Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Pentax K100d  (Read 24458 times)
Kenneth Sky
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 421


WWW
« on: May 22, 2006, 09:05:13 PM »
ReplyReply

It looks as if Pentax has reworked the K-M 7D & 5D into their just announced K100d and K110d models. Here's hoping other manufacturers come back into the market to break the Nikon-Canon hegemony.
Logged
DarkPenguin
Guest
« Reply #1 on: May 23, 2006, 10:39:30 AM »
ReplyReply

I'm tempted to buy long lenses in the pentax or sony mount just to get antishake without having to buy IS on each lens.
Logged
Ben Rubinstein
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1733


« Reply #2 on: May 23, 2006, 12:05:44 PM »
ReplyReply

With the Sony Alpha slated to be announced soonish, Photokina this year should be pretty interesting. I can see Pentax/Samsung fighting the AS wars with Sony (Minolta) for the second spot to Canon/Nikon and especially marketing the entry DSLR market which is by far the most profitable. Most welcome competition in the DSLR world which had been getting pretty stale of late.

With both companies offering AS in entry level bodies I wonder how long Canon/Nikon can bury their heads in the sand? The price of the new pentax kit with AS is remarkably cheap, no doubt the Sony will be pretty cheap as well. If the big two want to keep their share of the entry level market they will have to reprice and refeature. Again most welcome as it will filter through to the higher models within a cycle or two.
Logged

DarkPenguin
Guest
« Reply #3 on: May 23, 2006, 12:25:33 PM »
ReplyReply

Those two cameras are like $599/699 with lens.

Very interesting camera.

Would be more interesting if I didn't want a 5D as well.
Logged
BJL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5163


« Reply #4 on: May 23, 2006, 03:01:47 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I can see Pentax/Samsung fighting the AS wars with Sony (Minolta) for the second spot to Canon/Nikon and especially marketing the entry DSLR market which is by far the most profitable.

With both companies offering AS in entry level bodies I wonder how long Canon/Nikon can bury their heads in the sand?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=66369\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
First, I wonder why you expect such a radical shakeup in DSLR market share, where Pentax and Konica-Minolta are currenly far behind third placed Olympus in sales. The Olympus-Pentax comparisons from their recent annual reports for Fiscal Year 2005 (April 2005 to March 2006) are
Olympus: 250,000 DSLR's sold (up from 100,000 in FY2004), estimating 400,000 for the FY2006
Pentax: 120,000 DSLR's sold, estimating 230,000 for FY2006.
I would guess that K.-M. was behind Pentax in sales rate.

So Pentax themselves are not even predicting reaching in FY2006 to what Olympus achieved in FY2005. Given that K.-M. has had AS from the beginning and still faired poorly, I do not expect the new Pentax "Shake Reduction" feature alone to dramatically improve market share for Pentax.


Second is the question of whether it makes sense for Canon or Nikon to adopt sensor-based "shake cancellation" technology when they already have lens-based systems that work far better than Konica-Minolta's sensor-based Anti-Shake. And does it make sense for the Four Thirds makers Olympus and Panasonic to go sensor-based instead of introducing Panasonic's proven lens-based Optical Image Stabilization system, as will be used in the one Panasonic/"Leica D" Four Thirds format lens announced so far?

These are not entirely rhetorical questions, I am divided:
- On one hand, for people who want shake cancellation with multiple lenses, it might be cheaper to put it in one body rather than in multiple lenses.
- On the other hand, so far lens-based systems work far better than sensor-based, and a majority of SLR users only have one telephoto lens, and only one or two lenses total, and my guess is that those lenses are likely to stay in use for longer than a DSLR body. So for many SLR users, it might actually be cheaper in the long run to buy one or two shake cancellation lenses instead of upgrading a shake cancellation DSLR body every few years.

