|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
01-25-2019, 03:36 AM
|
| |
Of course. But that's the point isn't it. You have to have similar viewing sizes (hopefully printed) for any of this to make sense. What noise there is at a pixel level doesn't matter to me, I just want to know how much it is going to affect the final image that I display. As I said before, I don't how much downsampling really affects the end resulting image, but what I do know is that in the real world it allows for a lot more post processing. As for whether it is in the RAW file, clearly it is, it is just that the 16 megapixel image starts to show noise in the shadows a lot faster than the 36 megapixel full frame one does.
I shoot my K-1 at iso 12K and have decent results. I didn't like to shoot my K5 II over iso 3200 because the noise started to be problematic and the dynamic range just wasn't there. Maybe that's all voodoo and made up stuff, but it feels like a real difference when I am looking at printed images and that's what matters to me.
|
|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
01-24-2019, 03:26 PM
|
| |
The whole point of equivalence is that you have to have a point of reference. There needs to be some size sensor camera that you are used to shooting. For me, oddly, I was used to shooting APS-C cameras, ever since the K-100 came out and equivalence helped me to understand, not just how focal lengths look different when shot on a different size sensor, but also how depth of field changes. I was used to shooting my DA 15 at f8 on APS-C and suddenly, I was shooting at f8 on a K-1 and I didn't have the same in focus range to my images. It didn't take too long to figure it out, but knowing that I had to stop down a bit more was helpful. The fact that I liked the FA 77 on APS-C let me know that I would like a 135mm prime on full frame.
The whole point of the equations is not to "prove" anything, but to help us to understand how to move between formats and get similar results to what we are used to on whatever format we are used to. It also does explain why larger sensors tend to perform better than smaller ones.
---------- Post added 01-24-19 at 05:27 PM ----------
Why wouldn't you use your FA 77 on the K-1 II? :)
|
|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
01-24-2019, 04:15 AM
|
| |
I only halfway agree with you. Yes, the print tab on DXO Mark gives you some sort of calculated averaging of noise and dynamic range. But is this calculation real world or just some made up thing?
If you look at a K5 and K-1 image at 100 percent, they will look exactly the same with regard to noise and dynamic range. If, on the other hand, you print both images at, say, A3 size, the K-1 image is going to look better. This makes sense because if you have more megapixels of the same quality, they help your final image, even if on a pixel level the dynamic range and noise for each individual pixel is exactly the same. I'm not smart enough to know if DXO Mark's calculations are valid, but I do know that to truly compare images you need to print them at the same size, not zoom in to the pixel level, when the number of pixels is vastly different from one camera to another.
|
|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
01-23-2019, 10:42 AM
|
| |
Actually, using equivalency, 35mm is better than medium format digital as the lenses are faster at equivalent focal lengths.
|
|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
01-23-2019, 04:10 AM
|
| |
I've never found these sort of discussions particularly helpful. It often seemed to come down to someone who was a full frame evangelist proving that it was the best format because no other size sensor has as wide equivalent aperture lenses available for it. And if the goal of photography is to shoot lenses wide open, I'm afraid I've failed many times. Nearly all of the photos I take, including portraits of my kids, are stopped down a bit.
I think where equivalence was helpful was when people who were familiar with 35mm lens behavior started shooting digital with a smaller sensor, or vice versa, when people who were used to crop sensors started shooting with a larger sensor. In all honesty, I don't think about it at all. If I am shooting with my K3 or my K-1, I just choose a lens and then frame and shoot. It seems to work for me.
|
|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
01-23-2019, 03:38 AM
|
| |
Can we just say that larger sensors tend to have more dynamic range and less noise at a given iso and leave it at that?
|
|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
01-22-2019, 04:16 AM
|
| |
We have had long discussions on the forum about "equivalency." Which is to say that if you want to take a photo with one size sensor the is exactly the same as one another size you have to change everything. So, a shot taken at iso 100, 135mm, 1/200 second and f2.8 on APS-C is roughly equivalent to a shot taken at iso 200, f4, 1/200 second and 200mm on full frame. Noise and dynamic range and depth of field should all be the same. The thing is that it is hard to get fast enough lenses on smaller format to "match" the equivalent speeds of lenses on full frame.
Clearly most people don't need maximal dynamic range and low noise and at lower isos, smaller sensors do quite well. Just as clearly, it is assumed that technology on the larger sensor is the same as that on the smaller sensor, but that isn't always the case and if you are comparing, say, a Canon 5D MK III to a KP, the KP will actually do better than you would expect based on these formula.
|
|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
01-21-2019, 04:00 AM
|
| |
I think ergonomics from a professional standpoint includes a couple of different things. First of all, of course, is simply the comfortability of shooting a piece of gear for several hours. Here, many smaller cameras aren't comfortable and certainly smart phones aren't. The second is what you mention here, which is the ability to change settings quickly and without removing your eye from the viewfinder. This is something where the K-1 really accels and I assume the KP does too. You just don't have to go into menus to switch your iso/aperture/shutter speed, but furthermore, it is very easy to access functions like pixel shift, bracketing and many other things without menu diving.
There are many features on cameras that don't ever get used because they are hidden in some inner menu that most users don't get to. Pentax is different and I like that.
|
|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
01-20-2019, 12:15 PM
|
| |
I haven't used a Takumar 50, but the FA 50 f1.4 really wasn't great below about f2.8. Everything had a sort of soft glow about it. I have like the DA *55 for that reason, but even it isn't great at f1.4, unlike the DFA *50.
I really think the whole point of having top end glass is to try to eke out medium format quality images from a smaller format.
|
|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
01-20-2019, 07:23 AM
|
| |
Most lenses on an MILC will be the same size as on an SLR, assuming the same focal length covered, same aperture, and similar correction to things like distortion. The only smaller lenses are those primes with focal lengths right around the registration distance, hence really small 40-ish mm lenses for SLRs and small 20-ish mm primes for MILCs.
Regardless, the point is that once you have decided to carry a bag, the only question is what size that bag will be and what the gear in that bag costs. But I will say that it is tougher to see the difference between smart phone photos and kit lens photos shot around 24 to 30mm on an SLR, particularly at web sizes. Just simply introducing a telephoto lens to the equation, as you did, tips the balance strongly in favor of an ILC.
|
|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
01-20-2019, 03:29 AM
|
| |
Smart phone cameras have gotten pretty good. They are good enough for a lot of people. Those who value higher image quality are willing to pay for it, both with regard to price of gear and with needing to lug around bigger cameras and lenses.
But most people are still OK shooting with their smart phones. Or tablets. It is crazy how many people at some event are trying to shoot photos of their kids or some such thing with an ipad. Looks like an ergonomic nightmare to me, but I guess each to his own.
|
|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
01-19-2019, 02:53 PM
|
| |
I thought it was just a shorter registration distance, not a wider diameter. The EOS mount could already do an f2 zoom, it's just that till now, Canon didn't choose to make one. Sigma makes a 24-35 f2 that is compatible with F mount and EOS mount right now (and only weighs 940 grams) and is only priced at 800.
The main reasons for a new mount are to allow a maximum number of other mount's lenses to be usable on said mirrorless camera. At least that is the stated reason. Clearly, Canon and Nikon hope to sell at least a few Z mount and EOS-R lenses, rather than simply have people purchase adapters and older EOS full frame lenses or F mount lenses.
|
|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
01-19-2019, 02:30 PM
|
| |
I understand, but these PDAF sites are less light sensitive often than other dedicated systems on SLRs and they can produce weird banding and artifacts in certain conditions. It doesn't feel like the best solution in the long run for people who want maximal image quality -- particularly as each iteration of a sensor seems to add more of these PDAF sites to a given sensor.
|
|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
01-19-2019, 06:06 AM
|
| |
You're probably right, but I guess I think that these are more the sort of lenses that give mystique to a system but extremely few people actually purchase. No professional photographer is going to shoot a wedding or even a portrait shoot with a 28-70 f2 lens. It is just way too big. They'll use a 24-70 f2.8 (I suppose adapted at this point) and use primes if they want something faster. The people who will purchase lenses like these will be wealthy amateurs who have to have "the best," regardless of the cost.
I will say that the more I read about PDAF on the sensor the more dubious I am for it as a long term solution. Even Falconeye said that he thought it was at best a transition step till contrast auto focus was good enough -- mainly because it inserted its own set of problems into the equation.
|
|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
01-19-2019, 04:02 AM
|
| |
Too true.
Why didn't Canon just stick with EOS mount on their mirrorless cameras? I suppose they would argue that they can make a little faster lenses or make their camera bodies slightly thinner or even allow for the mounting of third party lenses, but the reality is that it means a lot of new lens sales for Canon users when EOS sales had probably plateaued long ago and Canon wasn't sure what else to bring out.
Were Canon users really clamoring for a 3000 dollar 28-70 f2 zoom that weighs 1430 grams? Not too sure about that. The same with Nikon's really expensive 58mm f0.95. In the end Canon and Nikon won't sell many copies of these, but they will sell a bunch of 24-70 f4 lenses to folks who already owned versions for F and EOS mount and that should help their sales. In addition, Canon and Nikon's first forays into mirrorless aren't perfect and so people will be waiting for version two to jump on board or upgrade.
|
|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
01-18-2019, 09:11 AM
|
| |
Who's this "we?" Are you really waiting for a new Pentax camera?
|
|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
01-18-2019, 08:42 AM
|
| |
I think we will know a bit more with regard to Pentax's next steps by the end of the year. There are a number of cameras that are creeping towards needing to be replaced and oddly two of the biggest ones are at opposite ends of the spectrum -- the 645Z and the K70. Asahiman indicated that there might be a new full frame camera this year as well, although to me, the K-1 doesn't feel as due for a refresh as some of the other models.
|
|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
01-18-2019, 03:29 AM
|
| |
I think the big point is that size is not nearly as important as functionality. You've said many times that you think it is really important that every ILC that Pentax produces have a viewfinder, even if it makes the camera a little bigger. Through the years, Pentax has at points chased tiny size, particularly with certain entry level cameras like the Kx and K-S1.
Pentax shouldn't deliberately release cameras that are bigger than they need to be, but their focus needs to be on having the specifications the market expects for a certain level camera, whether that is frame rate, buffer size, or other specifications.
|
|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
01-17-2019, 06:53 AM
|
| |
Of course. The oddest ones to me are the people who have bought non-Pentax gear but still come back to tell us (a) how great their new cameras are and (b) how Pentax should make a camera like the one they have (A9, D750, etc).
As you have mentioned in other threads, when these people post images they often look almost exactly the same as the images they had before switching. ;)
|
|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
01-17-2019, 06:48 AM
|
| |
I just really think there are two strands that you see. One is folks who have decided that Pentax should do something different from what Pentax has typically focused on. These are photographers who want Pentax to do better in video, go with a mirrorless design and new mount, or some such thing. The other group or people who are satisfied with SLR designs, but just want to see Pentax release more gear. They often have a particular thing they are looking for -- a K3 II sequel, a DFA *85 f1.4, etc -- and are simply bothered at the slow pace of releases.
I understand the second group better. It is the first group that bothers me because Pentax has never focused on video, has never indicated that they are interested in doing full frame mirrorless with a new mount or any such things. To me, it is akin to marrying a wife and then telling her that you are bothered that she is five feet six inches tall and has red hair when she has had these qualities all along.
|
|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
01-17-2019, 04:11 AM
|
| |
People have been clamoring here for a K3 II replacement and one of the big problems with the KP is that it only has one card slot, making it not useful to the pro folks who want/need two card slots. I can't begin to imagine the out cry here if Pentax released a 3500 dollar camera with only one card slot. And then claimed it was because they couldn't fit in a second because of size constraints. And then told us that they had gone with a new card version that wasn't backwards compatible and would require both new (expensive) cards and new readers.
I, at the least, would be pretty upset.
|
|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
01-17-2019, 03:40 AM
|
| |
The big thing with Pentax is that they need to upgrade the version of SD Card they support. I would think they could move to SDHC or XC cards going forward and that would allow for a lot faster write speeds and would help with buffer clearing.
The biggest problem with the Z7 is that it is priced really high but still only has one card slot. This automatically eliminates it and the Z6 from much of the professional market. Many pros are just not willing to shoot with a camera that doesn't have two card slots. Sure, the chance of a card failing is low, but if you are shooting a wedding, a hopefully once in a lifetime event, and you lose a 120 GB card with all or half your images on it, there is no way to fix the situation. Video is probably different and for that, you probably just want the fastest write speeds to a card that you can find. I agree that the cost of the cards is high, but if you are spending 3500 dollars on a camera, you probably are OK with getting an additional accessory that costs a couple hundred.
|
|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
01-16-2019, 11:54 AM
|
| |
Firmware updates are fine assuming the hardware is up to the improvements and also assuming a company has enough revenue coming in from other sources or charging enough for said firmware improvements to pay for them. Most of the time firmware updates smack more of a company that rushed a product to market and has to fix things or enable things that should have been right from the beginning.
|
|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
01-16-2019, 03:39 AM
|
| |
The problem a lot of companies have is that they keep older models around far too long, often with lower prices. I'm never sure if this is a business model or just because they manufactured too many in the first place and they don't want to make it officially discontinued until the old stock is sold.
Sony is still selling the A7, a camera that was released in October of 2013 -- and I think every full frame camera they have released since then. Clearly for them it is a business model in which rather than making an entry level camera with fewer features, they just keep cameras around and lower their prices.
---------- Post added 01-16-19 at 05:47 AM ----------
The thing is that new cameras are what sell and the new cameras that came out last year were nearly all of the mirrorless variety. By all accounts mirrorless should have had the majority of sales last year based on the Z, EOS-R and other mirrorless cameras that hit the market, combined with the dearth of new top end SLRs. It just didn't happen. Some people just like an optical viewfinder and will keep buying them as long as they are available.
If Ricoh is one of the few brands that continues to invest in still photography and SLR experience, they certainly could continue to do well going forward. They don't need a 40 percent share of the market. They just need each product they release to at least break even or generate some profit. I think it is clear that they have all done that.
I imagine that their product cycle is going to space out a bit. There is no reason to release a new APS-C camera every year to eighteen months. People don't update their cameras that often and those camera bodies end up just sitting on shelves.
Anyway, there is no particular reason for gloom, but unfortunately, the time between product releases is probably going to be long than we like.
|
|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
01-15-2019, 05:38 PM
|
| |
I guess I would add that the K-1 sequel should be an SLR that "checks all the boxes." That is to say that it has better frame rate and auto focus, it has better video, and it maintains excellent still image quality. It keeps the top end ergonomics Pentax is well known for. I guess I'm seeing 8 fps, 4K video, buffer size that is double that of the K-1, and improved shake reduction. Body size just slightly smaller than the K-1, but still with excellent build and weather sealing. A true silent shooting mode available and live view auto focus that is pretty nice. It will include an accelerator, but will allow it be disabled below iso 1600. Price tag in the 2200 to 2500 range.
K-1 II will remain on the market for at least a year after this camera's release and be a cheaper option for those who don't need the K-1 III's specs.
|
