Re: Some more new camera speculation
John wrote: Nobody has been leading you on, except perhaps a few people here who still cling to the belief (or, IMO, delusion) that Pentax would decide to re-introduce a mechanical aperture sensor, or go back to aperture rings on lenses. REPLY: But the new D FA lenses have aperture rings. We do not know if Pentax will maintain mechanical couplings on high end bodies because such DSLR bodies haven't been released yet. The KAF3 mount give full backward compatibility. We will know when the new D is released. Remember that all the *ist's are entry level cameras in Pentax talk (see the latest interview where it is mentioned again) and therefore aren't full featured. Extensive compatibility may be a sales issue for an upper end body. Pål
Re: Some more new camera speculation
There are no new DFA lenses. The high-end fast lenses that Pentax will release next year are all DA lenses without aperture rings. The only DFA lens is for the 645. No DFA lenses for 35mm or APS-C are on the horizon. On Mar 7, 2006, at 6:52 AM, Pål Jensen wrote: John wrote: Nobody has been leading you on, except perhaps a few people here who still cling to the belief (or, IMO, delusion) that Pentax would decide to re-introduce a mechanical aperture sensor, or go back to aperture rings on lenses. REPLY: But the new D FA lenses have aperture rings. We do not know if Pentax will maintain mechanical couplings on high end bodies because such DSLR bodies haven't been released yet. The KAF3 mount give full backward compatibility. We will know when the new D is released. Remember that all the *ist's are entry level cameras in Pentax talk (see the latest interview where it is mentioned again) and therefore aren't full featured. Extensive compatibility may be a sales issue for an upper end body. Pål
Re: Some more new camera speculation
- Original Message - From: Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED] There are no new DFA lenses. The high-end fast lenses that Pentax will release next year are all DA lenses without aperture rings. The only DFA lens is for the 645. No DFA lenses for 35mm or APS-C are on the horizon. The two macro lenses are D FA and new in my book. I doubt they will be the only D FA's in the line-up. I expect there will be D FA* in the future as well. Pål
Re: Some more new camera speculation
Pål Jensen wrote: - Original Message - From: Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED] There are no new DFA lenses. The high-end fast lenses that Pentax will release next year are all DA lenses without aperture rings. The only DFA lens is for the 645. No DFA lenses for 35mm or APS-C are on the horizon. The two macro lenses are D FA and new in my book. I doubt they will be the only D FA's in the line-up. I expect there will be D FA* in the future as well. Pål Why? Pentax doesn't make much in the way of film cameras, and doesn't sell much in the way of film cameras. I expect D-FA will be the standard for 645 mount, but that we won't see more than one or two in K mount, and even that many is unlikely. D-FA was a relic of not wanting to totally redesign the macros, that's all. -Adam
Re: Some more new camera speculation
I suspect the macros were offered as DFA lenses so that they would appeal to the remaining film users as well as the digital folk. The fact that none of the projected lenses are DFA is a very clear message. Paul -- Original message -- From: Pål Jensen [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED] There are no new DFA lenses. The high-end fast lenses that Pentax will release next year are all DA lenses without aperture rings. The only DFA lens is for the 645. No DFA lenses for 35mm or APS-C are on the horizon. The two macro lenses are D FA and new in my book. I doubt they will be the only D FA's in the line-up. I expect there will be D FA* in the future as well. Pål
Re: Some more new camera speculation
Bob Sullivan wrote: Brother Aaron, Sitting here looking at my 67II on the fireplace mantle... The *istDS is in view, but it is such a sissy camera. And I think you 'hit the nail on the head' about the 645D - Woman's camera! Next thing we know, it will come in those silly Hassy designer colors. G Hey, I resemble that remark! http://members.iinet.net.au/~derbyc/index2/05_03_skinnyfamily/03.htm TrannyBrother D -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.iinet.net.au/~derbyc
Re: Some more new camera speculation
- Original Message - From: Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED] Ahhh! of course! And then the road would be paved for the ultimate digital camera of the Space Age: *istR2D2. Oh my God that's baaad. Of course! What did you expect? :-) Sister Jostein
Re: Some more new camera speculation
Derby, That is cool! Regards, Bob S. On 3/4/06, Derby Chang [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Bob Sullivan wrote: Brother Aaron, Sitting here looking at my 67II on the fireplace mantle... The *istDS is in view, but it is such a sissy camera. And I think you 'hit the nail on the head' about the 645D - Woman's camera! Next thing we know, it will come in those silly Hassy designer colors. G Hey, I resemble that remark! http://members.iinet.net.au/~derbyc/index2/05_03_skinnyfamily/03.htm TrannyBrother D -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.iinet.net.au/~derbyc
Re: Some more new camera speculation
On 4/3/06, Jostein, discombobulated, unleashed: Of course! What did you expect? :-) I would have used a Death Star 85mm Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Sv: Re: Some more new camera speculation
According to someone at Pentax Sweden there will be two 10 megapixel SLR cameras coming this fall. One with shake reuction and the whole kit and one bare-bone w/o shake reduction. Note that this is not a confirmed source, just another rumor. /Paul
Re: Re: Some more new camera speculation
Yes, they will be called the *istD2S (D2 Shake) and *istD2R (D2 Reduction). Joking apart, thanks Paul. Dario - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Friday, March 03, 2006 3:46 PM Subject: Sv: Re: Some more new camera speculation According to someone at Pentax Sweden there will be two 10 megapixel SLR cameras coming this fall. One with shake reuction and the whole kit and one bare-bone w/o shake reduction. Note that this is not a confirmed source, just another rumor. /Paul
Re: Some more new camera speculation
Dario Bonazza wrote on 03.03.06 16:17: Yes, they will be called the *istD2S (D2 Shake) and *istD2R (D2 Reduction). And third one *istD2N (Nonsense) ;-) Anyway, maybe some more reliable rumours about new D would appear during upcoming PIE 2006 starting 23.03? -- Balance is the ultimate good... Best Regards Sylwek
Re: Re: Some more new camera speculation
Yes, they will be called the *istD2S (D2 Shake) and *istD2R (D2 Reduction). Ahhh! of course! And then the road would be paved for the ultimate digital camera of the Space Age: *istR2D2. :-) Jostein
Re: Some more new camera speculation
On 3/3/06, Jostein, discombobulated, unleashed: Ahhh! of course! And then the road would be paved for the ultimate digital camera of the Space Age: *istR2D2. Oh my God that's baaad. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: Some more new camera speculation
Jostein a écrit : Yes, they will be called the *istD2S (D2 Shake) and *istD2R (D2 Reduction). All news Optio's products are named *?10*: *A10, T10, M10, W10* So, I think: *K10D *; K is a mystic name for Pentax Michel
Re: Some more new camera speculation
You missed the first rule of eBaying. Once you have bought something do not look at those items again for at least a year. grin graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com http://webpages.charter.net/graywolf Idiot Proof == Expert Proof --- William Robb wrote: - Original Message - From: Gonz Subject: Re: Some more new camera speculation John Forbes wrote: Yes, but Rob has been in the market since 1988, and in Australia, and before the internet, and perhaps buying new. Not many Pentax lenses are worth more than they were new. Although some of the more high end lenses are selling for exhorbitant prices right now. See the recent thread on the 80-200 2.8 ($2100). The A* 85 is another example. The joy of eBay is that a price will seem very high, and you won't see it often, so when one comes along, you put in an exorbidant bid and win the damned thing, then have a raft of em come up at half the price over the next few months. I've had that happen more than once. William Robb
Re: Some more new camera speculation
On 2 Mar 2006 at 0:31, Adam Maas wrote: Full Frame 35mm is simply more demanding on lenses, and requires more expensive and higher quality glass than subframe APS-C for good performance. Not entirely, on a pixel for pixel count basis an high density APS-C sized sensor also requires a lens of approximately 1.5x the absolute resolution to achieve the same resolution in print as a FF (36x24mm) sensor. Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: Some more new camera speculation
Rob Studdert wrote: On 2 Mar 2006 at 0:31, Adam Maas wrote: Full Frame 35mm is simply more demanding on lenses, and requires more expensive and higher quality glass than subframe APS-C for good performance. Not entirely, on a pixel for pixel count basis an high density APS-C sized sensor also requires a lens of approximately 1.5x the absolute resolution to achieve the same resolution in print as a FF (36x24mm) sensor. Rob Studdert While that is technically true, it's not a major issue because those sensors are right in the 'sweet spot' of 35mm lenses, and most 'Digital' lenses aren't a whole lot smaller, for edge-performance reasons. Edge performance issues on 36x24mm sensors will far outweigh the extra resolution demands of the similar-MP APS-C sensor at the current time. -Adam
Re: Some more new camera speculation
On Mar 1, 2006, at 9:45 PM, Peter Loveday wrote: I wonder though with a 28mm sensor, if we're moving it by 5mm in each direction to achieve stabilization, how many 35mm have good coverage on a 38mm wide rectangle? I can't imagine any DA lenses doing it (well, the 40 might), and certainly on any 35mm lens could result in softer edges or even vignetting where it wasn't seen before. Can always compensate by stopping down I guess, but that reduces the benefit of stabilization in the first place The full 5mm movement is rare. Most compensation moves much less. I've used the Maxxum 7D rather extensively and have not seen any sign of vignetting. As for stopping down, that's one of the reasons for stabilization. It allows you to use slower shutter speeds precisely so you can stop down more. The important thing that gets lost in all this techno-babble is that it WORKS. I can hand hold a 300mm at 1/15 second, without a monopod. Bob
Re: Some more new camera speculation
Sounds good so far! Tom C. From: William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: Some more new camera speculation Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2006 23:14:10 -0600 - Original Message - From: Tom C Subject: RE: Some more new camera speculation I'll agree with you. :-) I would have far preferred a 67D to a 645D. Whether I could afford it would be a different issue. I love the picture through the viewfinder on the 67. Tom, come to BC in September. I'll bring along enough crap that we can shoot some 4x5 Ektachrome and process and print the stuff too. Bring me some good Kentucky Bourbon please. It'll be fun. b...
Re: Some more new camera speculation
On Thu, Mar 02, 2006 at 07:58:07AM -0500, Bob Shell wrote: The important thing that gets lost in all this techno-babble is that it WORKS. I can hand hold a 300mm at 1/15 second, without a monopod. Bob Ah. Practical experience. Don't you know that disqualifies you from posting an opinion here? :-) Seriously, though - I've heard conflicting reports as to whether this technology is of any use when panning. Would you know?
