No point? The A7 did pretty well. On Sat, Sep 13, 2014 at 3:25 AM, David Mann <[email protected]> wrote: > It would come down to lens support. Do Pentax currently manufacture a > reasonable range of full-frame lenses? There's no point making a new camera > that can only be used with old or third-party glass. > > Cheers, > Dave > > On Sep 13, 2014, at 5:54 am, John <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Yes, all very interesting. But it still doesn't answer the primary question. >> >> What is the likelihood Ricoh-Pentax is going to build a camera around this >> sensor? >> >> On 9/12/2014 1:16 PM, Igor PDML-StR wrote: >>> >>> >>> I. >>> First, just a quick comment that while talking about outresolving >>> lenses, one should also keep in mind that due to the discretization of >>> the pixelated media, the effective resolution of a lens can be still >>> reduced, even if the sensor's pixels/mm number is larger than lines/mm >>> number for the lens. (The guy in that recent Nikon vs Canon video that >>> was linked a few days ago in a different thread discusses that.) So, >>> increase in the pixel density of a factor of 1.28 in principle can >>> produce some significant effect for some lenses if you are going from 6 >>> MP to 7.7 MP. >>> >>> In this case, the same argument may apply for the sharpest lenses. >>> (Maybe even prime * lenses of Pentax?) >>> >>> >>> II. >>> With respect to the increase in the sensor's MPs in question, - >>> if we are talking about the technology advancement, - what is relevant >>> is increase in the density of the pixels. Indeed, the density increased by >>> a factor of 1.13 (=Sqrt(1.28)). >>> What is true, is that the higher the starting density is, the harder it >>> is to enhance it further. This applies to the recording media density >>> (as in HDDs), as well as the sensors. >>> So, from the SENSOR technology point of view, this is a valuable >>> advancement. >>> >>> >>> III. >>> As for practical advantage of having such a sensor in the camera, - >>> besides the possible one mentioned in I. above, - there might >>> be some others. Just one example is the possible improvement in >>> the optical stabilization (again due to discrete nature >>> of the pixels). >>> Also, ultimately, the availability of cameras with the high-resolution >>> sensors can boost the efforts of producing (and even mass-producing) >>> higher-resolution lenses, which make the more easily available and hence >>> (eventually) cheaper. >>> >>> But I think the practical advantage (in terms of quality of the photos) >>> of going from 5 to 7.8 MP is higher than that of going from 36 MP to 46 MP. >>> (see I. above). >>> >>> >>> [Nerd ON] >>> IV. >>> Sometimes percentage of the increase might not be a good measure, >>> while the absolute increase is. >>> I just wanted to give a few clear examples where the percentage is not a >>> good measure: >>> 1. A temperature increase of, say, 2 degrees F (1 degree C). >>> Does it matter if it from 2 F to 4 F or from 34 F to 36 F? >>> The corresponding percentages would be 100% and ~6%. >>> And, of course, in Celcius, the equivalent would be >>> ... well... 100% in the second place (from 1C to 2C), but I am not even >>> sure what to say about the first case, when it is from approximately >>> -16.5C to -15.5C. >>> So, it obviously depends on the scale! >>> >>> Well, I agree, this example is not directly applicable to sensors, whose >>> dimensions are using the absolute scale. And to make the comparison, I >>> should've used the absolute temperature scale (Kelvin). In Kelvin, >>> the changes would be from about 256.5 K to 257.5 K, and 274 K -> 275 K, >>> respectively. >>> >>> 2. Relevance of the change also depends on the effect that we are >>> considering. >>> For many physics processes that rely on the behavior of electrons, the >>> relevant measure would be the relative change (on the absolute scale, in >>> Kelvin). For many biological processes, the direct percentage change >>> probably would not be a good measure. The absolute change wouldn't matter >>> either... >>> E.g. a change of a human body temperature from 37C (98.6F) to 38C >>> (100.4) is unpleasant, but the same absolute change from 40C (104F) to >>> 41C (105.8) (which would be smaller in percentage) can be lethal ou. >>> So, this