New K100Y + 3 Lenses

DougOB wrote:

Roland Karlsson wrote:

DougOB wrote:

Mark Ransom wrote:

DougOB wrote:

Roland Karlsson wrote:

Alex Sarbu wrote:

Roland Karlsson wrote:

ozdean wrote:

Tracking and AF as good as K1 II

Are you sure he said that?

He absolutely didn't say that. On the contrary, he said improved tracking which means better than what they have.

Alex

It can also mean slightly better than K-3, that it replaces.

But let us hope that my pessimism here is unfounded.

The KP is better than the K-3 so let's say slightly better than that

That's the problem. Every single model is slightly better than the one before. But the changes are always so slight that you can barely detect them. Everybody expects more than that, and always ends up disappointed. If history is any guide, pessimism is well warranted.

For the record, I hope I'm really really wrong about this.

Personally I am not expecting a quantum leap. If it is 10% better on each of the better feature between the K-3 and the KP (e.g., high ISO noise, AF speed, low-light AF, fps, buffer, ...) then it will be a great camera.

Of course if it is only 9% then I will be suicidal!

I do not know how far we shall take this one, but ...

It is not only a matter of percent. It is also a matter of functionality.

• Feature detection, e.g. face detection, but also other stuff
• Reliable following an object and having enough AF points to follow rather small objects.
• Tracking Z, i.e. something moving towards or from you, and not lagging behind.
• Possibility to choose what to focus on in difficult situations. Like a bird in a bush and something behind a reflective window. Or chose nose instead of eye?

Roland... the smiley, winky emoticons were there for a reason...

I understand that. My reply was really to several that talks about incremental improvements, as if incremental improvements eventually will get us there. Sure, some things are about lack of performance, but many are about rethinking design and functionality, and many is also about large improvements in performance.

bob5050 wrote:

Roland Karlsson wrote:

It is not only a matter of percent. It is also a matter of functionality.

• Feature detection, e.g. face detection, but also other stuff
• Reliable following an object and having enough AF points to follow rather small objects.
• [...]

These seem like two different things to me. I'd argue that having a focus joystick implies a lot more focus points: you can't smoothly move the focus point around the screen with only a couple of dozen points (the K-3 has 27, K-1 has 33). Nor could you do touch-screen focus-selection. A greater density is required.

Face detection, on the other hand, is an entirely different question that might be phrased another way from the camera's perspective: "In the lack of any user instructions otherwise, how should I pick one focus point over another as primary?" That's solved with an object recognition rule: if something looks like a face, focus on that. Basically, it's an automation of the focus joystick function, so again requires a much-increased density of fixed focus points. Finding a face doesn't do any good if you don't have it covered.

The provision of a focus joystick implies to me that the focus point array is significantly denser. That would seem to be a hardware prerequisite to the rest.

bob5050

That is a sound and interesting reasoning. That joystick is a hint.

And, you need lots of AF points for most advanced functionalities. Hundreds of them, at least. You cannot X-Y follow anything with 33 focus points. This does not mean that the poor processor in the camera need to analyze them all. It is, as you say, a matter of density.

ozdean wrote:

Early 2021

DFA21 f2.8 Ltd DC WR

That one is really interesting. The prototype he showed was kind of smallish.

Heliar wrote:

ozdean wrote:

Tracking and AF as good as K1 II

They didn't say anything like this

They only said that we will be pleased by AF tracking performance

OK

Early 2021

They said 2021. No "early" statement. They will try their best to deliver them quickly though.

Argh!

DFA21 f2.8 Ltd DC WR

No mention of the f number. Only focal length, DC and WR are confirmed.

It was kind of smallish, I would guess at F4. And that is OK. It will also keep the price down.

altis wrote:

ozdean wrote:

...

Tracking and AF as good as K1 II

...

Maybe like Volkswagen, whose diesels included a "device" in the engine management unit that detected when it was undergoing an emissions test, perhaps Ricoh have included firmware to detect bicycles.

Silly!

Mistral75 wrote:

Roland Karlsson wrote:

ozdean wrote:

Early 2021

DFA21 f2.8 Ltd DC WR

That one is really interesting. The prototype he showed was kind of smallish.

HD Pentax-D FA 21mm ED Limited DC WR. No max. aperture indicated. To be launched in 2021 with no further precision (2021 H1 as targeted launch date is is for the other one, the HD Pentax-DA★ 16-50mm f/2.8 ED PLM AW).

Kind of smallish, really? It's roughly the size of the FA★ 24mm f/2 with its hood or the D FA 28-105mm f/3.5-5.6 (without hood): ø 75mm x 90mm.

Thanx for that photo. Looks bigger than in the video.

Without hood, this one seems to be 30% longer than the 31. And the 31 is not small. So, yeah, the 21 does not seem too be small. But, many lenses today are HUGE. And this one is not huge. It is just not small. Maybe can be called smallish, compared to other lenses today.

Roland Karlsson wrote:

Heliar wrote:

ozdean wrote:

Tracking and AF as good as K1 II

They didn't say anything like this

They only said that we will be pleased by AF tracking performance

OK

Early 2021

They said 2021. No "early" statement. They will try their best to deliver them quickly though.

Argh!

DFA21 f2.8 Ltd DC WR

No mention of the f number. Only focal length, DC and WR are confirmed.

It was kind of smallish, I would guess at F4. And that is OK. It will also keep the price down.

For a (non tele) prime f4 is very slow. I would expect something faster, at least f2.8.