RE: Some more new camera speculation
I think - in the light of history - Pentax made the right choice not to put the MZ-D in production. A production of the camera using the Philips sensor probably would have killed Pentax camera division. Perhaps they should never have gone as far as they did. It is of course a pity that this camera was never successfully produced. The MZ-S is a lovely camera, although too slow for modern pro standards. AFAIR the anticipated price in Damnark was in the neighborhood of 10.000 USD. which is a lot. A lot too much, I believe. The big problem was that Pentax sdid not have a Plan B, which meant a huge set back for their camera production. It lasted two years befor the D came out. It should have lasted 6 months - tops! Regards Jens Jens Bladt http://www.jensbladt.dk -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: Rob Studdert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 2. marts 2006 00:16 Til: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Emne: Re: Some more new camera speculation On 1 Mar 2006 at 17:01, John Francis wrote: You think Pentax screwed up. I think they took a risk, gambled on Philips being able to deliver the chip, and lost. In hindsight it looks like a bad decision, but presumably somebody thought the potential gain was worth taking the risk - after all, if Pentax had got that camera to market when they hoped what would their market share be today? Nobody knows, but I'd bet it would be much larger. Indeed I think Pentax screwed up, given that all sources indicate that they were having some technical difficulty with the sensor and supply/pricing issues why l did they then present the thing to the public? Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998 -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 268.1.1/271 - Release Date: 02/28/2006 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 268.1.1/272 - Release Date: 03/01/2006
Re: Some more new camera speculation
I would love to have the MZD if they could put it into production at a reasonable price. I have the MZ-S which has got no use since getting the ist D. But i intend to use it when spring comes. If they made the MZD I would love to have an MZs and MZD as my two basic cameras. Vic On 2-Mar-06, at 12:58 PM, Jens Bladt wrote: I think - in the light of history - Pentax made the right choice not to put the MZ-D in production. A production of the camera using the Philips sensor probably would have killed Pentax camera division. Perhaps they should never have gone as far as they did. It is of course a pity that this camera was never successfully produced. The MZ-S is a lovely camera, although too slow for modern pro standards. AFAIR the anticipated price in Damnark was in the neighborhood of 10.000 USD. which is a lot. A lot too much, I believe. The big problem was that Pentax sdid not have a Plan B, which meant a huge set back for their camera production. It lasted two years befor the D came out. It should have lasted 6 months - tops! Regards Jens Jens Bladt http://www.jensbladt.dk -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: Rob Studdert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 2. marts 2006 00:16 Til: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Emne: Re: Some more new camera speculation On 1 Mar 2006 at 17:01, John Francis wrote: You think Pentax screwed up. I think they took a risk, gambled on Philips being able to deliver the chip, and lost. In hindsight it looks like a bad decision, but presumably somebody thought the potential gain was worth taking the risk - after all, if Pentax had got that camera to market when they hoped what would their market share be today? Nobody knows, but I'd bet it would be much larger. Indeed I think Pentax screwed up, given that all sources indicate that they were having some technical difficulty with the sensor and supply/pricing issues why l did they then present the thing to the public? Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998 -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 268.1.1/271 - Release Date: 02/28/2006 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 268.1.1/272 - Release Date: 03/01/2006
Re: Some more new camera speculation
On Mar 2, 2006, at 12:34 PM, John Francis wrote: Ah. Practical experience. Don't you know that disqualifies you from posting an opinion here? :-) Seriously, though - I've heard conflicting reports as to whether this technology is of any use when panning. Would you know? I don't shoot sports, but tests of panning to shoot cars driving down the street would indicate that it works for things moving at moderate speed. Bob
Re: Some more new camera speculation
On Mar 2, 2006, at 11:04 AM, Bob Shell wrote: Ah. Practical experience. Don't you know that disqualifies you from posting an opinion here? :-) Seriously, though - I've heard conflicting reports as to whether this technology is of any use when panning. Would you know? I don't shoot sports, but tests of panning to shoot cars driving down the street would indicate that it works for things moving at moderate speed. On Canon lenses with IS and on the Panasonic FZ10 and siblings, there is a setting for the IS to allow it to operate in the vertical domain but not in the horizontal domain specifically to accommodate panning during exposure. Does this exist on the 7D? Godfrey
Re: Some more new camera speculation
On Wed, 1 Mar 2006, Rob Studdert wrote: On 1 Mar 2006 at 0:28, John Forbes wrote: Yes, but Rob has been in the market since 1988, and in Australia, and before the internet, and perhaps buying new. Not many Pentax lenses are worth more than they were new. Of my late purchases looking at what I paid in AU$ including freight and taxes and converting the AU$ value to US$ at todays rate I paid: US$1294 for my 31LTD and US$988 for my 77LTD (both purchased new Feb 2002) Have you tried selling in the UK? http://www.ffordes.com/ is honest and fetches top prices. They sold my A100/4 Macro for 245 GBP and gave me back 80% of that. BTW, it's unfair to factor in loss from buying new, things just depreciate. What is the price of having peace of mind? Kostas
Re: Some more new camera speculation
When you disagree with someones point of view it's pissing moaning, when you concur it's a valid opinion?!! Dave On 3/1/06, Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You folks just love hearing yourselves piss and moan. It's embarrassing to even listen to it. G
Re: Re: Some more new camera speculation
On Tue, 28 Feb 2006, John Francis wrote: Yeah, yeah, yeah. Some people are just pissed that their 25-year-old lenses need a whole extra press of a button to work on the new cameras. Terrible isn't it, especially since the FA lenses give you all those new features, like USM and IS... They even make coffee if you ask nicely. Kostas
Re: Some more new camera speculation
On Feb 28, 2006, at 6:54 PM, Rob Studdert wrote: You are not feeling especially smart, either. I recall that Pentax was pretty blunt about the FF camera not being marketable due to sensor issues. So you are telling me that they didn't know this or it wasn't an issue when it was shown to the market? Actually, they didn't. I saw the prototype at photokina and talked to some of the Pentax people about it. They were very enthusiastic. But at that time they did not know that Philips, the maker of the full frame chip, would miss delivery deadlines by over a year and jack the price up several times prior to delivery. Kyocera went ahead with the N Digital using that chip, and you see where it got them! Pentax people I talked to at various times during the project were very up front with me about what was going on, and when Philips raised the price one last time they told me they were killing the project because the new chip price would push the price of the camera out of the range they considered practical. The Contax N Digital was nearly two years late to dealers, sold poorly and performed even more poorly due to chip and firmware problems, both of which Kyocera blamed on Philips. I believe it was the disaster with this chip that caused Philips to decide to withdraw from that market and sell off their chip fabrication assets, which are now an independent company called Dalsa. If I were in your shoes, Rob, I'd direct my anger where it belongs, at Philips. They promised Pentax something they were unable to provide at the quoted original price and in the quoted time frame. Pentax lost a lot of money on that project. If Philips had come through with what they originally promised it would have been a killer camera. But if they hadn't dropped the project it might just have killed Pentax, as it did Contax. Bob
Re: Some more new camera speculation
On Wed, 01 Mar 2006 11:26:09 -, Bob Shell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Feb 28, 2006, at 6:54 PM, Rob Studdert wrote: You are not feeling especially smart, either. I recall that Pentax was pretty blunt about the FF camera not being marketable due to sensor issues. So you are telling me that they didn't know this or it wasn't an issue when it was shown to the market? Actually, they didn't. I saw the prototype at photokina and talked to some of the Pentax people about it. They were very enthusiastic. But at that time they did not know that Philips, the maker of the full frame chip, would miss delivery deadlines by over a year and jack the price up several times prior to delivery. Kyocera went ahead with the N Digital using that chip, and you see where it got them! Pentax people I talked to at various times during the project were very up front with me about what was going on, and when Philips raised the price one last time they told me they were killing the project because the new chip price would push the price of the camera out of the range they considered practical. The Contax N Digital was nearly two years late to dealers, sold poorly and performed even more poorly due to chip and firmware problems, both of which Kyocera blamed on Philips. I believe it was the disaster with this chip that caused Philips to decide to withdraw from that market and sell off their chip fabrication assets, which are now an independent company called Dalsa. If I were in your shoes, Rob, I'd direct my anger where it belongs, at Philips. They promised Pentax something they were unable to provide at the quoted original price and in the quoted time frame. Pentax lost a lot of money on that project. If Philips had come through with what they originally promised it would have been a killer camera. But if they hadn't dropped the project it might just have killed Pentax, as it did Contax. Quite so. That fiasco put Pentax back by about five years. By next year they should have a good digital line-up, but it's cost them dear. I also suspect that Pentax management hs been starving the Imaging Division of funding in the meantime. Corporate minds work in funny ways, and I have seen companies where a division has been punished for some real or imagined fault. Of course, all it does is hurt the company overall. John -- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
Re: Some more new camera speculation
Weren't the early 645s pure mechanical coupling? If so, given that this is the beast that Pentax is taking into the Pro DLSR arena, what are the chances that the 645 prototype at PMA does retain mechanical couplings? Anyone? -Lon John Forbes wrote: Just what is the attraction of a 35mm-sized sensor on digital? It's much more expensive, both for the body and the lenses (note how much cheaper the DA macro lenses, for instance, are than the FA lenses). There are now good wide-angle options. All the evidence suggests, and has for some time, that Pentax will not in the near future, and probably never, produce a 24x36mm sensor in the K mount. If 24x36 is what your heart is set on, buy a Canon. And for those who say that the market has abandoned the Pentax 645, how did they ever manage to sell the first 645? There are still huge quantities of 645 lenses out there, and I for one will bet that as long as the price and performance are OK, the 645D will be snapped up.