shows the relevance of the change to the process that gets >>> affected by this change. >>> >>> 3. Stan, with respect to your "home-economy" example. You are right, >>> except for those cases, where there is an "offset" of fixed costs. >>> E.g. if the bare minimum cost of housing is, say $800 a month. >>> Then for somebody earning $1000 a month, an extra $100 is more valuable >>> then $300 for somebody who is earning $3000/mo. The reason is >>> that the effective increase in the income that available for things >>> other then the housing would be 50% (from 1000-800=200), and a >>> comparable relative increase for the second person would be smaller (from >>> 3000-800=2200 to 2500 is less than 15%). >>> >>> Effect of the lenses becoming the bottle-neck of the performance is >>> similar to the "fixed-cost" offset described above. >>> >>> All these examples are just to support the point that one cannot just >>> blindly use relative increase (percentage or factor) in all cases. >>> >>> [Nerd OFF] >>> >>> >>> Thu Sep 11 09:45:58 EDT 2014 >>> Darren Addy wrote: >>> >>> I'm not denying that there is an appropriate place to use percentages. >>> It is especially useful in apples to apples comparisons. >>> I'm just saying that comparing APS-C to full frame AND to a completely >>> different era is apples to oranges, in my book. >>> >>> To go back to Mark's numbers, he's saying a 27% increase is >>> insignificant except from a marketing standpoint. The new K-S1 is a >>> 25% increase in megapixels over the past several years' 16MP models. >>> Even ignoring the other technology improvements along the way, I think >>> that 25% is a pretty significant increase. I can make is sound smaller >>> by terming it a 1.25 "factor" if I want to minimize it. >>> >>> Feel free to disagree, but that's my opinion. I think that we may just >>> be spoiled by seeing the flagship go up 50% from 16MP to 24MP. That's >>> partly due to the disruption caused by no (really) new DSLR models >>> during the Hoya to Ricoh transition. >>> >>> On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 8:36 AM, Stanley Halpin >>> <stan at stans-photography.info> wrote: >>>> >>>> On Sep 11, 2014, at 8:23 AM, Darren Addy <pixelsmithy at gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> That's a funny way of looking at it. First of all, almost all change >>>>> is incremental, but that doesn't mean it is insignifcant. If reducing >>>>> things to percentage increase was a valid way of comparing things, >>>>> then someone who went from bench pressing 460 lbs from 360 lbs >>>>> shouldn't be any prouder of the accomplishment than someone who went >>>>> from 60 lbs to 76 lbs. It's just a funny way to make comparisons, >>>>> unless you are trying to purposely minimize accomplishment. >>>> >>>> I.ll leave aside Mark.s point, I don.t know enough to agree or disagree. >>> But Darren, your notion of percentages as a bad thing is just wrong. >>>> >>>> Lets say I earn $100 an hour. Then I get a $100 raise, am now earning >>> $200 an hour. >>>> You are earning $1000 an hour, and then you also get a $100 raise. So >>> you are at $1100 an hour. >>>> >>>> We both get an added $100 an hour, but my increase was 100%, yours was >>> only 10%. Don.t you think that percentages better reflect the perceived >>> value in this case? Ask the buyer of a new $20,000 car how important a >>> $2000 discount would be. Ask the buyer of a new $100,000 car how >>> important a $2000 discount would be. >>>> >>>> There is a long history of trying to use numbers in various forms to >>> represent perceived value of one sort or another. Most systems fall >>> apart because our underlying value systems are not linear and cannot be >>> fairly represented with a simple linear scale. Percentages do a pretty >>> good job capturing some of that underlying non-linearity and I think >>> Mark.s usage helps to provide a valid alternative perspective on this >>> "breaking news.. Log scales can be another useful tool. >>>> >>>> stan >>> >> >> -- >> Science - Questions we may never find answers for. >> Religion - Answers we must never question. >> >> -- >> 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. > > > -- > 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.
-- 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.
