 |
 | 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 / August 2006A 10 and 18 MP Pentax....very nice...
http://www.photoxels.com/pr-pentax-pma2006.html mike >http://www.photoxels.com/pr-pentax-pma2006.html Nothing new here - this is a six-month-old press release. > http://www.photoxels.com/pr-pentax-pma2006.html > > mike Pentax has been a disappointment in the digital domain. Why mess with Pentax when Nikon and Canon have the product on the shelves right now? It is sad that an innovator like Pentax has become a third-tier player in digital. >> http://www.photoxels.com/pr-pentax-pma2006.html >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > is sad that an innovator like Pentax has become a third-tier player in > digital. << It has to be said, Pentax are *very* good at announcing stuff - but that's about as far as it goes. The 'new' K100 is yet another incarnation of the *istD/Ds/Ds2/DL (the only difference is that each variant seems to get cheaper and nastier) with the same old 6.1 mp sensor. Not that it's a 'bad' sensor - it's not, but all the repackaging in the world can't disguise the fact that technology is old enough to have been used by Noah. OK, so there is 'anti-shake' in its latest guise, but that's hardly an earth shaking development. What is needed is the long promised K10D - but in true Pentax tradition the months pass by, and the camera remains firmly out of reach. The Pentax faithful at dpreview are consoling themselves with assurances that it will be available this September, but that conveniently overlooks the fact that Pentax promised only to have a working demo available at Photokina, imo there is far more chance of being whisked off to a far flung galaxy by a passing Saturnine spaceship than of being able to purchase a K10D before next spring/summer. Meanwhile, Nikon produce yet another brilliant camera at a price point that is going to sweep away the competition. If the Pentax K10D *was* actually available now it would still take a beating from the new D80, when (if) it finally *does* materialise it will be just another overpriced Pentax anachronism - too little, far too late. >Meanwhile, Nikon produce yet another brilliant camera at a price point that >is going to sweep away the competition. If the Pentax K10D *was* actually >available now it would still take a beating from the new D80, when (if) it >finally *does* materialise it will be just another overpriced Pentax >anachronism - too little, far too late. You're going to be eating those words in a month. The D80 isn't on the shelves yet; by the time it is the K10D will be, too, and at a lower price. >>Meanwhile, Nikon produce yet another brilliant camera at a price point >>that [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > The D80 isn't on the shelves yet; by the time it is the K10D will be, > too, and at a lower price.< Pentax (to be fair) have never said that their K10D would be available for purchase in September - or even this year, for that mater. It's the anxious faithful who have persuaded themselves that it will be so As for 'on the shelves in a month' , not-a-dogs-chance My point is that Pentax, always first to accept the party invitation and always the last to arrive, will find the other guests leaving (clutching their new Nikon's) by the time they bother to show up. > It has to be said, Pentax are *very* good at announcing stuff - but that's > about as far as it goes. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > passing Saturnine spaceship than of being able to purchase a K10D before > next spring/summer. As I recall, Pentax promised release of the two new cameras in the fall. Last I checked, it was still early August, which doesn't qualify anywhere I know of, so any disappointment over their not hitting a release date this time seems to be an internal deal. If Pentax had the resources of Nikon or Canon, possibly your impatience would be justified, but they don't. > The 'new' K100 is yet another incarnation of the *istD/Ds/Ds2/DL (the > only difference is that each variant seems to get cheaper and nastier) [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > 'anti-shake' in its latest guise, but that's hardly an earth shaking > development. Maybe not earth-shattering, but something Canon & Nikon don't offer. The only way to get this on their systems is to buy into a whole new set of expensive lenses. In any case, some of us buy cameras not because of how new the technology is, but how well it works... > Meanwhile, Nikon produce yet