Then again, Pentax is only charging an extra US$100 for their Shake Reduction, the price difference for the K100D over the K110D: that seems less than the price premium for IS and VR vesions of lenses.
Logged
Ben Rubinstein
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1733


« Reply #5 on: May 23, 2006, 05:12:12 PM »
ReplyReply

Is that based on sales of DSLR's? remember Pentax is a far smaller company than Olympus in general. I've yet to see a single Olympus DSLR on shelves here in the UK wheras pentax is selling very well relatively in comparison to Canon/Nikon. We all know that the most lucrative market for manufacturers is the entry level DSLR. There the new battles will be joined with all these new manufacturers. If it's a Pentax sytem vs Sony system vs Olympus system then I'm not going to complain, it's us who benefit in the long run!    

I know AS didn't work for minolta but it wasn't just that. They were marketed very badly, advertising was awful, the deals sounded worse than desperate (free grip with every 7D + 1 gig card, how desperate can you get!) and the camera hit the market just too late, all the people who would have invested in the 7D were all shooting 20D's and D70's for the past year or two, they simply missed the boat.
The manufacturers heading for the entry level have to offer small ergonomic size (the minoltas are not ergonomically appealing, not sexy at all) a good level of megapixels (why are pentax sticking to 6? that might be a mistake in the long run when the consumer seens p&s's with 8 and they don't know the difference), and most of all great kits at knockdown prices. The purpose of course is to lock the next generation of people maturing from digi P&S's into a DSLR system.

At present the pentax DL2, the one being replaced by the K110D is the same price for the body + 2 lenses here in the UK as the MSRP of the K110D. That is an attractive price for an attractive little camera and still cheaper than the 350XT body alone. The Sony Alphas will also be marketed on features and prices, all aimed at the entry level with follow up bodies once the user is hooked into the system. Where is Olympus and 4/3rds? Every now and again you hear of something then it disappears. The Olympus E1 is still to be replaced. How good are the sales of the newer consumer bodies given that they are not competetively priced?
Logged

Kenneth Sky
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 421


WWW
« Reply #6 on: May 23, 2006, 07:16:15 PM »
ReplyReply

I waited for the K-M 7D because I had 6 lenses in that mount and was not disappointed. As a longtime Monolta Maxxum user the transition was seamless. The ergonomics, contrary to what has been stated are great. For advanced amateur use it's only limitation was that 6 megapixel sensor limited the size of prints. I'm still enjoying it 18 months out but am disappointed that K-M couldn't make a go of it. I suspect that Sony with it's deep pockets and marketing know-how will marry the best of the 7D with one of their double digit sensors and a more up to date processor and borrowing from Pentax put a screen on the top deck and still keep the body under $1000. The entry level market will soon dry up because it is aimed at people who don't know or care about photography but just want a clear 4x6 and that market will soon be saturated. People like myself keep upgrading. Pity us - we're addicted  . It's photographer who keep buying the latest models that really keep the market going.
Logged
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8211



WWW
« Reply #7 on: May 23, 2006, 08:00:12 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
- On the other hand, so far lens-based systems work far better than sensor-based, [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=66393\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

BJL,

Just out of curiosity, what do you base that statement on?

I have no first hand experience, but a close friend has a Minolta 7D and he is very happy about the way the anti-shake function works. The only comparison I remember was published by the French magazine CDI, and their conclusion was sensor based and lens based IS were roughly equivalent.

Regards,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8211



WWW
« Reply #8 on: May 23, 2006, 08:13:02 PM »
ReplyReply

Some quick considerations about the DSLR market.

Both Pentax and Sony are rumoured to present 10MP class DSLR at the Kina this year, thereby closing the gap with Nikon and Canon in terms of resolution.

Once this is done, we are basically back to the film days. Besides for those shooters who couldn't wait and have moved to Canon/nikon, for the rest those who used to prefer Pentax/Minolta over Canon/Nikon will be able to move to digital with no penality resolution wise.

Each of these bodies have their strong/weak points:

- Canon has better high ISO noise,
- Nikon has a better build,
- Pentax/Sony have built-in IS.

