3 new Pentax DSLR in 2009 !

[JanneM]

Next year, we are planning to launch some three types,

I mean.
Jaguar had the Type C, the E-Type and the D-Type. At least.
So.
Go Pentax!
Just use negative as ground, please!

Ahh, yes. Lucas Industries - inventors of the electric darkness...

There's an old joke that the reason the Brits lost interest in the computer industry was that they never could make a CPU that leaked oil.

--
Pics: http://www.flickr.com/photos/jannem/
Blog: http://janneinosaka.blogspot.com

 

[Lance B]

The APS-H rumour has been around for a long time, I remember before
the launch of the K20D, a lot of people thought it was going to have
an APS-H sensor.
Anyway I don't think it's that wise to have a multicrop sensor, too
confusing for the general photographer public IMHO.

A multi crop camera would not be for the general public, but for more
experienced users, so I do not think it will be a problem.

Hi Lance,

When they said "niche" they didn't mean "obscure" ;-) "More
experienced users" are far from being the majority IMHO.

Possibly, but I am sure that most would have no problem.

Seriously, I cannot imagine a multicrop sensor with the current lens
line-up. They would have to recertify every lens to know which one is
compatible with which crop, etc. And for example, even if the DA40
works on FF, can they guarantee it will worth the Limited label on
anything but APS-C crop?

This would be the biggest issue with a multi crop sensor, ie finding out which would be ok at 1.3x crop (or whatever the crop factor will be) and which wouldn't and how much it would be an issue etc. Having said that, the camera could be made to automatically recognise which lens would suit 1.3x crop (or whatever crop factor it happens to be) and which wouldn't.

Another thing, FF win you "only" 1 stop, and APS-H maybe 1/2 stop.
IMHO the cost of producing something that may render a lot of DA
lenses incompatible or not performing at their best (including the
DA* 16-50 and 50-135) is not worth it and I cannot see Hoya/Pentax
following that road.

Agreed that FF is only about 1 stop better and 1.3x crop is only 1/2 a stop, but to many that is significant. To me, it is not so much about the advantage of the larger sensor, but the larger clearer, brighter and more easy to focus VF of the larger sensor and resultant VF. You never know, Pentax may opt for a 1.15x or 1.1x crop as there may be issues with FF due to SR and image circle coverance.

Instead, they will probably concentrate on what makes them unique at
this point: weathersealing for under 1000$.

This is very true for the entry level and some advanced amateur models, but do not forget that there are some advanced amateurs and semi pros that would like FF or some sort of crop factor sensor, like 1.1x, 1.15x, 1.2x, 1.25x or 1.3x crop.

They should offer more
lenses with SDM, even kit lenses just like Canon and Nikon do. They
should also offer more weathersealed lenses to match the bodies. A
sub-1000$ combo with weathersealing marketed with a big horn should
sell very well.

I couldn't agree more, but this should not stop Pentax from developing cameras over the US$1,000 mark. I am not necessarily an advocate for FF or crop, but I would love the bigger VF.

--
Lance B
http://www.pbase.com/lance_b

 

[paulkienitz]

--

K10D, Sig 17-70, DA 55-300, FA 50/1.4 "Billy Bass", M 400/5.6 "the Great Truncheon"

 

[Joe Ogiba]

--

Since the K20D already has a CMOS sensor and Live View it would not cost much more to add 720p or 1080p HD video to it.

 

[ManuH]

I couldn't agree more, but this should not stop Pentax from
developing cameras over the US$1,000 mark. I am not necessarily an
advocate for FF or crop, but I would love the bigger VF.

Note that I didn't say I wouldn't want a camera with a bigger sensor than APS-C. I just said that I didn't see Pentax doing it in the near future, at least for 2009. They still have too much catch up to do with their current line. But I certainly would welcome any Pentax camera with a bigger than APS-C sensor whatever crop it is.

--
Manu

 

[Greg Lovern]

an essential difference for me (whether it is good or no good).

It's essential to you even if it is "no good"??

Greg

--
Brand loyalty is a character flaw.

 

[KentG]

I would expect a tweeked K20D with some extra features, similar to Canon's 20D/30D progression, with no increase in pixel count. Maybe one of the newer 900K LCD, GPS, better EVIL, and maybe HD video.
I also think they may upgrade the K-M with no increase in price.

As for the 3rd camera it could either be a new APS-C between the 2 current ones replacing the K200, a FF but which I doubt with the lens availability issues or the 645D since it is an SLR and they did not specify what format the cameras may be.
Kent Gittings

 

[KentG]

Or they could never figure how to keep the PC on for longer than 15 minutes.
Kent Gittings

 

[Kotsu]

In my opinion Pentax cannot afford to miss the FF train. Price of those sensors is bound to come down as they are becoming more common. Economics of scale combined with technological advances. As marketing goes I believe we are nearing the end of the megapixel race. Next big argument in marketing, even to the massas, just might be sensor size. Whether the advantages are real or perceived does not matter.

More affordable FF cameras, with high volume sales, would also further erode the pricing power of Pentax. Unless, of course, Pentax has also entered that market.

The nightmare scenario is Pentax moving only when it forced to do so. As happened when digital was first introduced.

 

[Pete Fang]

Hi Radu,

Sorry, Roland, but the quote from the report is:

"Next year, we are planning to launch some three types, including
minor design
change versions, of single-lens reflex (SLR) cameras."

So they are 3 DSLR with the 645D in suspension ATM.

Doesn't the 645D qualify as a DSLR? No?

Yes, of course, Peter, but like I and many others said before in this
thread I think we analyse on semantics that are not really there.

I stand up by my prediction: K20D GPS + K20D' succesor + K200D'
succesor are those 3 models we know there will be launched.

My prediction is similar to yours, only by replacing your K20D GPS with the 645D. Let's wait and see.

Peter

--
Peter Fang - Pentax user for 25 years: K20D / MZ-S / Z-1 / SFX / LX
My PBase Gallery: http://www.pbase.com/pfang

 

[bjmano]

Radu,
What about miKro? Better than micro K



--
benjamin - bjmano

 

[VLampa]

Film based?

NO,
Pentax will release a camera based on revolutionary new sensor:

Replacable, with separate sensors for BW, low/high contrast etc;
Flexible;
Write-once;
Based on silver-halide nanoclusters.

Regards,
Andrey.

That sounds really expensive, but an interesting idea - Velvia slide sensors, anyone?

 

[VLampa]

The nightmare scenario is Pentax moving only when it forced to do so.
As happened when digital was first introduced.

For one, Pentax had a prototype 135-format DSLR long before Nikon did, only that Philips couldn't deliver on their sensors. They certainly wasn't "forced" to go digital. Would you say that Canon "forced" Nikon and Sony to the 135-format game, too? No, Canon didn't force them to go that route. It was of their own volition that they went that way.

And two, how is that a nightmare? If and when Pentax does move to 135-format, it means that the technology is cheap enough for the rest of us to afford it. I'm probably not as well-off as you are, but $2500 to me is still a lot of money to spend for the wonders of 35mm sensors. Most of the "few remaining customers" (God forbid! I'm not cool!) of Pentax are either those who are fully invested in Pentax glass already (like Jim King) or those who saw great value in what Pentax offers (like me). To force 35mm sensors at this point in time is folly for a brand that is slowly trying to rebuild its rep in the market of this new generation. The K-m is a step in the right direction, really, and they can squeeze APS-C technology still for the next few years while making good enough profits to put back into R&D for other more pressing needs - better AF, better FPS, etc.

Sure, I'd love 35mm sensor technology, but at a reasonable price. Not everyone here is well-off or makes a living out of their photography.

As before, I think a lot of people here are always hoping Pentax to be Nikon and Canon. If you're really not that happy (perpetual gloom and doom, Pentax is passe and is always left behind), it's much easier to switch systems now than ever before, with the internet, eBay, etc.

I understand everyone who clamors for 35mm sensors in a Pentax body, but it's not a death knell for Pentax to reuse the Samsung sensor and not introduce a 35mm DSLR ASAP (Olympus and Panasonic would've died long ago if that was the case). By most accounts (even from esteemed reviewers), it's a perfectly usable sensor still.

 

[RyanSteele]

In my opinion Pentax cannot afford to miss the FF train. Price of
those sensors is bound to come down as they are becoming more common.
Economics of scale combined with technological advances.

Except people always touting FF sensor price drops ignore the fact that APS sensor prices will drop at the same time.

APS gets cheaper, FF gets cheaper, and so does MF, and suddenly FF isn't the holy grail anymore....

 

[gazonk]

Just what I thought too, Russell. And I think the most likely interpretation is 3 aps-c models, ie what has been the "rumor consensus" for quite a while.
--
Espen

 

[Hythloday]

an essential difference for me (whether it is good or no good).

It's essential to you even if it is "no good"??

Some people say it is no good. When there is a dust particle on the sensor and I let it shake three times, it will be gone. The same holds good for the K200D. So your conclusion may be that it is no good, but I feel it does a good job for me.

 

[Greg Lovern]

an essential difference for me (whether it is good or no good).

It's essential to you even if it is "no good"??

Some people say it is no good. When there is a dust particle on the
sensor and I let it shake three times, it will be gone. The same
holds good for the K200D. So your conclusion may be that it is no
good, but I feel it does a good job for me.

I see. So it's essential to you even if SOME PEOPLE SAY it's "no good". Because those people are wrong. If those people were right about it being "no good", then it would not be essential to you. But they're not, so it is.

Greg

--
Brand loyalty is a character flaw.

 

[ropen]

Radu,
What about miKro? Better than micro K



--
benjamin - bjmano

Sounds really cool, Benjamin! I like this name and I think it will be a catchy one in advertising.

Radu

 

[ropen]

Sorry, Roland, but the quote from the report is:

"Next year, we are planning to launch some three types, including
minor design
change versions, of single-lens reflex (SLR) cameras."

So they are 3 DSLR with the 645D in suspension ATM.

Doesn't the 645D qualify as a DSLR? No?

Yes, of course, Peter, but like I and many others said before in this
thread I think we analyse on semantics that are not really there.

I stand up by my prediction: K20D GPS + K20D' succesor + K200D'
succesor are those 3 models we know there will be launched.

My prediction is similar to yours, only by replacing your K20D GPS
with the 645D. Let's wait and see.

Peter

--
Peter Fang - Pentax user for 25 years: K20D / MZ-S / Z-1 / SFX / LX
My PBase Gallery: http://www.pbase.com/pfang

Yes, Peter, we will see and fortunatelly we have a very short period to wait ...

And about 645D I don't know what to say (if it makes it or not in production) but I think it would be a nice and needed addition at Pentax high end of spectrum.

Regards,
Radu

 

[Greg Lovern]

only that Philips couldn't deliver on their sensors.

Philips delivered that sensor to Contax, which shipped it in the Contax "N Digital" DSLR. The N Digital was announced in 2000 and shipped in the spring of 2002, 1.5 years before the first Pentax DSLR, the *ist D, shipped.

The same chip was also used on some medium-format digital backs, though I don't know which ones.

The main problem with the sensor was high noise above ISO 100. Some Contax N Digital owners loved the sensor at ISO 25, 50, and 100. The camera was also faulted for other issues that weren't the sensor's fault. I gather that the big-spending medium-format digital back customers were satisfied with the sensor too.

Another issue is that not too long after the N Digital was released, Canon and Kodak came out with 35FF DSLRs that offered more bang for buck. Like Contax film SLRs, the N Digital was very expensive.

Sensor issues aside, the MZ-D would probably have been a better overall camera than the Contax N Digital. And Pentax certainly would have priced it much lower than the Contax. Pentax could have capped the ISO at 100 and released it as a low volume product that would lend prestige to its later APS-C DSLRs. Obviously it wouldn't appeal to sports shooters, but not everyone needs high ISO, especially back then when most people were still shooting film anyway. When I was shooting film, I mostly used ISO 100.

I think Pentax would be in a somewhat stronger position today if they had released the MZ-D when the sensor became available in early 2002, with ISO capped at 100. But I may be the only person in the world who thinks so.

Greg

--
Brand loyalty is a character flaw.