Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Digital Cameras & Shooting Techniques => Topic started by: Kenneth Sky on May 22, 2006, 10:05:13 pm
-
It looks as if Pentax has reworked the K-M 7D & 5D into their just announced K100d and K110d models. Here's hoping other manufacturers come back into the market to break the Nikon-Canon hegemony.
-
I'm tempted to buy long lenses in the pentax or sony mount just to get antishake without having to buy IS on each lens.
-
With the Sony Alpha slated to be announced soonish, Photokina this year should be pretty interesting. I can see Pentax/Samsung fighting the AS wars with Sony (Minolta) for the second spot to Canon/Nikon and especially marketing the entry DSLR market which is by far the most profitable. Most welcome competition in the DSLR world which had been getting pretty stale of late.
With both companies offering AS in entry level bodies I wonder how long Canon/Nikon can bury their heads in the sand? The price of the new pentax kit with AS is remarkably cheap, no doubt the Sony will be pretty cheap as well. If the big two want to keep their share of the entry level market they will have to reprice and refeature. Again most welcome as it will filter through to the higher models within a cycle or two.
-
Those two cameras are like $599/699 with lens.
Very interesting camera.
Would be more interesting if I didn't want a 5D as well.
-
I can see Pentax/Samsung fighting the AS wars with Sony (Minolta) for the second spot to Canon/Nikon and especially marketing the entry DSLR market which is by far the most profitable.
With both companies offering AS in entry level bodies I wonder how long Canon/Nikon can bury their heads in the sand?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=66369\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
First, I wonder why you expect such a radical shakeup in DSLR market share, where Pentax and Konica-Minolta are currenly far behind third placed Olympus in sales. The Olympus-Pentax comparisons from their recent annual reports for Fiscal Year 2005 (April 2005 to March 2006) are
Olympus: 250,000 DSLR's sold (up from 100,000 in FY2004), estimating 400,000 for the FY2006
Pentax: 120,000 DSLR's sold, estimating 230,000 for FY2006.
I would guess that K.-M. was behind Pentax in sales rate.
So Pentax themselves are not even predicting reaching in FY2006 to what Olympus achieved in FY2005. Given that K.-M. has had AS from the beginning and still faired poorly, I do not expect the new Pentax "Shake Reduction" feature alone to dramatically improve market share for Pentax.
Second is the question of whether it makes sense for Canon or Nikon to adopt sensor-based "shake cancellation" technology when they already have lens-based systems that work far better than Konica-Minolta's sensor-based Anti-Shake. And does it make sense for the Four Thirds makers Olympus and Panasonic to go sensor-based instead of introducing Panasonic's proven lens-based Optical Image Stabilization system, as will be used in the one Panasonic/"Leica D" Four Thirds format lens announced so far?
These are not entirely rhetorical questions, I am divided:
- On one hand, for people who want shake cancellation with multiple lenses, it might be cheaper to put it in one body rather than in multiple lenses.
- On the other hand, so far lens-based systems work far better than sensor-based, and a majority of SLR users only have one telephoto lens, and only one or two lenses total, and my guess is that those lenses are likely to stay in use for longer than a DSLR body. So for many SLR users, it might actually be cheaper in the long run to buy one or two shake cancellation lenses instead of upgrading a shake cancellation DSLR body every few years.
Then again, Pentax is only charging an extra US$100 for their Shake Reduction, the price difference for the K100D over the K110D: that seems less than the price premium for IS and VR vesions of lenses.
-
Is that based on sales of DSLR's? remember Pentax is a far smaller company than Olympus in general. I've yet to see a single Olympus DSLR on shelves here in the UK wheras pentax is selling very well relatively in comparison to Canon/Nikon. We all know that the most lucrative market for manufacturers is the entry level DSLR. There the new battles will be joined with all these new manufacturers. If it's a Pentax sytem vs Sony system vs Olympus system then I'm not going to complain, it's us who benefit in the long run!
I know AS didn't work for minolta but it wasn't just that. They were marketed very badly, advertising was awful, the deals sounded worse than desperate (free grip with every 7D + 1 gig card, how desperate can you get!) and the camera hit the market just too late, all the people who would have invested in the 7D were all shooting 20D's and D70's for the past year or two, they simply missed the boat.
The manufacturers heading for the entry level have to offer small ergonomic size (the minoltas are not ergonomically appealing, not sexy at all) a good level of megapixels (why are pentax sticking to 6? that might be a mistake in the long run when the consumer seens p&s's with 8 and they don't know the difference), and most of all great kits at knockdown prices. The purpose of course is to lock the next generation of people maturing from digi P&S's into a DSLR system.
At present the pentax DL2, the one being replaced by the K110D is the same price for the body + 2 lenses here in the UK as the MSRP of the K110D. That is an attractive price for an attractive little camera and still cheaper than the 350XT body alone. The Sony Alphas will also be marketed on features and prices, all aimed at the entry level with follow up bodies once the user is hooked into the system. Where is Olympus and 4/3rds? Every now and again you hear of something then it disappears. The Olympus E1 is still to be replaced. How good are the sales of the newer consumer bodies given that they are not competetively priced?
-
I waited for the K-M 7D because I had 6 lenses in that mount and was not disappointed. As a longtime Monolta Maxxum user the transition was seamless. The ergonomics, contrary to what has been stated are great. For advanced amateur use it's only limitation was that 6 megapixel sensor limited the size of prints. I'm still enjoying it 18 months out but am disappointed that K-M couldn't make a go of it. I suspect that Sony with it's deep pockets and marketing know-how will marry the best of the 7D with one of their double digit sensors and a more up to date processor and borrowing from Pentax put a screen on the top deck and still keep the body under $1000. The entry level market will soon dry up because it is aimed at people who don't know or care about photography but just want a clear 4x6 and that market will soon be saturated. People like myself keep upgrading. Pity us - we're addicted . It's photographer who keep buying the latest models that really keep the market going.
-
- On the other hand, so far lens-based systems work far better than sensor-based, [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=66393\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
BJL,
Just out of curiosity, what do you base that statement on?
I have no first hand experience, but a close friend has a Minolta 7D and he is very happy about the way the anti-shake function works. The only comparison I remember was published by the French magazine CDI, and their conclusion was sensor based and lens based IS were roughly equivalent.
Regards,
Bernard
-
Some quick considerations about the DSLR market.
Both Pentax and Sony are rumoured to present 10MP class DSLR at the Kina this year, thereby closing the gap with Nikon and Canon in terms of resolution.
Once this is done, we are basically back to the film days. Besides for those shooters who couldn't wait and have moved to Canon/nikon, for the rest those who used to prefer Pentax/Minolta over Canon/Nikon will be able to move to digital with no penality resolution wise.
Each of these bodies have their strong/weak points:
- Canon has better high ISO noise,
- Nikon has a better build,
- Pentax/Sony have built-in IS.
Regards,
Bernard
-
One advantage of IS in the lens, is that the light hitting the viewfinder is already stabilised.
There's no obvious reason why you can't have IS in both the body and the lens. I'm not sure how well they'd stack, but I see no reason why 2-3 stops on the lens plus 2-3 stops on the sensor shouldn't give a solid 4 stop overall advantage. And of course it gives a 2-3 stop advantage on primes and non-IS lenses.
On KM/Pentax the AS certainly makes the long Sigma and Tamron lenses very attractive. Actually good enough that I'd probably consider buying a dedicated entry-level Sony/Pentax SLR to use with the Sigma 50-500 or Tamron 200-500 rather than get those lenses in Canon mount. For those who can afford the big Canon lenses it may not be an issue.
It's a complicated marketing decision for Canon/Nikon though.
-
Second is the question of whether it makes sense for Canon or Nikon to adopt sensor-based "shake cancellation" technology when they already have lens-based systems that work far better than Konica-Minolta's sensor-based Anti-Shake. [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=66393\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I too am interested in evidence for that statement. It is well known that IS when on introduces a slight degradation of image quality compared to a tripod mounted camera+lens with IS off.
As an aside, surely Sony and Pentax could use their AS system to implement a shift functionality? Obviously it would not work well with some lenses due to a limited image circle.
Leif
-
There's no obvious reason why you can't have IS in both the body and the lens. I'm not sure how well they'd stack, but I see no reason why 2-3 stops on the lens plus 2-3 stops on the sensor shouldn't give a solid 4 stop overall advantage. And of course it gives a 2-3 stop advantage on primes and non-IS lenses.
IS is trying to make sure that it's image circle lands on the same spot. Meanwhile AS is busy moving that spot all over the place.
Wouldn't work.
-
Is that based on sales of DSLR's?
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=66400\")
Yes, the numers are exactly what I said: DSLR unit sales. (Total camera sales are about 8.4 million for Olympus, 2.8 million for Pentax, 8.45 million for Nikon.)
There are links to sources here
Olympus [a href=\"http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1000&message=18394578]http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp...essage=18394578[/url]
Pentax: http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp...essage=18422988 (http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1000&message=18422988)
Nikon: http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp...essage=18445771 (http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1000&message=18445771)
but I am relying on other people's translations from Japanese for those numbers.
Thom Hogan makes his own estimates, trying to go on retail sales rather than factory shipments, but comes to a similar conclusion: of the crumbs of the DSLR market not controlled by Canon and Nikon, Olympus gets about half, ahead of Pentax etc.
