Are Pentax and Nikon handicaped ?

Care to change your Pentax predictions for the year? Just kidding. No need to reply.............
--
360 minutes from the prime meridian. (-5375min, 3.55sec) 1093' above sea level.

jeffkrol said:

Care to change your Pentax predictions for the year?

Click to expand...

Not really. Pentax sold 120,000 DSLRs in 2005 and thinks they'll sell double that in 2006. They very well might, but it really doesn't change their position significantly, IMO. If what we get from Pentax is the same as Nikon, Sony, and Samsung (6mp and 10mp consumer DSLRs) I don't see what the long-term viability of their position is. They can't succeed by being the low-cost leader, and with similar products to the big brands, they can't succeed in differentiating or being a better marketer. Anti-Shake needs marketing muscle to be a differentiator, and Pentax hasn't had that for some time.

And before someone jumps on me: Pentax makes nice cameras. I'm not saying anything about the quality of their product or the images they produce. I'm speaking strictly on a business-oriented basis. I learned the hard way in the tech business that best product doesn't always win. And we've all seen what gestation issues do to the smaller players (e.g. Mamiya).

--
Thom Hogan
author, Nikon Field Guide & Nikon Flash Guide
editor, Nikon DSLR Report
author, Complete Guides: D50, D70, D100, D1 series, D2h, D2x, S2 Pro
http://www.bythom.com

jeffkrol said:

Current APS 6mp sensors are around $50 in bulk. I'm sure 10 ect mp
are more expensive. 8mp means didly squat and is more about
marketing than image. FF is about 10x that cost.

Click to expand...

I'm curious about your pricing comments; do you have anything that can back up the "10x that cost" statement or the other assertions?

jeffkrol said:

You could probably
squeeze enough resulution gains out of a 6mp sensor by tuning the
AA filter and processing than going to a 8 or 10mp(?) sensor. 6 is
the current sweet spot. 8 is marketing 10 is better but seems to
have it's own problems and appears to be more expensive to
impliment. 12mp APS would actually give you a lot better resolution
(and in APS possibly more noise).

Click to expand...

Hmmmm, kinda want to see something that substantiates this stuff too. Any links?

Possibly more noise? BTW, the D2x uses a 12MP APS sized sensor. I'll definitely pass.....

jeffkrol said:

Pentax and Nikon use the same
sensor.... Few people compare the 2 on this basis. It's usually
handling,lenses,brand loyalty ect. Sony/Nikon/Pentax will be no
different....sensor is somewhat meaningless or will be marketed as
meaningless when/if all 3 have the same sensor.

Click to expand...

The sensor absolutely matters, but if we eliminate the factors you listed above from thie equation I'd say it's probably more important how the mfg processes the data captured. In the case of everyone using the same sensors (pentax, D70/D50, etc.) there can bebig differences what the data looks like when you give it to you RAW converter.

jeffkrol said:

--
360 minutes from the prime meridian. (-5375min, 3.55sec) 1093'
above sea level.

Click to expand...

VincentJ said:

How many people actually need more than 6MP? How many A1 or A0
sized images do you print a day? For most of us non-pros who do A4
or even A3 at a pinch, 6MP is more than enough.

Click to expand...

I print 8x12" 300dpi regularly and 10MP would be nice as 6MP just look fuzzy at that size, for scenery anyway. For portrait however, 6MP is fine.
--
Alan Chan
http://www.pbase.com/wlachan/

Don't forget Samsung= Pentax for the time being. Samsung's marketing skills may come into play here big time (relatively speaking). Guess that's why I'm a little more positive than you. Let see if these baby steps pay off. As I posted in a different thread.... worst case Pentax leaves all body production to Samsung and supplies the majority of lenses either as Pentax or Schneider..... I honestly see the synergy as a win/win in terms of survival. As to becoming dominent... no unless Samsung produces some whiz bang sensor. In any case cameras (lenses) are still only 50% of their product line.
--
360 minutes from the prime meridian. (-5375min, 3.55sec) 1093' above sea level.