Regards,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
Craig Arnold
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 219


WWW
« Reply #9 on: May 24, 2006, 04:02:39 AM »
ReplyReply

One advantage of IS in the lens, is that the light hitting the viewfinder is already stabilised.

There's no obvious reason why you can't have IS in both the body and the lens. I'm not sure how well they'd stack, but I see no reason why 2-3 stops on the lens plus 2-3 stops on the sensor shouldn't give a solid 4 stop overall advantage. And of course it gives a 2-3 stop advantage on primes and non-IS lenses.

On KM/Pentax the AS certainly makes the long Sigma and Tamron lenses very attractive. Actually good enough that I'd probably consider buying a dedicated entry-level Sony/Pentax SLR to use with the Sigma 50-500 or Tamron 200-500 rather than get those lenses in Canon mount. For those who can afford the big Canon lenses it may not be an issue.

It's a complicated marketing decision for Canon/Nikon though.
Logged

LeifG
Guest
« Reply #10 on: May 24, 2006, 04:08:51 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Second is the question of whether it makes sense for Canon or Nikon to adopt sensor-based "shake cancellation" technology when they already have lens-based systems that work far better than Konica-Minolta's sensor-based Anti-Shake. [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=66393\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I too am interested in evidence for that statement. It is well known that IS when on introduces a slight degradation of image quality compared to a tripod mounted camera+lens with IS off.

As an aside, surely Sony and Pentax could use their AS system to implement a shift functionality? Obviously it would not work well with some lenses due to a limited image circle.

Leif
Logged
DarkPenguin
Guest
« Reply #11 on: May 24, 2006, 09:42:41 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
There's no obvious reason why you can't have IS in both the body and the lens. I'm not sure how well they'd stack, but I see no reason why 2-3 stops on the lens plus 2-3 stops on the sensor shouldn't give a solid 4 stop overall advantage. And of course it gives a 2-3 stop advantage on primes and non-IS lenses.

IS is trying to make sure that it's image circle lands on the same spot.  Meanwhile AS is busy moving that spot all over the place.

Wouldn't work.
Logged
BJL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5163


« Reply #12 on: May 24, 2006, 09:58:31 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Is that based on sales of DSLR's?
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Yes, the numers are exactly what I said: DSLR unit sales. (Total camera sales are about 8.4 million for Olympus, 2.8 million for Pentax, 8.45 million for Nikon.)

There are links to sources here
Olympus [a href=\"http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1000&message=18394578]http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp...essage=18394578[/url]
Pentax: http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp...essage=18422988
Nikon: http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp...essage=18445771
but I am relying on other people's translations from Japanese for those numbers.

Thom Hogan makes his own estimates, trying to go on retail sales rather than factory shipments, but comes to a similar conclusion: of the crumbs of the DSLR market not controlled by Canon and Nikon, Olympus gets about half, ahead of Pentax etc.

By the way, about in-store presence: in big US consumer electronics outlets, the Olympus E-500 seems to be by far the most widely available DSLR of brands other than Canon and Nikon. Pentax DSLR's seem to be behind even K.-M. there, but the new Samsung and Sony arrangements should help both systems. One chain (Circuit City?) carries only the 350D and E-500 as DSLR options in their stores, no Nikon even.


Many people seem to be surprised by the fact that the Olympus 4/3 system with its often reported sins of a smaller sensor, higher noise at equal ISO, less total lenses, and no upgrade path to 35mm format is easily outperforming Pentax and Konica-Minolta DSLR's. I can only speculate about the causes: maybe great prices on body and two lens kits, 8MP vs 6MP, a wider range of the types of lenses of interest to most DSLR buyers (as opposed to ones with focal lengths and resolution adapted for 35mm format needs), the sensor dust shaker system ...
« Last Edit: May 24, 2006, 10:23:21 AM by BJL » Logged
BJL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5163


« Reply #13 on: May 24, 2006, 10:18:38 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
BJL,

Just out of curiosity, what do you base that statement on?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=66410\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Partly on reviews and user feedback claiming two or even three stops advantage for IS, and less for AS, though I am happy to be corrected on that comparison, and happy to beleiove that sensor-based systems can eventually be completely competitive in that respect, and maybe Pentax's will be so right from the start.