By the way, about in-store presence: in big US consumer electronics outlets, the Olympus E-500 seems to be by far the most widely available DSLR of brands other than Canon and Nikon. Pentax DSLR's seem to be behind even K.-M. there, but the new Samsung and Sony arrangements should help both systems. One chain (Circuit City?) carries only the 350D and E-500 as DSLR options in their stores, no Nikon even.
Many people seem to be surprised by the fact that the Olympus 4/3 system with its often reported sins of a smaller sensor, higher noise at equal ISO, less total lenses, and no upgrade path to 35mm format is easily outperforming Pentax and Konica-Minolta DSLR's. I can only speculate about the causes: maybe great prices on body and two lens kits, 8MP vs 6MP, a wider range of the types of lenses of interest to most DSLR buyers (as opposed to ones with focal lengths and resolution adapted for 35mm format needs), the sensor dust shaker system ...
-
BJL,
Just out of curiosity, what do you base that statement on?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=66410\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Partly on reviews and user feedback claiming two or even three stops advantage for IS, and less for AS, though I am happy to be corrected on that comparison, and happy to beleiove that sensor-based systems can eventually be completely competitive in that respect, and maybe Pentax's will be so right from the start.
But peripatetic has mentioned the difference that is of great interest to me: in-lens systems stabilize the VF image while sensor based systems do not with optical TTL viewfinders (OVFs). When handholding at 200mm with my E-1, even though the shutter speed can freeze motion blur, the wobbly VF image is disconcerting and probably hampers accurate composition. With sensor based IS, the framing recorded by the sensor is typically a bit different than what you see in the OVF.
Of course, "live view" would put an end to that difference. And maybe the longer term future of sensor-based "shake cancellation" is promissing. it might make good sense for Pentax and Konica-Minolta to take this approach given their lack of lens stabilizaton technology, whereas Panasonic brings such technology to Four Thirds.
In fact, maybe, despite our sideline heckling, the makers of all five major DSLR systems have each made good decisions about which shake cancellation technology to use, at least for now, with the choices differing only because of their different circumstances, not because some are right and the rest are wrong. (This is my view about many things in the DSLR world, including my belief that Canon, Nikon and Olympus have all chosen good, profitable approaches to format choices, even though the paths are all different.)
-
Instead of production numbers how about something of interest to me.
I have been using my Spotmatic since 1968 and over time have collected a number of Takumar screw mount lenses.
While I have been pondering moving to digital, the initial cost incluing all the other "stuff" you had to buy to be a little too steep for me at this time.
What I was wondering was whether all or my screw mount lenses would work with the K100d if there was an adapter from the screwmount to the bayonette mount?
I am not worried about lack of auto focus, I have been using manual focus all my life. I am concerned about the metering and would the anti-shake work with my screw mount lenses? These beauties range from 28mm to 300mm all Takumar SMC lenses.
-
They will work fine. More of a pain to use than current glass but there shouldn't be a problem.
Go check the pentax slr forum at dpreview.com for more information. I've asked the question there in the past and there was a treasure trove of information.
-
Olympus certainly seem to have far better advertising!
Apparently you dial in the focal length in the settings for older pentax lenses, I assume that includes anything you could fit onto the body using an adapter. Contax and Leica with AS? Those people on the Alternative Forum of FM should be drooling...
-
They will work fine. More of a pain to use than current glass but there shouldn't be a problem.
Go check the pentax slr forum at dpreview.com for more information. I've asked the question there in the past and there was a treasure trove of information.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=66476\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Interesting bunch, it appears that I would be in the same position as I am now. Manual focus and stop down metering. Not all that bad, but I would subsitute a card for film and possibly have anti-shake.
Not all that bad a trade off.
Then, if I think that digital just might be for me, then I can think of staying with the Pentax or moving to either Canon or Nikon (depending on which meets my needs and budget).
-
You folks can sit and discuss the merits of one system over the other, but until I start seeing short and fast IS/VR primes or somesuch, I'm going to keep wanting it in the body too.
50 1.4 IS anyone?
-
Just out of curiosity, what do you base that statement on?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=66410\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Moving the sensor becomes less effective with longer focal lengths - the sensor will have to be displaced further and further.
-
I've had no problem with a 300mm 2.8 on my K-M 7D. I've even hand held my mirror reflex 500mm but only in bright sunshine. As far as I'm concerned the AS sensor technology works. And as I've said before, the K-M philosophy of using dials instead of menus inside of menus has allowed me to make the transition from film to digital much easier.
-
Apparently you dial in the focal length in the settings for older pentax lenses ...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=66484\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
That is what I have heard: Pentax seems to be maintaining its excellent attention to backwards compatability. I could even stabilize my old Pentax 50/1.7 K for extreme low light hand held work undreamed of with film.
-
I've had no problem with a 300mm 2.8 on my K-M 7D.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=66537\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Thanks: despite my initial comments favoring the in-lens approach, I am glad to read this experimental refutation of the argument that "AS/SR is inferior at longer focal lengths, just where you need it most". Anything that help to level the "shake cancellation" playing field and so strengthen some of the DSLR industry's smaller players should improve the competitive situation for DSLR buyers.
That argument against AS/SR started wth Phil Askey's 7D review I believe, and as a scientist it sounded like at best a plausable conjecture, worth putting to experimental test, not a theoretically proven fact as some people seem to take it.
Many photographic forum participants put way too much faith in the conclusions of such rough, unquantified, untested theoretical arguments, and should learn a bit of respect for a good balance of theory and experiment!
-
I wonder how well the “D” digital lenses, with their smaller image circle, will work with Pentax’s CCD-based SR system. I have no idea of the amount of movement involved with the sensor or if it will go outside the image circle. Any zoom lens, except at its widest setting should have image to spare, but fixed lenses? If Pentax introduces lens-based SR in its digital lenses at some point, it would be the best of both worlds. Older lenses use the CCD SR and the smaller, lighter “D” lenses uses a lens-based SR. Of course you would likely have to disable the CCD SR, otherwise you would have a double correction unless a very sophisticated feedback loop was included.
-
I wonder how well the “D” digital lenses, with their smaller image circle, will work with Pentax’s CCD-based SR system.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=66567\")
1) Konica-Minolta's AS works fine with its "DSLR only" DT lenses, designed for the smaller image circle of its sensors. So the fear that they will not goes with the other bogus theory about AS/SR not working well with longer telephoto lenses.
2) Pentax is not run by complete idiots, and only a bunch of complete idiots would launch this new SR system if it did not work with the numerous Pentax DA (DSLR only) lenses, which probably includes the majority of the lenses being sold and used on Pentax DSLRs.
This is enough to convince me that SR will work with Pentax DA lenses, but just in case, I checked the press release quoted at [a href=\"http://www.dpreview.com/news/0605/06052205pentaxk100d.asp]http://www.dpreview.com/news/0605/06052205pentaxk100d.asp[/url]
"The PENTAX-developed Shake Reduction (SR) system ...can be used with almost all existing PENTAX interchangeable lenses.*
* Lenses compatible with this mechanism are: PENTAX K-, KA-, KAF- and KAF2-mount lenses; screw-mount lenses (with an adapter); and 645- are 67-system lenses (with an adapter). Certain lenses may lose part of their functions."
-
BJL:
So the fear that they will not goes with the other bogus theory about AS/SR not working well with longer telephoto lenses.
Why so defensive? I did not propose a theory, I simply asked a question. I don't know how much the sensor moves and if its movement would present difficulties with D lenses.
2) Pentax is not run by complete idiots, and only a bunch of complete idiots would launch this new SR system if it did not work with the numerous Pentax DA (DSLR only) lenses, which probably includes the majority of the lenses being sold and used on Pentax DSLRs.
I certainly didn't say, nor should my question be cause to construe, that Pentax is run by idiots and am unlikely to do so since I've been buying their cameras for 35 years. As for rendering old lenses unusable, seems some major camera makers have already done exactly that.
"The PENTAX-developed Shake Reduction (SR) system ...can be used with almost all existing PENTAX interchangeable lenses.*
* Lenses compatible with this mechanism are: PENTAX K-, KA-, KAF- and KAF2-mount lenses; screw-mount lenses (with an adapter); and 645- are 67-system lenses (with an adapter). Certain lenses may lose part of their functions."
I read the announcement as well, my question is what does "almost" mean in this sentence.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=66571\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
So the fear that they will not goes with the other bogus theory about AS/SR not working well with longer telephoto lenses.
Why so defensive? I did not propose a theory, I simply asked a question. I don't know how much the sensor moves and if its movement would present difficulties with D lenses.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=66587\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
And yet after I pointed out that the idea was refuted some time ago by the fact that KM's AS with its DT lenses, your response shows that you are not simply asking a question; you clearly seem to be trying to defend the idea that there is a chance of SR not working with DA lenses. (It is interesting too that when you quoted me, you deleted that reference to AS working with DT.)
2) Pentax is not run by complete idiots, and only a bunch of complete idiots would launch this new SR system if it did not work with the numerous Pentax DA (DSLR only) lenses, which probably includes the majority of the lenses being sold and used on Pentax DSLRs.