Mr Ralf said:

How about shooting a landscape with 6MP and printing it A3?
And you'll see that 6Mp can be very limiting indeed

Click to expand...

I've gotten excellent 13x19 inch prints from 6MP images, using an Epson 2200 and Qimage. Shoot RAW, use good glass at optimum aperatures, and you can get amazing results from 6MP.

--
http://www.pixelstatic.com

RESOLUTION:
http://www.alpenglowimaging.com/film-v-digital.htm
Megapixels and Image Sizes

Many people think that a 12 megapixel image is twice the size of a 6 megapixel image in terms of pixel dimensions; they think if you double the megapixel size of an image it will go from 8x10 to 16x20 at a given print resolution. NOT SO. Think of megapixels as surface area. To double the surface area of a 8x10 print you would need to double one dimension only - from 8x10 to 8x20 or 16x10. To double both the width and the height dimensions - making a 16x20 from an 8x10, would result in a quadrupling of the surface area - 4 times the amount of megapixels. In fact, doubling the megapixels while retaining the same aspect ratio results in only a 50% increase in width and height dimensions - doubling both the width and height pixel dimensions results in 4 times the megapixels. So we see that to get an increase in image size that the common person would consider twice the size, one must increase the megapixel count by four times, not two. Case in point: The Nikon D70 6 megapixel SLR and the Nikon D2x 12 megapixel SLR:
................... D70 6 MP D2x 12 MP
Pixel Dimensions: 2000x3008 2848x4288
Print Size at 300ppi: 6.5x10 9.5x14.3

So we see that going from a 6MP camera to a 12MP camera results in an increase in image size only "50% larger", as the dimensions of the image increase by only 50%. The increase in image dimensions going from a 6MP camera to an 8MP camera, aspect ratio being the same, is only 16%; going from an 8MP camera to a 12MP it is only 25%. You can see why this is not something camera manufacturers are eager to clear up.
Or (must I)........
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/mpmyth.htm
or:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1000&message=18562929
SENSOR COSTS:

As to sensor costs this was a quote from Mr Hogan I believe in a recent thread....... Pretty sure I got that right.
More later..........

--
360 minutes from the prime meridian. (-5375min, 3.55sec) 1093' above sea level.

Jim F. said:

jeffkrol said:

Current APS 6mp sensors are around $50 in bulk. I'm sure 10 ect mp
are more expensive. 8mp means didly squat and is more about
marketing than image. FF is about 10x that cost.

Click to expand...

I'm curious about your pricing comments; do you have anything that
can back up the "10x that cost" statement or the other assertions?

SNIP

Click to expand...

It's primarily due to defect rates that larger sensors cost so much more.

Moore's law in reducing costs refers to numbers of transistors, not area of silicon - as you wil obviously appreciate the actual area of silicon costs a certain amount to fabricate, and you get less of them from a wafer at the bigger sizes, but this is compounded by two factors - present machines to stamp out the chips can't cope with a FF sensor, so it has to be done in two bits and then stitched together - search Thom Hogan's posts for more on this - later generations of machines should be able to reduce this cost - but the biggest difficulty is that you are much more likely to hit a defect which ruins the chip at a larger size, so overall the costs rise logarythmically rather than as a square, so the rough guess comes in that costs of a FF chip are likely to be around 10 times that of an APS sensor.

For more info on this a search on these forums will lead you to any number of very erudite explanations of this, many from qualified silicon engineers.

Most were pretty stunned when Canon managed to reduce the costs sufficiently to come out with the 5D, but FF chips remain a lot more expensive than APS chips.

--
Regards,
DaveMart

'Just a wildebeast on the plain of life'
Please see profile for equipment

The vast majority of cameras sold are sold to people who want to take nice sharp photos. You don't need 10 mp for this.

My wife's 4 MP Olympus C-4000 takes incredibly nice pictures. My own 5 MP Panasonic FZ20 takes razor sharp photos too.