another brilliant camera at a price point > that is going to sweep away the competition. If the Pentax K10D *was* > actually available now it would still take a beating from the new D80 A beating in terms of sales figures, sure, that's likely. Just as the D50 probably outsells the DL. Doesn't make it a better camera by any means. --------------- Marc Sabatella marc@outsideshore.com Music, art, & educational materials Featuring "A Jazz Improvisation Primer" http://www.outsideshore.com/ >>> http://www.photoxels.com/pr-pentax-pma2006.html >>> [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > finally *does* materialise it will be just another overpriced Pentax > anachronism - too little, far too late. Quite trollish. > >> http://www.photoxels.com/pr-pentax-pma2006.html > >> [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > finally *does* materialise it will be just another overpriced Pentax > anachronism - too little, far too late. Odd. The announcement earlier this year noted that the final details would appear at Photokina, some 5 or 6 weeks in the future at this moment. "Long awaited" doesn't really tell an accurate story. As for Pentax being a disappointment in the digital field, I'll take my *istD over any Canon or Nikon with similar features. It may be an "overpriced Pentax anachronism" but, so far, it has turned out thousands of great pictures for me, at a cost well below what I'd have had to pay for equivalent results with a Canon or Nikon. In your opinion, purchase won't be possible before 2007's spring or summer. Let's wait and see, but that's about the time I'll be wanting to step up to the K10D if it has the features expected and the 10MP sensor is good enough as a replacement for the current 6MP. FWIW, the latest rumors - which sound quite plausible to me - are that the "K10D" to be announced next month at Photokina will be yet another 6 MP camera, not the 10 or 12 MP camera many were expecting. The reason being that Pentax was supposedly unhappy with the noise levels of the available 10 and 12 MP CCD sensors. Based on initial reaction to the new Sony, this wouldn't surprise me one bit. Some people are obviously very sensitive to pixel count, and consider this news disastrous to Pentax. I'm not so sure. Not everyone has any real reason to care about the difference between 6 and 10 MP, but some of the other improvements that are generally expected to be seen in the K10D could easily be worthwhile for a great many people. I personally would be much more excited by any number of body / control design improvements than I would be more MP, as incentive to upgrade from my DS. Even if it were just basically a D with SR added, that would still be a significant step up in many ways (although I'm happy enough with my DS that I doubt I'd be willing to actually do so). To someone who is actually comparing based on camera usability and functionality as opposed to any perceived "newness" of the technology, such a camera would still absolutely blow away anything else in its expected price range (just under $1000). And the only way to get anything significantly "better" (read: 10-12 MP, or perhaps FF) would be to spend quite a bit more, but then you would have to give up the SR. I'm not at all convinced that this is really the right tradeoff for the majority of people. Although of course, pixel count is easier to market than the arguably more significant factors that might count in the K10D's favor, so I do fully expect Pentax to take an (undeserved) beating over this if the rumors prove true. --------------- Marc Sabatella marc@outsideshore.com Music, art, & educational materials Featuring "A Jazz Improvisation Primer" http://www.outsideshore.com/ > Some people are obviously very sensitive to pixel count, and consider > this news disastrous to Pentax. I'm not so sure. Not everyone has any [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > DS. Even if it were just basically a D with SR added, that would still > be a significant step up in many ways (although I'm happy enough with I would like 10 or 12 mp. Some of the places that I try to submit pictures are very sensitive about the size for no reason. I do think that my 6mp DL is too soft and doesn't get pictures as sharp as the Canon. I swear that it just seems like this. I would really like better processing in the camera and reduced time to do it. I need a bigger buffer in the camera as well. If I have a composition with lots of dynamic range it takes forever to save to the card. When I'm