Re: Some more new camera speculation
A prime clarifying example of knowledge revealing the absurdity of emotional assumptions. Thanks, Bob! Jack --- Bob Shell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Feb 28, 2006, at 6:54 PM, Rob Studdert wrote: You are not feeling especially smart, either. I recall that Pentax was pretty blunt about the FF camera not being marketable due to sensor issues. So you are telling me that they didn't know this or it wasn't an issue when it was shown to the market? Actually, they didn't. I saw the prototype at photokina and talked to some of the Pentax people about it. They were very enthusiastic. But at that time they did not know that Philips, the maker of the full frame chip, would miss delivery deadlines by over a year and jack the price up several times prior to delivery. Kyocera went ahead with the N Digital using that chip, and you see where it got them! Pentax people I talked to at various times during the project were very up front with me about what was going on, and when Philips raised the price one last time they told me they were killing the project because the new chip price would push the price of the camera out of the range they considered practical. The Contax N Digital was nearly two years late to dealers, sold poorly and performed even more poorly due to chip and firmware problems, both of which Kyocera blamed on Philips. I believe it was the disaster with this chip that caused Philips to decide to withdraw from that market and sell off their chip fabrication assets, which are now an independent company called Dalsa. If I were in your shoes, Rob, I'd direct my anger where it belongs, at Philips. They promised Pentax something they were unable to provide at the quoted original price and in the quoted time frame. Pentax lost a lot of money on that project. If Philips had come through with what they originally promised it would have been a killer camera. But if they hadn't dropped the project it might just have killed Pentax, as it did Contax. Bob __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: Some more new camera speculation
On 3/01/06 9:54 AM, Jack Davis, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: A prime clarifying example of knowledge revealing the absurdity of emotional assumptions. The Contax N Digital was nearly two years late to dealers, sold poorly and performed even more poorly due to chip and firmware problems, both of which Kyocera blamed on Philips. Adding to this, Kyocra actually approached Pentax for help when they (Kyocera) had been plagued by the noise problem (even at ISO100), as Pentax had solved it at the time. But Pentax respectfully declined. So, Kyocera was on their own and got back to the drawing board. Pentax MZ-D was truly ready for the production (some production models are actually being used within Pentax) but as Bob said, the price killed it. Meantime, Kyocera apparently were determined to get the product out in the market no matter what. You will remember the embarrassing multiple delay announcements at the time. I guess Kyocera were too eager to establish themselves as a premier digital camera maker in a hurry (remember they were essentially the licensee of Contax, and a newcomer to the industry at the time), but I believe, ultimately, Pentax's experience in the industry had them made the right decision. Ken
RE: Re: Some more new camera speculation
John Wrote: With the announcement of the new body, and a lens roadmap that shows those new f2.8 zooms arriving shortly afterwards, I feel a lot more confident about Pentax now than I did three months ago. That's true - and probably the main reason Pentax made this announcement ;-) But without new a pro spec'ed body (5 FPS, and fast AF) the fast lenses don't help a lot. I probably won't buy a 10MP Pentax body, if the resolution turns out to be the only significant improvement. Regards Jens Jens Bladt http://www.jensbladt.dk -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: John Francis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 1. marts 2006 00:00 Til: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Emne: Re: Re: Some more new camera speculation On Wed, Mar 01, 2006 at 08:51:21AM +1000, Rob Studdert wrote: On 28 Feb 2006 at 13:11, John Francis wrote: Hmm. So if the power contacts come back, presumably we would get at least one more digital signal pin to control the in-lens features (including, but not necessarily limited to, USM motors). The two pins could easily deliver power and I/O Additionally both the new body and the new lenses would have to include the old AF system as well, or we lose compatibility. I don't know why they didn't just dump the mount with the first digital body rather than lead us on like they have. It's now obvious what direction they are heading and compatibility with older lenses isn't high on their agenda. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Some people are just pissed that their 25-year-old lenses need a whole extra press of a button to work on the new cameras. Nobody has been leading you on, except perhaps a few people here who still cling to the belief (or, IMO, delusion) that Pentax would decide to re-introduce a mechanical aperture sensor, or go back to aperture rings on lenses. I wouldn't be totally surprised to find that the new lenses don't even use a mechanical aperture actuator, but have in-lens motors for that. But, unlike you, I beleve that Pentax *do* have backwards compatibility fairly high on their agenda, and I expect pretty much what we have now; F and FA lenses work for everything, and A lenses work in manual focus. You'll have to leave the lenses in the A setting, of course, and use the aperture setting control on the body. But I expect there to be a mechanical aperture actuator for those old lenses, even if the new ones use a totally-electronic mount. As for those older lenses - there's a green button on the new body, and I expect it to work just like the D. If, as anticipated, the new body does include shake reduction, then I even expect there will be some way to use that with A lenses. Let's face it - if Pentax don't have decent compatibility with their old lenses, then why would anybody buy their new high-end camera, instead of a D200 (or a 30D)? The same argument goes, to a lesser extent,for new lenses - if the forthcoming DA f2.8 zooms don't work on my 'D (or DS, or DL ...) they look less attractive to me. With the announcement of the new body, and a lens roadmap that shows those new f2.8 zooms arriving shortly afterwards, I feel a lot more confident about Pentax now than I did three months ago. -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 268.1.1/271 - Release Date: 02/28/2006 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 268.1.1/271 - Release Date: 02/28/2006
RE: Some more new camera speculation
Why ask only Rob. Ask all the photogs, that uses Canons or Kodak kameras with larger sensors! The anser is of cource better resolution with less limitations, caused by the lens resolutuin. Regards Jens Bladt http://www.jensbladt.dk -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: John Forbes [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 1. marts 2006 00:01 Til: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Emne: Re: Some more new camera speculation Rob, Just what is the attraction of a 35mm-sized sensor on digital? It's much more expensive, both for the body and the lenses (note how much cheaper the DA macro lenses, for instance, are than the FA lenses). There are now good wide-angle options. All the evidence suggests, and has for some time, that Pentax will not in the near future, and probably never, produce a 24x36mm sensor in the K mount. If 24x36 is what your heart is set on, buy a Canon. And for those who say that the market has abandoned the Pentax 645, how did they ever manage to sell the first 645? There are still huge quantities of 645 lenses out there, and I for one will bet that as long as the price and performance are OK, the 645D will be snapped up. John On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 23:46:24 -, Rob Studdert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 28 Feb 2006 at 16:33, Ryan Brooks wrote: The 645D is already behind the pro medium format back curve; pro photographers have left their Pentax MF gear behind. What amused me ever so slightly was that a new D specific 645 lens was on the roadmap. Do they think that the existing glass won't be up to the task, so much for their main selling point, remind you of anything? The fact that they are intent on delivering a 645D and swinging as far from FF 35mm as possible still has my head spinning. Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998 -- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/ -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 268.1.1/271 - Release Date: 02/28/2006 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 268.1.1/271 - Release Date: 02/28/2006
Re: Some more new camera speculation
- Original Message - From: Jens Bladt Subject: RE: Some more new camera speculation Why ask only Rob. Ask all the photogs, that uses Canons or Kodak kameras with larger sensors! The anser is of cource better resolution with less limitations, caused by the lens resolutuin. And if you are an Canon lens user, those nice pillowy soft corners are a definite bonus if you choose the short focal length lenses. William Robb
Re: Some more new camera speculation
On 3/01/06 10:24 AM, K.Takeshita, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Pentax MZ-D was truly ready for the production (some production models are actually being used within Pentax) but as Bob said, the price killed it. Something else I remember. I heard that it was Philips who initially approached Pentax for using their sensor (this is true), but their true target was the Pentax's 645 (this part is a second-hand info, but apparently from Pentax source). Probably true. Ken
RE: Some more new camera speculation
On Wed, 1 Mar 2006, Jens Bladt wrote: Ask all the photogs, that uses Canons or Kodak kameras with larger sensors! I think you should first ask Kodak if they still make FF Canon/Nikon mount DSLRs; I could not find one on their website but haven't looked well enough. Also, wonder why Nikon don't make FF DSLRs. Kostas
Re: Some more new camera speculation
Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote: On Wed, 1 Mar 2006, Jens Bladt wrote: Ask all the photogs, that uses Canons or Kodak kameras with larger sensors! I think you should first ask Kodak if they still make FF Canon/Nikon mount DSLRs; I could not find one on their website but haven't looked well enough. Also, wonder why Nikon don't make FF DSLRs. Kostas Kostas, Kodak discontinued all their DSLR's around a year ago. -Adam
Re: Some more new camera speculation
On Wed, 1 Mar 2006, Adam Maas wrote: Kostas, Kodak discontinued all their DSLR's around a year ago. Really? What will the pros do now? I see a real market gap and Pentax should rush! Not. Kostas (thanks Adam)
Re: Some more new camera speculation
Some of you seem to think this is the Pentax Lovers List vs. a discussion list. I find it interesting. Some of us have compained that Pentax did not have an upgrade offering to the *istD. That was met with claims that the *ist D does everything they want, 6.1MP gave images with all the quality they wanted, why would we want something more? Now that a successor has been announced, many of those same people have already got in line to purchase one when it's released. For me at least, I don't plan to throw any more money into Pentax. A lot of the photography I enjoy doing is night shots, including quite shortly astrophotography. Therefore a lower noise at higher ISO camera would be of great benefit. Canon and Nikon are successful for a reason. The pissing and moaning and whining as it's been labeled, is an expression of an opinion. It seems many here only want to hear one side of things. Tom C. From: Jostein [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: Some more new camera speculation Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2006 08:28:53 +0100 - Original Message - From: Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED] You folks just love hearing yourselves piss and moan. It's embarrassing to even listen to it. That ought to be in the Pentax quotations for 2006, and no smiley this time. Well put Godfrey. Jostein
Re: Some more new camera speculation
- Original Message - From: Tom C Subject: Re: Some more new camera speculation For me at least, I don't plan to throw any more money into Pentax. A lot of the photography I enjoy doing is night shots, including quite shortly astrophotography. Therefore a lower noise at higher ISO camera would be of great benefit. No law sez you can't buy a camera body specifically for astrophotography. It can be whatever you want. The low noise thing is a non starter though. There is only the Canon 5D which may have noticably lower noise than the other stuff thats out there. Something I have found is that quite often what appears to be a noisy image on the screen turns out to be quite a nice image on paper. I think it has something to do with looking for problems at 200%, then looking at pictures at 20%. Also, no one has any idea of what sort of noise levels the new Pentax will have, since at this point, no one has seen images from it, what sort of moise reduction software will be built into it, or even know for sure what chip will be in it. William Robb
Re: Some more new camera speculation
On Wed, 1 Mar 2006, Tom C wrote: Some of you seem to think this is the Pentax Lovers List vs. a discussion list. I find it interesting. Some of us have compained that Pentax did not have an upgrade offering to the *istD. That was met with claims that the *ist D does everything they want, 6.1MP gave images with all the quality they wanted, why would we want something more? Now that a successor has been announced, many of those same people have already got in line to purchase one when it's released. For me at least, I don't plan to throw any more money into Pentax. A lot of the photography I enjoy doing is night shots, including quite shortly astrophotography. Therefore a lower noise at higher ISO camera would be of great benefit. Canon and Nikon are successful for a reason. The pissing and moaning and whining as it's been labeled, is an expression of an opinion. It seems many here only want to hear one side of things. Not to poke the bear here, but from what I know of astrophotography, NONE of the consumer cameras are adequate. Taking high-quality astro photos requires using CCD/CMOS requires either cryo-cooling, or multiple exposures, stacking, and aligning to remove the noise and rotation. Certainly the 0.5-1.0 stop difference in noise quality between brandX and brandY camera is small in comparison. Film is still the way to do long exposures at night, even though you get screwed with reciprocity. CMOS/CCD's will have hot-pixel noise from long exposures, just like it'll have higher noise at higher ISO's. If you're on the edge, have fun there. I don't care to quibble about small differences brandX does vs. brandY to minimize artifacts from using the wrong tool for the job. -Cory -- * * Cory Papenfuss* * Electrical Engineering candidate Ph.D. graduate student * * Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University * *
RE: Some more new camera speculation
Perhaps so, but many cameras are still in use by photographers. Canon still made the 1D Mark II and 1D Mark II N with 28.7 x 19.1 mm sensors. Regards Jens Bladt http://www.jensbladt.dk -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: Kostas Kavoussanakis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 1. marts 2006 17:06 Til: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Emne: RE: Some more new camera speculation On Wed, 1 Mar 2006, Jens Bladt wrote: Ask all the photogs, that uses Canons or Kodak kameras with larger sensors! I think you should first ask Kodak if they still make FF Canon/Nikon mount DSLRs; I could not find one on their website but haven't looked well enough. Also, wonder why Nikon don't make FF DSLRs. Kostas -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 268.1.1/271 - Release Date: 02/28/2006 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 268.1.1/271 - Release Date: 02/28/2006
Re: Some more new camera speculation
- Original Message - From: Jens Bladt Subject: RE: Some more new camera speculation Perhaps so, but many cameras are still in use by photographers. Canon still made the 1D Mark II and 1D Mark II N with 28.7 x 19.1 mm sensors. That is hardly full frame William Robb
Re: Some more new camera speculation
Offlist so I don't get whammed. I really think that Pentax will not be around for ever in the consumer camera market. I of course can be wrong. If I were a bettor, I'd give it a 50/50 chance they sell the thing to Samsung. I think the 645D will have a hard time selling because 1) many photographers that wanted a much higher resolution will have already went with offerings such as the 16.7 MP Canon EOS 1DS and 2) the price will be too high. I suspect Pentax will not make a heck of alot of money on it. I think Pentax can only hope to hold market share, not gain it. Growth in DSLR's is already slackening as the market saturates. If they don't get their product out in front of the buying public, they will lose market share. At some point, not making money will make it so there is little left for RD to design and perfect new products. I think we already see that. Agreed, what we *know* about the new Pentax is very little. Tom Tom C. From: William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: Some more new camera speculation Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2006 11:21:43 -0600 - Original Message - From: Tom C Subject: Re: Some more new camera speculation For me at least, I don't plan to throw any more money into Pentax. A lot of the photography I enjoy doing is night shots, including quite shortly astrophotography. Therefore a lower noise at higher ISO camera would be of great benefit. No law sez you can't buy a camera body specifically for astrophotography. It can be whatever you want. The low noise thing is a non starter though. There is only the Canon 5D which may have noticably lower noise than the other stuff thats out there. Something I have found is that quite often what appears to be a noisy image on the screen turns out to be quite a nice image on paper. I think it has something to do with looking for problems at 200%, then looking at pictures at 20%. Also, no one has any idea of what sort of noise levels the new Pentax will have, since at this point, no one has seen images from it, what sort of moise reduction software will be built into it, or even know for sure what chip will be in it. William Robb
Re: Some more new camera speculation
I don't know anything about what's required for astrophotography, but Canon has at least one model that is designed for such use. Don't know how good it is for the purpose, but here you have it: http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/digital/eos20da.html Shel From: Cory Papenfuss Not to poke the bear here, but from what I know of astrophotography, NONE of the consumer cameras are adequate. [Original Message] Tom C said: For me at least, I don't plan to throw any more money into Pentax. A lot of the photography I enjoy doing is night shots, including quite shortly astrophotography.