I will admit that "more" really is "more" and that higher specs really do mean greater resolution. But at some point, diminishing returns do set in. Since the overwealming majority of prints made today under 8"x 10", how many people really NEED the digital equivalent of large format film resolution? I may be wrong about this, but I remember once hearing that 8 MP in a digital camera has the same effective resolution as 35 mm film does in a film camera.

So, do you really need 16 MP? Or, do you really WANT to pay for 16 MP? And if you do, will you really see any difference?

The Law of Diminishing Returns is why computer sales have fallen flat. Your "old 2 GB" computer is fast enough. You really don't need a "new 3 GB" model. Unless you just have to have the latest and newest toys around.

Now that 5 MP cameras are down around $200, you can bet that manufacturers are going to have a harder and harder time convincing you that you need a new camera with more MPs every year.

--
Marty

I haven't touched my Canons since I got my Lumix FZ20

I have never paid much attention on all the calculations but I have learnt from experience that 35mm scans from my grandold 2820dpi scanner can print 8x12" 300dpi with more details than from 6MP RAW files. 4000dpi scans yet offer far more details than 2820dpi scans and can print 12x18" nicely. If I downsize a 4000dpi scan into 8x12" print, the 6MP RAW can't even hope to match the quality in any way. What made 6MP digital superior is the ever so smooth results which fool some to believe they are sharper with more details, but they are not. They print absolutey attractive with vivid colour and contrast at first sight, but upon close inspection, the details fall apart and look fuzzy. This is of course perfectly alright for some applications, but not for everything.
--
Alan Chan
http://www.pbase.com/wlachan/

--
http://www.johnk.smugmug.com

...I mean, other than the Sony 6mp sensor.

Their subsequent efforts are all noisier than their old trusty 6mp sensor. So why not stick with the good old trusty 6mp sensor?

Or you could say that anybody other than Canon is at a disadvantage, since nobody has come out with a sensor that matches it. Sony has higher res sensors that are noisier.

Haven't read the entire thread, but have scanned a good portion.

I think that a lot of people are also forgetting the other crucial thing in the battle between Sony and Nikon (and Canon)... and that is lenses. Buying a body is less about the features it offers (really, N/C have fantastic offerings, very similar in specs) as it is about the lens system you are buying in. With a dSLR you become locked into the lens system. And here I think it's the lens that is the most important bit.

Some radical innovator can come up with a new sensor system (think Foveon, Fuji's Super CCD or something like Nikon's failed LBCAST) and BANG there goes Canon and Sony's sensor advantage out of the window.

Making a good range of lenses, however, is something that is extremely complicated and extremely expensive to do. It is hard to imagine a new player like Sony being able to compete, even by using lenses from KM.

Canon and Nikon own the field in lens technology and this advantage will save the day. In the low-end market price may be the deciding factor, but Sony will find it difficult to break into the middle and pro levels. Remember, it is these 'hero cameras' that create the halo effect around the brand, which in the end influences the lower end users into their purchase. Both Canon and Nikon have enough clout to match Sony on price differentiation, so i doubt Sony will have the credibility to take their desired 30%.

That's just my 2c anyway...

--

'Computer games don't affect kids; I mean if Pac-Man affected us as kids, we'd all be running around in darkened rooms, munching magic pills and listening to repetitive electronic music.'

• Kristian Wilson, Nintendo Inc, 1989

Sony hooked up with Minolta for the Mount. Thus the lenses. Minolta makes lenses every bit as good and sometimes better then Canon and Nikon. They will not at all be lacking there. And 16 million MAF lenses laying around in the world doesn't hurt either.

There is no lens tech that Nikon or Canon has that Minolta didn't. The only quasi exception is stabilization, but KM has that, they put it in the body though so they didn't have to go the lens route.

I believe it has been pointed out before that Minolta has more patents on lenses and cameras then anyone else, and they make money simply off royalties from that stuff. They are in no way behind.

They may not have sold as much of some stuff, doesn't mean they can't do it. Just like SSM lenses, Minolta had them, they just never marketed many of them. That will surely change now. And some of the best lenses they came up with like the 135 STF will hopefully grow into a family of STF lenses.
--

---

Will Sony and Nikon hurry up all ready and announce some stuff so Minolta users can
figure out if they Stay, Go or Curse the camera industry.

Well, an A3 print from 6mpix only looks good as long as it does not stand next to a print made from medium format film scan. When you put these two side by side you actually see how much detail those 6mpix are missing. And this is not about pixel peeping, anybody who has not even a clue about origins of those images immediately sees the difference.

You are absolutely right about the high quality of Minolta glass, the problem has been the high price of some of the top end stuff.

For some lenses you can buy the Canon equivalent with IS for less than the Minolta without - and used prices are now just silly.

This may have been largely a volume issue though, and hopefully htat will be one of the first benefits of Sony taking over.

I believe I am correct in saying that Minolta also has less of whatever their equivalent of USM lenses are?

Anyway, that is pretty well detazil stuff, and the main point is that Sony have walkied into a situation where they have a pretty wide range of good lenses.

PhotoTraveler said:

Sony hooked up with Minolta for the Mount. Thus the lenses.
Minolta makes lenses every bit as good and sometimes better then
Canon and Nikon. They will not at all be lacking there. And 16
million MAF lenses laying around in the world doesn't hurt either.

There is no lens tech that Nikon or Canon has that Minolta didn't.
The only quasi exception is stabilization, but KM has that, they
put it in the body though so they didn't have to go the lens route.

I believe it has been pointed out before that Minolta has more
patents on lenses and cameras then anyone else, and they make money
simply off royalties from that stuff. They are in no way behind.

They may not have sold as much of some stuff, doesn't mean they
can't do it. Just like SSM lenses, Minolta had them, they just
never marketed many of them. That will surely change now. And
some of the best lenses they came up with like the 135 STF will
hopefully grow into a family of STF lenses.
--

---

Will Sony and Nikon hurry up all ready and announce some stuff so
Minolta users can
figure out if they Stay, Go or Curse the camera industry.

Click to expand...

--
Regards,
DaveMart

'Just a wildebeast on the plain of life'
Please see profile for equipment

Ralfs said:

Well, an A3 print from 6mpix only looks good as long as it does not
stand next to a print made from medium format film scan. When you
put these two side by side you actually see how much detail those
6mpix are missing. And this is not about pixel peeping, anybody who
has not even a clue about origins of those images immediately sees
the difference.

Click to expand...

Maybe. Or, let's say, so I'm told. I haven't seen it, nor do I know anyone who actually has seen such a comparison. But what does that have to do with your original premise? It is not just Pentax and Nikon that have 6 MP that don't show up well against MF, but everyone else. And, again so I'm told, anything up to 12MP doesn't do well against MF, either.

Of course, neither does 35mm film in fullblown extreme situations. That one I know about, have seen and believe.

--
Charlie Self
http://www.charlieselfonline.com

Ralfs said:

Well, an A3 print from 6mpix only looks good as long as it does not
stand next to a print made from medium format film scan. When you
put these two side by side you actually see how much detail those
6mpix are missing. And this is not about pixel peeping, anybody who
has not even a clue about origins of those images immediately sees
the difference.

Click to expand...

Against medium-format I would agree with you. But I would put an A3 print done from a shot on my istd in raw with a good lens against a good scan from 35mm and I don't think it would be easy to tell. As others have said, 6 mp can produce great A3 prints, although you have to be careful with the PP - sharpening can easily get out of hand.

tim

Sony has an excellent Zeiss branded lens on the R1. It is almost universally agreed upon that Zeiss does not make AF lenses, so the most probably conclusion is that Sony designed and manufactured this lens themselves and licensed the CZ brand. I doubt Sony will have any problem making top-performing lenses.

-------------------------------------------
See the colors of my world in:
thw.smugmug.com