shooting these types of pictures I often want to try for 10 shots. I used to be able to fire off 10 shots in 10 seconds and I can't do it. This is one of the big reasons why a friend still shoots slides. bill  Signature--- William O'Hara www.N1ey.com - Amateur Radio and Railfan Blog www.yahoogroups.com/group/illinoiscentral - premier discussion list re: ICRR > I do think > that my 6mp DL is too soft and doesn't get pictures as sharp as the > Canon. > I swear that it just seems like this. It is indeed a commonly observed fact that Pentax does not apply much sharpening to its JPG files, compared to most others. The standard advice is to shoot RAW and do the sharpening in post processing, if you like that kind of sharpening applied. --------------- Marc Sabatella marc@outsideshore.com Music, art, & educational materials Featuring "A Jazz Improvisation Primer" http://www.outsideshore.com/ > > I do think that my 6mp DL is too soft and doesn't get pictures as sharp > > as the Canon. I swear that it just seems like this. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > is to shoot RAW and do the sharpening in post processing, if you like that > kind of sharpening applied. The other thing is that the kit lens just ain't that great. Ya know? >> > I do think that my 6mp DL is too soft and doesn't get pictures as sharp >> > as the Canon. I swear that it just seems like this. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >The other thing is that the kit lens just ain't that great. Ya know? As it happens, the kit lens suppied with the Pentax DSLRs is a great deal better than the kit lens supplied with some other brands. It obviously isn't going to compare with the best pro glass, but for 1/10 the price it does a pretty good job. The Pentax DSLRs *on the default settings* don't do as much in-camera sharpening or saturation boosting as some other entry-level models, which leads to complaints of softness or lack of vivid colours (although the latest incarnation, the K100D, appears to have increased the saturation). It's easy enough to adjust the settings to increase the camera defaults, although sharpening is really best done *after* resizing for printing. > The Pentax DSLRs *on the default settings* don't do as much in-camera > sharpening or saturation boosting as some other entry-level models, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > the camera defaults, although sharpening is really best done *after* > resizing for printing. I'm not shooting at total default settings. There is something to be said about a poor design. The big complaint about how long it takes to unload the buffer and how the small the buffer is. Signature--- William O'Hara www.N1ey.com - Amateur Radio and Railfan Blog www.yahoogroups.com/group/illinoiscentral - premier discussion list re: ICRR > There is something > to be said about a poor design. The big complaint about how long it > takes to unload the buffer and how the small the buffer is. Well, I wouldn't call that "poor design" as much as "cost cutting", and pretty much all cameras in this price range perform similarly in this respect. But in any case, this is indeed one of things that I expect *should* make even a 6 MP K10D appealing to many photographers if they'd let go of obsession over pixel count. --------------- Marc Sabatella marc@outsideshore.com Music, art, & educational materials Featuring "A Jazz Improvisation Primer" http://www.outsideshore.com/ >>>I do think that my 6mp DL is too soft and doesn't get pictures as sharp >>>as the Canon. I swear that it just seems like this. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > The other thing is that the kit lens just ain't that great. Ya know? It's adequate. Pentax still does fairly good optics. SignatureThese are my views. If you've got a problem with it, you can blame it on me, but this is what I think. I am not the official spokes-person for any Government, Commercial or Educational institution. John >> > I do think that my 6mp DL is too soft and doesn't get pictures as >> > sharp [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > The other thing is that the kit lens just ain't that great. Ya know? Note the original poster was comparing to the Canon, presumably with its kit lens. And the Pentax kit lens is pretty much universally considered much better than the Canon. So the lens is not the issue in this particular comparison - it really is the sharpening. Of course, compared to a higher end lens on *either* camera, it is true that neither kit lens