A quick search at B&H Photo will show you just how much brand new glass you can buy -- if you have the moola -- for the 645D and Z. Medium format Pentax is well supported.
FF? Not so much. On Sat, Sep 13, 2014 at 5:16 PM, P.J. Alling <[email protected]> wrote: > I have only one thing to say to that, 645d, 645z... > > Alrighty, I have two things to say to that. > > > On 9/13/2014 3:25 AM, David Mann 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. >> >> > > > -- > I don't want to achieve immortality through my work; I want to achieve > immortality through not dying. > -- Woody Allen > > > -- > 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. -- -bmw -- 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.
