he does indeed hate it, it will be just one more camera that he doesn't like. He doesn't spend that much time on those. Time to move on I think.
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-01
04-03-2012, 03:52 PM
|
| |
Because he is so design conscious and because Pentax is the only camera company that advertises on his site, I'm left to conclude that he hates it but has decided not to antagonize his advertiser. Surely, if he liked it he would have said something. I too have asked why he hasn't said anything and got no response. How many threads has he had where he moans about how ugly a car is or about how a camera feels and looks? There's no question that he has an opinion of the k-01, but there's also no question that there could be repercussions if he disses it. If it is the case that he hates it, not saying anything might be all he can do. The alternatives are the possible loss of a sponsor or lying to keep the sponsor. Maybe silence is his best option.
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-01
04-02-2012, 09:42 AM
|
| |
1/180 is the fastest shutter speed that has the entire frame exposed at once in the k-01. It's a limitation of a focal plane shutter. Some external flashes have a strobing mode that allows them to use higher shutter speeds but it needs to be synched with the camera system. Point and shoot cameras use a leaf shutter in the lens instead of a focal plane shutter. As soon as the shutter opens, it exposes the entire sensor, that's why you can have flash sync at all speeds. Usually, at least with larger lenses, leaf shutters are limited at the top speeds. In smaller cameras, the shutter also does double duty as the aperture aperture as well. It's all about compromises...
Speaking of compromises, would it be possible to ratchet down the ISO and stop down the lens to get the shutter speed low enough to use flash sync? The good old sunny 16 rule says that you should expect 1/100 at f16 with ISO 100 in full daylight. Does the k-01 have any neutral density features?
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-01
03-24-2012, 04:10 PM
|
| |
I'm going to avoid the house thing as that's a really big mess, cameras are so much simpler:) Any pool of purchases of any product by consumers will have a certain percentage of them turn out badly. That's the nature of buying things that one wants. It isn't clear what Pentax could do to make end users more responsible...
You seem to be under the impression that things that are higher priced automatically have more profit in them. Economies of scale, different labor costs, support, and R&D all eat into overall profits. Bigger companies can be more efficient, smaller companies will have to charge more per item to get back to the percentage of profitability that larger companies have. Companies like Hasselblad, Leica, Sinar, and even Apla were hardly awash with cash. Different products with different markets have to charge different amounts in order to achieve the profitability that they need. There's a reason that Leica has gone bankrupt several times and why Hasselblad has been bought out, they didn't make enough money despite charging more than other companies.
You don't need to account for incomes when adjusting nominal values. We all know what $200 is worth to us today no matter how much or little we make. The inflation calculator is about equalizing nominal costs, not purchasing power. The accuracy of these calculators is a whole different kettle of fish.
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-01
03-24-2012, 03:54 PM
|
| |
But your computer is a general use device, you would own it regardless. Pricing your labor at your hobby the same as your job isn't really all that realistic. But even still, would you spend more or less time in a darkroom? Unless you re actually giving up income in order to do your hobby, I still think you're coming out ahead with digital:)
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-01
03-24-2012, 03:50 PM
|
| |
That is a very simplistic way of looking at production costs and profits. There isn't any reason to think that costs are constant throughout the life of a product. There is every chance that prices decrease as initial fixed costs are erased. Over time, the overall cost of producing another item starts to approach the marginal cost of producing one more item. This holds true throughout the industry. Since no one makes a product that is so superior to the competition, they have to lower their prices as everyone else does in order to move the product. At best, I'm guessing the profits are the same. What is more likely is that profits toward the end cover manufacturing costs as they get hammered by competitive products.
You're still missing my point. Camera companies can charge more (nominally, in real terms they are charging less, but never mind) for the cameras because the overall purchase price has been reduced so much. There is more demand for cameras at these prices because it is still less than what they spent back in the old days. If demand for photography products has stayed constant over the years (I'm pretty sure it has increased overall actually) then the total price that consumers are willing to spend on the hobby will have stayed about the same too. It used to be that a serious photographer would spend more on film and processing than the camera, now almost all of the cost is in the initial camera purchase. That's why camera prices could go up in real terms, even though they haven't.
 Quote: Yes, those companies were the self-defined "elite boutique" set of the old days -- just because they said so, not because there was any particular justification for it --, and they were very rare among the general population. The 35mm SLR cameras of the past were priced like the mid-level and high-end P&S cameras today (and hundreds of millions of people around the world owned them), even though they (35mm SLRs) are actually the direct ancestors of modern dSLRs, not P&S cameras; therefore, dSLRs -- at least mid- and medium-high-level dSLRs -- should not have entered the "elite boutique." Once again with the "shoulds." Nobody knows what "should" be the case in camera manufacturing. You are talking in nominal terms again. In real terms, modern cameras are less than they were back then.
I'll say this though, those cameras were not self-defined elites, they were primarily aiming at the professional markets in a variety of fields ranging from portraiture to weddings, to landscape. Did you ever work in the camera industry? I sold gear from 8 years during the transition from film to digital. Hasselblad, Rollei, Mamiya had their own cost structure and demands that were far different from the mainstream. Yes, you don't think they "should have" cost what they did, but the volumes they sold in and the quality expected coupled with the demand from the end users determined the sales price of the cameras. As it turns out, the prices were as the should have been.
Missing the point again. People that buy specialized things to make money with them will be willing to pay more if they see the potential profitability. Companies cater to professionals in every field. It wouldn't take too much digging to find light bulbs, lawn mowers, pickup trucks, scanners, desks, and even pencils that are made for industrial and professional usage. Yes, they cost more to make, but the reason that they are made at all is because there is a demand for them. It is the intersection of cost+profit and demand that determines what things cost. There is no such thing as what things "should cost.
|