I certainly didn't say, nor should my question be cause to construe, that Pentax is run by idiots and am unlikely to do so since I've been buying their cameras for 35 years. As for rendering old lenses unusable, seems some major camera makers have already done exactly that.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=66587\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
You are not talking about making the new SR feature incompatble with some old or old-fashioned (like manual focus) lenses, you are talking about making it incompatable with the great majority of their most recent lenses, ones of central importance to the success of the Pentax DSLR system; the new DA lenses. That sort of incompatability would be unprecedented idiocy, and also massively at odds with Pentax's excellent record of backward compatability.
"The PENTAX-developed Shake Reduction (SR) system ...can be used with almost all existing PENTAX interchangeable lenses.*
* Lenses compatible with this mechanism are: PENTAX K-, KA-, KAF- and KAF2-mount lenses; screw-mount lenses (with an adapter); and 645- are 67-system lenses (with an adapter). Certain lenses may lose part of their functions."
I read the announcement as well, my question is what does "almost" mean in this sentence.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=66587\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Since a great proportion of Pentax's recent lens sales are surely of the DA lenses, SR working with "almost all existing PENTAX interchangeable lenses" is clearly inconsistent with it not working with the DA lenses.
-
IS is trying to make sure that it's image circle lands on the same spot. Meanwhile AS is busy moving that spot all over the place.
Wouldn't work.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=66452\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
So are you saying that the IS inside the lens works by getting feedback from the image projected onto the sensor plane? How can that be?
Can you be a bit more specific about why it wouldn't work as a 2-stage stabilisation? (I'm not looking for a fight, it just doesn't seem as obvious to me why it wouldn't work as it does to you!)
Certainly from the AS side if it's getting a more stable image circle that could hardly be a problem could it?
Any links to how IS/AS works would be very interesting.
-
Regarding sensor-based shake reduction, it's easy to work out how much the sensor needs to move if you just look at how many pixels your typical motion blur covers.
Let's pretend for a moment the shaking is really bad, say 20 pixels' worth.
Now, the sensor in the K100D (and KM 5/7D) is 23.6mm across, and squeezes 3008 pixels into that size.
Therefor a simple bit of maths...
23.6 / 3008 = pixels 0.00785mm wide. 7.85 microns.
Multiply that by 20 and you get a sensor movement of ~0.16mm.
0.16mm sensor movement to cancel out 20 pixels of shaking!
So basically, the sensor doesn't have to move very far at all to cancel out the effects of camera shake, and ought to work fine even on digital lenses with really tight imaging circles.
-
Caer: Thanks for the rational analysis. My concern is based on a near-future lens purchases. Should I buy a heavier 35mm limited or a lighter digital version, since I have all but abandoned 35mm film?
Peripatetic:
It is my understanding that both the lens and sensor-based systems respond to camera movement (not image movement in the case of SR). As such, neither would be aware of the other’s correction unless a feedback loop was incorporated. Interestingly, it seems double correction would yield the same amount of blur, but in the opposite direction.
BJL:
You obviously think my post was meant to be inflammatory; it was not. I have two closets full of Pentax 35mm, 645 and 67 lenses. Nevertheless, I considered switching to Canon just for the IS lenses. I stayed with Pentax and purchased a *ist DS; so I am as pleased with this development as anyone. You are likely correct, nevertheless, I find your argument that a corporation (in this case Pentax) wouldn’t do something stupid less than compelling
-
I think the issue with sensor shifting AS (Pentax, KM) is that it will work fine with reduced frame sensors. All dSLRs from Pentax and KM are reduced-frame sensors (1.5x).
With full-frame sensors you simply cannot shift the sensor to compensate for shake, since the sensor fills the imaging circle and it would fall outside the imaging circle if shifted (up/down/right/left). Not a problem with 1.6x or 1.5x sensors, since even when shifted to compensate for shake, the smaller sensor will still remain within the imaging circle.
-
A few random thoughts:
I have a KM A2 and the sensor based Anti-Shake technology works great. I don't see a difference between it and the VR on my 80-400 zoom.
Like many people I was dismayed to see KM get out of the photo business and sell it to Sony. Between the proprietary Sony stick memory and the the root-kit incident, I have wondered if Sony is really the way to go. That whole root-kit thing, even though it didn't involve photography, left me with a bad taste in my mouth. So far Pentax's partner, Samsung, has not done anything to turn me off.
Pentax has a huge resevoir of K mount lenses out there, most of which will work with their anti-shake system. That is a great advantage. Olympus, had a great system in the OM1 and OM2, but never carried forward with autofocus and other advances. That left many of my OM owning friends feeling abandoned. To the best of my knowlege the OM lenses won't work on the new Olympus digital bodies. Or am I wrong?
At least Pentax kept advancing their technology, albeit, late compared to Canon and Nikon.
-
Pentax has a huge resevoir of K mount lenses out there, most of which will work with their anti-shake system. That is a great advantage. Olympus, had a great system in the OM1 and OM2, but never carried forward with autofocus and other advances. That left many of my OM owning friends feeling abandoned. To the best of my knowlege the OM lenses won't work on the new Olympus digital bodies. Or am I wrong?
There is an OM-adapter.Till the middle of 2005, you could even get it for free if you sent in your e-1 guarantee-card.
-
There is an OM-adapter.Till the middle of 2005, you could even get it for free if you sent in your e-1 guarantee-card.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=66842\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
That's good to hear. Does the adapter allow the lenses to be fully functional? Will autofocus lenses still autofocus for example?
( a few days later) I forgot that Olympus never made autofocus lenses for their OM system. For me that is a big negative. I would much rather buy into a system where the manufacturer has a history of upgrading and modernizing the system.
-
I'm tempted to buy long lenses in the pentax or sony mount just to get antishake without having to buy IS on each lens.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=66359\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Pentax has the advantage of compatibility with ANY K mount lens. You only get what the lens is capable of, but my ancient K 45-125 SMC zoom works fine on the *st D, and it seems Pentax are going to include the cam so you can use the M and K lenses in apeture priority auto mode on the new sooper-dooper whiz bang cameras.
I started in the 1960's when the cream of the crop were Pentax and Zeiss. I suspect the same is true now, the Pentax Limited series are far beyond anything anyone else makes. So is their multicoating.
-
That's good to hear. Does the adapter allow the lenses to be fully functional? Will autofocus lenses still autofocus for example?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=66960\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
well, there are no OM AF lenses ; )
-
I started in the 1960's when the cream of the crop were Pentax and Zeiss. I suspect the same is true now, the Pentax Limited series are far beyond anything anyone else makes. So is their multicoating.
Is this true or is it just what the loyal pentax fans like to say? Are pentax limited primes better than all the other manufacturers pro level primes?
I did see some sample pictures from the K100D, can't remember the link, it was obvious that the new 21mm pancake limited lens was being crippled by the sensor in that camera, it looks capable of far far better and will be interesting to see on the new 10 megapixel version.
-
"10 megapixel version"?? I haven't seen the announcement. However the K-M - oops - Sony Alpha definitely does have a 10.2 sensor.
-
I think the issue with sensor shifting AS (Pentax, KM) is that it will work fine with reduced frame sensors. All dSLRs from Pentax and KM are reduced-frame sensors (1.5x).
With full-frame sensors you simply cannot shift the sensor to compensate for shake, since the sensor fills the imaging circle and it would fall outside the imaging circle if shifted (up/down/right/left). Not a problem with 1.6x or 1.5x sensors, since even when shifted to compensate for shake, the smaller sensor will still remain within the imaging circle.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=66762\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
This is refuted in my post above, #25 in this thread. K.-M. Anti-Shake works fine with DT lenses (and third party "APS-C" lenses) which are designed specifically for the format of the "APS-C" digital sensors, so these sensor-based systems do _not_ need to use a sensor size that imposes a significant crop on the image produces by the lens.
-
Pentax and Olympus seem now to have stripped themselves of the deadwood of some older lens designs for 35mm film cameras that are of far less interest with thier DSLR formats. Pentax has apparently discontinued many of its 35mm format lenses, leaving the list at
http://www.pentaxslr.com/lenses (http://www.pentaxslr.com/lenses)
plus four new DA lenses announced as coming soon. The list of Pentax lenses currently in production (as opposed to ones still available but no longer in production) might be as short as the following:
DA 10-17 Fish Eye
DA 12-24/4
DA 14/2.8
DA 16-45/4
DA 18-55/3.5-5.6
FA 31/1.8 Limited
DA 40/2.8 Limited
FA 43/1.9 Limited
FA 50/1.4
DFA 50/2.8 Macro
DA 50-200/4-5.6
FA 77/1.8 Limited
DFA 100/2.8 Macro
with the following expected soon:
DA 16-50/2.8 (Autumn 2006)
DA 21/3.2 Limited (June 2006)
DA 50-135/2.8 (Autumn 2006)
DA 70/2.4 Limited (Autumn 2006)
If so, about the same size as the Olympus 4/3 lens list, but with more primes at "middle focal lengths" while Olympus has more telephoto extremes and a wider range of zooms.
