watson076: I'm curios how well does Pentax sell ? In my 15 years of shooting I have never seen a single Pentax body at any events, tourist destinations, photo walks etc. I'm not knocking the brand, I know there are people that swear by Pentax, but what will a full frame body offer ? This is already a crowded market that is dominated by Nikon/Canon with a small percentage of detractors enjoying the Sony A series.
Ricoh/Pentax have a single digit share of the camera market, not even 5% if I recall correctly.But, as Thom Hogan has stated, digital imaging is such a small part of Ricoh's business that it amounts to a "rounding error in their financial reports" or a "hobby business". So basically they can continue to make cameras for their loyal customer base without worrying much about the rest of the market, or the impact it will have on the bottom line.
madecov: I just checked the website. It says Full Frame Pentax. It does not say DSLR, It does not say Mirrorless. It just says full frame. That doesn't rule out either of them.
In Feb 2015, Ricoh announced the development of a FF DSLR:
ProfHankD: So, did Pentax say it's a DSLR or did people just assume that? I see a K mount. I don't see a mirror in that mysterious photo nor in any text from them. ;-)
This announcement made by Ricoh in Feb 2015 explicitly states that they are developing a FF DSLR:
John C Tharp: Pentax has one thing that they bring to the market that no one else really has- real weather sealing, that can embarrass competitor's professional (1D X, D4s) models, in bodies, lenses, and accessories.
Pentax would do well to play to this strength!
It's true that Pentax probably has better weather sealing in consumer models than anyone else, but I highly doubt that the top-of-the-line Canon and Nikon models you mention have inferior sealing to say a K-3.Also, Olympus is as famous for "real" weather sealing as Pentax is, and I don't think the E-M5 or E-M1 (or the old E-5) are any worse than a Pentax DSLR in that respect.
GoneMirrorless: Not sure why the RX10 is being compared. Marketing?The FZ1000 beats the pants off the RX10ii.
Not only can it track action with DFD unlike the RX10ii's CDAF, but the lens can reach the action when one can't stand one the sideline (and the action is not on the closest corner of the field/pitch).
After reading the RX10ii's sensor was a step backwards, the FZ1000, which costs a few hundred less, is even more of a bargain and for action photography a superior choice.
Because they are working on the review of the RX10 II, not the FZ1000. This test was probably performed as part of that review.
snapa: What does it matter, neither is an MILC and are far too large, heavy and bulky to even consider IMO. If you are mostly interested in using 'video on a DSLR', then this FW update may be of some interest to you. Otherwise, get a much smaller MILC with much better video that is already available, for less money ;)
Firmware is cheap, but great handling, small size/weight, and IQ in still pictures is more important than some free firmware for video, In A Camera!
Many MILCs are too small to have great handling, while these DSLRs have excellent handling, especially the D7100. IMO, of course.
Bezbozny: Sony Europe gives a November 2015 availability at €3,400. The a7S II will be available in the US from October for $2,999.
Are the kidding???? Since when 2,999$ = 3,400 euros?????
You can't really compare US and European prices directly in that way. Different markets means, among other things, different taxes and different currencies that aren't equally strong against the yen.The Japanese companies export their products priced in yen, which means that the price in other markets will vary depending on the strength of the local currency against the yen.
straylightrun: One of the selling points for this camera from a video of a Sony interview, is the ability to map the record video button to a custom button. Why not put that in a firmware update for original a7s users?
The A7 range hasn't been updated multiple times. With the new A7S II, the entire range is now in its second generation, and has therefore been updated once.
solarsky: Who owns JK Imaging and where are their headquarters located?
It's an American company. It was founded by an American and the headquarters are located in the US, with sales offices in several other countries. And as I said, the products are manufactured, and likely designed, by Asia Optical in Taiwan. JK Imaging itself is responsible for marketing, sales and distribution.
One of the other companies founded by Joe Atick has been a distributor of consumer electronics in Latin America for many years. This is what he does, he sells products made by other companies. That doesn't make his companies "Chinese". I haven't found any information suggesting that the base of operations is located in China. They have a sales/marketing office in China, but so have many other American companies.
It's an American company, with headquarters in the US. The actual manufacturing is outsourced to Asia Optical in Taiwan, and possibly other companies as well.
belle100: Wot! Video at a rate of 5 frames per second. My FujiFilm MX-700 back in 1998 can do better than that! And looks better too. lol
And the Fuji had 250 MP and full sensor readout, I suppose?