will do as well. --------------- Marc Sabatella marc@outsideshore.com Music, art, & educational materials Featuring "A Jazz Improvisation Primer" http://www.outsideshore.com/ "Marc Sabatella" <marc@outsideshore.com> wrote in news:87- dnY7tZaoBpXTZnZ2dnUVZ_u2dnZ2d@comcast.com: >> I do think >> that my 6mp DL is too soft and doesn't get pictures as sharp as the [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Featuring "A Jazz Improvisation Primer" > http://www.outsideshore.com/ I shoot in RAW. I'm still not quite satisified. Signature--- William O'Hara www.N1ey.com - Amateur Radio and Railfan Blog www.yahoogroups.com/group/illinoiscentral - premier discussion list re: ICRR > I shoot in RAW. I'm still not quite satisified. This is a bit more surprising, then. What RAW processing program do you use, and what kinds of sharpening controls does it give? --------------- Marc Sabatella marc@outsideshore.com Music, art, & educational materials Featuring "A Jazz Improvisation Primer" http://www.outsideshore.com/ "Marc Sabatella" <marc@outsideshore.com> wrote in news:Ub- dnZtzXPhJo3bZnZ2dnUVZ_q6dnZ2d@comcast.com: >> I shoot in RAW. I'm still not quite satisified. > > This is a bit more surprising, then. What RAW processing program do you > use, and what kinds of sharpening controls does it give? The camera program on XP. Signature--- William O'Hara www.N1ey.com - Amateur Radio and Railfan Blog www.yahoogroups.com/group/illinoiscentral - premier discussion list re: ICRR >"Marc Sabatella" <marc@outsideshore.com> wrote in news:Ub- >dnZtzXPhJo3bZnZ2dnUVZ_q6dnZ2d@comcast.com: [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >The camera program on XP. Assuming that "the camera program" refers to the software supplied with the camera (aka Pentax Photo Laboratory), then I'm not surprised. This is just a (not particularly good) RAW converter, with basically no sharpening controls whatsoever; there is no sharpening being done. You really need to get some kind of image editor. > >"Marc Sabatella" <marc@outsideshore.com> wrote in news:Ub- > >dnZtzXPhJo3bZnZ2dnUVZ_q6dnZ2d@comcast.com: [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > You really need to get some kind of image editor. Version 3 of Pentax Photo Lab is much improved over previous versions. It's basically Silkypix re-wrapped to look like the old software. It's a free update from Pentax. It's a shame that it's so slow and cumbersome to use (on a Mac at least), but the conversion is better. >> >"Marc Sabatella" <marc@outsideshore.com> wrote in news:Ub- >> >dnZtzXPhJo3bZnZ2dnUVZ_q6dnZ2d@comcast.com: [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > It's a shame that it's so slow and cumbersome to use (on a Mac at > least), but the conversion is better. The one that I have been using is 2.1 and offers a 'sharpening' adjustment. I'm going for version 3. Glad that I made a comment on this and got the info. thanks Signature--- William O'Hara www.N1ey.com - Amateur Radio and Railfan Blog www.yahoogroups.com/group/illinoiscentral - premier discussion list re: ICRR >>> Assuming that "the camera program" refers to the software supplied >>> with the camera (aka Pentax Photo Laboratory), then I'm not [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >The one that I have been using is 2.1 and offers a 'sharpening' >adjustment. Ah. They must have added that sometime after I stopped using it. Basically I currently use Photoshop Elements (which I switched to as soon as Adobe released a version of Camera Raw that supported the Pentax RAW image file format), although I'm taking a look at Lightroom for the added RAW conversion controls. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ >>> Assuming that "the camera program" refers to the software supplied >>> with the camera (aka Pentax Photo Laboratory), then I'm not >>> surprised. > > The one that I have been using is 2.1 and offers a 'sharpening' > adjustment. I've got 2.0, which I imagine is similar. The sharpening adjustment is extremely rudimentary, and does not provide much if any more control over sharpening than the in-camera adjustment. It's a single slider with seven positions (-3, -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, 3). By comparson, ACDSee Pro - not normally considered a top-of-the-line RAW processing program, but it's what I'm using, since it does so many different things so well - provides independent controls over the "amount", "radius", and "threshold" of sharpening to be applied, with the "amount" slider going from 0 