But peripatetic has mentioned the difference that is of great interest to me: in-lens systems stabilize the VF image while sensor based systems do not with optical TTL viewfinders (OVFs). When handholding at 200mm with my E-1, even though the shutter speed can freeze motion blur, the wobbly VF image is disconcerting and probably hampers accurate composition. With sensor based IS, the framing recorded by the sensor is typically a bit different than what you see in the OVF.

Of course, "live view" would put an end to that difference. And maybe the longer term future of sensor-based "shake cancellation" is promissing. it might make good sense for Pentax and Konica-Minolta to take this approach given their lack of lens stabilizaton technology, whereas Panasonic brings such technology to Four Thirds.


In fact, maybe, despite our sideline heckling, the makers of all five major DSLR systems have each made good decisions about which shake cancellation technology to use, at least for now, with the choices differing only because of their different circumstances, not because some are right and the rest are wrong. (This is my view about many things in the DSLR world, including my belief that Canon, Nikon and Olympus have all chosen good, profitable approaches to format choices, even though the paths are all different.)
Logged
Jay Kaplan
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 178



« Reply #14 on: May 24, 2006, 01:52:39 PM »
ReplyReply

Instead of production numbers how about something of interest to me.

I have been using my Spotmatic since 1968 and over time have collected a number of Takumar screw mount lenses.

While I have been pondering moving to digital, the initial cost incluing all the other "stuff" you had to buy to be a little too steep for me at this time.

What I was wondering was whether all or my screw mount lenses would work with the K100d if there was an adapter from the screwmount to the bayonette mount?  

I am not worried about lack of auto focus, I have been using manual focus all my life.   I am concerned about the metering and would the anti-shake work with my screw mount lenses? These beauties range from 28mm to 300mm all Takumar SMC lenses.
Logged
DarkPenguin
Guest
« Reply #15 on: May 24, 2006, 01:57:03 PM »
ReplyReply

They will work fine.  More of a pain to use than current glass but there shouldn't be a problem.

Go check the pentax slr forum at dpreview.com for more information.  I've asked the question there in the past and there was a treasure trove of information.
Logged
Ben Rubinstein
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1733


« Reply #16 on: May 24, 2006, 04:01:58 PM »
ReplyReply

Olympus certainly seem to have far better advertising!

Apparently you dial in the focal length in the settings for older pentax lenses, I assume that includes anything you could fit onto the body using an adapter. Contax and Leica with AS? Those people on the Alternative Forum of FM should be drooling...
Logged

Jay Kaplan
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 178



« Reply #17 on: May 24, 2006, 05:10:46 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
They will work fine.  More of a pain to use than current glass but there shouldn't be a problem.

Go check the pentax slr forum at dpreview.com for more information.  I've asked the question there in the past and there was a treasure trove of information.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=66476\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Interesting bunch, it appears that I would be in the same position as I am now. Manual focus and stop down metering. Not all that bad, but I would subsitute a card for film and possibly have anti-shake.

Not all that bad a trade off.

Then, if I think that digital just might be for me, then I can think of staying with the Pentax or moving to either Canon or Nikon (depending on which meets my needs and budget).
Logged
macgyver
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 510


« Reply #18 on: May 24, 2006, 08:49:41 PM »
ReplyReply

You folks can sit and discuss the merits of one system over the other, but until I start seeing short and fast IS/VR primes or somesuch, I'm going to keep wanting it in the body too.

50 1.4 IS anyone?
Logged
rodgerd
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3


WWW
« Reply #19 on: May 24, 2006, 09:59:43 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Just out of curiosity, what do you base that statement on?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=66410\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Moving the sensor becomes less effective with longer focal lengths - the sensor will have to be displaced further and further.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad