Pentax Pro Digital?

Does anybody know if Pentax is planning on entering the pro market with a 12 -

16MP DSLR body (probably a K1, or maybe K5, guessing at the naming convention)?

Besides checking their website, I don't know where to find this kind of info,

but there seems to be access to info well in advance of Pentax posting it on

their site.

 

Thanks,

 

Sean

I don't really know...the interviews show pentax will enter the pro market but at a controlled pace. That is they will upgrade there current product line rather then put all into a pro line. Seems like if you look at the lens line that is both out and on the road map, they are certainly making pro level optics now and in the near future.

 

What exactly are you looking for?

 

16MP on a 1.5x sensor will yield brutal noise. For sports 8MP has been proven to be more then enough for the fellows at the big magazines. Even Canons latest (1D MarkIII) 1.3X crop is 10MP.

 

MP don't increase IQ alone. Everyhing must increase, including dynamic range and noise reduction.

 

Also, Pentax CANNOT make a full frame sensor with SR. And they won't make SR lenses when the in body SR works so well. Expect, perhaps, a 1.25x or 1.3X sensor from pentax down the line. this would be a perfect compromise for both IQ and allow for in camera SR and most likely the use of the DA lenses (some of which already work on film anyway).

 

For landscapes and general (non action) photography the K10D offers everything the D200 offers minus the frame rate and RAW buffer (but the K10D's 12RAW, 3fps is the best RAW buffer of a sub $1500 camera, the D200 has a 18RAW buffer). D200 is certainly a pro camera. As is the Canon 30D, both of which the K10D competes with very well in both specs, IQ, and price (well it beats them to the curb in price).

 

Oh, the Pentax wireless flash system is not quite as advanced. But it is pretty good. Honestly, anyone serious about wireless flash should be using a RF wireless (pocket wizard or similar) anyway, line of sight wireless tend to not work in bright light or at distance.

 

 

I'd be interested to here exactly what you are looking for in a camera?

The Pentax "pro market" digital camera, already announced, is the Pentax 645D... Any other

"pro market" camera is, at this point in time, a speculation based on an interview with one of

the chiefs: they haven't yet announced anything.

 

That said, the K10D and Pentax excellent lens line already does a very good job of making

professional quality photographs.

 

Godfrey

Thanks for the responces.

 

As far as what I'm looking for... To some extent, I have to admit, I'm a neophyte trying to replace skill and experience with a bigger, better camera (I own a K100D). When I compare my photos to ones taken by a friend and fellow subscriber, I see a noticable difference in sharpness, color and clairty. He doesn't do a lot in photoshop, to my knowledge, so I figure some of it has to be his 12MP D2X. But I'm sure it has more to do with the fact that he's been a very active amateur for 10 years. Having said that, I've been considering upgading my camera or my lenses (I own nothing faster than f3.5). I figure, if Pentax is going to come out with a 12 - 16MP camera soon, I'm just going to want that one, so I should just wait, save the money and get one or two of the new Pentax lenses.

I'm also curious if Pentax is planning on competing seriously with Nikon and Canon with their top of the line models running at 12 and 16MP, respectively. I'm interest in the K10D for the dust removal system and improved shake reduction, among other things, too.

The only real complaints I have about my K100D are the 3 dead pixels (easily compensated by shooting in RAW and using CS2) and it seems to struggle with oversaturation of bright yellows.

 

Well, I guess I've rambled enough...

 

Thanks,

 

Sean

My suggestion is practice, practice, practice. Don't get hung up on megapixels, the higher pixel counts come with disadvantages too. Shoot RAW and refine your post-processing. K100D JPEGs are fairly well-regarded, but you want RAW for best results. Perhaps try a lens upgrade. Pentax's current line-up is pretty competitive and there's no reason to believe that Pentax will be delivering anything with substantial image quality improvements anytime soon short of 645D (and even that may not be <i>soon</i>).