P. S. I just found another longer and probably definitive list of Pentax lenses currently in production at http://www.digital.pentax.co.jp/en/lens/ (http://www.digital.pentax.co.jp/en/lens/)
It adds the following:
FA-J 18-35 f/4-5.6
FA 20-35 f/4
FA-J 28-80 f/3.5-5.6
FA 28-105 f/3.2-4.5
FA-J 75-300 f/4.5-5.8
FA 35 f/2
FA 135 f/2.8
FA 300 f/2.8
FA 600 f/4
My guess is that these nine extra lenses are being marketed only towards to 35mm film camera users, and so the other site "www.pentaxslr.com" omits them, being entirely oriented to Pentax's digital SLR's.
-
This is refuted in my post above, #25 in this thread. K.-M. Anti-Shake works fine with DT lenses (and third party "APS-C" lenses) which are designed specifically for the format of the "APS-C" digital sensors, so these sensor-based systems do _not_ need to use a sensor size that imposes a significant crop on the image produces by the lens.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=67013\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
A quote from Canon about the new 17-55 F/2.8 IS APS-C lens:
As an EF-S lens, the new zoom is smaller, lighter and handier than a lens of similar specifications could be, but covers the full 24 x 36mm frame.
So, going by the above, there seems to be space for the reduced-frame sensor to move around and still remain within the imaging circle, since the APS-c specific lens, seemingly covers the entire "full-frame".
Or, did the above mean that the EF-s lens is "smaller, lighter and handier" than a 17-55 f/2.8 designed for a full-frame sensor, since it has a reduced imaging circle that covers the APS-C frame alone ??
-
If I am not completely mistaken (I could very well be), the APS-C lenses do cover the full 24 x 36 frame.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=67093\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
You are mistaken, at least for many of the new digital specific lenses from Nikon, Pentax, Konica-Minolta, and third party lens makers. These lenses come with warnings that they cannot used on cameras with formats larger than "APS-C". Since Nikon, Pentax and K.-M. use the same lens mounts as 35mm film cameras, and in some models the same mirror assemblies (unlike Canon EF-S with its shorter back focus requiring a smaller mirror assembly), the only reason can be vignetting due to inadequate image circle size.
One example for which I have read tests is the Nikon 12-24 DX, which when installed on a 35mm format camera and set to 12mm shows substantial vignetting. As it is zoomed in, the image circle grows (that is basically how a zoom works: variable magnification of the image circle produced at mininum focal length) until the vignetting disappears at 19mm and above, so that it then covers the 24x36mm frame.
P. S. Can you direct me to the source of that very surprising claim about the Canon 17-55/2.8 EF-S covering the 24x36mm frame?
P. P. S. it amazes me how much some people can struggle to justify a fear when the evidence is so solidly against it. Is it paranoia, or a desire to put down a product or brand that they do not like?
I assure you, Pentax's new SR system will work with its DA lenses, which are the great majority of lenses that Pentax produces and sells to its DSLR customers. (And to another fearful group: do not worry, the SLR market dominating and fast growing EF-S and DX systems are not in any trouble either!)
-
P. S. Can you direct me to the source of that very surprising claim about the Canon 17-55/2.8 EF-S covering the 24x36mm frame?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=67096\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
The Canon 30D whitepaper, contains this quote. It has information about the 85 1.2II and also the 17-55/2.8 EF-s, in addition to details about the 30D camera.
-
P. P. S. it amazes me how much some people can struggle to justify a fear when the evidence is so solidly against it. Is it paranoia, or a desire to put down a product or brand that they do not like?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=67096\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
There is no "fear". There is no dislike about the brand either...have owned Pentax film cameras in the past.
As far as in-camera anti-shake, Herb Keppler (publisher of popphoto), specifically stated that the KM anti-shake WILL NOT work with full-frame, primarily due to the size of imaging circle. He personally owns a "system" comprising exclusively of KM cameras and lenses...so there is no partisanship there.
He stated that Sony will have to find some other way of introducing anti-shake into the body, that moves away from sensor-shifting, if it has to work with a future full-frame Sony camera. Again, this is from a KM owner and publisher who can take his pick from among all the cameras in the marketplace and has stuck to his KM system.
He recently made a trip to Japan and met with Canon's chairman and other members of Canon management and also a bunch of other industry insiders, including from Sony, Pentax, KM etc., in Japan, before writing the above article.
Maybe you have some special insight into something that he missed ! Always happens.....
-
As far as in-camera anti-shake, Herb Keppler (publisher of popphoto), specifically stated that the KM anti-shake WILL NOT work with full-frame, primarily due to the size of imaging circle.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=67102\")
And why should I believe Herbert Keppler, if he offers no facts, given the fact that KM AS _does_ work with DT lenses designed only for the coverage needs of the smaller "APS-C" format.
Does Keppler quote any evidence, such as how much sensor movement is needed, which would tell us how much larger the image circle needs to be than the sensor diagonal?
Does he mention that telephoto lenses, and zoom lenses at focal length longer than their minimum, naturally produce image circles larger than the format for which they are designed, building in the slack needed for sensor based SR?
How about some reasoning that takes account of facts like this?
And I ask again, why should anyone fear that Pentax is launching this new SR system that does not work with it DA lenses, which are eight of the fourteen lenses that Pentax promotes for use with its DSLRs as the following site?
[a href=\"http://www.pentaxslr.com/lenses]http://www.pentaxslr.com/lenses[/url]
That would leave it working only with the six FA and D FA prime lenses on that list, of focal lengths no longer than 100mm.
Again, such a claim of gross stupidity by Pentax takes some strong evidence to be worth considering, and instead all I hear is "you cannot completely prove that it is not true".
P. S. I wonder why Keppler worries about what Sony would have to do to make AS work in 35mm format, given that there is no evidence at al that Sony has any interest in making a 35mm format DSLR. But of course I can not prove that such a return to 35mm format is not going to happen, so feel free to worry abut this scenario if you wish. I suggest reading "Waiting for Godot" or Kafka's "The Castle" while awaiting "The Return of the King".
-
The Canon 30D whitepaper, contains this quote. It has information about the 85 1.2II and also the 17-55/2.8 EF-s, in addition to details about the 30D camera.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=67099\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
And it does indeed say that: very interesting. But
1) Other shorter image circle lenses do in general have smaller than 35mm sized image circles, as the 12-24 DX example shows. Maybe the difference is that the EF-S (and Olympus) approach is different from the Nikon, Konica-Minolta and Pentax approaches to shorter focal lengths: Canon reduces the back-focus distance so that shorter focal lengths can be achieved without more extreme retro-focus designs, whereas Nikon, Konica-Minolta and Pentax use designs that keep their longer 35mm format back-focus distance, so as to be compatible with the 35mm format lens mounts and mirror boxes used in some of their DSLR's.
2) we are getting of the topic of whether SR will work with DA lenses: if DA lenses do indeed have image circles big enough for 24x36mm frame, the problem would be solved!
Anyway, I just realized the biggest fallacy in this worry: at any telephoto focal length, or with any zoom lens zoomed in significantly from its shortest focal length, the image circle is "oversized", except perhaps in some primes that have internal anti-flare baffles that fit tightly to the frame size of the format. Pentax does not yet have any telephoto primes in DA format, so clearly has the opportunity to design the anti-flare baffles of future DA telephotos to work with SR.
-
What's the big deal about so called full-frame??
Full frame is just a holdover from the 35mm days.
The Nikon D2x and D200 has shown that the smaller digital chips can produce excellent results with today's technology. Add to that the advantage of smaller and lighter lenses, and I am not sure the full-frame is really an advantage, except from a marketing point of view.
As the chip technology advances further, people are not going to be willing to trade the convenience of smaller, lighter gear for the now obsolete 35mm size frame.
Digital must and will evolve into its own world, and ultimately throw off the last vestiges of film, including 35mm film size. I am amazed at the number of digital converts who still think that they have to have a 35mm sized sensor.
-
FF is far more than just keeping with that old time size!
If you use it for what it is needed for then you don't need to bother arguing about it, if you don't see the need then you don't need it.
-
FF ... If you use it for what it is needed for then you don't need to bother arguing about it, if you don't see the need then you don't need it.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=67308\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Excellent summary! I sometimes wanted a medium format SLR to get the grain out of my B&W prints, but never needed it enough to bear the burdens of the larger format; but other photographers clearly did need medium format SLRs. Ditto for every step along the digital SLR format range of 13.5x18mm (4/3), 15x22.5mm (EF-S), 15.7x23.7mmm (DX/DA/DT), 18x27mm (1D?), 24x36mm (35mm), 33x44mm, 37x49mm. Different wants and needs lead different photographers to make different choices.
One possible difference from film though: the print resolution differences are now far smaller than the format size differences might suggest, with 35mm format offering only about 15-30% more linear print resolution ("lines per picture height") than some far less expensive 15.7x23.7 format SLR's. (1DsMkII vs D2Xs, 5D vs D200 or Alpha 100).
-
Hey BJL, you know as well as I do that the resolution is not the reason for FF . FF happens to have more resolution at present but that is not the argument for it by any means otherwise the D2X would have killed the FF argument. "The original 1Ds has less resolution therefore FF is no longer needed." Nope doesn't sound right at all does it?
FF is good for those who want control over shallow DOF, better tonality and DR, better handholding capabilities (I had always thought this from experience and logic but had it confirmed today when reading the Canon Lens Work III which states that handshake is more noticeable with crop cameras due to the extra magnification), larger and usually brighter viewfinders, the ability to use a large selection of lenses as they were intended, etc, etc.
