Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: The New Pentax MF  (Read 5949 times)
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7126


WWW
« on: March 16, 2010, 05:24:17 PM »
ReplyReply

Bernard,

Many thanks for writing-up this fascinating story - in particular the interview. It's very informative. One aspect I found particularly compelling is his explanation of the marketing strategy and the leveraging of their traditional technical resources to enter at a much lower price point than we've seen on MF heretofore. I would be inclinded to think this development poses a challenge to the other players, despite differences in the products and the fact that the 645D is just making its debut. From what you say this image quality seems impressive. Too bad it's only going to be available in Japan for a while, but the reason they give makes very good sense. I'd be really keen to hear more about image quality as they get into production, sales and people start using them.

Cheers,

Mark
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
Josh-H
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1913



WWW
« Reply #1 on: March 16, 2010, 06:07:22 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Mark D Segal
Bernard,

Many thanks for writing-up this fascinating story - in particular the interview. It's very informative. One aspect I found particularly compelling is his explanation of the marketing strategy and the leveraging of their traditional technical resources to enter at a much lower price point than we've seen on MF heretofore. I would be inclinded to think this development poses a challenge to the other players, despite differences in the products and the fact that the 645D is just making its debut. From what you say this image quality seems impressive. Too bad it's only going to be available in Japan for a while, but the reason they give makes very good sense. I'd be really keen to hear more about image quality as they get into production, sales and people start using them.

Cheers,

Mark

Agreed - Thanks Bernard for the insight into the camera and the manufacturers thinking. Interesting reading.
Logged

John.Murray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 893



WWW
« Reply #2 on: March 16, 2010, 06:22:45 PM »
ReplyReply

I look forward to hearing more.... do you have upcoming plans/arrangments to evaluate a sample in ther field?
Logged

John R
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1047


« Reply #3 on: March 16, 2010, 07:36:49 PM »
ReplyReply

Interesting. I'm saving my pennies!

JMR
Logged
michael
Administrator
Sr. Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4925



« Reply #4 on: March 16, 2010, 08:03:25 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Joh.Murray
I look forward to hearing more.... do you have upcoming plans/arrangments to evaluate a sample in ther field?

Pentax isn't about to send a sample for review, at least not till it's available outside of Japan. I'm hoping someone will buy one out of Japan and submit a review.

Nick?

Michael
Logged
Eric Myrvaagnes
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8315



WWW
« Reply #5 on: March 16, 2010, 08:10:27 PM »
ReplyReply

Excellent interview. As a long-time Pentax user who moved to Canon when I needed to switch to digital (Pentax didn't yet have anything serious in the digital line), I was drooling all the way through. Almost every detail mentioned seemed aimed at the features I would like. It's the first MF digital camera that I can imagine myself maybe actually buying some day -- if the delay before the U.S. entry gives my retirement funds time to recover from the recent economic crisis. 

Thanks for this, Bernard!

Eric

Logged

-Eric Myrvaagnes

http://myrvaagnes.com  Visit my website. New images each season.
tnargs
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 41

Shoot me, I'm not the piano player


« Reply #6 on: March 16, 2010, 08:40:35 PM »
ReplyReply

Why is the lack of an AA filter an advantage? If eliminating it at the design stage permits better image quality, what has stopped smaller sensor cameras being designed without it?
Logged

“Symbolism exists to adorn and enrich, not to create an artificial sense of profundity.” ― Stephen King
tnargs
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 41

Shoot me, I'm not the piano player


« Reply #7 on: March 16, 2010, 08:48:49 PM »
ReplyReply

I have seen numerous mentions of the Four Thirds format dSLR cameras being less than optimally proportioned for landscape photography. IIRC internet reviewers even say things like "Look elsewhere if: you are primarily a landscape photographer", etc.

The new pentax's sensor is proportioned 4:3 and the interviewee in the article repeats about ten times that it is targeted at landscape photographers.

I thought LL would be the right place to ask my question: what is the optimal sensor proportion for a landscape photographer? (And, if not 4:3, is pentax blundering?)
Logged

“Symbolism exists to adorn and enrich, not to create an artificial sense of profundity.” ― Stephen King
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7126


WWW
« Reply #8 on: March 16, 2010, 08:50:06 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: tnargs
Why is the lack of an AA filter an advantage? If eliminating it at the design stage permits better image quality, what has stopped smaller sensor cameras being designed without it?

The new Leica M9 is a FF 35mm DSLR therefore smaller sensor than MF, and it too does not have an AA filter. This is an age-old issue. An AA filter does soften the image a bit and is mainly meant to deal with moire; however to the extent one can deal with moire in software, it really isn't needed. I think the manufacturers have put it there to avoid complaints from users when moire strikes. I certainly prefer the added sharpness without the AA filter and dealing with the occasional bit of moire independently when it happens - which is infrequently.
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7126


WWW
« Reply #9 on: March 16, 2010, 08:53:53 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: tnargs
I have seen numerous mentions of the Four Thirds format dSLR cameras being less than optimally proportioned for landscape photography. IIRC internet reviewers even say things like "Look elsewhere if: you are primarily a landscape photographer", etc.

The new pentax's sensor is proportioned 4:3 and the interviewee in the article repeats about ten times that it is targeted at landscape photographers.

I thought LL would be the right place to ask my question: what is the optimal sensor proportion for a landscape photographer? (And, if not 4:3, is pentax blundering?)

The newest Phase-1 backs are also 4/3. I haven't heard complaints from landscape photographers I know who use it.
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
wolfnowl
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5807



WWW
« Reply #10 on: March 16, 2010, 11:39:44 PM »
ReplyReply

As someone who shoots landscapes primarily, I'd say that with editing software and panorama software for stitching, the 4/3 format or any particular format isn't really an issue anymore.  My old 120 film camera shoots 6x6, and from the resulting images I choose the format that fit the image.

Mike.
Logged

If your mind is attuned to beauty, you find beauty in everything.
~ Jean Cooke ~


My Flickr site / Random Thoughts and Other Meanderings at M&M's Musings
bradleygibson
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 829


WWW
« Reply #11 on: March 16, 2010, 11:48:04 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: wolfnowl
As someone who shoots landscapes primarily, I'd say that with editing software and panorama software for stitching, the 4/3 format or any particular format isn't really an issue anymore.  My old 120 film camera shoots 6x6, and from the resulting images I choose the format that fit the image.

Mike.

Ditto...  As a nature photographer on Canon at 3:2, medium format at 4:3 and now back again, I have to say I actually prefer the 4:3 after a couple of years on it.  That being said, I wouldn't hesitate to pick up a 3:2, 4:3 or square camera--it's not that hard to either make the format work or crop within it.
Logged

ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 8031


WWW
« Reply #12 on: March 17, 2010, 12:13:36 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

We had long discussions about this on LuLa forums. In theory the AA-filter is needed for correct sampling. It seems that most photographers prefer AA-filter less design, because:

- AA-filter less designs seem to have better edge sharpness
- The artifacts caused by lack of AA-filtering are seldom visible
- The artifacts are mainly color moiré effect. Aliasing can also show up as jagged lines, no continuous hair strains and so on

Less than perfect technique may mask the lack of AA-filter. The AA-filter is only needed if the lens outresolves the sensor, in the sense that it has significant MTF at Nykquist limit.

This is also one area where theory and practice may be slightly apart. There is little doubt that AA filter less designs have artifacts, which cannot be handled in postprocessing. It is also pretty clear that the AA-artifacst are not very visible in real life, although some observers see them clearly. The color moirés can be reduced in software. Stopping down the lens beyond optimum acts as an AA-filter, and this would also apply to defocusing.

Best regards
Erik


Quote from: tnargs
Why is the lack of an AA filter an advantage? If eliminating it at the design stage permits better image quality, what has stopped smaller sensor cameras being designed without it?
« Last Edit: March 17, 2010, 12:22:34 AM by ErikKaffehr » Logged

Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7126


WWW
« Reply #13 on: March 17, 2010, 08:37:54 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: ErikKaffehr
We had long discussions about this on LuLa forums. In theory the AA-filter is needed for correct sampling.

There is little doubt that AA filter less designs have artifacts, which cannot be handled in postprocessing.  