to 300. The amount of control it gives is *enormous* compared to Pentax Photo Laboratory 2.0. If upgrading to version 3.0 of the Pentax software - which I gather includes the well-regarded SilkyPix processor - gives you anything similar, I think you'll be thrilled. Be aware, though, that there are reasons why Pentax elects not to sharpen much by default. Sharpening doesn't come for free - it generally introduces undesirable artifacts into a picture, particularly along edges. There is a tradeoff to make between two more or less equally unpleasant alternatives (softness and edge artifacts), and the "right" decision can depend on the size at which the image will be viewed or printed. Other camera vendors do elect to sharpen aggressively by default, counting on the fact that most people will complain about softness and not notice edge artifacts, but it's a one-way street: once you've over-sharpened an image, you can't go back. Anyhow, as you play with the sharpening controls in Photo Laboratory 3.0 (or whatever software you end up with), do try to be aware of these issues. Crank the controls all the way up once if necessary to see a horribly garish example of what over-sharpening can look like (something that 2.0 is unable to do - the maximum sharpening it applies is still not very much). Then learn to look for the tell-tale signs of it as you sharpen your images. Have the image sized appropriately as you apply the sharpening. If you plan to have an image in multiple sizes - one for web viewing, one for 4x6 prints, one for 8x10, say - you may well find you want different amounts of sharpening applied to each. --------------- Marc Sabatella marc@outsideshore.com Music, art, & educational materials Featuring "A Jazz Improvisation Primer" http://www.outsideshore.com/ >> Some people are obviously very sensitive to pixel count, and consider >> this news disastrous to Pentax. I'm not so sure. Not everyone has any [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > that my 6mp DL is too soft and doesn't get pictures as sharp as the Canon. > I swear that it just seems like this. Amateur photog swears by genuine fractals. Apparently a nice clean noise free image such as from a 6mp canon sensor blows up quite nicely. If you only have adobe then blow up 10% at a time rather than 100% in one step. This is a technique i have found successful. > FWIW, the latest rumors - which sound quite plausible to me - are that > the "K10D" to be announced next month at Photokina will be yet another > 6 MP camera, not the 10 or 12 MP camera many were expecting. I suppose I shouldn't be in the business of repeating the rumors from dpreview over here, but since I posted the above, I'll observe that "official" details in the forms of promotional materials from Pentax are beginning to arrive at stores, and indeed, some stores have pricing info and are already taking pre-orders. Apparently, the K10D *is* going to be 10 MP after all. With in-camera shake reduction, of course, like the K100D. Surprises allegedly include dust removal and Li-Ion battery. Price under $1000 with lens. No real word how it will compare with other 10MP cameras in terms of noise, but apparently Pentax has recently taken out some patents in this area, so it could be good news. And the Li-Ion battery, while not exactly an advantage in my book, should help the AF performance and silence some critics. This could *really* put Pentax back on the map. --------------- Marc Sabatella marc@outsideshore.com Music, art, & educational materials Featuring "A Jazz Improvisation Primer" http://www.outsideshore.com/ > Pentax has been a disappointment in the digital domain. To some, perhaps, particualrly at the high end. But not to those seeking high quality but low cost options. --------------- Marc Sabatella marc@outsideshore.com Music, art, & educational materials Featuring "A Jazz Improvisation Primer" http://www.outsideshore.com/ >> Pentax has been a disappointment in the digital domain. > >To some, perhaps, particualrly at the high end. But not to those >seeking high quality but low cost options. The same comments apply to the film domain. After the MX and LX, the only serious (semi-)pro Pentax SLR was the MZ-S, and that was the bastard child of the proposed 6 MP full-frame MZ-D that never saw the light of day thanks to the exceptionally noisy chip that would have been shared with the Contax N Digital. Thankfully, Pentax survived, which is more than can be said for Contax. Pentax, Minolta/Sony and Olympus, are all firmly