RE: Some more new camera speculation
Nop, but appr. 5mm more in each direction! That ought to count for something - 60% more, actually. Regards Jens Bladt http://www.jensbladt.dk -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: William Robb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 1. marts 2006 18:32 Til: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Emne: Re: Some more new camera speculation - Original Message - From: Jens Bladt Subject: RE: Some more new camera speculation Perhaps so, but many cameras are still in use by photographers. Canon still made the 1D Mark II and 1D Mark II N with 28.7 x 19.1 mm sensors. That is hardly full frame William Robb -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 268.1.1/271 - Release Date: 02/28/2006 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 268.1.1/271 - Release Date: 02/28/2006
Re: Some more new camera speculation
Crap... I hate it when I send things to the list that were menat to be private. :-( Tom C. From: Tom C [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: Some more new camera speculation Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2006 10:36:52 -0700 Offlist so I don't get whammed. I really think that Pentax will not be around for ever in the consumer camera market. I of course can be wrong. If I were a bettor, I'd give it a 50/50 chance they sell the thing to Samsung. I think the 645D will have a hard time selling because 1) many photographers that wanted a much higher resolution will have already went with offerings such as the 16.7 MP Canon EOS 1DS and 2) the price will be too high. I suspect Pentax will not make a heck of alot of money on it. I think Pentax can only hope to hold market share, not gain it. Growth in DSLR's is already slackening as the market saturates. If they don't get their product out in front of the buying public, they will lose market share. At some point, not making money will make it so there is little left for RD to design and perfect new products. I think we already see that. Agreed, what we *know* about the new Pentax is very little. Tom Tom C. From: William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: Some more new camera speculation Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2006 11:21:43 -0600 - Original Message - From: Tom C Subject: Re: Some more new camera speculation For me at least, I don't plan to throw any more money into Pentax. A lot of the photography I enjoy doing is night shots, including quite shortly astrophotography. Therefore a lower noise at higher ISO camera would be of great benefit. No law sez you can't buy a camera body specifically for astrophotography. It can be whatever you want. The low noise thing is a non starter though. There is only the Canon 5D which may have noticably lower noise than the other stuff thats out there. Something I have found is that quite often what appears to be a noisy image on the screen turns out to be quite a nice image on paper. I think it has something to do with looking for problems at 200%, then looking at pictures at 20%. Also, no one has any idea of what sort of noise levels the new Pentax will have, since at this point, no one has seen images from it, what sort of moise reduction software will be built into it, or even know for sure what chip will be in it. William Robb
Re: Some more new camera speculation
Very high quality astrophotos can be taken with DSLR's. Sure those that have unlimited funds can afford to buy the dedicated cooled sensor cameras. Even they are becoming a little chagrined at how well the new DLSR's (esp., Canons perform). The quibbling is often more like, I spent $10K on this dedicated camera, and the guy who spent $1500 - $3000 is producing results that are stunning, and certainly disproportional quality-wise when compared to price. As you mentioned, in many cases long exposures no longer necessary to image stacking of many short exposures Tom C. Not to poke the bear here, but from what I know of astrophotography, NONE of the consumer cameras are adequate. Taking high-quality astro photos requires using CCD/CMOS requires either cryo-cooling, or multiple exposures, stacking, and aligning to remove the noise and rotation. Certainly the 0.5-1.0 stop difference in noise quality between brandX and brandY camera is small in comparison. Film is still the way to do long exposures at night, even though you get screwed with reciprocity. CMOS/CCD's will have hot-pixel noise from long exposures, just like it'll have higher noise at higher ISO's. If you're on the edge, have fun there. I don't care to quibble about small differences brandX does vs. brandY to minimize artifacts from using the wrong tool for the job. -Cory
Re: Some more new camera speculation
I love it when private mail goes public ;-)) Shel [Original Message] From: Tom C Offlist so I don't get whammed. I really think that Pentax will not be around for ever in the consumer camera market. I of course can be wrong. If I were a bettor, I'd give it a 50/50 chance they sell the thing to Samsung. etc etc etc
Re: Some more new camera speculation
- Original Message - From: Jens Bladt Subject: RE: Some more new camera speculation Nop, but appr. 5mm more in each direction! That ought to count for something - 60% more, actually. It doesn't count as full frame, which I believe is what you were implying in a previous post. I could be wrong about your intent though. William Robb
Re: Some more new camera speculation
William Robb wrote: - Original Message - From: Jens Bladt Subject: RE: Some more new camera speculation Nop, but appr. 5mm more in each direction! That ought to count for something - 60% more, actually. It doesn't count as full frame, which I believe is what you were implying in a previous post. I could The 5, 1Ds and 1DsmII are the FF cameras from Canon. -R
Re: Some more new camera speculation
I very much appreciate Bob and Ken and their well-informed posts. Much of the information Bob gives was pretty well known at the time (albeit not officially confirmed directly from Pentax), so I'm not sure why there are so many alternative explanations for the MZ-D never making it to the store shelves. What follows is pure speculation on my part. I have absolutely no facts to support this hypothesis - seekers after truth should quit now. Because the lead time (the length of time between commencing the initial design step and the product showing up on shelves) is so long, and the demand for constant 'improvement' is high, it's common for companies to have multiple independent design teams. And what I've seen come out of Pentax in the last few years leads me to believe that they operated the same way. Not only that - some of their design teams have differing views on how things should be done. Without strong company guidance this often shows up in the final products. To me, the Pentax product line shows all the signs of this. On the one hand we had the MZ series of cameras; as close to the traditional old cameras we all knew as was possible while still incorporating all the modern features. On the other side was the PZ range; cameras designed to offer all the new abilities, methods of control, etc. that were to be found on competing products (not to mention some unique features - not all of which, in hindsight seem all that well-concieved). Long-time list members will, no doubt, remember the speculation as to whether Pentax would ever release a fully-featured film body (whether or not the MZ-S merits this description is a separate discussion), and if so whether we would see an MZ-x or a PZ-2. At the time Pentax first considered stepping into the digital marketplace, the MZ design team were the ones available to take on the task of designing the camera. As a result, we (almost) saw something very close to the MZ-S. It was a bold design, and if it had been successful it would quite probably have put Pentax in a strong position in the overall DSLR market. But the gamble didn't pay off, and Pentax had to abandon the project. By the time it next became feasible for Pentax to consider a DSLR (though, I'd guess, with a somewhat smaller design budget) the PZ design team were the ones who got the job. As a result we got a camera that was ergonomically very close to the PZ-1p. I suspect Pentax may even have decided they could no longer afford two fully-independent design teams, or at the very least had decreed that designs had to show far more commonality. If that is the case, I think Pentax are doing the right thing; I've worked at several places where independent design teams were allowed to be truly independent, and it has usually turned out to be a bad idea in the long term. On Wed, Mar 01, 2006 at 06:54:37AM -0800, Jack Davis wrote: A prime clarifying example of knowledge revealing the absurdity of emotional assumptions. Thanks, Bob! Jack --- Bob Shell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Feb 28, 2006, at 6:54 PM, Rob Studdert wrote: You are not feeling especially smart, either. I recall that Pentax was pretty blunt about the FF camera not being marketable due to sensor issues. So you are telling me that they didn't know this or it wasn't an issue when it was shown to the market? Actually, they didn't. I saw the prototype at photokina and talked to some of the Pentax people about it. They were very enthusiastic. But at that time they did not know that Philips, the maker of the full frame chip, would miss delivery deadlines by over a year and jack the price up several times prior to delivery. Kyocera went ahead with the N Digital using that chip, and you see where it got them! Pentax people I talked to at various times during the project were very up front with me about what was going on, and when Philips raised the price one last time they told me they were killing the project because the new chip price would push the price of the camera out of the range they considered practical. The Contax N Digital was nearly two years late to dealers, sold poorly and performed even more poorly due to chip and firmware problems, both of which Kyocera blamed on Philips. I believe it was the disaster with this chip that caused Philips to decide to withdraw from that market and sell off their chip fabrication assets, which are now an independent company called Dalsa. If I were in your shoes, Rob, I'd direct my anger where it belongs, at Philips. They promised Pentax something they were unable to provide at the quoted original price and in the quoted time frame. Pentax lost a lot of money on that project. If Philips had come through with what they originally promised it would have been a killer camera. But if they hadn't dropped the project it might just
Re: Some more new camera speculation
From: John Francis [EMAIL PROTECTED] By the time it next became feasible for Pentax to consider a DSLR (though, I'd guess, with a somewhat smaller design budget) the PZ design team were the ones who got the job. As a result we got a camera that was ergonomically very close to the PZ-1p. I found the migration from PZ-1p to *ist D to be pretty much automatic. I was overjoyed. Tom C.
