MayaTlab0: Too late. The future is with shorter flange distance mounts, Pentax K's mount is too inflexible to be successfully adapted to various designs. In addition Pentax's FF lenses lineup may have tons of references, but most of them are old and optically challenged. And new APSC lenses, like the 20-40, aren't particularly brilliant, and are suffering from QC issues.
Despite having some excellent points Pentax' APSC DSRLs have never been particularly successful. Now Pentax is going to do the same, but against FF DSLRs competitors. I'm not sure the result is going to be any different.
What makes you think so? APS-C OVFs aren't particularly good. FF ones are better, I agree, but EVFs can be just as big. Samsung has proven that there doesn't have to be a lag (NX1), and sharpness... just put in a big enough display. Displays are getting really good really fast, just look at Samsung's AMOLED screens. When well set up and adjusted they can be really good, and should be able to display the full 14 bit image the sensor can deliver.
Also, getting into the mirrorless game now is about being there early enough to build up a good system. About being prepared.
fmian: Extremely risky move dropping tech budget into this.The market already has very dominant players in it.Pentax should be trying to carve a new niche instead of trying to squeeze in between the competition.
Pentax is doing acceptable in the APS-C market cause Canon and Nikon don't really care too much, and their better APS-C cameras are massive and unnecessarily large bricks. But how will a FF Pentax do...
Class A: Fantastic news!
What's will all the haters acting on their foul mood on this great occasion?
Do we Pentaxians comment on Canon releases that their sensors are outdated? Do we comment on Nikon DSLR releases that Nikon is unable to allow one to adjust f-stop, shutter speed, and ISO without taking one's eye off the viewfinder (their ISO button placement is broken, every time)?
Knowing Pentax, this new FF model will be rock-solid, a joy to handle in all weather conditions, and will feature image stabilisation for all lenses (old or new) for a very attractive price.
The IQ will be outstanding, as Pentax have proven with their MF and APS-C models, and will definitely surpass that of the already great APS-C models.
What's not to like?
Knowing Pentax they will also not make full use of their cameras capabilities. Bracketing to extend the image frame?(Shoot wider?) Bracketing to shoot at higher resolutions? (Like that new Olympus). Shake reduction while video? None of it will be offered.
Please Pentax, prove me wrong.
Joe Ogiba: Pentax Digital SLR - 6 megapixelPublished Sep 25, 2000 | dpreview staff
At Photokina next week Pentax will announce a new 6 megapixel (3072 x 2048) Digital SLR, it will use Philip's 6 megapixel 35mm size CCD (12-bit progressive, 12 µm pixel pitch).
Pentax Digital SLR Specifications(so far)Body Pentax design magnesium alloy caseType SLR (body only)Imager Philips 6 megapixel CCD35mm full frame12-bit progressive scan12 µm pixel pitchImage resolution 3072 x 2048Image types JPEG, TIFF, RAWShutter speed Up to 1/6000 secLens mount Pentax KAF2 mount (645N & 67II lenses can be used)Focus 6-point AFViewfinder TTL optical (true TTL)LCD 2 inch TFTFlash Built-in retractable flash unit (TTL)Storage Dual slots:Compact Flash Type IIPCMCIA Type IIConnectivity IEEE1394 (Firewire)Sale date UndecidedSale price Expected ~$7,000http://www.dpreview.com/articles/8322647280/pentaxdigitalslr
IIRC that sensor was also used in another camera, and it was _bad_ (the sensor that is). That should be why they pulled the plug, because the camera, for that time, was very impressive otherwise.
Tactical Falcon: I have the K-5II and love it. Uncertain if the K-3 will give me more in IQ, in video shooting probably, but want to still learn more before I get one. Certainly has the feature set I want. I am happy with the IQ with the K-5II so far.
The K-3 offers more control, but the actual video quality of the K-5 is better. Less artefacts due to compression, and a properly stabilized video (the system in the K-3 is electronic only, with a ton of trade-offs, even though this review claims it is a mechanical system). Also the K-3 crops the frame for video.
Are you absolutely sure that the SR works for video? I have tried a K-3 in a shop, and it is _very_ obvious that it does not use the sensor-shift system to stabilize video. Owners of the K-3 all say the same, no SR. Even PENTAX (!) confirms that it does not have sensor-shift based SR. "#13. Many users do not find electronic video stabilization to be satisfactory. Do you have plans to bring back sensor-shift video SR like in the K-5, or possibly a different type of stabilization? Was there a reason you moved away from mechanical video SR?
The sensor-shift SR is one of our advantages, even for videos, but at this time we have had difficulties solving the problem of sounds of shifting (noise during recording). So it might take time to get a real solution to avoid this problem, and then we will consider how to do it."http://www.pentaxforums.com/articles/photokina-2014/pf-interview-with-ricoh-imaging-photokina-2014.html
aerorail: a late pre-production running a beta version of firmware 1.0funny... as far as i am concerned that's a disclaimer. there is no such thing.99.9% bet the camera is and has been in full productionsame story every new release and cameras are on the store shelves from china 2 months later
They can produce the camera with an unfinished firmware and push out firmware updates.
Yamyung: Nice colours
She is sitting between trees. Of course there is a colour cast... and also the photo is a raw photo that was processed by the dpreview staff in order to look as good as possible (at least according to the description), and this is what they went for. For my taste too much noise reduction, but it doesn't look too bad.
A CCD sensor is a godsent. I have the SX130, and the best feature about is is the CCD sensor. No rolling shutter effect at all. So much better when taking videos...
Edmond Leung: Good for Pentax. Ricoh is strong in sales and marketing.But the recent new product (mirrorless camera) is no good. They should study the market more carefully.
I bet they do. Why would they design a camera that is only for dpreview posters? This thing is not meant to be a professional tool. It's meant to mix up the market, to give people a designer camera, a fashion statement, that effortlessly takes great photos. Something a mom or dad can use to take photos of their kid growing up, without having a huge camera or having to use a viewfinder.
There is a market for that. And a more professional K-02 or whatever it will be called will probably follow (when EVF tech has matured, and unlike Sony etc. they already have a great upgrade path for the K-01... their DSLRs).
Anastigmat: let's hope the reorganization gets rid of whatever obstacles that have so far prevented the marketing of a full frame model. With Sony working on its second generation full frame model, and Nikon bringing out its 3rd generation full frame, Pentax needs to start working, or it may be condemned to doing what Olympus is doing: putting old wine (M43 sensor) in an older bottle (a camera body that apes the OM series inelegantly).
@qwertyasdf: You want massive DOF and resolution? Buy a Pentax 645D. Makes the FF Canikons look like toys where everything is in focus.
Rupert Bottomsworth: Bad move Ricoh. Now all your cameras will look like abominations à la K-01.
The mid range cameras from Canon and Nikon are huge though, they are expensive, heavy and the layout is weird (ok, I shoot Pentax, but from the first moment I held my Pentax in my hands I pretty much knew where everything was, and could use it blindly pretty fast, furthermore the buttons are where they can be reached easily).
Also the plastic on entry level Canons feels extremely cheap (even many of their compacts seem to be better!), while the plastic on the K-x/K-r is okay-ish, and good on my older entry level Pentax (ok, what was entry level back then).
Gothmoth: why would you spend your money on a pentax system when your starting with photography?
imo canon or nikon have far superior systems.pentax may has some nice cameras and a few nice lenses.but looking at the whole system around it.... why buy into pentax?
Because of the old lenses, because Pentax is the only company to offer a semi-pro camera (all I'll ever need) that isn't a goddamn brick. Does Canon expect me to go to the gym to use a 7D for an extended period of time? It's just too big and heavy, and for what? I fail to see the advantage of it over the K-5.
I like the compact Canons... I have 2 (one that I use regularly, and the other one I used a lot too), my mum one. But their DSLRs either feel like cheap toys (materials are awful, like a toy camera) or are too big and heavy. Pentax strikes a nice balance.
And lets not forget that Pentax knows how to make lenses, even the kit lenses are fairly decent.
tessl8d: I almost bought the K5 just over a week ago, everyting about it felt and worked right,a few days later I saw the KO1 and the money's stayed in my pocket. If this is the Ricoh/Pentax way, then I'm afraid that they will find themselves with some big problems, I'm not buying into a system from a company that might not be there in 3-5 years. If the slim,light and capable NEX7, was weatherproofed, I'd be happy to wait 6 months for it. Hint Pentax.
The K-01 is what might SAVE Pentax. With the Q I was thinking WTF, but the K-01 is almost perfect, from the wonderful design to the lens mount, what it needs now is a cheaper brother and a more professional version, plus a few of the typical lenses modified for the K-01 line of cameras (imagine a NEX-5 with the 18-55... hard to hold, awkward, weird. Now imagine the fat K-01 grip with a lens that sticks out of the camera just so much that the whole combo is as fat as the NEX-5 with that sort of lens. Vastly improved balance, grip, comfort).
I mean... look at this: http://koreatech.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/img_4032w400x300.jpg WTF? Really, what is the point of a slim body when the lens sticks out like that? If anything I would have wished the K-01 had a bigger, more pronounced grip, just like their DSLRs.
M1963: This is good news. Let's just hope Pentax (which seems to have lost their way with those ridiculous colour schemes, Swarovski distractions and silly mirrorless cameras) can get back to its days of glory. When I shopped around for my current camera, I felt tempted to buy either the K-x or the K-R, but I was pulled away by all the indecision regarding Pentax's ownership. They need to do something about that hedious K-01, though...