<center>

<a href="http://homepage.mac.com/ramarren/photo/PAW7/large/03-half.jpg"

target=new>

<img src="http://homepage.mac.com/ramarren/photo/PAW7/large/03.jpg" border=0>

</a><br>

Conduit and Cable - New York 2006<br>

<i>©2006 by Godfrey DiGiorgi<br>

Pentax *ist DS + FA77/1.8 Limited<br>

ISO 400 @ f/2.5 @ 1/25 sec, Av, +0.7 EV compensation <br>

<br>

Click on image above for a larger view in a separate window.</i><br>

</center>

<br>

Sean,

<br><br>

You don't say what lenses you're using or what your friend is using, or how you're viewing

the photos for comparison, etc. When you say "he doesn't do a lot of photoshop", that's

another assessment that is hard to understand. While there is certainly an

improvement in resolution obtainable with a higher megapixel camera, there are many

other factors that make up an image's sharpness, color and clarity.

<br><br>

Without post-processing: the lens used, careful focusing, and proper exposure make a

huge difference. Something as simple as holding the camera steady makes a big

difference.

<br><br>

Most of the photographs I've put on exhibition and have obtained commendation for in

the past year and a half were made with a Pentax *ist DS. I use good lenses ... Pentax

primes and zooms. I work hard to get exposure right and critical focus correct. Most of my

photos are rendered with few minutes worth of Photoshop effort: I don't consider that "a

lot of photoshop".

<br><br>

I've since moved to the K10D body for the advantages it poses. The resolution increase is

useful as I most often make 11x17 and larger prints, but more important are the

additional controls it provides for exposure automation and accuracy. I consider it at least

the equal of the Nikon D200 for my needs ... my brother has the Nikon D200 and it is a

very fine camera, but I feel the Pentax lenses I have produce more pleasing results.

<br><br>

Between these two cameras and the Nikon D2X, most of the difference involved are

features that are of little relevance to my needs (sequence capture speed, bigger capture

buffer mostly). The resolution difference is very small in practical terms.

<br><br>

Remember: the bottom line is that a more expensive, "pro" camera does not automatically

imply a better

photograph. That improvement rests in the skill and subtlety of the photographer.

Whether Pentax' business target is to compete with Nikon and Canon for the professional

business market is largely irrelevant to the quality of the equipment or the quality of the

photographs you make with it.

<br><br>

Godfrey

K10D is a probody. For that matter all the 6mp pentax bodies are probodies too. What you need is faster aperture glass. In the last decade pentax made far more slow variable aperture zooms than fast prime and fast zooms. Your friend with the Nikon dslr likely has better glass than your f3.5.

 

Nikon literally made tons of fast prime and zoom glass so its easier to find and its more affordable to buy used. Anyone notice the 85mm 1.8 PK not PKA sell at ebay yesterday for $665? I have a feeling that any fast PK , PKA , F, FA glass I bought and carefully use for the next couple years will go up in value since pentax glass factory seems overwhelmed by their dslr success.

 

Lindy

Sean,

<P>

Nice bit of honesty.

<P>

Even the D2X will be replaced in months or 18months with a better body. But lenses are for life (sort of as long as the mount or sensor doesn't change enough to not allow their use).

<P>

Why not start collecting really nice glass. One lens at a time. Get a really nice tripod (and USE IT). I hate lugging my big Bogen 3221 but it gets me shots I couldn't take without it. Oh, and use the mirror lockup (that would be the 2 second self timer on the Pentax).

<P>

I've seen godfreys work, and even though I butted heads with him on the 14mm some time ago, he does fantastic work, I bet he uses a tripod for a lot of that photography.

<P>

You can compensate a bit with a better camera, but it won't give you an eye. And it can't induce sharpness, and clarity, and well most importantly, good light if it isn't already there.

