|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
10-19-2018, 02:08 PM
|
| |
That's not the reason the K-1 can't do 4k video. NONE of the cameras that used the 36 MPix FF sensor found in the K-1 offer 4k video -- not Nikon's, not Sony's. That sensor's read-out rate is simply too slow for 4k video.
|
|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
10-19-2018, 08:12 AM
|
| |
The spill-over benefits from video to still photography are quite limited and better achieved by other means. The biggest obstacle to speed in a camera is NOT the processor, buffer, or class of UHS. It's the sensor. And in many ways, pushing the sensor for video performance means sacrificing still image performance because speed makes everything noisier.
Certainly all the R&D and added product costs to add high-performance video processing chips to implement better video codecs and higher bit-rates is entirely wasted for still images.
The best way to improve still image performance is to invest R&D and component budget in still image performance, not waste it on video.
As for "loudest voice," the length and vehemence of anyone's posts makes no difference to the R&D costs, manufacturing costs, sensor performance, or features of Pentax cameras. Physics and engineering don't care how loud anyone gets.
And the "loudest voice" whether arguing for or against video says nothing about the numbers of people who will buy Pentax cameras with a given level of video features.
|
|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
10-17-2018, 11:40 AM
|
| |
The FF debate is really a version of Goldilocks and the Three (or Six) Sensor Formats.
The range of ILC sensor sizes from 1" to micro 4/3rds to APS-C to full 35 mm to crop 645 to full 645 etc. etc. create a bathtub curve in trade-offs. Most photographers might agree that a 1" sensor may be "too small" to get clean images. And most photographers might agree that a full 645 sensor may be "too large" to carry. But the middle sweet spot depends on each photographer's tastes -- whether lighter weight and reach is sweeter than low noise and shallow DoF.
Personally, I love the K-1 but then I'm more of a wide-to-normal FoV photographer who doesn't mind carrying 7 kg of camera and lenses on an all-day hike. But I can see why others would prefer tiny lenses on a tiny body with a tiny sensor.
|
|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
08-19-2018, 04:57 PM
|
| |
But that same logic also hobbles optical stabilization due to limits on the feasible range of moving the large elements of a "Super-TELE" while maintaining good optical IQ. Moreover, both types of systems are equally prone to motion sensor errors which are more magnified at longer focal lengths.
The result is that the number of stops of stabilization (defined by the ratio of the slowest usable shutter speed relative to the 1/F rule of thumb) really does not vary from ultra wide angle to super tele for either system.
The proof of this is in Nikon's own spec sheets (https://www.nikonimgsupport.com/eu/BV_article?articleNo=000006390&configured=1&lang=en_GB). The number of stops of stabilization in Nikon lenses (most are about 3-4 stops by the CIPA standard) shows no obvious trends from wide to tele. Moreover, every one of Nikon's lenses is worse than the K-1 which has 5-stops of stabilization by the CIPA standard.
|
|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
08-17-2018, 08:36 AM
|
| |
Alas, yes. And one word explains the why: pixelpeeping.
|
|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
07-09-2018, 05:53 PM
|
| |
Today's supply chains are much more complex than the old "everything made in one place" model. There's a recent story about the crankshaft of the BMW Mini. It is first cast in France, then machined in the UK, then put in the engine in Germany, and then assembled in the car back in different place in the UK.
For Pentax lenses, production of glass blanks might be done by multiple suppliers (specialized by material). Grinding and polishing the lenses might be some place else. Coatings might be applied at a third factory. Subassembly of some element groups might be done in fourth place (if it requires special cements). And final mechanical assembly could be in fifth place. Manufacturing has become so specialized that few facilities can do it all. High-value products like lenses justify a lot of shipping to do each step where it can be most effectively done.
|
|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
11-23-2017, 12:43 PM
|
| |
That I love my K-1 and would not swap my Pentax system for any other system on the market (even for free!) tells you how important frame rate is to me.
Some would say the K-1 already is the true Pentax flagship but I'm sure there's room for two flagships -- one for FF and one for APS-C. Many on this site present very good arguments for the advantages of APS-C over FF for many telephoto, travel, and macro shooting situations in which longer reach, higher frame-rate, or smaller size matter. And the KP and the DA 11-18 show Pentax sees APS-C as a key market. Thus, a K-3 successor with high frame rate and a deep buffer would make sense. No doubt Pentax would improve the AF, too. They'll probably adapt SAFOX 12 to the APS-C mirror box and add ongoing AF algorithm improvements.
Getting out of "last place" in the AF race is a huge undertaking. Nothing in DSLR AF is off-the-shelf. Replicating the untold man-years and millions of dollars of AF development done by Nikon and others seems very unlikely. For legal reasons, Pentax can't just copy Nikon's or Canon's proprietary chips and software. Moreover, Nikon & Canon aren't standing still. Even if Pentax could replicate D500 AF for the next camera, they'd still be in last place because Nikon would have added something new to AF.