Re: Re: Some more new camera speculation
Even if it was meant offlist: Pentax has recently admitted that they are primarily an optical company. They are upgrading the optical production and helping Samsung to the market to get another K-mount camera producer, which in turn will increase the market for Pentax lenses. I think this is a good idea, and as I'm here because of the great lenses I'm happy with the decision. With the 21mm none of the competition can compete in the number of primes and zooms for the DA format. DagT fra: Tom C [EMAIL PROTECTED] dato: 2006/03/01 on PM 06:36:52 CET til: pentax-discuss@pdml.net emne: Re: Some more new camera speculation Offlist so I don't get whammed. I really think that Pentax will not be around for ever in the consumer camera market. I of course can be wrong. If I were a bettor, I'd give it a 50/50 chance they sell the thing to Samsung. I think the 645D will have a hard time selling because 1) many photographers that wanted a much higher resolution will have already went with offerings such as the 16.7 MP Canon EOS 1DS and 2) the price will be too high. I suspect Pentax will not make a heck of alot of money on it. I think Pentax can only hope to hold market share, not gain it. Growth in DSLR's is already slackening as the market saturates. If they don't get their product out in front of the buying public, they will lose market share. At some point, not making money will make it so there is little left for RD to design and perfect new products. I think we already see that. Agreed, what we *know* about the new Pentax is very little. Tom Tom C. From: William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: Some more new camera speculation Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2006 11:21:43 -0600 - Original Message - From: Tom C Subject: Re: Some more new camera speculation For me at least, I don't plan to throw any more money into Pentax. A lot of the photography I enjoy doing is night shots, including quite shortly astrophotography. Therefore a lower noise at higher ISO camera would be of great benefit. No law sez you can't buy a camera body specifically for astrophotography. It can be whatever you want. The low noise thing is a non starter though. There is only the Canon 5D which may have noticably lower noise than the other stuff thats out there. Something I have found is that quite often what appears to be a noisy image on the screen turns out to be quite a nice image on paper. I think it has something to do with looking for problems at 200%, then looking at pictures at 20%. Also, no one has any idea of what sort of noise levels the new Pentax will have, since at this point, no one has seen images from it, what sort of moise reduction software will be built into it, or even know for sure what chip will be in it. William Robb
Re: Some more new camera speculation
There's no reason to believe the Nikon would be lower noise. In fact, there's reason to suspect it would be higher noise. I don't recall anyone here ever saying they didn't want anything more than the D. Not only do you whine, you grow your own grapes. Paul -- Original message -- From: Tom C [EMAIL PROTECTED] Some of you seem to think this is the Pentax Lovers List vs. a discussion list. I find it interesting. Some of us have compained that Pentax did not have an upgrade offering to the *istD. That was met with claims that the *ist D does everything they want, 6.1MP gave images with all the quality they wanted, why would we want something more? Now that a successor has been announced, many of those same people have already got in line to purchase one when it's released. For me at least, I don't plan to throw any more money into Pentax. A lot of the photography I enjoy doing is night shots, including quite shortly astrophotography. Therefore a lower noise at higher ISO camera would be of great benefit. Canon and Nikon are successful for a reason. The pissing and moaning and whining as it's been labeled, is an expression of an opinion. It seems many here only want to hear one side of things. Tom C. From: Jostein [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: Some more new camera speculation Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2006 08:28:53 +0100 - Original Message - From: Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED] You folks just love hearing yourselves piss and moan. It's embarrassing to even listen to it. That ought to be in the Pentax quotations for 2006, and no smiley this time. Well put Godfrey. Jostein
Re: Some more new camera speculation
And there you are, Paul, stomping on them ;-)) Shel [Original Message] From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [...] I don't recall anyone here ever saying they didn't want anything more than the D. Not only do you whine, you grow your own grapes. From: Tom C Some of you seem to think this is the Pentax Lovers List vs. a discussion list. I find it interesting.
Re: Some more new camera speculation
On Mar 1, 2006, at 11:01 AM, K.Takeshita wrote: Something else I remember. I heard that it was Philips who initially approached Pentax for using their sensor (this is true), but their true target was the Pentax's 645 (this part is a second-hand info, but apparently from Pentax source). Probably true. Maybe, but nobody mentioned that at the time. Bob
Re: Some more new camera speculation
On Mar 1, 2006, at 11:09 AM, Adam Maas wrote: Kostas, Kodak discontinued all their DSLR's around a year ago. Yes, and they promised support at the time, but have not provided it. Recently they raised the price of the rechargeable battery pack from $ 100 to $ 400! It's like they want to kill the remaining cameras as fast as possible. Bob
Re: Some more new camera speculation
Barefoot, no less. :-). Have to be careful not to cut my feet on some full-frame lover's broken heart.:-)) -- Original message -- From: Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] And there you are, Paul, stomping on them ;-)) Shel [Original Message] From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [...] I don't recall anyone here ever saying they didn't want anything more than the D. Not only do you whine, you grow your own grapes. From: Tom C Some of you seem to think this is the Pentax Lovers List vs. a discussion list. I find it interesting.
Re: Some more new camera speculation
On Wed, Mar 01, 2006 at 09:53:02AM -0700, Tom C wrote: Some of us have compained that Pentax did not have an upgrade offering to the *istD. That was met with claims that the *ist D does everything they want, 6.1MP gave images with all the quality they wanted, why would we want something more? Now that a successor has been announced, many of those same people have already got in line to purchase one when it's released. I think that's rather overstating the case. I'm sure you'd put both myself and Paul Stenquist firmly in the camp of *ist D supporters; we've both said that it's a camera capable of delivering the results, and that some of the most loudly-bemoaned shortcomings (you know the ones I mean, I'm sure :-) just aren't that important to the way we work. But we've both made it perfectly clear that if Pentax came out with a camera with a somewhat higher pixel count, and decent improvements in frame rate and burst length, we'd definitely consider buying one, as long as it was otherwise at least as good as the D. For some people, the DS (and, especially, the DS2) is a cheaper way to get that faster write performance. For me (I can't speak for Paul) that is outweighed by the absence of a grip accessory, and the change in control style (I shoot in HyperProgram mode over 90% of the time). The CF vs. SD card counted against the DS, too, but it looks as if I'm just going to have to bite the bullet on that one :-( We haven't yet seen detailed enough specifications of the new camera to know what the frame rate and burst size will be, but I'm sure they will be better than the D (even with the larger RAW file size). We're also led to believe it will have other features, such as SR, which I for one find tempting. Are they necessary? No. Desirable? Definitely.
Re: Some more new camera speculation
On 1/3/06, Rob Studdert, discombobulated, unleashed: Ah but I like you guys and I love your reactions :-) Masochist! Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: Some more new camera speculation
Bob Shell wrote: On Mar 1, 2006, at 11:01 AM, K.Takeshita wrote: Something else I remember. I heard that it was Philips who initially approached Pentax for using their sensor (this is true), but their true target was the Pentax's 645 (this part is a second-hand info, but apparently from Pentax source). Probably true. Maybe, but nobody mentioned that at the time. Bob Doubtful, the sensor in question is distinctly small for a MF digital, being half the size of the typical 36x48 sensor for MF digital. -Adam
Re: Some more new camera speculation
On 3/01/06 1:53 PM, Bob Shell, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mar 1, 2006, at 11:01 AM, K.Takeshita wrote: Something else I remember. I heard that it was Philips who initially approached Pentax for using their sensor (this is true), but their true target was the Pentax's 645 (this part is a second-hand info, but apparently from Pentax source). Probably true. Maybe, but nobody mentioned that at the time. Bob Some things make much sense much later :-). Ken
Re: Some more new camera speculation
On 3/01/06 2:03 PM, Adam Maas, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Doubtful, the sensor in question is distinctly small for a MF digital, being half the size of the typical 36x48 sensor for MF digital. According to the story, Philips were looking over the shoulder of Pentax at 645 market which they knew would be coming down the line. I do not think Philips were ready for 645 sensor yet at the time. Ken
Re: Some more new camera speculation
From: John Francis [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Wed, Mar 01, 2006 at 09:53:02AM -0700, Tom C wrote: Some of us have compained that Pentax did not have an upgrade offering to the *istD. That was met with claims that the *ist D does everything they want, 6.1MP gave images with all the quality they wanted, why would we want something more? Now that a successor has been announced, many of those same people have already got in line to purchase one when it's released. I think that's rather overstating the case. I'm sure you'd put both myself and Paul Stenquist firmly in the camp of *ist D supporters; we've both said that it's a camera capable of delivering the results, and that some of the most loudly-bemoaned shortcomings (you know the ones I mean, I'm sure :-) just aren't that important to the way we work. Just like 'loudly-bemoaned' is overstating the case? I like the *ist D too. But we've both made it perfectly clear that if Pentax came out with a camera with a somewhat higher pixel count, and decent improvements in frame rate and burst length, we'd definitely consider buying one, as long as it was otherwise at least as good as the D. For some people, the DS (and, especially, the DS2) is a cheaper way to get that faster write performance. For me (I can't speak for Paul) that is outweighed by the absence of a grip accessory, and the change in control style (I shoot in HyperProgram mode over 90% of the time). HyperProgram is my favorite mode as well. The CF vs. SD card counted against the DS, too, but it looks as if I'm just going to have to bite the bullet on that one :-( Overall it's less of an issue as memory prices come down. I'd be unhappy not to be able to use my 4GB microdrives though. We haven't yet seen detailed enough specifications of the new camera to know what the frame rate and burst size will be, but I'm sure they will be better than the D (even with the larger RAW file size). We're also led to believe it will have other features, such as SR, which I for one find tempting. Are they necessary? No. Desirable? Definitely. I'm sure it will be a nice camera. I guess in the end, I am reacting to the categorization of a negative opinion as whining. Just because it's an opinion that's at odds with anothers does not make it a whine... nor does expressing concern regarding Pentax itself deserve to be categorized as saying the sky is falling. Tom C.
Re: Some more new camera speculation
- Original Message - From: Tom C Subject: Re: Some more new camera speculation I'm sure it will be a nice camera. I guess in the end, I am reacting to the categorization of a negative opinion as whining. Just because it's an opinion that's at odds with anothers does not make it a whine... nor does expressing concern regarding Pentax itself deserve to be categorized as saying the sky is falling. About all we know about this camera so far is that it has the Pentax name on it, presumably it will be a K-Mount based on that, and that it will have a ~10mp sensor. I find it difficult to make any categorizations about the thing based on what we know so far. William Robb
Re: Some more new camera speculation
Wasn't offended by any part of it, Tom. ;-) Hope it doesn't stymie Pentax profits though. LOL This technology is so frigging short term and primitive that the next development corner turned will only re-group the industry for another dash to the market share tape. It will forever be a tech driven marketing scramble and I'll be in the stands cheering. Jack --- Tom C [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Crap... I hate it when I send things to the list that were menat to be private. :-( Tom C. From: Tom C [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: Some more new camera speculation Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2006 10:36:52 -0700 Offlist so I don't get whammed. I really think that Pentax will not be around for ever in the consumer camera market. I of course can be wrong. If I were a bettor, I'd give it a 50/50 chance they sell the thing to Samsung. I think the 645D will have a hard time selling because 1) many photographers that wanted a much higher resolution will have already went with offerings such as the 16.7 MP Canon EOS 1DS and 2) the price will be too high. I suspect Pentax will not make a heck of alot of money on it. I think Pentax can only hope to hold market share, not gain it. Growth in DSLR's is already slackening as the market saturates. If they don't get their product out in front of the buying public, they will lose market share. At some point, not making money will make it so there is little left for RD to design and perfect new products. I think we already see that. Agreed, what we *know* about the new Pentax is very little. Tom Tom C. From: William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: Some more new camera speculation Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2006 11:21:43 -0600 - Original Message - From: Tom C Subject: Re: Some more new camera speculation For me at least, I don't plan to throw any more money into Pentax. A lot of the photography I enjoy doing is night shots, including quite shortly astrophotography. Therefore a lower noise at higher ISO camera would be of great benefit. No law sez you can't buy a camera body specifically for astrophotography. It can be whatever you want. The low noise thing is a non starter though. There is only the Canon 5D which may have noticably lower noise than the other stuff thats out there. Something I have found is that quite often what appears to be a noisy image on the screen turns out to be quite a nice image on paper. I think it has something to do with looking for problems at 200%, then looking at pictures at 20%. Also, no one has any idea of what sort of noise levels the new Pentax will have, since at this point, no one has seen images from it, what sort of moise reduction software will be built into it, or even know for sure what chip will be in it. William Robb __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: Some more new camera speculation
John Forbes wrote: Yes, but Rob has been in the market since 1988, and in Australia, and before the internet, and perhaps buying new. Not many Pentax lenses are worth more than they were new. Although some of the more high end lenses are selling for exhorbitant prices right now. See the recent thread on the 80-200 2.8 ($2100). The A* 85 is another example. These are definitely more than new prices for these particular lenses. John On Wed, 01 Mar 2006 00:23:10 -, Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Then you overpaid. That's your fault, not Pentax's. Every lens I bought in the last three years is worth at least what I paid for it. And we've know for at least three years that Pentax was most likely going APS-C. It wasn't a secret On Feb 28, 2006, at 8:16 PM, Rob Studdert wrote: On 28 Feb 2006 at 18:58, Paul Stenquist wrote: But your A, FA and LTD glass is worth more now than it was then. And you can now buy what was then the best Canon offering for about half of what it was selling for at the time. You're way ahead of the game if you switch now. So falling for the carrot saved you big bucks. Make yourself happy and buy the Canon. There is no way that my lenses will return me more than I purchased them for, it would be lovely if that were the case but it's not. I've compared my purchase prices with the current market values and it just ain't so. If I had a drawer full of FA80-200/2.8 zooms that may be the case but I don't. So basically I'm well behind where I would have been had I not purchased Pentax kit over the last few years plain and simple. Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998 -- Someone handed me a picture and said, This is a picture of me when I was younger. Every picture of you is when you were younger. ...Here's a picture of me when I'm older. Where'd you get that camera man? - Mitch Hedberg
Re: Some more new camera speculation
Offlist so I don't get whammed Wham Kenneth Waller - Original Message - From: Tom C [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Some more new camera speculation Offlist so I don't get whammed. I really think that Pentax will not be around for ever in the consumer camera market. I of course can be wrong. If I were a bettor, I'd give it a 50/50 chance they sell the thing to Samsung. I think the 645D will have a hard time selling because 1) many photographers that wanted a much higher resolution will have already went with offerings such as the 16.7 MP Canon EOS 1DS and 2) the price will be too high. I suspect Pentax will not make a heck of alot of money on it. I think Pentax can only hope to hold market share, not gain it. Growth in DSLR's is already slackening as the market saturates. If they don't get their product out in front of the buying public, they will lose market share. At some point, not making money will make it so there is little left for RD to design and perfect new products. I think we already see that. Agreed, what we *know* about the new Pentax is very little. Tom Tom C. From: William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: Some more new camera speculation Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2006 11:21:43 -0600 - Original Message - From: Tom C Subject: Re: Some more new camera speculation For me at least, I don't plan to throw any more money into Pentax. A lot of the photography I enjoy doing is night shots, including quite shortly astrophotography. Therefore a lower noise at higher ISO camera would be of great benefit. No law sez you can't buy a camera body specifically for astrophotography. It can be whatever you want. The low noise thing is a non starter though. There is only the Canon 5D which may have noticably lower noise than the other stuff thats out there. Something I have found is that quite often what appears to be a noisy image on the screen turns out to be quite a nice image on paper. I think it has something to do with looking for problems at 200%, then looking at pictures at 20%. Also, no one has any idea of what sort of noise levels the new Pentax will have, since at this point, no one has seen images from it, what sort of moise reduction software will be built into it, or even know for sure what chip will be in it. William Robb
Re: Some more new camera speculation
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There's no reason to believe the Nikon would be lower noise. In fact, there's reason to suspect it would be higher noise. I don't recall anyone here ever saying they didn't want anything more than the D. Not only do you whine, you grow your own grapes. It's true of me; I may have actually said it at some point.
Re: Some more new camera speculation
William Robb wrote: - Original Message - From: Tom C Subject: Re: Some more new camera speculation I'm sure it will be a nice camera. I guess in the end, I am reacting to the categorization of a negative opinion as whining. Just because it's an opinion that's at odds with anothers does not make it a whine... nor does expressing concern regarding Pentax itself deserve to be categorized as saying the sky is falling. About all we know about this camera so far is that it has the Pentax name on it, presumably it will be a K-Mount based on that, and that it will have a ~10mp sensor. I find it difficult to make any categorizations about the thing based on what we know so far. Looks like it's coming in all-black, too. That means a pro camera, right? :D
Re: Some more new camera speculation
On 1 Mar 2006 at 10:24, K.Takeshita wrote: Adding to this, Kyocra actually approached Pentax for help when they (Kyocera) had been plagued by the noise problem (even at ISO100), as Pentax had solved it at the time. But Pentax respectfully declined. So, Kyocera was on their own and got back to the drawing board. Pentax MZ-D was truly ready for the production (some production models are actually being used within Pentax) but as Bob said, the price killed it. Thanks for the additional info Ken. So in essence where Pentax screwed up was in securing a solid pricing and procurement deal? Having being in design I find it hard to understand why anyone would sink that much RD into a product when the pricing of one of the most fundamental of the components wasn't pre- negotiated. Surely the CCD pricing would have been a factor for the project being given the nod in the first place, surly it would have had to have theoretically been proven a viable product before any prototypes were produced? Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: Some more new camera speculation
Ouch that hurt! :-) Tom C. Wham Kenneth Waller
Re: Some more new camera speculation
On Mar 1, 2006, at 10:01 AM, William Robb wrote: Nop, but appr. 5mm more in each direction! That ought to count for something - 60% more, actually. It doesn't count as full frame, which I believe is what you were implying in a previous post. I could be wrong about your intent though. Full frame is a misnomer. What people really mean is 35mm format or 24x36mm sensor dimensions. Saying anything else just proves that full frame is a hopeless mish-mash of suppositions and posturing. Larger sensors are quieter, yes. There is a balance between noise, resolution density, sensitivity, power consumption, cost, etc etc etc, when designing a sensor. With the freedom to design a sensor to meet any specific need at will, why stick to *ONE* format and make it a holy grail? It's dumb. Were I designing a camera, I'd go with a 4:3 proportion sensor that was about 18x24mm or 21x28mm in size as being ideal. The vast majority of existing lenses for 35mm film and 16x24mm sensors would cover it perfectly, you get the benefits of using more of the lens' image circle, less overall loss when cropping to classic proportions (11x14, 5:4, 3:2, square), and the chip size would enable 10-16Mpixels with very good noise and resolution capabilities. Godfrey
Re: Some more new camera speculation
On Mar 1, 2006, at 4:41 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: Larger sensors are quieter, yes. There is a balance between noise, resolution density, sensitivity, power consumption, cost, etc etc etc, when designing a sensor. With the freedom to design a sensor to meet any specific need at will, why stick to *ONE* format and make it a holy grail? It's dumb. Larger sensors should be quieter, yes, but excessive noise was the most serious problem with the Philips full frame chip. Bob
Re: Some more new camera speculation
On Mar 1, 2006, at 5:26 PM, Rob Studdert wrote: Thanks for the additional info Ken. So in essence where Pentax screwed up was in securing a solid pricing and procurement deal? Having being in design I find it hard to understand why anyone would sink that much RD into a product when the pricing of one of the most fundamental of the components wasn't pre- negotiated. Surely the CCD pricing would have been a factor for the project being given the nod in the first place, surly it would have had to have theoretically been proven a viable product before any prototypes were produced? My understanding from people at Pentax and Kyocera is that price and delivery WERE negotiated and contracted in advance with Philips, but Philips went back on the deal. Basically they said they were running into cost overruns and had to increase the price and push back delivery date. Even when they did deliver to Kyocera, it was never in the promised quantities. Kyocera had a lot of camera bodies sitting there awaiting chips. I wonder what they did with them. The basic problem apparently was that the rejection rate on finished sensor chips was much higher than had been projected. When faced with much higher prices and delivery a year late, Pentax chose to drop the project. Kyocera, for whatever reasons, chose to slog on alone. I've shot with the N Digital. It handles beautifully, has great autofocus and overall performance, good ergonomics, and is one damned fine camera -- if you like soft images. The firmware and image processing software were just never ready for prime time. Hell, I'd have bought one and be shooting with it today if I could have gotten images that were up to my standards. I think Pentax made the right choice. It would probably have harmed them in the long term if they had come out with a very expensive DSLR that produced mediocre images. Bob
RE: Some more new camera speculation
Nope, I was just supporting Rob, who obviously wants a larger sensor than just 15x24mm. It's less than half of a normal negative. So do I, BTW. I want it to be big enough to be adequate for actually makeable lenses. Small enough to give me great DOF. The small sensors do - as the resoultion is increasing, require more and more of the lenses ability to resolve. This means HUGE expenses on lenses. Who wnats that? That's a fair statement, I believe. I would very much like to have a FF sensor, but it seems they are not (yet) quite good enough (soft corners?) Who the h... says that a 15x24mm sensor is the ultimate answer to the sensor size? Perhaps it's not 24x36mm either. Perhaps it's actaully 20x29mm! Canon seems to think so. Why not listen to the expeters - they probably sell more DSLR's than anyone else? Canon is currently setting the DSLR standards - whether you like it or not. I don't really want to switch to Canon. The problem is - I may have to, if Pentax can't deliver a state of the art DSLR sometime soon: 5-8 FPS, as well as correspondingly fast AF and write speed. Pentax seem to be way behind as far as speed goes. Come on, Pentax - try to catch up, will you, pleasw? Before the very last pentaxians are leaving too - except of course, for a handful of true believers from the Spotmatic and LX generation! LX was twenty years ago, right! Tell me to shoot action using maunal focus! Heck - I can do that with one of my Exakta VX1000 - from the sixties! Or a K1000! Regards Jens x24mmo, I believe i Jens Bladt http://www.jensbladt.dk -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: William Robb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 1. marts 2006 19:01 Til: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Emne: Re: Some more new camera speculation - Original Message - From: Jens Bladt Subject: RE: Some more new camera speculation Nop, but appr. 5mm more in each direction! That ought to count for something - 60% more, actually. It doesn't count as full frame, which I believe is what you were implying in a previous post. I could be wrong about your intent though. William Robb -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 268.1.1/271 - Release Date: 02/28/2006 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 268.1.1/271 - Release Date: 02/28/2006
Re: Some more new camera speculation
On Thu, Mar 02, 2006 at 08:26:10AM +1000, Rob Studdert wrote: On 1 Mar 2006 at 10:24, K.Takeshita wrote: Adding to this, Kyocra actually approached Pentax for help when they (Kyocera) had been plagued by the noise problem (even at ISO100), as Pentax had solved it at the time. But Pentax respectfully declined. So, Kyocera was on their own and got back to the drawing board. Pentax MZ-D was truly ready for the production (some production models are actually being used within Pentax) but as Bob said, the price killed it. Thanks for the additional info Ken. So in essence where Pentax screwed up was in securing a solid pricing and procurement deal? Having being in design I find it hard to understand why anyone would sink that much RD into a product when the pricing of one of the most fundamental of the components wasn't pre- negotiated. Surely the CCD pricing would have been a factor for the project being given the nod in the first place, surly it would have had to have theoretically been proven a viable product before any prototypes were produced? It was a viable product, *IF* the sensor had been made available, on the projected delivery date, at the estimated price. If you think a company the size of Philips is going to give guaranteed pricing and delivery dates for a product that isn't yet in production you're not living in the same world as I am - you can't even get those kind of deals when the relative sizes of the two companies is reversed when it comes to the cutting edge of design. I've seen that (from the other side) when I was working at SGI. Sure, we could get pre-agreed prices from the chip fabricators for putting the design through the foundry, and we could even get some pretty good estimates on yield problems caused by silicon impurities. But as far as other defect estimates went? Forget it. And, in my experience, any cutting edge foundry will come online late, and run into unanticipated problems (such as trying to solder connections closer than ever before). And the best design simulation and verification tools don't help you when the problem turns out to be electrical and/or thermal noise on the chip; it's not a design issue, it's an implementation problem. You think Pentax screwed up. I think they took a risk, gambled on Philips being able to deliver the chip, and lost. In hindsight it looks like a bad decision, but presumably somebody thought the potential gain was worth taking the risk - after all, if Pentax had got that camera to market when they hoped what would their market share be today? Nobody knows, but I'd bet it would be much larger. As for gambling on future chip availability - how many people have bet their company on Intel, only to see that *they* can't deliver chips on their projected timeline, either.
Re: Some more new camera speculation
On 1 Mar 2006 at 16:48, Bob Shell wrote: I think Pentax made the right choice. It would probably have harmed them in the long term if they had come out with a very expensive DSLR that produced mediocre images. What a pity, a sad tale indeed regardless of the catalysts that precipitated its demise. Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: Some more new camera speculation
On 1 Mar 2006 at 17:01, John Francis wrote: You think Pentax screwed up. I think they took a risk, gambled on Philips being able to deliver the chip, and lost. In hindsight it looks like a bad decision, but presumably somebody thought the potential gain was worth taking the risk - after all, if Pentax had got that camera to market when they hoped what would their market share be today? Nobody knows, but I'd bet it would be much larger. Indeed I think Pentax screwed up, given that all sources indicate that they were having some technical difficulty with the sensor and supply/pricing issues why l did they then present the thing to the public? Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: [Bulk] Re: Some more new camera speculation
On 3/01/06 5:26 PM, Rob Studdert, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 1 Mar 2006 at 10:24, K.Takeshita wrote: Adding to this, Kyocra actually approached Pentax for help when they (Kyocera) had been plagued by the noise problem (even at ISO100), as Pentax had solved it at the time. But Pentax respectfully declined. So, Kyocera was on their own and got back to the drawing board. Pentax MZ-D was truly ready for the production (some production models are actually being used within Pentax) but as Bob said, the price killed it. Thanks for the additional info Ken. So in essence where Pentax screwed up was in securing a solid pricing and procurement deal? Having being in design I find it hard to understand why anyone would sink that much RD into a product when the pricing of one of the most fundamental of the components wasn't pre- negotiated. Surely the CCD pricing would have been a factor for the project being given the nod in the first place, surly it would have had to have theoretically been proven a viable product before any prototypes were produced? You obviously still believe that you were tripped by Pentax, eh? :-) This subject is only good for the entertainment purpose, and won't satisfy the people's need to know more about the current and future products. Nevertheless, I do not wish to give PDMLers any misleading info and I might have to clarify a bit. I am beginning to remember that all these things, including the Kyocera's approach to Pentax as well as the reason behind the selection of Philips sensor at the time, were actually posted and discussed to death when MZ-D was disclosed. No new info here. Perhaps people like Pal might remember the detail and even archived some :-). Thinking back, although my memory is becoming vague, the story about Philips approaching Pentax was conveyed to me from one of my contacts who referred to one of the articles in Japanese photo journals (Kyocera approaching Pentax was from the horse's mouth though). I am not sure your pre-negotiated theory might be that simple. Bob's post accurately traced what had happened then. That was the time no one else, not even Canon was doing any good on DSLR, let alone FF DSLR. It is entirely conceivable that Philips saw an opportunity to sell their CCDs and approached Pentax (Canon would have brushed them away anyway as they must have been working on their own sensor). But it might have been a collaboration agreement between Pentax and Philips. Pentax had been searching the partner (HP came to my mind) and their past glory of being the first to produce SLRs might have been in their mind when they embarked on the development of the first DSLR. In any case, I do not think it was anything unusual that the cutting edge projects ended up in cost overrun. It happens so many times. Perhaps the Philips' sensor was so primitive initially so that Pentax had to demand so many changes. There must have been any number of reasons why they killed it. But I do not think it was because they did not have a pre-negotiated cost. I am sure they did but it escalated. Perhaps Pentax were tricked by Philips to have ended up sharing a lot of cost. Who knows. However, I firmly believe that the killing of the MZ-D was not entirely the cost decision. Pentax were apparently dead serious in getting it out in the market and the production line was ready. Had kyocera marketed more refined model and the size of Pentax version, and with the better line up of lenses 9which they did not have), the history may have been different. At somewhere around $10,000 they actually sold some. But Pentax probably chickened out, which, as somebody else said here, may very well have been the better decision. One thing we know is that Pentax did have the technical prowess to build and sell the first FF DSLR. Perhaps their size and the management dictated that they could not really afford to take the risk associated with the DSLR at the time. Ken
RE: Some more new camera speculation
What are you talking about? A normal negative measures 55mm by 70mm! This 24mm by 36mm stuff goes in toy cameras. When is The Brotherhood getting their 67D, anyways? I'm tired of these eensie weensie thingamabobs. I have a DS2 and I damn near swallowed it the other day because I mistook it for a chocolate truffle. And the 67D better damned well be full frame! And what's with this 645D nonsense? That thing is a woman's camera. -Aaron p.s. come on, you knew he would be back one day. -Original Message- From: Jens Bladt [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subj: RE: Some more new camera speculation Date: Wed Mar 1, 2006 5:01 pm Size: 2K To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Nope, I was just supporting Rob, who obviously wants a larger sensor than just 15x24mm. It's less than half of a normal negative. So do I, BTW. I want it to be big enough to be adequate for actually makeable lenses. Small enough to give me great DOF. The small sensors do - as the resoultion is increasing, require more and more of the lenses ability to resolve. This means HUGE expenses on lenses. Who wnats that? That's a fair statement, I believe. I would very much like to have a FF sensor, but it seems they are not (yet) quite good enough (soft corners?) Who the h... says that a 15x24mm sensor is the ultimate answer to the sensor size? Perhaps it's not 24x36mm either. Perhaps it's actaully 20x29mm! Canon seems to think so. Why not listen to the expeters - they probably sell more DSLR's than anyone else? Canon is currently setting the DSLR standards - whether you like it or not. I don't really want to switch to Canon. The problem is - I may have to, if Pentax can't deliver a state of the art DSLR sometime soon: 5-8 FPS, as well as correspondingly fast AF and write speed. Pentax seem to be way behind as far as speed goes. Come on, Pentax - try to catch up, will you, pleasw? Before the very last pentaxians are leaving too - except of course, for a handful of true believers from the Spotmatic and LX generation! LX was twenty years ago, right! Tell me to shoot action using maunal focus! Heck - I can do that with one of my Exakta VX1000 - from the sixties! Or a K1000! Regards Jens x24mmo, I believe i Jens Bladt http://www.jensbladt.dk -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: William Robb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 1. marts 2006 19:01 Til: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Emne: Re: Some more new camera speculation - Original Message - From: Jens Bladt Subject: RE: Some more new camera speculation Nop, but appr. 5mm more in each direction! That ought to count for something - 60% more, actually. It doesn't count as full frame, which I believe is what you were implying in a previous post. I could be wrong about your intent though. William Robb -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 268.1.1/271 - Release Date: 02/28/2006 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 268.1.1/271 - Release Date: 02/28/2006
Re: Some more new camera speculation
Larger sensors should be quieter, all else being equal. Rarely is all else equal. Shel [Original Message] From: Bob Shell Larger sensors should be quieter, yes, but excessive noise was the most serious problem with the Philips full frame chip.
Re: Some more new camera speculation
From: Rob Studdert [EMAIL PROTECTED] What a pity, a sad tale indeed regardless of the catalysts that precipitated its demise. Yes, I think Pentax obviously made the right decision to not deliver the MZ-D, when the facts were known. They obviously made the wrong decision originally to go with that sensor and 'bait' the market. I wouldn't actually blame Phillips. I would bet all the signs were there that Phillips was struggling to produce the sensor in either quantity/quality and that those signs were not recognized or they were misread. Of course it's water under the bridge now. Tom C.
RE: Some more new camera speculation
I'll agree with you. :-) I would have far preferred a 67D to a 645D. Whether I could afford it would be a different issue. I love the picture through the viewfinder on the 67. Tom C. From: Aaron Reynolds [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: RE: Some more new camera speculation Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2006 17:20:00 -0500 What are you talking about? A normal negative measures 55mm by 70mm! This 24mm by 36mm stuff goes in toy cameras. When is The Brotherhood getting their 67D, anyways? I'm tired of these eensie weensie thingamabobs. I have a DS2 and I damn near swallowed it the other day because I mistook it for a chocolate truffle. And the 67D better damned well be full frame! And what's with this 645D nonsense? That thing is a woman's camera. -Aaron p.s. come on, you knew he would be back one day. -Original Message- From: Jens Bladt [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subj: RE: Some more new camera speculation Date: Wed Mar 1, 2006 5:01 pm Size: 2K To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Nope, I was just supporting Rob, who obviously wants a larger sensor than just 15x24mm. It's less than half of a normal negative. So do I, BTW. I want it to be big enough to be adequate for actually makeable lenses. Small enough to give me great DOF. The small sensors do - as the resoultion is increasing, require more and more of the lenses ability to resolve. This means HUGE expenses on lenses. Who wnats that? That's a fair statement, I believe. I would very much like to have a FF sensor, but it seems they are not (yet) quite good enough (soft corners?) Who the h... says that a 15x24mm sensor is the ultimate answer to the sensor size? Perhaps it's not 24x36mm either. Perhaps it's actaully 20x29mm! Canon seems to think so. Why not listen to the expeters - they probably sell more DSLR's than anyone else? Canon is currently setting the DSLR standards - whether you like it or not. I don't really want to switch to Canon. The problem is - I may have to, if Pentax can't deliver a state of the art DSLR sometime soon: 5-8 FPS, as well as correspondingly fast AF and write speed. Pentax seem to be way behind as far as speed goes. Come on, Pentax - try to catch up, will you, pleasw? Before the very last pentaxians are leaving too - except of course, for a handful of true believers from the Spotmatic and LX generation! LX was twenty years ago, right! Tell me to shoot action using maunal focus! Heck - I can do that with one of my Exakta VX1000 - from the sixties! Or a K1000! Regards Jens x24mmo, I believe i Jens Bladt http://www.jensbladt.dk -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: William Robb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 1. marts 2006 19:01 Til: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Emne: Re: Some more new camera speculation - Original Message - From: Jens Bladt Subject: RE: Some more new camera speculation Nop, but appr. 5mm more in each direction! That ought to count for something - 60% more, actually. It doesn't count as full frame, which I believe is what you were implying in a previous post. I could be wrong about your intent though. William Robb -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 268.1.1/271 - Release Date: 02/28/2006 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 268.1.1/271 - Release Date: 02/28/2006
Re: Some more new camera speculation
This one time, at band camp, Aaron Reynolds [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What are you talking about? A normal negative measures 55mm by 70mm! This 24mm by 36mm stuff goes in toy cameras. When is The Brotherhood getting their 67D, anyways? I'm tired of these eensie weensie thingamabobs. I have a DS2 and I damn near swallowed it the other day because I mistook it for a chocolate truffle. And the 67D better damned well be full frame! And what's with this 645D nonsense? That thing is a woman's camera. As funny as this rant may seem, it rings true in many ways. I guess its funny because its true.. Kevin -- Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.
Re: Some more new camera speculation
On Mar 1, 2006, at 6:09 PM, Rob Studdert wrote: I think Pentax made the right choice. It would probably have harmed them in the long term if they had come out with a very expensive DSLR that produced mediocre images. What a pity, a sad tale indeed regardless of the catalysts that precipitated its demise. Yes, sad. The prototypes had a very nice feel and control layout and would have been really great to work with. Bob
Re: Some more new camera speculation
On Mar 1, 2006, at 10:01 AM, William Robb wrote: Nop, but appr. 5mm more in each direction! That ought to count for something - 60% more, actually. It doesn't count as full frame, which I believe is what you were implying in a previous post. I could be wrong about your intent though. Full frame is a misnomer. What people really mean is 35mm format or 24x36mm sensor dimensions. Saying anything else just proves that full frame is a hopeless mish-mash of suppositions and posturing. Larger sensors are quieter, yes. There is a balance between noise, resolution density, sensitivity, power consumption, cost, etc etc etc, when designing a sensor. With the freedom to design a sensor to meet any specific need at will, why stick to *ONE* format and make it a holy grail? It's dumb. Were I designing a camera, I'd go with a 4:3 proportion sensor that was about 18x24mm or 21x28mm in size as being ideal. The vast majority of existing lenses for 35mm film and 16x24mm sensors would cover it perfectly, you get the benefits of using more of the lens' image circle, less overall loss when cropping to classic proportions (11x14, 5:4, 3:2, square), and the chip size would enable 10-16Mpixels with very good noise and resolution capabilities. Godfrey
Re: Some more new camera speculation
Brother Aaron, Sitting here looking at my 67II on the fireplace mantle... The *istDS is in view, but it is such a sissy camera. And I think you 'hit the nail on the head' about the 645D - Woman's camera! Next thing we know, it will come in those silly Hassy designer colors. Give me a full frame 67 digital anyday. I'll just put my laptop in my backpack and cable the 67D into the computer for quick storage of the RAW files. Shoot all day, post processing all night! Regards, Bob S. On 3/1/06, Aaron Reynolds [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What are you talking about? A normal negative measures 55mm by 70mm! This 24mm by 36mm stuff goes in toy cameras. When is The Brotherhood getting their 67D, anyways? I'm tired of these eensie weensie thingamabobs. I have a DS2 and I damn near swallowed it the other day because I mistook it for a chocolate truffle. And the 67D better damned well be full frame! And what's with this 645D nonsense? That thing is a woman's camera. -Aaron p.s. come on, you knew he would be back one day. -Original Message- From: Jens Bladt [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subj: RE: Some more new camera speculation Date: Wed Mar 1, 2006 5:01 pm Size: 2K To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Nope, I was just supporting Rob, who obviously wants a larger sensor than just 15x24mm. It's less than half of a normal negative. So do I, BTW. I want it to be big enough to be adequate for actually makeable lenses. Small enough to give me great DOF. The small sensors do - as the resoultion is increasing, require more and more of the lenses ability to resolve. This means HUGE expenses on lenses. Who wnats that? That's a fair statement, I believe. I would very much like to have a FF sensor, but it seems they are not (yet) quite good enough (soft corners?) Who the h... says that a 15x24mm sensor is the ultimate answer to the sensor size? Perhaps it's not 24x36mm either. Perhaps it's actaully 20x29mm! Canon seems to think so. Why not listen to the expeters - they probably sell more DSLR's than anyone else? Canon is currently setting the DSLR standards - whether you like it or not. I don't really want to switch to Canon. The problem is - I may have to, if Pentax can't deliver a state of the art DSLR sometime soon: 5-8 FPS, as well as correspondingly fast AF and write speed. Pentax seem to be way behind as far as speed goes. Come on, Pentax - try to catch up, will you, pleasw? Before the very last pentaxians are leaving too - except of course, for a handful of true believers from the Spotmatic and LX generation! LX was twenty years ago, right! Tell me to shoot action using maunal focus! Heck - I can do that with one of my Exakta VX1000 - from the sixties! Or a K1000! Regards Jens x24mmo, I believe i Jens Bladt http://www.jensbladt.dk -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: William Robb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 1. marts 2006 19:01 Til: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Emne: Re: Some more new camera speculation - Original Message - From: Jens Bladt Subject: RE: Some more new camera speculation Nop, but appr. 5mm more in each direction! That ought to count for something - 60% more, actually. It doesn't count as full frame, which I believe is what you were implying in a previous post. I could be wrong about your intent though. William Robb -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 268.1.1/271 - Release Date: 02/28/2006 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 268.1.1/271 - Release Date: 02/28/2006
Re: Some more new camera speculation
On Mar 1, 2006, at 1:49 PM, Bob Shell wrote: Larger sensors are quieter, yes. There is a balance between noise, resolution density, sensitivity, power consumption, cost, etc etc etc, when designing a sensor. With the freedom to design a sensor to meet any specific need at will, why stick to *ONE* format and make it a holy grail? It's dumb. Larger sensors should be quieter, yes, but excessive noise was the most serious problem with the Philips full frame chip. It was early in the game for so ambitious a project. And it is always possible for a given design/design team to be a mess. I really wish someone would do the 21x28mm format I proposed with the sensor technology available now. I think it would be a very good balance in cost and quality. The FoV numbers are pretty nice too, with given lenses. Godfrey
Re: Some more new camera speculation
On 1 Mar 2006 at 15:32, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: I really wish someone would do the 21x28mm format I proposed with the sensor technology available now. I think it would be a very good balance in cost and quality. The FoV numbers are pretty nice too, with given lenses. Generally less waste of available lens coverage too. Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: Some more new camera speculation
On Wed, 01 Mar 2006 20:18:51 -, Tom C [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I guess in the end, I am reacting to the categorization of a negative opinion as whining. Just because it's an opinion that's at odds with anothers does not make it a whine... A short, high-pitched, sound is not a whine. But it is when it goes on and on and on and... John -- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
Re: Some more new camera speculation
On Mar 1, 2006, at 4:48 PM, Rob Studdert wrote: I really wish someone would do the 21x28mm format I proposed with the sensor technology available now. I think it would be a very good balance in cost and quality. The FoV numbers are pretty nice too, with given lenses. Generally less waste of available lens coverage too. Sheesh, I must be procrastinating because I'm dreaming about this with too much work to get done... I was figuring that if you could get 135 pixels per mm (somewhere in the 50-60 [EMAIL PROTECTED] resolution) as a target, that size sensor would be about 2835x3780 pixels with 0.0075x0.0075mm photosite area. That's a 10.7Mpixel camera with photosite size closely approaching the Canon 5D (roughly 121 pixels per mm, or 0.0082x0.0082mm photosite area) .. something like less than 15% difference in photosite area, so well within a third of a stop on sensitivity, all else being equal. Less chance of the corner/edge problems with old lenses than with the 24x36mm sensors, higher resolution so it would take advantage of even better quality glass more effectively. And the biggest plus is that effective pixel to print area for the vast majority of popular larger prints (11x14, 16x20, 20x24 ..) is closer to 100% rather than tossing out 20% of your pixels due to cropping. Sure, bazillions of people love 4x6s. 4x5s can be made on the same machines with very little change. Sigh. I really have to get back to work. Godfrey
Re: Some more new camera speculation
On Mar 1, 2006, at 4:16 PM, John Forbes wrote: A short, high-pitched, sound is not a whine. But it is when it goes on and on and on and... I think that should be in the 2006 PDML Quotes list too. ;-) Godfrey
Re: Some more new camera speculation
No they do not. But I think that decision was based upon the company they sourced the sensor from going out of business, although Kodak said they were getting out of the professional digital camera business at the time. Remember Kodak is in a frenzy of self mutilation cutting off parts of itself and tossing them away willy-nilly. graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com http://webpages.charter.net/graywolf Idiot Proof == Expert Proof --- Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote: On Wed, 1 Mar 2006, Jens Bladt wrote: Ask all the photogs, that uses Canons or Kodak kameras with larger sensors! I think you should first ask Kodak if they still make FF Canon/Nikon mount DSLRs; I could not find one on their website but haven't looked well enough. Also, wonder why Nikon don't make FF DSLRs. Kostas
Re: Some more new camera speculation
I don't. Dave On 3/2/06, Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mar 1, 2006, at 4:16 PM, John Forbes wrote: A short, high-pitched, sound is not a whine. But it is when it goes on and on and on and... I think that should be in the 2006 PDML Quotes list too. ;-) Godfrey
Re: Some more new camera speculation
I agree with that 4:3 format. My Oly has it. It translates to a 10 x 7.5 inch print which gives a 1/2 inch border all around on 11 x 8.5 paper. That fits a standard 9.5 x 7.5 inch matte cutout nicely so I can just buy prematted frames. Also it uses the whole image making my 5mp camera equal to a 6mp 3:2 camera for that size print. Quit a convenient format, actually. graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com http://webpages.charter.net/graywolf Idiot Proof == Expert Proof --- Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: On Mar 1, 2006, at 10:01 AM, William Robb wrote: Nop, but appr. 5mm more in each direction! That ought to count for something - 60% more, actually. It doesn't count as full frame, which I believe is what you were implying in a previous post. I could be wrong about your intent though. Full frame is a misnomer. What people really mean is 35mm format or 24x36mm sensor dimensions. Saying anything else just proves that full frame is a hopeless mish-mash of suppositions and posturing. Larger sensors are quieter, yes. There is a balance between noise, resolution density, sensitivity, power consumption, cost, etc etc etc, when designing a sensor. With the freedom to design a sensor to meet any specific need at will, why stick to *ONE* format and make it a holy grail? It's dumb. Were I designing a camera, I'd go with a 4:3 proportion sensor that was about 18x24mm or 21x28mm in size as being ideal. The vast majority of existing lenses for 35mm film and 16x24mm sensors would cover it perfectly, you get the benefits of using more of the lens' image circle, less overall loss when cropping to classic proportions (11x14, 5:4, 3:2, square), and the chip size would enable 10-16Mpixels with very good noise and resolution capabilities. Godfrey
Re: Some more new camera speculation
It is called speculating in a vacuum. It is a popular past time and does no pyscical harm, althought I understand it can make one an emotional wreck it one does too much of it grin. graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com http://webpages.charter.net/graywolf Idiot Proof == Expert Proof --- William Robb wrote: - Original Message - From: Tom C Subject: Re: Some more new camera speculation For me at least, I don't plan to throw any more money into Pentax. A lot of the photography I enjoy doing is night shots, including quite shortly astrophotography. Therefore a lower noise at higher ISO camera would be of great benefit. No law sez you can't buy a camera body specifically for astrophotography. It can be whatever you want. The low noise thing is a non starter though. There is only the Canon 5D which may have noticably lower noise than the other stuff thats out there. Something I have found is that quite often what appears to be a noisy image on the screen turns out to be quite a nice image on paper. I think it has something to do with looking for problems at 200%, then looking at pictures at 20%. Also, no one has any idea of what sort of noise levels the new Pentax will have, since at this point, no one has seen images from it, what sort of moise reduction software will be built into it, or even know for sure what chip will be in it. William Robb