in the consumer-grade DSLR market. Let no-one be under any illusions; these brands do not sell to pros and never will, because they cannot possibly hope to sell enough high-end bodies to justify the cost of their development. So if Pentax, Minolta/Sony and Olympus users are hoping for high end bodies to compete with the Nikon D2X or Canon EOS 1D(s) Mk II, they should forget their dreams and buy Nikon or Canon. Sony's dream of one day competing with Nikon is just that - a dream. There is a chance that the 645-based Pentax 18 MP DSLR will sell to pros, as the 645 film SLRs still have a wide pro following. But the 35mm-based Pentax (and Minolta/Sony) DSLRs will only ever appeal to low-end amateurs for the reasons I stated above. The Four Thirds DSLRs from Olympus, Panasonic and Leica might have some pro appeal because of the optical excellence of the Zuiko and Leica Digital glass. However, the sensor size has proved to be severely limiting. There cannot be much hope of a good, low noise 10+ MP Four Thirds DSLR for a year or two at least, and perhaps never. >>> Pentax has been a disappointment in the digital domain. >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >light of day thanks to the exceptionally noisy chip that would have >been shared with the Contax N Digital. You've got that backwards. The MZ-D was the bastard child of the MZ-S. The MZ-S was a last sop to the traditional film user who wanted the same old-style controls as the MZ series of cameras, not the body-mounted aperture controls of the semi-pro Pentax you missed - the PZ-1p. >Pentax, Minolta/Sony and Olympus, are all firmly in the consumer-grade >DSLR market. Let no-one be under any illusions; these brands do not >sell to pros and never will, because they cannot possibly hope to sell >enough high-end bodies to justify the cost of their development. The same could have been said of Canon 30 years ago. If you are prepared to put a big enough investment in professional services, etc., you can buy the market. Pros have no brand loyalty; they'll buy whatever is cost effective to get the job done. Not that I expect Pentax to go after that market, at least in a K-mount body. >So if Pentax, Minolta/Sony and Olympus users are hoping for high end >bodies to compete with the Nikon D2X or Canon EOS 1D(s) Mk II, they >should forget their dreams and buy Nikon or Canon. Sony's dream of >one day competing with Nikon is just that - a dream. >There is a chance that the 645-based Pentax 18 MP DSLR will sell to >pros, as the 645 film SLRs still have a wide pro following. But the >35mm-based Pentax (and Minolta/Sony) DSLRs will only ever appeal to >low-end amateurs for the reasons I stated above. Pentax have cameras to sell to the advanced amateur (aka prosumer), and seem to want to stay in that market. They'll never compete for the 1Ds or D2X purchasers, but there's enough of a market selling to the potential D200/30D customer for that to be worthwhile, as well as a chance to compete for new first-time DSLR purchasers. >The Four Thirds DSLRs from Olympus, Panasonic and Leica might have >some pro appeal because of the optical excellence of the Zuiko and >Leica Digital glass. However, the sensor size has proved to be >severely limiting. There cannot be much hope of a good, low noise 10+ >MP Four Thirds DSLR for a year or two at least, and perhaps never. > Pros have no brand loyalty; they'll buy whatever is cost effective to get > the job done. Not that I expect Pentax to go after that market, at least > in a K-mount body. Pentax is keeping us all waiting on the 645 body that begins to fill that gap. Only a) no one has 645 stuff, and b) those that do want a full frame, so they're just using film. Perhaps that's why it's still vaporware. > > http://www.photoxels.com/pr-pentax-pma2006.html > > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > is sad that an innovator like Pentax has become a third-tier player in > digital. I hope Pentax sticks around. They don't have much money, but they make some excellent telescopes. >> > http://www.photoxels.com/pr-pentax-pma2006.html >> > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > I hope Pentax sticks around. They don't have much money, but they make > some excellent telescopes. Samsung have taken them under their wing? Hopefully the optics stay pentax and design. Samsung can handle electronics.They are a better brand than they used to be. |
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
|
©2008 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.