Does being in last place in AF (or any other camera attribute) actually mean anything? If the camera's AF is good enough for the photographer to get the pictures they want, then the ranking is irrelevant unless bragging rights matter more than photo quality. Normhead and many others on this site have proven they can get the in-focus pictures of moving subjects they want with Pentax AF. Yet others write about troubles they have with Pentax AF and or have found it easier to get the images they want other brands. It seems clear that Canikon AF is better than Pentax AF and that some types of photographers need that performance in some situations. It's just as clear that Pentax AF is not bad for most types of photographers in most situations.
It all comes back to finding the right tool for the job with the realization that not tool makers offer tools for all jobs (e.g., Nikon and Canon are dead last in IBIS). I sincerely hope, on your behalf, that Pentax AF technology (or your understanding of how to use of it) improves enough to make Pentax a viable choice for you. But I don't think Pentax has to beat Nikon to do that.
|
|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
11-22-2017, 11:05 AM
|
| |
The funny thing is I'd use your same arguments to say Canon and Nikon are pathetically behind on IBIS and Sony's lack of OVFs on their main system makes them unusable for many. It's the users of Canon, Nikon, and Sony who are living contented within the limitations of their brands and their brands' refusal to fix those limitations.
Every camera and camera system on the market has limitations. It's up to each photographer to decide which limitations are deal breakers, deal influencers, or irrelevant. In some cases, the exact same attribute (e.g., small/large size, or mirrorless/DSLR) that's a requirement for one photographer is a deal breaker for another.
For me and a bunch of others, Pentax AF is good enough and getting better. It's just not a limitation for us. And there are other features offered by Pentax that the other brands simply cannot or won't offer that make the other brands too limited for consideration.
To each, his own.
|
|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
10-20-2017, 10:47 AM
|
| |
I'm hoping the new 85/1.4 will be able to gather so much sunlight that it can fry bacon.
How many SMUs high do we think it will be?
And will it be be as big as a large can of Fosters?
;)
|
|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
10-20-2017, 07:51 AM
|
| |
Indeed!
They seem to know that Pentax makes some darn fine cameras despite the doom-and-gloom mutterings of Pentax-pessimists.
|
|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
10-19-2017, 07:43 AM
|
| |
Exactly!
An interview with a Sigma executive revealed that even they need two to three years to develop a new lens.
It takes time to create a new optical formula for a new lens especially if you want the lens to be really sharp, bright, nice bokeh, fast-AF, etc.
And a big part of the challenge is finding a bright optical formula that stays sharp with nice bokeh even with natural variations in the element, group, and housing dimensions. Then it takes more time to get the manufacturing right so that every copy of the lens is good enough (which is again harder if you want the lens to be really sharp, bright, and nice bokeh).
|
|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
10-14-2017, 09:15 AM
|
| |
If the D-FA* 85mm f1.4 isn't mirrorless, I'm outa here, too! ;)
|
|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
09-28-2017, 08:19 AM
|
| |
Yes, "the public" (technically only that minuscule fraction of the public that might be interested in a stand-alone camera) must know Pentax exists. But to say that advertising is the only way anyone ever learns of the existence of a product seems quite wrong. ( Personally, I learned of Pentax and the K10D from a friend.) And to further assume advertising is a cost-effective way certainly compounds the potentially flawed logic. In an era of social media word of mouth, consumer skepticism of corporations, click-fraud, and ad blockers, I wonder if advertising is a huge waste of money but I readily admit that I don't know.
The drivers of sales is only half the equation. There's a big trade-off between the drivers of sales (e.g., the list of whiz bang features, performance levels, camera architectures du jour, and marketing) and the drivers of costs (e.g., R&D, manufacturing, purchased components, inventory, marketing, and services). We all have our personal opinions about what might drive sales the most although I'd expect Ricoh probably has better actual data on this based on their own sales figures and high-level contacts within the industry. What we lack is good estimates on the costs -- how much does it actually cost to design and manufacture a new lens, or a mirrorless camera with a suite of lenses, or world-class AF??? We don't know.
|
|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
09-28-2017, 05:44 AM
|
| |
And talk about how Ricoh should talk more.:D
|
|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
09-26-2017, 09:13 AM
|
| |
I agree with you!
Unless the marketing is effective, it just makes the cameras and lenses more expensive without making them any better. That's why Canikons cost so much more than Pentax despite the clear economies of scale that Canikon has -- their camera prices reflect the millions of dollars Canikon spend on marketing (ads, retailer incentives, etc.). Canikon buyers pay for all those ads and incentive when they pay for equipment.
I think its too easy to cherry-picking those viral, entertaining v-loggers that top the viewership lists as if creating those channels is something that is easy to do. For every successful gopro marketer, there's a 1000 that suck. And if Ricoh can crack the code that makes viral advertising without a big budget, they should dump all their other businesses because there's lots of companies that would pay billions of dollars for the secret of cheap viral marketing.
Effective marketing really does cost real money. Marketing is guaranteed to increase costs but offers no guarantees that it will boost sales sufficiently to actually increase profits.
|
|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
09-25-2017, 07:02 AM
|
| |
Exactly!
The mechanical design of a great MF cine lens (highly-damped element movement driven by very fine-pitch helicoids or cam barrels) is very different from the mechanical design of a great AF photography lens (undamped element movement driven by a coarse-pitch or short-throw cam).
Moreover, the Tokina lenses were designed under cine optical constraints -- no focus breathing -- that significantly complicate the optical design in ways that either add cost or force compromises in other optical performance dimensions (sharpness, bokeh, distortion, aberrations, etc.) In order to create a lens that does not breath, the front nodal point cannot move and the focal length must widen slightly as the lens focuses to correct for changes in imaging geometry caused by focusing. A designer of a still-photography lens would neither need nor want to live under the "no breathing" constraint. (It's just another example of why great cine and great photography really are two different applications requiring two different product lines.)
It's not impossible that Tokina and Pentax pooled their resources to create the baseline optical design, each then designed different housings and manufacturing systems, and then they split the market into Pentax AF still photography and non-Pentax MF cinematography versions but it seems unlikely. The design differences for the two applications mean less engineering cost sharing than first appears, less commonality in manufacturing, and either added costs or performance compromises.
|
|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
09-22-2017, 12:44 PM
|
| |
Exactly!
Average companies selling to average consumers must make average products.
I don't think the management of the local steakhouse is thinking "gee we need to jump on the cheap hamburger trend ASAP."
Banging heads with entrenched competitors is just a recipe for brain damage.
|
|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
09-22-2017, 07:19 AM
|
| |
Millions buy McDonalds burgers every day but that doesn't mean they are the best or even good.
Popularity and quality are not always correlated.
|
|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
09-20-2017, 02:34 PM
|
| |
Tell that to Genghis Khan! He and his fellow soldiers drank fermented mare's milk.
|
|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
09-18-2017, 10:55 AM
|
| |
Quite true!
If all Ricoh were doing was slapping new coatings & motors on old lenses, they might be able to post a more aggressive and certain timeline of releases.
Instead, they seem to be attempting to create signature lenses of a quality and performance level that befits the K-1, pixel shift, and the needs of more discerning photographers in an era where only discerning photographers buy standalone cameras.
But that creates a very frustrating condition in the internet era when everyone expects game-changer products on a monthly basis.
|
|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
09-18-2017, 08:00 AM
|
| |
But we do know what the plan is: there's the lens roadmap, Ricoh's statements about forthcoming lenses, and the history of recent releases (which tend to show a bias toward delaying a launch rather than shipping crap on time).
The real issue is that the plan does not have hard release dates because even the top execs at Ricoh do not know when the design and manufacturing engineers will reach the desired performance/quality/cost targets for the products.
|
|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
02-28-2017, 06:35 PM
|
| |
There's a full-size Canon 70-200 f/2.8 white L-lens mug that you'd love. Even the stabilizer, AF, and focus limiter switches "work."
|
|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
02-26-2017, 10:10 AM
|
| |
What made you zoom to that conclusion?
|
|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
02-26-2017, 07:54 AM
|
| |
That's a polarizing issue! ;)
|
|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
02-25-2017, 08:12 AM
|
| |
I would not read much into the empty lens shell at CP+. To a large extent, the prototyping of the optics and the prototyping of the case can be parallel activities. Ricoh almost certainly has some butt-ugly brassboard prototypes of the optics lurking the R&D labs but those are not suitable for show.
Older primes may have been simple, but newer, high-performance primes are more like zooms in having internal focus and floating elements (i.e., more than one moving internal subassembly just like a zoom). Both the Otus 55/1.4 and Sigma 50/1.4 have a dozen or more elements (nearly twice the number of the old FA 50/1.4).
What's interesting is that RIcoh also makes copiers which, like high-end cameras are in a declining industry. But that does not mean a company cannot thrive. They just have to be careful.
The typical technology growth industry strategy of grabbing marketshare at any cost is very popular for smartphones and other fast-paced consumer electronics. But it is utterly wrong for mature or declining industries -- it's a recipe for bankruptcy. I think Ricoh knows this and are investing more modestly in R&D to create viable products at a sustainable pace. I tend to believe kenspo's assertions that Pentax has exciting things going on but also suspect that it's going to be a slow stream of new products rather than a blast that releases brand-new portfolios of products all at once.
|