Francis Carver: Yeah, right.... Canon is feverishly "developing" this, that, and the other.
But meanwhile, what Canon actually HAS: pieces of overpriced, under-spec'd products pretty much obsolete on the day they hit the marketplace. So, who would really fall for this kind of lame-fake announcements from a rather discredited company like Canon?
So you're judging Canon's R&D capabilities by looking at their consumer products? And just because you aren't impressed by those products, any announcement of new tech developed by Canon must be fake?
justmeMN: Meh. $1,300 for a 1"-type sensor.
That would indeed be expensive, but I believe Sony ships the sensor with a camera body and a lens, among other things.
Frank_BR: Why doesn't Sony have so far the option of a lossless RAW format? Most critics say that this is just a Sony error, but the question is not so simple. To try to understand better, I did an experiment. I took the RAW files from DPR Studio Scene for Sony 7RII and Nikon D810, and compressed them with WinRAR. The results were as follows:
Camera.....RAW original....WinRAR compr7RII .........41.4MB...........38.3MBD810 ........74.3MB..........43.9MB
WinRAR is a lossless compression, so the RARs files contain the same information as the RAWs from camera.
Surprisingly, WinRAR managed to reduce to almost half the size of NEF file, but failed to appreciably reduce the size of Sony RAW. This shows that NEF is inefficient since it produces much larger files than necessary. There is room for a better lossless RAW coding. I draw the conclusion that a reason for Sony has been reluctant to use a lossless RAW coding is that the current processor technology does not allow high efficiency of coding.
"You may not have noticed that I used in my remarks the RAW files provided by DPR from its Studio Test Scene. And the only Nikon RAW files available for download are uncompressed NEFs."
And yet you used them to claim that Nikon's lossless compression is inefficient. You even referred to them as lossless NEFs, which only makes sense if you thought they were compressed. Why call an uncompressed file lossless?
The whole point of your argument was that by using the lossless compression of WinRAR, you proved that it was possible to significantly reduce the file size of the NEF. From this you drew the conclusion that Nikon's own lossless compression does a bad job.If you knew that the NEF was uncompressed, then what was the point of your argument? Of course you can reduce the file size of an uncompressed raw file by compressing it! You could do the same with an uncompressed Sony file, if they had provided you with one.
maxnimo: People still make prints?
Seems kind of outdated and wasteful of resources considering the growing abundance of tablets and 4K TVs with superb image quality and resolution.
maxnimo, there is no hostility to new ways of experiencing life from my part. Having a preference for an older technology entails no such thing.
Looking at prints and photo books, as well as reading books, is something I greatly enjoy. Staring at a screen for too long gives me a headache, and I mean that literally. Hence my preference.
Dillon Frazier: I wish they would price this similar to the canon 50mm 1.8
micro four thirds could really use an affordable standard prime around $100
"Otherwise f/1.8 is f/1.8 is f/1.8."
Yes, if we're talking exposure and light intensity. But not if we're talking about total light gathering. As you say, the larger room with the larger window lets in more light, which is directly related to the amount of photon shot noise and SNR, and hence image quality.
Sensor size has a larger impact on noise performance than pixel pitch or sensor tech.
Frank, you didn't compress a lossless NEF, you compressed an uncompressed NEF. To prove that Nikon's lossless compression is inefficient, you need to perform your experiment on a NEF file shot with Nikon's lossless compression setting.
MarshallG: I would like to understand if this compression is part or all of the reason why Sony sensors have a reputation for lower noise.
When I see noise in dark areas, it's really just slight pixel-to-pixel variations where the chroma variance is too great. If you blend or average the chroma values of the adjacent pixels, this noise pattern will mostly go away.
Sony sensors are used by several other companies, that don't use lossy compression. Nikon and Pentax arguably achieve even better noise performance than Sony, even when using the same sensor.
Lassoni: wireless cards? when it should be camera bodys that should be wireless? what
I agree that new cameras should have WiFi built-in, but many people still use older camera models that lack this feature.
So if I find prints more pleasing to look at than a screen, or think that an e-book just isn't as engaging to read as a 'real' book, then I must necessarily be afraid of change? Sounds like you just can't accept the fact that people have different opinions and preferences.