Although I will be buying the pancake trio to go with a pentax body within a year, a 70mm f2.4 lens is just simple not fast enough to be a true portrait lens given that on a crop camera it becomes a 100mm lens. But you don't get the 100mm drawing of the subject not do you get the DOF. What you do get is too much background detail. Just an example of why some people might want FF.
-
you know as well as I do that the resolution is not the reason for FF ...
FF is good for those who want control over shallow DOF, better tonality and DR, better handholding capabilities
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=67468\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
That is quite a change of tune about resolution! Am also interested to see that you (quite sensibly) do not talk about the wide angle crop problem of smaller formats anymore.
When the 1Ds and 14/n came out and for a long time after, resolution definitely was one of the two main arguments made by fans of "FF", and the other biggest argument was the loss of wide angle coverage. I do not recall much or any talk about DR in those days.
It is interesting to see how both of those two common arguments have faded away somewhat as the mainstream DSLR formats have closed those gaps considerably, and yet many of the people who used to make those arguments have not changed their conclusions, they have simply moved on to new arguments to support the same claims of FF's great superiority. Consistently supporting a belief or claim despite having to abandon or downplay previous arguments and shift to new ones is a warning sign that the real reasons for the belief or claim are something other than the ones being stated.
Of the new list of FF advantages, I point out that
- the dynamic range/tonality/DR advantage is real (so far) but is mostly or entirely at minimum ISO, where APS-C formats already have plenty of DR for most purposes. As soon as FF needs to use a higher ISO, DR goes down, and an APS-C format can in many cases use a lens of shorter focal length and lower minimum f-stop to get the same shutter speed at lower ISO, balancing out the DR difference in those persistent but often misleading comparisons done at equal ISO speed and equal f-stop.
- On shallow DOF and better hand-holding abilities, again this is true sometimes, but only when the larger format can use a lens of longer focal length but about the same minimum f-stop (so using a larger aperture diameter). I will not repeat my long list of cases where the larger format is forced to use a higher f-stop (or to use the same focal length with a crop), canceling out the DOF/shutter speed/hand-holding advantage.
Instead I will take the example of the FF users who have adopted the 24-105 f/4 lens (including you, I believe). Compared to f/2.8 options for APS-C formats, the one stop difference should more or lens cancel out any difference in minimum DOF, and in usable shutter speed and thus any hand-holding advantage.
The decision by many demanding photographers to sacrifice the speed/DOF advantage of the Canon 24-70/2.8 suggests that f/4 in FF (and thus f/2.8 in APS-C) is a big enough aperture enough for a great proportion of photographers in practice.
Some FF advantages persist, but as technology advances, the differences are only significant for an ever shrinking circle of photographers and photographic needs.
-
The 24-105L didn't last long, damn it the 24-70 @ 70mm f2.8 just is too much DOF when you want to isolate a subject. That said I bought it back (the 24-70L) and it is again my main lens.
I think that your choice of the 24-105L misses the point. Many photographers have chosen it for their non DOF critical work. But the majority have a 50mm or 85mm in their bag. You can't control DOF sufficiently with that lens period.
Pre the days of the 17-55 I would have argued the WA thing more, the newer crop of lenses does help. That said I'm using a 17-40L frequently on my 5D, that is a serious issue that hasn't gone away yet. If you need a distortion free fast WA then you have nowhere to go period. That is a problem being faced by photographers daily, it's not a minority. The only reason the problem is not bigger is due to the crop of the 1D mkII, if PJ's had to deal with a 1.6X crop you bet the issue would be raging high and far. The 16-35L on a 1D mkII is the PJ's staple lens together with the 70-200L IS and there is nothing at all that would replace it in crop. I have a friend who shoots PJ with Nikon. His complaint? The 12-24 is a great lens but just not fast enough!
The 1Ds wasn't particularly good for DR (actually really awful in the blacks), about equal to my 10D though the tonality was better. My 5D is indeed a revelation.
I've not abandoned my need for the level of resolution provided by the 5D, the D200 wouldn't be enough in many cases I'm afraid. I haven't changed my tune about the resolution needs of the 5D, just saying that it is a seperate argument to that of the FF chip.
I haven't got any tests to prove it but being a wedding photographer dealing with extremes of DR maybe more than other genres, the 5D is superior to the 20D (which I shot for a couple of months between the 1Ds and 5D) for DR up until and including iso 1600. I don't have the tests but I do shoot the damn thing and process the RAW files with the counter on 21,000 frames on the 5D so far. I'm not making up what I see.
FF is not a niche, it is not ever shrinking by any means. Those who understand the need are buying the 1Ds mkII and will buy the sucessor, they understand why. If what you are saying would be the case then the D2X would have overtaken the 1Ds mkII, the 5D would not be in studios and wedding photographers hands across the world (Every wedding photographer I know who was shooting Canon now has the 5D, every single one!). Those who have them don't bother having to defend them, they know why.
TBH I wouldn't bother myself if it wasn't brought up in an unconnected thread.
-
FF is not a niche, it is not ever shrinking by any means.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=67481\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Rather than debate the meaning of "niche", let us just look at some facts about market share.
In film 35mm format had almost 100% of the SLR market, losing share mostly to larger rather than smaller formats.
When Canon and Kodak "FF" arrived about four years ago, the 1Ds has about 5% market share (24,000 annually when total DSLR sales were about half a million).
The Kodak 14/n seemingly had higher unit sales due to its far lower price, wit one estimate being 80,000/yr. So more than 5% market share for the 14/n, and maybe as much as 15%, giving FF a total of more than 10% and maybe as much as 20%.
Today, the 1DsMkII apparently has the same stated production level of 24,000/yr, but with total DSLR sales volume now about 4 miilion/year, the single model "professional 35mm format DSLR" sector is down to about 0.6% share of the total DSLR market. Also, Canon has reportedly stated a production level of 100,000/year for the 5D which would put it at 2.5% share, distinctly less than the 1Ds or 14/n. That gives a current FF total of about 3%, far less than the 10-20% estimate for four years ago.
Clearly market share for 35mm format SLR's is shrinking, with a trend from almost 100% to 10-20% to 3%.
Restricting to the professional sector, the D2X is clearly far more competitive with the 1DsMkII than the D1X was with the 1Ds, so professional SLR market share for 35mm format has surely declined with the arrival of the D2X. Indeed, the 1DMkII also improved resolution over the original 1D to the point where many professionals choose it rather than the slower, more expensive 1DsMkII or the slower, less rugged 5D as a general purpose SLR, and the 1DMkII is a "1.3x crop camera", not "full frame", not 35mm.
Decide for yourself how low the market share must be before the word "niche" applies: for me, 3% does it, and is probably comparable to the SLR market share that medium format film cameras had a decade ago.
-
This thread have anything to do with the new pentax?
If it does then does anyone know if Pentax has a decent 100-400 type of lens? Seems like I might be able to get this camera (with its anti shake) plus lens for less than the L.
-
I am not an enemy of full-frame. I merely point out that many of us are still thinking in terms of traditional 35mm design. Digital will allow many new ways of designing and using cameras.
Two examples: The Nikon Coolpix cameras that swivel in the middle, and the new Kodak cameras with two lenses and sensors, one for "normal" zoom and the other for wide angle.
Both show that we can break away from the physical limitations of film.
That said, I can see the reason for full-frame, especially if I had a stable of expensive wide angle lenses left over from my 35mm days.
Fortunately, digital has evovled to the point where all of this equipment can be used to take wonderful pictures. Enjoy!
-
I think that your choice of the 24-105L misses the point. Many photographers have chosen it for their non DOF critical work. But the majority have a 50mm or 85mm in their bag. You can't control DOF sufficiently with that lens period.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=67481\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I can believe that; just as many users of the smaller mainstream DSLR formats probably use fast primes for extremes of shallow DOF (or otherwise use post-processing to soften backgrounds.)
Then again, many professional photographers only ever went beyond about f/4 or even f/5.6 when they needed the speed (in combination with low ISO films), not to decrease DOF. I see this in many books on nature photography, my particular interest. For them, f/2.8 in mainstream DSLR formats matches that minimum desired DOF, and high speed/low light performance is clearly better than it was with 35mm film.
-
... does anyone know if Pentax has a decent 100-400 type of lens?
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=67562\")
Not Pentax, but Sigma in particular fills this sort of gap for Pentax, Konica-Minolta/Sony and even Olympus/Panasonic to some extent. The Sigma 135-400 f4/5-5.6 is available in Pentax mount, as is the 100-300/4 for a "150-450 f/5.6 IS equivalent" thanks to SR.
Pentax seem to be going through a heavy culling of 35mm format designs and replacing them with new digital oriented designs, leaving some gaps for now at the longer focal lengths.
The definitive list of current Pentax SLR lenses (excluding medium format!) seems to be at
[a href=\"http://www.pentax.co.jp/english/products/filmcamera/lens/index35_ichiran.html]http://www.pentax.co.jp/english/products/f...35_ichiran.html[/url]
and
http://www.digital.pentax.co.jp/en/lens/ (http://www.digital.pentax.co.jp/en/lens/)
but many on the former list seem to have ended production, staying "current" only while stocks remain.
-
BJL, do you not think that the price of FF has driven the statistics you quote? I'm sure that if FF were more affordable then we wouldn't be seeing anything of the sort. As MR said in a recent article, no one wanted crop sensors, they were forced on us. Then people started to try justifying them...
As a matter of interest, what kind of 35mm shooting did you do? As a nature photographer can you at all understand the needs of people photographers?
-
BJL, do you not think that the price of FF has driven the statistics you quote? I'm sure that if FF were more affordable then we wouldn't be seeing anything of the sort.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=67572\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I am not so sure of that. While cheaper prices for FF bodies would certainly increase their sales, one of the advantages to a newbie is the small size and light weight of the digital only lenses. I doubt if many of them would be willing to buy, for example, the FF equivalent of Nikons 18-200mm zoom. The fact that is this lense can be much smaller and lighter since it is intended only for the APS sized sensor.
-
Moving the sensor becomes less effective with longer focal lengths - the sensor will have to be displaced further and further.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=66512\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Common misconception. Since the improvements of AS/IS/etc. is relative to the slowest possible shutter speed at the given focal length (the good old rule-of-thumb: 1/focal-length), the sensor doesn't need to move more at longer focal lengths to achieve the same improvement - just faster. The scenario you image requires the shutter speed to be the same at all focal lengths.
So the question is if it's fast enough at longer focal lengths. Personally I don't know as I haven't tested it, but many users of KM's DSLR's have reported, that AS works well at the tele end as well.
-
macqyver,
doesn't the new Alpha claim a 50mm 1.4. Thought I saw that.
-
BJL, do you not think that the price of FF has driven the statistics you quote? I'm sure that if FF were more affordable then we wouldn't be seeing anything of the sort. As MR said in a recent article, no one wanted crop sensors, they were forced on us. Then people started to try justifying them...
As a matter of interest, what kind of 35mm shooting did you do? As a nature photographer can you at all understand the needs of people photographers?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=67572\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Of course price has something to do with it, and the cost ratio is not going down as far as I can tell: when 24x36mm format DSLR's arrived, the 14/n cost 2.5 times as much as entry level DSLRs like the D100 and 10D. Now the 5D costs about 4 or 5 times as much as entry level options like the 350D, D50 and E-500.
But size matters too, and a great proportion of SLR users like to keep their kit as small and light as possible, which favors smaller formats, small photo-sites and shorter focal lengths. That gap has actually increased, since the pixel size of the mainstream DSLR formats has decreased more smaller format than with 24x36 (in other words, the gap in pixel counts has decreased.)
I do not agree with Michael's comment about no-one asking for a smaller format: that is exactly what many photographers did when they changed from medium format to 35mm format, or from large format to medium format in an earlier generation, and it is exactly what is driving the ongoing downsizing of camera formats and pixel sizes today, especially for those who seek good telephoto reach at a convenient size and weight. He did not say "crop sensors", perhaps recognizing that with DX, EF-S or 4/3 lenses, the sensors are not cropping the FOV, and that in normal to telephoto range where 35mm format lenses must sometimes still be used, "FOV cropping" is not a problem, because one can simply use a less long focal length to get the desired FOV.
I have always been mainly an outdoor photographer, dealing with either stationary subjects or small/distant ones, so with little need for extremes of speed or large apertures. I agree that some photographers have interests different from mine, like handling greater extremes of low light at normal to wide angles without flash, or getting highly OOF backgrounds in portraits by buying, carrying and using heavier more expensive lenses rather than with blurring in post-processing. That is why I see 24x36 surviving, holding onto to something like its current 3% market share (unit sales) or even increasing it a bit.
-
Weren't the 10D and D100 around $1500 when they came out? (My 10D was $1500)
And at the time the 1Ds Mk 1 and Kodak DC14/n were $8000-12000 weren't they?
It seems like the spread in price has remained the same.
I don't buy your argument about lenses in the least. You could buy trashy 28-200mm Tamron zooms back in the film era for full frame bodies if you were a clueless consumer going for the longest zoom possible to one-up your buddies. You got crappy performance and you couldn't handhold the lens unless you used grainy film and shot in harsh daylight. But you had the biggest zoom range when it came time to bench race your camera.
But for the most part most lenses for APS-C digicams are not substantially smaller. It's only at the extreme end when you start getting into very expensive "pro" telephoto lenses that you start saving real weight and space. e.x. 200/2.8 vs. 300/2.8, etc..
Any argument about sales of 35mm sized DSLRs vs APS sized DSLRs is just premature considering there have been 20-30 models of APS cameras and only 4 35mm sized cameras, one of which apparently had some major problems. It is just too early to make sweeping statements like that. I bet the majority of people who own a 1Ds/5D had at least one previous Canon APS DSLR.The 35mm cameras haven't even been made in sufficient numbers to claim any market share and as high end cameras they are never going to sell in the same numbers as the low end cameras. No one ever seems to have trouble selling out their inventory though.
If Nikon ships a 35mm camera, it's going to sell in massive numbers. If Canon manages to drop the price enough to put the FF sensor in the successor to the 30D at the same price, it's going to sell. If they can figure out how to get in the Digital Rebel 5 years from now, it's going to sell. There is minimal external size difference between the 30D and the 5D, the only reason to go with the APS sensor is price. The smaller size of the Rebel is nice but I suspect the FF sensor will be able to fit in that camera eventually too considering it's size is/was sufficient for 35mm film.
BTW please post some of your pictures. I've seen thousands of your posts about sensors all over every internet site no matter where I go but I've yet to see any of your pictures. Throw us a few pictures once in a while so you don't seem so negative & belligerent. You're starting to make me wonder if you're actually a technology evangelist at a sensor manufacturer.
-
I do not agree with Michael's comment about no-one asking for a smaller format: that is exactly what many photographers did when they changed from medium format to 35mm format, or from large format to medium format in an earlier generation, and it is exactly what is driving the ongoing downsizing of camera formats and pixel sizes today, especially for those who seek good telephoto reach at a convenient size and weight. He did not say "crop sensors", perhaps recognizing that with DX, EF-S or 4/3 lenses, the sensors are not cropping the FOV, and that in normal to telephoto range where 35mm format lenses must sometimes still be used, "FOV cropping" is not a problem, because one can simply use a less long focal length to get the desired FOV.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=68074\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
But why did people buy 35mm instead of MF? In my case I never went to MF simply because a MF systems was to big to carry around and use handheld. 35mm was the largest system I felt I could carry with me most of the time. I would have preferd the quality of MF, but realised that I would never carry and use that as much as a 35mm system.
So for me the 35mm system is small enough and I want the most quality I can aford i that size, rather than get the same quality as before in a smaller/lighter system.
-
But why did people buy 35mm instead of MF? In my case I never went to MF simply because a MF systems was to big to carry around and use handheld. 35mm was the largest system I felt I could carry with me most of the time. I would have preferd the quality of MF, but realised that I would never carry and use that as much as a 35mm system.
So for me the 35mm system is small enough and I want the most quality I can aford i that size, rather than get the same quality as before in a smaller/lighter system.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=68155\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I was thinking particularly of the transition period, roughly the 1960's. People who a decade earlier were buying and carrying MF gear instead chose the smaller 35mm "miniature" format. Yes, size and weight is probably a major factor, and one that distinctly favors the new smaller DSLR formats with smaller pixels and thus the ability to use smaller, shorter focal length lenses. To go from 4/3 with my 50-200/3.5-4.5 to 35mm would require a heavier lens: 300-400mm, and faster than f/5.6 to match AF performance, so distinctly heavier (AF speed depends on a lens's minimum f-stop, regardless of format or focal length. That is why f/5.6 is the slowest for almost al lenses, in any SLR format.)
-
I was thinking particularly of the transition period, roughly the 1960's. People who a decade earlier were buying and carrying MF gear instead chose the smaller 35mm "miniature" format. Yes, size and weight is probably a major factor, and one that distinctly favors the new smaller DSLR formats with smaller pixels and thus the ability to use smaller, shorter focal length lenses. To go from 4/3 with my 50-200/3.5-4.5 to 35mm would require a heavier lens: 300-400mm, and faster than f/5.6 to match AF performance, so distinctly heavier (AF speed depends on a lens's minimum f-stop, regardless of format or focal length. That is why f/5.6 is the slowest for almost al lenses, in any SLR format.)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=68159\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
BJL,
As I recall, in those days there were significant technology advantages of 35mm such as through-the-lens focussing, through-the-lens metering and fast interchangeability of lenses. MF cameras were not only significantly more expensive, cumbersome and heavy but lacked many of those features.
We now have a situation where the larger full frame 35mm format, whilst still more expensive than the cropped format, has at least as many features and sometimes more, such as autofocussing at f8 and more accurate autofocussing in general. As already pointed out, the weight and bulk disadvantage is not necessarily as great an issue, the 5D being an example of a body hardly heavier or bulkier than the cheaper cropped format.
If the trend towards greater pixel count continues and lenses improve, to make the greater pixel count meaningful, there's not necessarily even a weight/cost advantage at the long telephoto end. Compare the Zuiko 300/2.8 with the Canon EF 300/2.8. In Australia, the Zuiko is priced at A$11,399 and weighs 3.29Kg. The Canon EF 300L IS, one of the finest and sharpest lenses that Canon make, costs only A$6490, is lighter at just 2.6Kg and has the benefit of IS.
Now it's probably true that at present an Olympus 4/3rds 8mp image from their 300mm lens will be sharper than a cropped 4mp image from the 1Ds2 using a 300mm lens (although I'd like to see some comparisons to see how great the difference is) but there's greater scope for increased pixel count to happen with the larger format. I see no reason why a future 32mp 35mm body would have any resolution disadvantage compared with an 8mp 4/3rds system, both using lenses of the same focal length and of comparable quality.
-
BJL,
As I recall, in those days there were significant technology advantages of 35mm such as through-the-lens focussing, through-the-lens metering and fast interchangeability of lenses. MF cameras were not only significantly more expensive, cumbersome and heavy but lacked many of those features.
... such as autofocussing at f8 and more accurate autofocussing in general.
... As already pointed out, the weight and bulk disadvantage is not necessarily as great an issue, the 5D being an example of a body hardly heavier or bulkier than the cheaper cropped format.
... it's probably true that at present an Olympus 4/3rds 8mp image from their 300mm lens will be sharper than a cropped 4mp image from the 1Ds2 using a 300mm lens (although I'd like to see some comparisons to see how great the difference is) but there's greater scope for increased pixel count to happen with the larger format.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=68203\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Ray, I suppose that you are always going to seek reasons other than size and weight advantages for the repeated moves towards smaller formats as film/sensors improved in resolution and sensitivity (all the way from 8"x10" to 15x22.5mm and 13.5x18mm). But for one thing, surely MF SLR's also offered through the lens focusing and interchangeable lenses, and the better established MF makers should have been equally capable of adding those SLR style features if their products were in other ways more desirable.
And about weight, how many times to I have to repeat myself:
1. What counts is the size and weight of the whole functioning camera, including a lens, and of the whole kit including any extra lenses.
2. Smaller formats and their higher resolution (more l/mm from smaller photo-sites and the fundamental optical advantages of downsizing lens designs to shorter focal lengths and smaller image circles) allow the user of smaller, lighter lenses, particularly for telephoto.
So why do you keep looking at body weight only? (And the lightest 35mm DSLR body, the 5D is already considerably bulkier than many smaller format DSLR bodies like the K110D, E-500 or 350D; I hope you are not thinking of that absurd comparison of the newest and lightest FF body to the heaviest and oldest 4/3 body!)
Even if AF at f/8 is marginally possible (but not with your 5D+100-400/5.6+1.4x TC apparently!), format downsizing and using f/5.6 or f/4 to get the same speed and DOF from a lens of similar weight and cost will give better AF. Or the same f/8 AF ability will allow the use of considerably smaller, light super-telephoto lenses or lens/TC combinations.
The current trend is for pixel size ratio between formats to hold steady or increase, not decrease, so if anything the focal length differences (as ratios) needed for equal resolution after cropping are increasing not decreasing. Righty now, we have 8-10MP across a huge format size range, from telephones to every DSLR under $2700! Upper limits on both lens resolution (less l/mm for larger formats, especially when adequate DOF requires use of higher f-stops) and the print resolution needs of most mainstream SLR buyers (good A3 or 11"x14" prints probably more than the great majority of SLR buyers care about, or even that mainstream priced SLR lenses have enough resolution for) seem to work towards rough equality of pixel counts in the mainstream SLR price range.
And since this is a thread about the 16x24mm format Pentax DSLR's, why do you persist in doing so many of your price/performance comparisons based on 4/3 and the Olympus 300/2.8? Why not compare to either Pentax lenses, or to Canon FF's most direct competitor, the Nikon DX system? Try Nikon 200/2 or 300/2.8 vs Canon 300/2.8, or 400/2.8 or 600/4 vs Canon 600/4. (My guess: you compare so often to the Olympus 300/2.8 because it is a very expensive, highly specialized, rarely used, special order item that allows you to make an extremely unfavorable but also extremely atypical comparison to the far more widely used and better selling 300/2.8 lenses for 35mm format.)
-
What counts is the size and weight of the whole functioning camera, including a lens, and of the whole kit including any extra lenses.
BJL,
I suppose you know already I can't let you get away with these illogicalities and non sequiturs .
What counts for many of us (perhaps most of us passionate about photography) is functionality, ease of use, and high image quality. Size and weight is of secondary concern unless the size and weight difference is very substantial and taxes our muscles and causes us to get exhausted. Since I'm not suffering from muscular dystrophy or any similar disease, I'm prepared to carry a bit of extra weight for the sake of better image quality.
But this is my personal view, which is however backed up by my own behaviour with cameras. I own a range of cameras from a tiny 5mp Sony T1 which literally fits into a shirt pocket, to a very heavy Mamiya RB67 nicknamed 'the tank'.
I no longer use film cameras for reasons of their limited functionality and ease of use. Weight is not a major consideration. Of the 4 digital cameras I own, by far the lightest, the T1, is the one I have least used. The next lightest combination of body and lens would be the 20D with EF-S 10-22mm lens. Do I use this in preference to my 5D with Sigma 15-30mm lens? No I don't. A clear advantage in image quality plus slightly greater functionality (bigger LCD screen, for example) means more to me than a weight saving of a few ounces.
Smaller formats and their higher resolution (more l/mm from smaller photo-sites and the fundamental optical advantages of downsizing lens designs to shorter focal lengths and smaller image circles) allow the user of smaller, lighter lenses, particularly for telephoto.
Same counterpoint as above applies. If the lighter lens does not also provide equal image quality, including equally low noise, there's no over all advantage for me.
So why do you keep looking at body weight only?
I clearly haven't. I specifically compared the weight of two lenses of equal focal length and equal maximum aperture, designed for different formats.
The current trend is for pixel size ratio between formats to hold steady or increase, not decrease, so if anything the focal length differences (as ratios) needed for equal resolution after cropping are increasing not decreasing.
Non of us have crystal balls in these matters. As I recall, the first 8mp cameras were P&S, followed by the DSLRs such as the 20D. The next generation of Canon 1 series cameras is likely to be 22mp, but who knows. Whatever technology goes into the small format cameras, is likely to be applicable to the larger format, thus maintaining the quality gap.
And since this is a thread about the 16x24mm format Pentax DSLR's, why do you persist in doing so many of your price/performance comparisons based on 4/3 and the Olympus 300/2.8? Why not compare to either Pentax lenses, or to Canon FF's most direct competitor, the Nikon DX system? Try Nikon 200/2 or 300/2.8 vs Canon 300/2.8, or 400/2.8 or 600/4 vs Canon 600/4.
I was responding to your comment in your previous post, ie..... "To go from 4/3 with my 50-200/3.5-4.5 to 35mm would require a heavier lens: 300-400mm, and faster than f/5.6 to match AF performance, so distinctly heavier (AF speed depends on a lens's minimum f-stop, regardless of format or focal length. That is why f/5.6 is the slowest for almost al lenses, in any SLR format.)"....
I use the example of the Zuiko 300/2.8 rather than the Nikkor 300/2.8 because I don't believe there's a Nikkor DX 300mm lens. Having checked on the net, the Nikkor 300/2.8 is slightly heavier than the Canon, probably of no better quality than the Canon EF 300/2.8 and, since Nikon doesn't have an FF body, what's the point of such a comparison.
The bottom line is, the smaller format cameras such as the 4/3rds, and the high pixel count cropped format cameras such as the Nikon D2X, have sacrificed noise performance for the sake of extra resolution (lp/mm). The D30 has lower noise at ISO 1600 than the D2X. The smaller format cameras are forced into this position in order to maintain an edge, but ultimately the only edge they have is a modest reduction in size and weight offset by an inherent image quality advantage of the larger FF 35mm format.
If you wish to make the argument that most people will sacrifice image quality for a modest reduction in weight, then that's a fair comment and probably true. What I'm suggesting is that most people who are passionate about photography, the sort of people who read this forum, will not sacrifice quality for a modest or slight reduction in weight if the price is right.
But for one thing, surely MF SLR's also offered through the lens focusing and interchangeable lenses, and the better established MF makers should have been equally capable of adding those SLR style features if their products were in other ways more desirable.
Here I'm addressing your previous comment, ..."I was thinking particularly of the transition period, roughly the 1960's. People who a decade earlier were buying and carrying MF gear instead chose the smaller 35mm "miniature" format. Yes, size and weight is probably a major factor"......
The first camera that I was really excited about was the Pentax Spotmatic which I bought in the early 60's. A friend bought a Rolleiflex twin lens reflex with Planar 80mm f2.8 lens about the same time. We used to go out shooting together. As I recall, his camera had a fixed lens and no through-the-lens metering. I used my camera much more frequently. I had a 50mm and 135mm lens, the advantage of rolls of 36 exposures and basically what I would describe as greater functionality and ease of use. There's no doubt that the 6x6 Rolliflex produced better quality images, but the penalty was not only greater weight and greater expenses, but more awkwardness of use, greater continuing expense of film and processing, lack of interchangeables lenses and so on. I believe it was quite common in those days for MF cameras to lack many of the features of the then modern 35mm camera. This is not the case whaen comparing cropped format DSLRs with FF DSLRs. That's the point i'm making.
(My guess: you compare so often to the Olympus 300/2.8 because it is a very expensive, highly specialized, rarely used, special order item that allows you to make an extremely unfavorable but also extremely atypical comparison to the far more widely used and better selling 300/2.8 lenses for 35mm format.)
By the way, the last time I visited my local camera store in Brisbane, I saw this Zuiko 300mm lens sitting behind a glass case. It was in stock and on display. No special order required. I would say that generally I'm interested in photographic gear if it can do something for me that I can't already do and provided it's affordable. If this lens was less expensive, then the promise of equivalent 600mm performance on 35mm would be a reason to buy into the 4/3rds system. However, I doubt that one would ever achieve the image quality of a 1Ds2, or even a 5D coupled to a 600/f4, although there is no denying that the 600/4 is a heavier lens, but not necessarily much more expensive.
-
What counts for many of us (perhaps most of us passionate about photography) is functionality, ease of use, and high image quality. Size and weight is of secondary concern unless the size and weight difference is very substantial and taxes our muscles and causes us to get exhausted. Since I'm not suffering from muscular dystrophy or any similar disease, I'm prepared to carry a bit of extra weight for the sake of better image quality.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=68244\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Ray,
I guess I see this the same way as you. If I can't carry with me a full DSLR system (with the possibilty of leving some lenses at home), then the reduction in size/weigth of a reduced frame is not going to make any difference. I will then simply bring a P&S or no camera at all.
-
BJL,
I suppose you know already I can't let you get away with these illogicalities and non sequiturs .
What counts for many of us (perhaps most of us passionate about photography) is functionality, ease of use, and high image quality. Size and weight is of secondary concern ...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=68244\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Talk about non sequiters: I was talking about overall patterns in the interchangeble lens camera market, where size and weight (and cost) are often significant in choices of format, not your particular willingness to buy and carry heavier, more expensive equipment than most interchangeable lens camera kits.
And it was not I who raised the topic of weight: ronnynil raised it with the comment
"a MF systems was to big to carry around and use handheld."
and you continued on that topic:
"MF cameras were not only significantly more expensive, cumbersome and heavy ..."
"the weight and bulk disadvantage is not necessarily as great an issue, the 5D being an example of a body hardly heavier or bulkier than the cheaper cropped format."
"the Zuiko ... weighs 3.29Kg. The Canon EF 300L IS ... is lighter at just 2.6Kg"
So do not contradict yourself now by declaring weight to be of little relevance to the discussion that we were having, or try to change the topic from overall patterns of the interchangeable lens camera market to your personal priorities.
Some other points:
- if you raised 4/3 lenses because of my example, why not go with my example: the relatively affordable 50-200 zoom, rather than jumping to rarely used exotica like the 300/2.8?
- and since we agree about not having crystal balls when it comes to future pixel sizes, why not do comparisons relevant to current realities, which is that 35mm format DSLR's (the 5D in particular) have significantly lower resolution (lp/mm) so that the relevant lens comparisons involve using longer focal lengths with than than with 4/3 or DX: about 50% longer, so 300mm with the DX compared to 200mm with recent 4/3 models or the D2X, like Nikon 200/2 vs Canon 300/2.8. Or the Olympus 300/2.8 to a roughly 450mm Canon lens.
Comparing lenses of equal focal length seems to be relying on your previous crystal ball gazing where you predicted rough equalization of pixel counts.
- you know very well that there is a perfectly good Nikon 300/2.8 for use with DX format; lenses at that focal length do not need to be modified for the smaller than 35mm formats. At most, a DX-only version would have anti-flare baffles with smaller openings, having no significant effect on cost or weight. So ignoring that lens on the basis of not being usable only with DX format is a cop-out.
-
- you know very well that there is a perfectly good Nikon 300/2.8 for use with DX format; lenses at that focal length do not need to be modified for the smaller than 35mm formats. At most, a DX-only version would have anti-flare baffles with smaller openings, having no significant effect on cost or weight. So ignoring that lens on the basis of not being usable only with DX format is a cop-out.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=68326\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
BJL,
I'm a Canon guy. I only prick up my ears when Nikon produces a quality advantage in either price or weight, which Canon does not offer. The D2X is such a camera, which I recognized at the time in many of my posts on this forum. In fact I was initially disappointed when the 5D was announced that it was a 12mp full frame instead of a direct competitor to the D2X. However, having experienced how useful good image quality at ISO 1600 can be, I have no D2X envy.
The general thrust of my argument is that once the pixel count race has settled down and all prosumer and professional cameras have settled on a 5 micron pixel pitch, the larger format will always retain an image quality advantage at sometimes (hopefully) just a modest increase in price and weight.
Incidentally, having just checked the specs of the D2X and Nikkor 300/2.8 combination, it weighs in at almost half a kilogram heavier than the 5D/300mm combination.
I think this comparison deserves further comment. I find it ironic that, with the most exact match of components comparing the cropped format with 'full frame', where there's a definite image quality advantage in favour of the smaller format (that is, capitalising on the longer telephoto effect), we find that the smaller format is not only heavier, but also considerably more expensive. In Australia I'm finding prices of A$10,000 plus for the Nikkor 300/2.8 VR as opposed to A$6000 plus for the Canon 300/2.8 IS.
Don't you find this significant? It sort of undermines your argument, doesn't it? If we step back from use of the longest telephoto lens we are carrying, the smaller format simply allows us to use a shorter and lighter lens for the job, with usually lower image quality, the D2X being the exception where image quality might be on a par if we exclude noise issues. If we compare most cropped formats with FF using our longest lens, we get a fairly marginal increase in quality, simply because pixel desity in the larger format has not caught up. I'm thinking of the D60 compared with the 1Ds and the 20D or 30D compared with the 1Ds2.
The two shining examples where any increase in image quality with long telephotos might be dramatic and very worthwhile, the Olympus/300mm combination and the D2X/300mm combination, we find that both systems are not only significantly more expensive than the cheapest full frame combination (5D/300mm) but also heavier.
-
The general thrust of my argument is that once the pixel count race has settled down and all prosumer and professional cameras have settled on a 5 micron pixel pitch, the larger format will always retain an image quality advantage at sometimes (hopefully) just a modest increase in price and weight.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=68359\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Back the crystal ball gazing? There is not the slightest evidence that all SLR formats are going to settle on the same pixel pitch, or that the price difference well ever be "modest". Your comparisons between lenses of equal focal length have no relevance until those radical changes from the present situation occurs, or at least until you provide good evidence that it is likely to happen.
If anything, the trend is in the opposite direction: a closing of the gap in pixel counts across a wide array of formats, and thus an increase in the ratio of pixel sizes and thus of focal lengths needed. (As an extreme case, the 5D has only 27% more pixels than several recently announced 10MP compact digicams!)
-
Back the crystal ball gazing? There is not the slightest evidence that all SLR formats are going to settle on the same pixel pitch, or that the price difference well ever be "modest". Your comparisons between lenses of equal focal length have no relevance until those radical changes from the present situation occurs, or at least until you provide good evidence that it is likely to happen.
If anything, the trend is in the opposite direction: a closing of the gap in pixel counts across a wide array of formats, and thus an increase in the ratio of pixel sizes and thus of focal lengths needed. (As an extreme case, the 5D has only 27% more pixels than several recently announced 10MP compact digicams!)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=68382\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
BJL,
Okay! We'll just have to wait and see. If we are both still around in 5 years time, I'm sure we shall continue with these discussions, if not before .
-
The only thing that scares me about the new Pentax equipment is the fiability.
The K100 seems to be a very nice camera, although still not so differrent from the DS or D versions. But if the so-called K10 turns out to be a camera that uses the Sony 10mp sensor with SR and a shutter guaranteed to work up to 100 000+good backwards compatibility, it will most certainly be a serious competitor for the Canon 30d and even nikon d200.
Al that within a price range of 1000-2000$ and i'll never consider the canon/nikon alternatives.
I live in Eastern Europe where the market for old pentax mf lenses is quite vast, and i wouldn't mind 2-3 stops off my old Pentax MF system.
Anyway , as Ray told, we'll just have to wait (untill Photokina?) and see.
-
If we are both still around in 5 years time, I'm sure we shall continue with these discussions, if not before.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=68393\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Yep, five years should be enough to see the trends clearly, and I doubt either of us will be able to keep silent until then! I expect a lot of new information this year alone, between Photokina and the round of "gift suggestions" later in the year. Will Canon and FourThirds follow Nikon, Sony, Pentax and Samsung in the rush to 10M+ in mainstream priced SLR's? (Of course, Sigma and Fuji already have 10MP, with their special methods of pixel counting!)
-
macqyver,
doesn't the new Alpha claim a 50mm 1.4. Thought I saw that.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=67794\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Yes: Sony is re-releasing almost all the Minolta lenses, rebranded as Sony, and this includes the 50/1.4 and an update of the very expensive Minolta 35/1.4 (a 35mm format fast wide, so far more expensive than if it were designed only as a "normal" for the "Alpha format" of about 16x24mm.) Sony is even reviving a few that K.-M. had discontinued, like 70-200/2.8 and 300/2.8.