Best regards
Erik

Erik, could you please point us to the technical literature explaining these statements, because they aren't self-evident, and several manufacturers of the most sophisticated digital imaging equipment  on the market do not use these filters.
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
Ben Rubinstein
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1733


« Reply #14 on: March 17, 2010, 09:06:44 AM »
ReplyReply

I get moire on brides veils very often - shooting a 5D with an AA filter (albeit light). Sometimes on the mens suits as well. I would be scared to have to deal with it from a non AA filter camera. Sharpening can be done as a batch action. Moire removal cannot and therefore will necessitate more time than I'm willing to dedicate for the percieved advantage. That's me personally however.
Logged

tsjanik
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 607


« Reply #15 on: March 17, 2010, 10:48:40 AM »
ReplyReply

Bernard:

I would like to add my thanks for this interview to those already expressed.  As a landscape photographer with a large collection of Pentax MF lenses, I have watched the development of the 645D with more interest than most over many years  .  Perfect choice of questions, particularly the rationale for an integrated back; Mr. Maekawa’s reply convinced me that an interchangeable back would not be worth the liabilities. Also interesting is the point that Pentax kept costs lower by learning and borrowing from its lower cost APS-C cameras; a path not available to the other MFDB makers.
I should also mention that I found Mr. Maekawa’s replies to sound very forthright and honest, no hyperbole; very refreshing.
Although it is unfortunate for many that the camera will initially be available only in Japan, Pentax has minimized the financial risks by confining the camera to the home market where the support structure already exists.  Pentax Corporation has been subject to a lot of criticism during the conversion to digital both for its products and business strategy (remember the name *ist?), but  I think they got it right this time.

Tom
Logged
fredjeang
Guest
« Reply #16 on: March 17, 2010, 11:05:41 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: tsjanik
...  Pentax Corporation has been subject to a lot of criticism during the conversion to digital both for its products and business strategy (remember the name *ist?), but  I think they got it right this time.

Tom
Yes Tom,
I think that they started to go in a good direction since the K20, and got it right since the K7.
The main issue with Pentax will be their lenses. They have a limited top choice in dslr compared to Nikon and Canon and many Pentax users, as in my case, still use a lot of vintage manual lenses.
The lenses line point will be very important I think.

Fred.
Logged
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7126


WWW
« Reply #17 on: March 17, 2010, 11:11:57 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: tsjanik
Bernard:

Mr. Maekawa’s reply convinced me that an interchangeable back would not be worth the liabilities.
Tom

On the basis of what knowledge and authority should you be convinced by this statement? DO you really believe that Phase-1 for example isn't capable of manufacturing interchangeable MF systems which fit together perfectly when used as designed? Do they sell these extremely expensive systems to demanding professionals and advanced amateurs only to open themselves up to liabilities?

Look, it's fine if Pentax and Leitz decided for their own reasons to sell an integrated product, but that doesn't mean there's necessarily anything at all wrong or risky about the other system, if made right.
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
fredjeang
Guest
« Reply #18 on: March 17, 2010, 11:22:10 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Mark D Segal
On the basis of what knowledge and authority should you be convinced by this statement? DO you really believe that Phase-1 for example isn't capable of manufacturing interchangeable MF systems which fit together perfectly when used as designed? Do they sell these extremely expensive systems to demanding professionals and advanced amateurs only to open themselves up to liabilities?

Look, it's fine if Pentax and Leitz decided for their own reasons to sell an integrated product, but that doesn't mean there's necessarily anything at all wrong or risky about the other system, if made right.
Exactly.
These are two different phylosophies for different needs and approachs. Interchangeable backs are extremely usefull because they provide a grade of modularity that is not possible otherwise.
The Pentax is a fantastic camera and indeed a refreshing and welcome news. I know today that I won't buy it because I plan to work with view cameras as well as mf and also  film so an independant back is obligatory. For others, it will just be what they were looking for.

Fred.
Logged
tsjanik
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 607


« Reply #19 on: March 17, 2010, 11:33:40 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: fredjeang
.... The lenses line point will be very important I think.

Fred.
Fred:

You are, of course, correct when you mention lens availability.  I believe you referring to the Pentax 35mm lens lineup; frankly, I thought the DA lens line was a one of the bad decisions.  Not really any size, cost or weight savings compared to FF 35mm lenses, while limiting the sensor size to APS-C.
A quote from Bernard’s interview of Mr.Maekawa:
We believe that many photographers who used to own our film bodies are looking for a reasonably affordable digital solution that would enable them to keep using their lenses while delivering all the values of digital bodies.”
There is a large number of Pentax lenses out there waiting for a digital body.  Apparently Pentax’s intention is to initially produce bodies for photographers who have an exisiting supply of Pentax MF lenses. As a customer, I might prefer many new lenses, but as a business decision it makes sense- they are introducing the camera without a huge initial cost in lens design and production.
According to the interview, existing film lenses (other than wide angle) work quite well.  In my own informal tests of 67 and 645 lenses on a K20D, the MF lenses are the equal of the 35mm.

I’m ready for a visit to Japan.

Tom
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad