 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / April 2006New line of Pentax DSLRs is coming! (soon?)
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1036&message=18021050 Thus, the current *ist Dx line will soon come to an end. Note that the K-100D shown in the Russian Photo Gear Expo is a fully functional one and there are also sample RAW files by following down the thread! I think for anyone who might want to buy a *ist DL, DS, DL2 or DS2 now should hold on the plan as the new K-100D has the SR (Shake Reduction) in-body and this would be an extremely useful feature if it really works! Well, all our all Pentax lenses (probably limited to those AF ones) will automatically be turned into IS ones! It sounds really very attractive afterall. RiceHigh http://www.geocities.com/ricehigh > http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1036&message=18021050 > > Thus, the current *ist Dx line will soon come to an end. Note that the > K-100D shown in the Russian Photo Gear Expo is a fully functional one > and there are also sample RAW files by following down the thread! RH- This is actually quite bad news. Six MP sensors have been out for at least 3 years now. There is no excuse for Pentax not moving up, especially since they have greater capability in their MF cameras. It will likely be another year before these bodies are readily available. By that time, there should be Twelve MP sensors in bodies that would compete with the *ist-D line, such as the Canon 20D/30D, and perhaps Twentyfour MP in the higher end bodies. I'm all for keeping up with technology, but anti-shake alone is NOT sufficient reason to upgrade from my *ist DS. Fred > This is actually quite bad news. Six MP sensors have been out for at > least 3 years now. There is no excuse for Pentax not moving up They are. A 10MP DSLR and a medium format camera were both announced a month or so ago. There some talk about it here, but as usual, most of the discussion was on dpreview. --------------- Marc Sabatella marc@outsideshore.com Music, art, & educational materials Featuring "A Jazz Improvisation Primer" http://www.outsideshore.com/ > > This is actually quite bad news. Six MP sensors have been out for at > > least 3 years now. There is no excuse for Pentax not moving up > > They are. A 10MP DSLR and a medium format camera were both announced a > month or so ago. There some talk about it here, but as usual, most of > the discussion was on dpreview. Marc- As I understand it, the Pentax cameras were mockups, not to be available for some time yet. I've had several cameras over the years. Each time I upgraded, the pixel count had doubled until I got to the 6MP Canon Rebel 300D. I bought the 6MP Pentax a year later after being disappointed in the Canon's poor kit lens and poor focus accuracy. The Pentax is quite a nice camera for most purposes. I don't HAVE to upgrade. I might go for a newer model, but not unless the pixel count has at least doubled. And my new requirement is that the sensor must be full frame. The time has come for a 12+ MP full frame sensor on a less expensive body. I may have to wait another year, but I'm not in a hurry. (For a little more money, Canon's 5D is there now.) Fred >> > This is actually quite bad news. Six MP sensors have been out for at >> > least 3 years now. There is no excuse for Pentax not moving up [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >As I understand it, the Pentax cameras were mockups, not to be available >for some time yet. Not quite. At PMA Pentax showed a mockup of the 10MP camera under glass (together with a revised mockup of the 645D). There was much speculation as to just what the unlabelled switch on the back of the camera was, but the general belief was that is was for shake reduction. But, earlier this month, the Pentax distributor in Russia showed *two* new cameras at a public show. At least one was a working model, and some images from it have since been posted on the web by members of the Russian Pentax owner's club. It's a 6MP camera, identifying itself as the K100D, and includes the mystery switch (now labelled, confirming that this is indeed shake reduction). Pentax Japan are reported to be seriously unhappy about this. >I've had several cameras over the years. Each time I upgraded, the pixel >count had doubled until I got to the 6MP Canon Rebel 300D. I bought the [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >have to wait another year, but I'm not in a hurry. (For a little more >money, Canon's 5D is there now.) If you want so-called full frame, your only option is likely to be a Canon. Pentax have pretty much confirmed that they view APS-C as being the way to go for consumer digital - they expect the pro market to go for the 645D. Personally, I don't really care what size the sensor is. The new wide angle lenses (14mm, 16-45 & 12-24 zooms) aren't cheap, but they're likely to be cheaper than the extra cost of putting a 24x36 sensor in a DSLR for the next few years. Just as long as the camera delivers results. I expect I'll buy the new 10MP Pentax when it comes out. I'm currently using their first model - a *ist-D - so in addition to the extra pixels and the shake reduction system I also get a larger buffer, a much faster frame rate, and several other minor improvements. According to feedback from the Russian show the AF on the new cameras is much better, as well. (This was strongly suggested in an interview with the head of Pentax at or around the time of the PMA show, although he gave no specific details). It is also rumoured that the new body (and the new f2.8 DA zoom lenses coming shortly thereafter) will incorporate some kind of USM focussing. > Pentax Japan are reported to be seriously unhappy about this. Why this would make Pentax Japan unhappy if this news has made nearly all of the current Pentax users happy? The news actually boosted the image of Pentax and it has shown that the future of Pentax would be brighter and that they do actually have *new* products and technologies (I mean "new" to Pentax), instead of making endless clone of their once-successful *ist DS camera body by themselves and by Samsung. > It is also rumoured that the new body (and the new f2.8 DA zoom lenses coming shortly thereafter) will incorporate some kind of USM focussing. Is it possible to incorporate the USM motor in-body such that all the old AF lenses are turned into USM ones automatically? If it can, then we just need one DSLR body which is capable of IS and USM and we don't need any individual IS and/or USM lenses anymore! RiceHigh http://www.geocities.com/ricehigh It's amazing how slow Pentax is, historically. The "Metalica" was a bayonet-mount Spotmatic from 1966 but the K bodies, their first bayonet mount units, didn't come out until 1974! And things haven't changed. I understand, and agree, that they should be upset about a supplier screwing up their marketing plans. But it seems what they really need is a new approach to marketing. Something radical. (For Pentax, anything is radical.) Collin Brendemuehl KC8TKA >It's amazing how slow Pentax is, historically. The "Metalica" was a >bayonet-mount Spotmatic from 1966 but the K bodies, their first bayonet [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >Something radical. >(For Pentax, anything is radical.) Once Pentax had lost the pro 35mm market to Nikon, there was no going back. The K mount cameras were too late to restore Pentax's pro market share, so all further developments since then, with the sole exception of the 1980 LX, were aimed at the keen amateur, or what we now call the 'prosumer' market. Pentax's caution has paid enormous dividends. The company is financially sound, delivering steady profits and a very good return on capital employed. Given that caution has ensured Pentax's survival, indeed prosperity, why would the company want to do anything radical? Radical ideas and products carry risks, and that is especially true in digital photography. Let Canon, Nikon and Olympus do the innovation and take the risks. Meanwhile, Pentax users have enjoyed probably the best continuity of any (former) 35mm-based system, with screw mount Takumars working very well on DSLRs. However, one thing Pentax have done is quite radical. In the time since the release of the 16-45mm DA lens, Pentax have changed almost all lens production over to DA format lenses. Pentax DSLR users will soon have probably the best range of lenses dedicated to the APS digital format. The new Pentax DSLRs (6.1 and 10.4 MP) will have anti-shake and USM will feature on future lenses. These are features that Pentax users have been asking for, and Pentax have delivered. Slowly? Maybe. But unnecessary risks have not been taken and the company is profitable, stable and extremely soundly managed. That's the best possible outcome for Pentax users. If you need to know how things might have turned out if Pentax had taken risks, look no further than the unmitigated disaster otherwise known as Konica Minolta. I used the term "radical" as a hyperbole. The company has some of the most fantastic lenses out there. But they're 6 years behind in digital. I don't think they need to try to take over a large portion of the marketshare overnight. That would be fiscally suicidal. But to take 4 years instead of 6 might pay some nice benefits. That's all. Just a little bit quicker. Collin Collin, I second your views here totally. It's just a game of catching up but not a true head-to-head competition. RiceHigh http://www.geocities.com/ricehigh >I used the term "radical" as a hyperbole. >The company has some of the most fantastic lenses out there. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >But to take 4 years instead of 6 might pay some nice benefits. >That's all. Just a little bit quicker. I understand your frustration, but I don't share it. I recall that Pentax were once at the forefront of digital technology with the full frame MZ-D but pulled out of the project shortly before launch. The Contax N Digital launched using the exact same shared technology was a complete disaster. The huge investment in, and near-zero sales of, the Contax N Digital spelt the end for Kyocera's Contax/Carl Zeiss Japanese venture. Konica Minolta later went exactly the same way. Thankfully, Pentax pulled back from the brink and, as a result, survive in a very strong financial position. If this is the result of commercial caution then I am more than content that Pentax is a cautious company. The design of the *ist D may be several years old, but in terms of image-making quality it is very competitive with current models from Canon and Nikon. Mine has had a lot of hard use on a very demanding ongoing contract and is still delivering the goods, with sensor cleaning (twice) being the only attention needed. The new Pentax DSLR models due later in 2006 will have anti-shake and USM. Maybe those features are several years behind Canon and Nikon but I repeat; that cautious approach means survival to Pentax. Where Pentax has lost none of its skill is in making fine lenses. With the exception of the "Limited" lenses for 35mm film, all of the 2007 production Pentax lenses will be purpose-designed for the APS-size sensor. They are/will be light and compact and have/will have the excellent optical performance that we have expected of Pentax lenses for over four decades. Pentax delivers! I think all of this is worth waiting for, especially as it guarantees the future of Pentax as a stable and prosperous company. So please be patient! > The design of the *ist D may be several years old, but in terms of image-making quality it is very competitive with current models from Canon and Nikon. I just wish to make a short comment that the image quality of my *ist DS won my *ist D hands down and thus I don't think it can stand against for any competition with any *current* model of any brand, no matter they are P, C or N ones. It's yet good and normal as the digital image quality is being improved over time. RiceHigh http://www.geocities.com/ricehigh Certainly Pentax' digital quality is excellent. But I am worried about the lens side. Seems that they're soon to have a bunch built by Tokina. Now, I like Tokina. But it's just not the same. ; ( Collin I am again with Collin here. The older Pentax optics are superb and unique. Now that their new DA lenses are not something that really matched with the old stuff, IMHO. For example, the DA 40 pancake has inferior optical performance to the older FA 43 limited, despite it seems to have a higher resolution and slightly compact design. Or, it is just not up to my taste in color reproduction and bokeh etc. I like the traditional taste of old Pentax optics but none of the DA and DFA lenses I have owned so far can please me in that way. I bet Collin will know what I'm saying! What I can do is to sigh that "those were the days" :-( RiceHigh http://www.geocities.com/ricehigh Post your lens/body test stuff link out to http://www.pdml.net. Good stuff. Personally, I don't like the 43/1.9. Too much barrel distortion. Though itis extremely sharp. (I've owned two samples of it.) Were there really 2 versions of the lens? I understand the DA40 is better than the old M40, and apparently it's actually quite good. We each have our preferences. Tony's confidence in Pentax is commendable. It's a good company and has been around for a long, long time. collin > Post your lens/body test stuff link out to http://www.pdml.net. Good stuff. I cannot see your post in the PDML archive, could you give me a link? > Personally, I don't like the 43/1.9. Too much barrel distortion. Though itis extremely sharp. (I've owned two samples of it.) Were there really 2 versions of the lens? No, I think. Mine has obvious barrel distortion too, especailly when it comes near to the image corners. I actually like my 43 lens more when using it on my *ist Dx bodies than it was on my MZ-S. It also has corner blur when wider opened, say, f/4 and below with "full frame" film camera. On my *ist Ds, it seems to be a perfect lens. The most lovely thing with this lens is its greys/shades description with much details and pictures look very 3-dimensional plus its superb colour rendition, rich and accurate. I like its bokeh too, except sometimes it does produce bright ring bokeh with reflective very bright out-of-focus objects. > I understand the DA40 is better than the old M40, and apparently it's actually quite good. We each have our preferences. Yep. I don't like *any* DA lens. The DA 40's bokeh is rough, the colour is of the DA lens' style, cool and strange IMHO. The build quality is not as good, too, plus it is made in Vietnam. > Tony's confidence in Pentax is commendable. It's a good company and has been around for a long, long time. I just can say sometimes love is blind :-) RiceHigh http://www.geocities.com/ricehigh >Certainly Pentax' digital quality is excellent. >But >I am worried about the lens side. >Seems that they're soon to have a bunch built by Tokina. >Now, I like Tokina. But it's just not the same. ; ( Like every other camera manufacturer, Leica included, Pentax has had lenses built by contractors in the past. Tokina, Sigma, Cosina, Tamron ... and lord knows who else. What matters is that the optical design is by Pentax, or to Pentax standards. Tokina is capable of manufacturing some very good lenses. I don't think you have any major cause for concern. >And my new requirement is that the sensor must be full frame. The time >has come for a 12+ MP full frame sensor on a less expensive body. I may >have to wait another year, but I'm not in a hurry. (For a little more >money, Canon's 5D is there now.) Given that Pentax is discontinuing "full frame" lenses as stocks run out, and that all new lenses are DA format for the smaller sensor, if you want a full frame sensor you will need to change brand. Pentax will not be making a K mount DSLR with a full frame sensor, ever. The next two introductions will be the 6 MP K100D and an as yet unnamed 10 MP DSLR, both of which will have APS size sensors. Instead of a 12MP and/or a FF DSLR, I want to have a more advanced and mature DSLR which has better exposure and AF accuracy, (much) wider dynamic range (I think this is very important), more useful features such as the Shake Reduction now and the USM focusing etc. For the 6M pixel count, I think it is adequate for my use currently, I just don't want to sacrifice the higher ISO noise performance just because of a higher pixel count, e.g. the D200's higher ISO is noiser than most 6M APS-C DSLRs, before the NR function is activiated. Instead, I want even better higher ISO noise performance plus even higher ISO speeds to be selected from, e.g. 6400. BTW, the Canon 5D yet suffers from its unresolved technical limitation in performance, that is, the poor performance at image corners, especially when ultra-wide lenses are used. At wide opened, the pictures really look terrible, IMHO. So, every solution does have its problems, to each of their own. RiceHigh http://www.geocities.com/ricehigh "RiceHigh" <ricehigh@yahoo.com> wrote in news:1145516995.935798.24120 @u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com: > Instead of a 12MP and/or a FF DSLR, I want to have a more advanced and > mature DSLR which has better exposure and AF accuracy, (much) wider > dynamic range (I think this is very important) Wouldn't a larger dynamic range have the result that most pictures will look _flat_? I think it is most important that the dynamic range of cameras is adapted to real life situations which ends up with 9-10 exposure stops. Whats the point with values from the AD converter in the range from zero to 4096 if you only use the range between 1000 and 3000 for 99% of your pictures? Your thoughts about this is welcome. Stig Vidar Hovland > Wouldn't a larger dynamic range have the result that most pictures will look _flat_? Not really. The camera's image processor will adjust for that. Actually, the whole recordable DR range has a *limit*, but it is NOT *fixed*. For details, see:- http://www.geocities.com/ricehigh/EVs_and_Levels.html Also, the measurement results in my homepage verify the same. Moreover, do note that the DR is the range that can be recorded and reproduced at the *same* time for the *whole* picture, but not separately. > I think it is most important that the dynamic range of cameras is adapted to real life situations which ends up with 9-10 exposure stops. My reallife experience is different from yours. I don't think our current DSLRs can have such wide DR, at least mine don't. Just apply near two stops of EV compensation and we will see the mid-grey objects are blown out. Well, here is also another experiment for verifiying this, btw:- http://www.geocities.com/ricehigh/FAStar_85_Delta_EF_RAW.html > Whats the point with values from the AD converter in the range from zero to 4096 if you only use the range between 1000 and 3000 for 99% of your pictures? The problem is that the CCD is a linear device which the charge stored and the voltage value derived is linear to the light energy power. If you have a 12-bit sensor (per channel), most of the levels are "condensed" into the higher zones and resulting in the lower bits storing mostly noises which are useless. See Michael Riechmann's article I quoted in my above link for details. > Your thoughts about this is welcome. Putting aside all though technical talks or any of my lab tests, my practical experience found that the DR is inadequate for high contrast scenes, e.g., for a sunset or with backlit objects or there is many highlights and shadows in the same frame, that's my reallife experience. Custom tone curve can help a bit but there is no miracle once either the highlights is blown or underexposure is resulted, which both will result in a terrible picture, even it is re-adjusted and converted. (well, see MR's article again as well as Norma Koren's artilcle on DR (link quoted in the introductory part of my homepage, they both think that the DRs of digitals are still quite limiting..) RiceHigh http://www.geocities.com/ricehigh > Putting aside all though technical talks or any of my lab tests, my > practical experience found that the DR is inadequate for high contrast > scenes, e.g., for a sunset or with backlit objects or there is many > highlights and shadows in the same frame, that's my reallife > experience. I will read the articles you referenced later on when I have time to do it. But my thoughts on this is that if you make a camera with a higher or better dynamic range to solve the sunset or high contrast problem you will also introduce problems on more ordinary scenes. If the dynamic range of your camera is big enough, all ordinary scenes will compress more and more into mid-level grey. This is because a camera with a high dynamic range seldom or never will capture true black or white. What is white anyway? I think the dynamic range of todays cameras is good enough. We only have to use them better to avoid burnt out highlights. Stig Vidar Hovland Stig, actually your question has been answered in my last reply and indeed your suspected problem has been presented very clearly in the beginning but actually this technical issue has been resolved on day one. I quote my last answer herewith again as below:- ------> Not really. The camera's image processor will adjust for that. Actually, the whole recordable DR range has a *limit*, but it is NOT *fixed*. For details, see:- http://www.geocities.com/ricehigh/EVs_and_Levels.html ---------------------------------- Hope that it can be clearer this time. :-) In other words, the recordable DR is dynamically adaptable to the contrast of the scene and actually mainly for the different contrast of different lenses, otherwise, as you suggested, it would not work. That's also why it needs an image processing circuit and software (firmware) in each digital camera. RiceHigh http://www.geocities.com/ricehigh >> Putting aside all though technical talks or any of my lab tests, my >> practical experience found that the DR is inadequate for high contrast [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >into mid-level grey. This is because a camera with a high dynamic range >seldom or never will capture true black or white. What is white anyway? You seem to be confused about how these things work. There is a zero-point in all capture. That 0 or black is there, regardless of DR. DR is determined by how much resolution and accuracy there is at the light levels just above 0, looking at them as a percentage of the full scale. Zero, black is *FIXED* it is not moveable on a histogram the way white is; black and white are not symmetrical opposite ends of a range. At what level the deepest shadows are rendered as black depends on the transfer curve of the conversion software. Your belief that having more shadow range will make normal shadows grey instead of black and almost black has no resemblance to reality. All it means is finer *precision* (and accuracy) at the left end of the histogram (and the rest of the histogram as well, if the full range of data is linear). This requires fine quantization, and a lack of noise. >I think the dynamic range of todays cameras is good enough. We only have to >use them better to avoid burnt out highlights. I don't even consider that the issue; that is obtainable with any camera that allows you to control exposure compensation. The real DR issue is "how good are the shadows?". You can float the grey and white points wherever you want. Black is anchored. The camera's norms are just a frame of reference.  