What you need, and what Pentax needs to do, are two different things. Try this on for size "If I could get that kind of performance without SR, I wouldn't need SR." You probably won't acknowledge that that statement makes as much sense as your argument. Yet that's converse of your argument, and just as valid. They both make equal sense from a personal stand point.
There is one immutable fact. Image quality will degrade as sensor densities increase beyond a certain point. That's simple physics. Pentax has pretty much reached that point. Nikon had as well. This degradation can b/e //ameliorated /with software, but at a price. In the case of Pentax, noise that was massaged to make it look more film like. Nikon was more aggressive and sacrificed detail. Nikon knew they were at the limit so they stepped around it with a larger sensor, (something that they were always planning to do). I know what you think you need, but what does Pentax need? Well they need two things market share and profits. Pentax probably cannot be the number one manufacture any time soon, (don't say never, Canon wasn't always number one, but I'll be realistic). Being number two is also unlikely, (as I said realistic), but being number three is doable. That's what they have to aim for and to do that they pretty much have to fight Olympus and Sony. The current Olympus system is based on the 4:3 system. Why hasn't Olympus brought out their new Pro body? Because the image sensor is giving them fits, that's why. High ISO quality is lacking due to noise at increased pixel density. Everyone else involved with the 4:3 system is in the same boat, these cameras will be high end consumer grade from here on, nothing more, (no matter how expensive Leica's versions are), no matter what Olympus markets their new high end body as, partly because the FF Nikon has raised the bar, and partly because of their inherent limitations. Olympus has decided to compete with small camera size with "reasonable" picture quality at low to medium ISO first, and gimmicks like "Live View" second. (Of course Canon can match that gimmick any time they feel like it, I know some will say it's not a gimmick, but it is, really, just think about it). . Sony has been slow up to now because they are feeling things out, they are probably still integrating the K/M engineers and project managers into Sony's culture. Sony sales managers insist on the cameras being profitable, and they are milking the old K/M system as much as possible. However they know to maintain and increase their market share they will have to match the big boys, and that means a FF body, (as far as I know they don't even make any reduced frame lenses), so look for a FF body soon. That means that Pentax will have to get a FF body to keep from becoming locked in a contest for 4th place with Olympus and the 4:3 system.. Hoya will probably not like the odds at that point. They too are interested in the camera line being profitable. If it isn't, and shows no signs of becoming so, that's all there will be. The market Pentax plays in is mutable. Four years ago the *ist-D sold for $1600.00 The least expensive FF was the Kodak DCS 14n available for about $4000.00. Today the Kodak is gone and you can buy a Canon 5D for $3000, and the K10D is considered by many, (not just Pentaxians), to be semi pro competition for mid range Nikons and Canons, thought it sells for the price of an expensive consumer DSLR. Oh yes and 6 to 8mp consumer grade DSLRs can be had for 1/2 what a consumer SLR cost just a couple of years ago, and what an expensive P&S sells for now. Notice that I didn't mention megapixels much, well lets talk about them briefly. 6mp sensors in DSLRs are now more or less dead, (like the dinosaurs of my youth, you could kill one but it would take some time for that knowledge to get to it's brain through it's gigantic body, today's dinosaurs are different, much smarter and more active but I digress). Sure 6mp cameras are just as capable as they were before, but from a marketing standpoint they are history. So are 8mp cameras. Pentax will probably start upgrading everything in January, they have to, to remain competitive, (the K100D super was a stopgap with easy to implement upgrades). The megapixel wars, silly as they may seem, are on, and image quality will require bigger sensors, not just more megapixels and Pentax will have to compete there or become an also ran, then to take the Dinosaur analogy in whole different direction, extinct. Adam Maas wrote: > Note the D3 is the camera whose performance I'm quoting at the end of my > previous post. Its performance is incredible, but also far more than I > have any actual need for, especially with SR. > > When the 5D was the current high-ISO king, people were saying you > couldn't get that type of performance from cropped sensors. Well now we > can, and said people just raise the bar. > > A FF Pentax with D3 level performance would be nice. But Pentax doesn't > play in that market (high-end 35mm) and never really has outside of the > LX. Pentax would do better to bring back the 645D program than pursue a > market that would require an entirely new line of lenses (Pentax would > need to introduce a full set of FF zooms, and possible a full set of FF > lenses if they intend to do SR on FF) as well as a new body. > > -Adam > > > > P. J. Alling wrote: > >> Yep, that's why the new Nikon D3 has been cited has having superior >> noise performance at very high sensitivities. Same argument always made >> with film bigger is better. Physics dictates that a larger sensor site >> is better than a smaller site. You can correct with software, (or >> firmware if it's done on the sensor, but even then bigger will still be >> better). Take off the blinders and smell the photons. >> >> Adam Maas wrote: >> >>> That's not necessarily so. The newest crop of APS-C-ish sensors (In the >>> D300, A700 and 40D) have noise performance as good or better than the >>> last crop of FF sensors. 5D level noise performance is good enough for >>> me (As much as I'd like ISO 25,600 as my max ISO and ISO 6400 >>> performance that rivals ISO 1600 on a 5D, I don't need it.) >>> >>> -Adam >>> >>> >>> P. J. Alling wrote: >>> >>> >>>> If Pentax doesn't address sensor size in the K mount line they'll still >>>> be only second rate no matter how many nifty new lenses and bodies they >>>> introduce. I can live with slower frame rates, I can deal with noisy >>>> autofocus, (heck my low light walking around kit consists of three >>>> lenses and only one is autofocus anyway. The only way to have high >>>> resolution with minimum noise even with world class image processing is >>>> larger sensor sites, and that matters more to me than almost any other >>>> improvements in autofocus, frame rates or additional "features". Olympus >>>> has boxed themselves in with the 4:3 system, Pentax hasn't done that yet. >>>> >>>> Thibouille wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> I know you won't be able to tell what if you're under NDA but >>>>> sometimes the NDA allows you to say you're actually under NDA (I know >>>>> it sounds confused ^^) >>>>> >>>>> Why do I ask? >>>>> Interesting rumours from Pentaxforums where 3 people supposedly in the >>>>> know do hint at very nice things coming in January. I do not trus much >>>>> two of those but IMO Richard Day has a good reputation in my book. >>>>> >>>>> For those who wants to read (means you want run away from rumours) here >>>>> it is: >>>>> http://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-news-releases/13173-pentax-news-something-interesting-really.html >>>>> >>>>> For those who do not like rumours: there's nothing new. There no >>>>> CMOS-not -from-Sony-coming-soon. You can go back to sleep ;) >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> > > > -- Remember, it’s pillage then burn. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