<P>

I tripod helps with all of those (yes even the good light) because it slows you down from being a snap shooter to a photographer. If you have to think about setting up for a shot, chances are you will think about the shot more. I use a tripod or some form of solid stability whenever I can. SR is good, but I think it will make me lazy.

<P>

Finally, fast lenses are great. But sharpness isn't usually acheived wide open. Most Japanese glass compromises wide open performance for overall performance. If you want wide open performance you need to buy a leica (or a canon and use leica glass). Lindy is right about Pentax fast glass being hard to find but see my paragraph below for some currently available fast glass.

<P>

My recomendation would be to pick up a 35mm F/2 (one of the best lenses for $300 money can buy even wide open corner to corner). Pick up a 50mm 1.4 (around $200 with rebate and super sharp from 2.8 to 16) or a 40mm Limited. And one of the wide angle options (either the 14mm, the 12-14mm, or the 21mm limited) which are all good glass.

<P>

With say the 21mm, 35mm, and 50mm you won't be able to blame the lenses because they are certainly as sharp as anything your friend is using.

<P>

BTW, Lindy, the 85mm 1.8 isn't,IMO, that nice. The 1.4 was a spectacular piece of glass that beats the Canon counter part in head to head test but the 1.8 is just so so (which further blows my mind that a so so lens sells for $600+). If I can ever get my hands on a 1.4 FA* for less then $1000 I will buy it without flinching (and then flinch as my wife beats me with it).

<P>

Anyway, here are a few shots taken with some average lenses but with a tank of a tripod, or at least some tripod, and mirror lockup and/or a cable release (even a Sigma for a few shots for Lindy):

<P>

Pentax ist 35mm, Sigma 20mm @ f8, 1/2 second, tripod/mirror lockup, Provia 100F. No post processing scanned on Minolta Scan Dual III.

<P>

<a title="Notre Dame" href=" ><img src="http://static.flickr.com/145/370239495_7ae0a5911f_d.jpg" border="0"/></a>

<P>

Pentax ist D (6.1MP), Sigma 20mm, RAW, 1/20 sec @ F16 (hyperfocal), ISO 200, tripod, MLU.

<P>

<a title="Catskill Mountain Highs...And Lows!!!" href=" ><img src="http://static.flickr.com/143/370331794_8482ac1790_d.jpg" border="0"/></a>

<P>

Pentax ist D, RAW, ISO 200, Tokina 28-70 2.8, 50mm@F16, balanced on a post sans the tripod.

<P>

<a title="Arlington National Cemetary" href=" ><img src="http://static.flickr.com/184/376256968_c994de2da7_d.jpg" border="0"/></a>

<P>

Pentax Program Plus, Kodak 400UC, Pentax 28mm, 15seconds, f/16(hyperfocal), ultrapod (mini tripod on floor of leanto, from the comfort of my sleeping bag), cable release. Scanned Minolta scan dual III.

<P>

<a title="October in The Adirondacks" href=" ><img src="http://static.flickr.com/128/380122253_eef8751b44_d.jpg" border="0"/></a>

<P>

Pentax PZ-1P, Pentax 28-70 f/4 Kodak Elite Chrome 100, exposure probably 1 second, f/16, Bogen 3221 tripod, MLU, 2 stop split ND to(foolishly)try to save the moon rise.

<P>

<a title="Moonlight Over American Rapids, Niagara River." href=" ><img src="http://static.flickr.com/188/404400953_63201e82e7_d.jpg" border="0"/></a>

<P>

Pentax PZ-1P, Pentax 28-70 f/4, Fuji Provia 100, f/11 @ 70mm, 30mm macro extension tube, Bogen 3221 tripod (one of the few times i carried this beast backpacking), MLU.

<P>

<a title="Walking Stick in Caney Creek Wilderness, Arkansas." href=" ><img src="http://static.flickr.com/123/404880618_2d3ba98fe9_d.jpg" border="0"/></a>

And:

<P>

Pentax PZ-1P, Pentax 28-70 f/4 w/ Tiffen 812, 70mm @ f/16, Bogen 3221 and MLU.

<P>

What amazes me about this lens, is that it's seemingly mis-understood as consumer crap. Yet the fixed F/4 is anything but. The sharpness is excellent. The flare control is also excellent. I love to shoot into the light, and my guess its the one annoying piece of flare (which I could clone out easily), is from the tiffen filter which I should have removed.

<P>

But I always see this lens with poor reviews and my guess is it is because of the f/4 aperture. Don't be fooled by faster glass being better. Some glass is excellent without the large aperture price tag.

<P>

The only slight problem with the lens, is some distortion at 28mm and the rotating front element. Neither have convinced me to unload it after 10 years of using it as my travel lens when the Tokina 28-70 2.8 just isn't needed (which is most of the time that I am carrying my own equipment :).

<P>

<a title="November Sunset Over Ashoskan Reservior and Hudson River" href=" ><img src="http://static.flickr.com/167/390859399_a5f6eac354_d.jpg" border="0"/></a>

Thanks, again, all, for your advice and for sharing some of your stellar shots.

 

About 6 Months ago I picked up the Tamron Di-II 18-200mm f3.5-6.3. Because of its wide zoom range, I've been using it almost exclusively. While it seems to compare well with some of the other makes, I guess it could be a sorce of less sharpness. I have the 18-55mm kit lens the camera came with, and a couple of other Tamrons not worth mentioning.

 

I bought a nice tripod last January while on a trip to Romania. It's a Giottos MT 9170. It seems to be more than sufficient. I haven't had as much opportunity to use it as I'd like. But I'll be getting to do more shooting in a few weeks.

 

I'm out visiting my folks, and today my dad handed me his old 35mm bag. So now I have a Pentax ME Super and a few more lenses. They are all noticably faster (and much older) than the ones I already had; the most interesting of which are a Sigma 28mm f2.8 Macro, a Toyo 35-75mm f3.5 and a Toyo 80-200mm f4.5

 

As far as my friend's photos... I've compared them by sharing them directly and on our respective galeries. I think he rarely spends more than a few munites processing his photos in photoshop. He uses much smaller, standard zooms with variable f stops and a couple of primes (there's a 50mm he's quite fond of). He seems pleased with his glass; maybe I should ask him for more details about them. He does make a lot of use of his tripod.

 

Then there's the afore mentioned 10 years of experience.

 

I have to say I'm a little leery of investing in prime lenses. I've gotten quite used to the cropping and reach of my zooms, especially that 18-200. And there's a clear advantage of not having to change lenses on a DSLR. I guess it's time to start learning to deal with the limitations of the primes. I guess it could only make me better.

 

Thanks again for all of you input.

 

Sean

Sean,

 

You are right about the advantages of in camera cropping and less lens changes but consider just leaving a prime on and learning it. some people recommend just taking one lens with you one fun shoots and making it work.

 

Sounds weird but it works. Obviously you can't shoot every situation with a single lens but if you learn to see scenes with a given focal length and the perspective of the lens then it will show in the photos.

 

I hated (still do) my 28mm prime but I had a 28mm 2.8, 50mm 1.7, 135mm 2.0, and 70-210 f/4 for a long time as my 4 lenses. I ended up using the 28mm 2.8 95% of the time and composing and seeing shots with it just became natural.

 

while i have my reasons for hating the 28mm (on film/FF) I still use from time to time. And it often brings me my best shots.

 

Anyway, do it all zooms are notoriously bad, despite the fact that they've gotten a lot better over the years.

 

i still think bang for buck you can't go wrong with the 35mm 2.0 FA as a first fast prime. And the best part about the 35 f/2 is you can really use the f/2 and get great results.

 

Just try to be religious about the tripod, DOF, focus, exposure, and mirror lockup. all have an impact in squeezing every single line of resolution from the best and worst lenses.

 

Good luck.