Signature<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< > But my thoughts on this is that if you make a camera with a higher or > better dynamic range to solve the sunset or high contrast problem you will > also introduce problems on more ordinary scenes. If the dynamic range of > your camera is big enough, all ordinary scenes will compress more and more > into mid-level grey. This is because a camera with a high dynamic range > seldom or never will capture true black or white. What is white anyway? Black is black, and white is just a matter of where you set the white point. If your camera can capture 16 stops of range, and your scene only has 8, you just set the white point at the top of the data, and presto, you've got white. You don't have to *use* the whole range every time. SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com >> But my thoughts on this is that if you make a camera with a higher or >> better dynamic range to solve the sunset or high contrast problem you [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > presto, you've got white. You don't have to *use* the whole range > every time. That is correct, but you have to use a computer for this. I don't think any manufacturer is going to make a camera which require a computer to do final adjustments (except for some pro. cameras). They will probably always consider the option to make print ready images as important. Black is zero and higher resolution will make it possible to capture shadow detail better, but I am not convinced that a camera which captures 16 stops is a good idea. Stig Vidar Hovland > That is correct, but you have to use a computer for this. I don't think > any manufacturer is going to make a camera which require a computer to > do final adjustments (except for some pro. cameras). The camera can use an "auto levels" algorithm when generating JPEGs. SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com Actually, I believe that they do this even for RAW files, not only Jpegs, for the same reasons explained in my last posts. RiceHgih http://www.geocities.com/ricehigh > Actually, I believe that they do this even for RAW files, not only > Jpegs, for the same reasons explained in my last posts. > > RiceHgih > http://www.geocities.com/ricehigh Here lies an excellent reason for quoting the post you're replying to. -- Jeff R. >"RiceHigh" <ricehigh@yahoo.com> wrote in news:1145516995.935798.24120 >@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com: [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >Wouldn't a larger dynamic range have the result that most pictures will >look _flat_? No. It means that you would have more range that could be pushed or pulled into the image, as desired. You're not going to use a transfer curve that reveals the whole range visibly in an image all the time. Higher dynamic range means more exposure latitude; it means higher quality with under-exposure. DR = less noise in a fully exposed digital capture; they are the same thing, if you count quantization noise, as long as the capture is linear and true black is not clipped in the capture. IOW, noise (both sensor and readout), quantization, and blackpoint clipping are the limiters of dynamic range. Sensor well capacity can be considered noise (the less total photons; the more noise). In current DSLRs, it seems that analog readout noise, exaggerated by 12-bit linear quantization, is the biggest obstacle to DR. IOW, even with 12-bit digitization, ISO 100 on the recent Canon DSLRs could be improved by reducing the readout noise (in fact, almost none of the noise at ISO 100 is photon statistic noise; there are about a dozen photon/electrons to every RAW level). >I think it is most important that the dynamic range of cameras >is adapted to real life situations which ends up with 9-10 exposure stops. >Whats the point with values from the AD converter in the range from zero to >4096 if you only use the range between 1000 and 3000 for 99% of your >pictures? What's the point of being limited to that? If ISO 100 had 4 stops more DR, you could set the camera to sunny f/18 manual, on a sunny day, and shoot away with confidence that if you turn towards an area that doesn't have any sunlit bright colors, you will still have a decent image; you could shoot backlit subjects, expose for the surrounding light, and still have useable shadows. You could knock the EC down a notch in auto-exposure modes, too, and if you want, you can carefully expose the highlights and get the best shadows. Are you mainly a controlled-lighting photographer? That might explain your position. Signature<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.