If they would produce normal DSLRs and ILCs, who would buy them? Great, so a few in the know perhaps (but it's not like there isn't a black K-x/r), but the majority will just buy a Canon or Nikon... or perhaps Sony, because that is a big name too. ILCs everyone and their mother seems to buy a NEX, no one a Samsung NX (despite being relatively competitive).
Pentax isn't big enough to churn out boring me-too cameras, they need to grab attention. The only thing I can think of is an old school (and I mean really old school) DSLR that mimics one of the classic Pentaxes of the 70s/80s (including the usage, something like the Epson R-D1 or Leica M9 but as DSLR), but it is cheaper and probably more effective to just paint the cameras.
WordsOfFarewell: Well let's hope the direction the company goes won't change to much from serious photography to more of those colorful amateur stuff. I guess I'll still have to wait some years until they release a Full Frame for professionals instead of mirrorless and weird colorschemes. Somehow I don't like the recent direction at all despite the brilliant technical specs of my K20D or my K5.
Those colors help sell cameras. Pentax main objective is to earn money, not to please a few. FF is completely in the hands of Canon and Nikon, entering that market would probably be pretty idiotic and more of a status symbol. But Pentax has the 645D as a status symbol, in a market with less competition too.
Look at the Pentax cameras. They are different, and they have to be. K-5... only tiny semi-pro DSLR... there is no alternative. K-x and K-r: Colorful, attention grabbing, and still good cameras. People who buy these may upgrade to the K-5 later. Q: Tiny... totally unlike all other ILCs (not sure if that's a smart idea, but look at Nikon, even THEY didn't dare to enter the APS-C ILC market! And where is Canon?). K-01: Stylish, different, bold, probably most comfortable to use, and tons of lenses. Again, owners of these may buy a K-r/K-5 later or already have one.
Doing yet another me-too camera won't help them (look at Samsung's NX series).
waxwaine: I love it Tough-Macho look.IMHO the point on this camera is the exclusion of the mirror slap, wich produce little shakes affecting the resulted image keeping the venerated K mount.. GREAT IDEA!!! I consider the K-01 a serius attempt and not only an intent of a fetish camera like new Fuji's and others wl knows.
I agree... until you mention the Fuji. This one has hardly any manual controls. The Fuji only has manual controls. IMHO the Fuji is trying to capture the traditionalists market, or photographers that like to shoot with analog cameras. Also a nice niche. This one is weirder... between a fashion statement (look at the design! They hired a famous designer for it, but the controls are just not there) and a serious tool (K mount).
The price makes it tempting to me (as I already have a couple of K mount lenses), but I don't think I could use it as my primary camera, so I'll rather save and buy a K-5 instead.
simon65: I was aghast to look through the electronic viewfinder of a Sony NEX-7 recently and be told it represented the "state of the art" and was recognized as the best in the market.
What I saw was lots of noise and pixels and colour distortion.
The Sony guy explained that, "Well we are inside".
Hmm, well, defintely lots of room for improvement there by MicroOLED and then some, before electronic viewfinders can claim to replace optical viewfinders as found on DSLRs or indeed on Leica and Fuji's rangefinders.
Surprise surprise. That's what your photo would probably look like too. Ideally it gives an accurate representation of what your sensor is seeing, and thus what the photo will look like. It might not be as fun to use, but to get the best shots an EVF is the way to go. You can correct poor exposure before you take the photo and take a look at the screen.
eyewundr: 'See a lot of comments about the representative effectiveness of EVF's to, ultimately, the mind of the photographer.Quick analogy:A good pair of earphones, or even a good pair of earbuds, deliver as good a music listening experience as most decent speaker systems.Similarly, a good EVF can deliver as clear and useful a visual representation as glass (prism). To match top quality glass will require an EVF I have yet to read about.But either way they're for FRAMING the scene to be captured.Just as neither speakers nor headphones can match a live concert performance, neither prism nor EVF can substitute for pulling the camera away to LOOK at the scene BEFORE you frame it in the viewfinder.
That being said I haven't seen an EVF that I consider superior to a good OVF. Yet. But I'm sure the time will come when EVF can equal or surpass OVF, and that day I'll switch (as soon as possible). It also means we can get rid of the noise a DSLR makes (yes, it's nice and cool, and in 20 years we'll find that hip, but for the moment it annoys me most of the time).
Unless you are listening to an unamplified life concert (at least singer and instruments that don't require an amplifier like the e-guitar) then a great set of speakers can deliver better sound quality than what you would hear standing in the audience. They also only use speakers, and usually low quality ones that have one priority: Being loud.
People say the EVF can never catch up. Are they sure? All APS-C cameras have tiny viewfinders, even those with big viewfinders. If find it very hard to determine what is sharp or what is not. With a bigger EVF that has a very high resolution (something that will come, it's just a matter of time) that is less of an issue, also the center can be enlargened to assist in manual focusing. Ideally an EVF will be able to show you exactly what you will get... something an OVF will never be able to do.