I'm sorry, haven't you been paying attention. Every review I've read that doesn't gloss over high ISO performance mentions the loss of detail at high ISO in the 10+ mp bodies. Pentax simply doesn't offer 3200 ISO on the K10D, makes you wonder why. Well maybe you don't and I don't but for different reasons. I know why and you think it isn't so. All the other manufactures are using advanced software algorithms to reduce noise and maintain detail. The limits already being reached, you can use software to mask it, you can pretend it isn't here, but that just doesn't change the facts.
Adam Maas wrote: > P. J. Alling wrote: > >> 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). >> > > Pentax certainly hasn't reached that point. The new crop bodies from > Nikon, Sony and Canon indicate that the limit was far higher than > previously thought (the 40D matches the 5D's high ISO performance, the > D300 appears to have even better high ISO performance, the A700 is in > the same ballpark). Sure, FF is always going to have an advantage, but > current-gen cropped bodies are already exceeding what was current for FF > performance in August. What was unachievable 6 months ago for > crop-sensor high ISO performance is about to become the norm. FF isn't a > holy grail and I don't see Pentax doing it until they can do a $999 FF > body, which isn't anytime soon. Pentax isn't competing with the 5D market. > > > >> 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. >> > > True. > > >> 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. >> > > Actually, they solved that with the E-510/E-410 bodies, which match the > midrange crop bodies in high-ISO performance. And that's before they > look at adding the improvements Sony, Nikon and Canon have found which > look to improve high ISO noise by 2 or more stops. They'll never match > FF, and will ahve a hard time matching APS-C, but they certainly are at > the point where high ISO noise is adequately controlled. > > >> 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). >> > > Nobody other than Nikon, Canon and Sony have the resources necessary to > compete in the pro FF market. > > >> . >> 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. >> > > Dunno about that, Sony as a company has not been particularly > competetive in consumer electronics of late. They're relying too much on > branding and not enough on providing superior product for good prices. > Their last bastion of dominance was gaming systems and they've been > pushed into distant third their by MS and Nintendo. The pricing on the > A700 shows that Sony still doesn't get it, Canon's higher-performance > 40D has a $100USD lower MSRP. And this in a market where Canon is the > Big Dog. > > >> 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. >> > > Profitable and large market share are not inherently linked. See Apple > Computer or BMW for details. Pentax is filling a market niche that Sony, > Nikon and Canon are all ignoring to some extent. Small, fast, and good > glass is being ignored by all the other makers. > > >> 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. >> > > Things seem to be settling out. The price brackets have essentially been > stable for the last 2 years, certainly since the DL was introduced. > > >> 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. >> >> > > 6MP is dead outside the bargain market. There will be a 10MP K100 > variant, I'm sure. And Pentax has made room for a model above the K10D > in the sub-$1000 market. I don't see Pentax aggressively trying to move > upmarket, at least not until they have a better handle on the > low/midrange market. > > -- 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.
