Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Pentax / Samsung dSLR, K Mount Mirrorless

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Apr 23, 2009, 4:47 PM   #11
Senior Member
 
bilybianca's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Hassleholm, Sweden
Posts: 3,435
Default

snostorm wrote:
Quote:
but I'm kinda glad this forum does not obsess about these things.
Agree, I can't understand how people on other forums can be so quarrelsome about things no one of them know anything about.

And in spite of all their inside information and reliable sources, we are still the only oneswho knows about the K29D!:-)

Whatever this new upcoming model will offer, I'll jump it. The *istDS is still a fantastic camera I love to use, and the K20D will let me grow for years to come. It's hard to see what a new model could offer that would actually improve my pictures. When they are crappyit's me, not the camera that fails.

Kjell


bilybianca is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 23, 2009, 8:02 PM   #12
Senior Member
 
Monza76's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 4,095
Default

If that image is accurate the two things that strike me are the strap attachment type (looks like the more professional system found on older Pentaxes) and the noticeably chunky prism housing. Could this be the spiritual successor to the LX, a truly professional spec camera.

Actually things would have to change drastically for me to actually upgrade, I have a *istDL, my wife has a K100D Super (a truly great camera although it doesn't have the solid feel of a *istDS) and I have a K10D that works exceptionally well with only one lens, the FA 50mm f1.4 and acceptably with the Sigma 24-135mm. I have found that, for the photography that I like, the K10 and 50mm combo is superb. If I get another job (now that I have retired) or if the photography earns its own keep, I could upgrade.

The most interesting rumour to me is the talk of a square sensor. A square sensor of 16-20MP would make photography a whole different ballgame, just like my old Yashica D, I would be looking at how to frame an image for the crops I would use.

BTW I now have the K10D with 50mm in the camera compartment of a Lowepro Orion Trekker II backpack. I carry it with me almost everywhere because the upper compartment holds my other toys (Asus mini notebook computer, Sansa MP3 player, Nintendo DS, notebook and pen). I like this so much I haven't changed lenses since February (I use the DL for everything else).

Oops, off topic, couldn't resist.

Ira
Monza76 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 23, 2009, 10:24 PM   #13
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 477
Default

The shape strikes me as being a more "professional" shape, so it wouldn't surprise me if this is a step UP from the K20D. i.e. A new line of more Pro series DSLRs.

Pentax have 3 lines of DSLRs.

Bottom level entry: K2000 (K-m)

Mid level: K100D, K200D

Upper mid level: K10D, K20D

So if this DSLR is more like a Pro line, it could possibly besomething like K2D or something.

I would be VERY surprised if it was a square sensor. Surely FF would be preferable, given the extra size needed at the bottom of the camera??

e.g. FF is 36 x 24mm Pentax APS-C is 23.5 x 15.7mm. If you square it off, you get 23.5 x 23.5mm, so the top to bottom size is almost the same as FF (24mm).... so if you add just 6mm on each side of the sensor, you have FF anyway!!!
dnas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 24, 2009, 12:47 AM   #14
Senior Member
 
mtngal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Frazier Park, CA
Posts: 16,056
Default

I've been reading a book on photo composition (one of the Kodak books). I'm in the chapter on format and the differences between common print sizes and various sensor sizes. I've only started the chapter but so far he's been talking about the difference in aspect ratio between film/sensors and print. I just read the part where he said the most interesting and useful shape is a rectangle (or oval) and that framing for a square is much harder to make it interesting (and a circle is worse). I haven't gotten far enough along to find out why he thinks this way yet. But it does make it interesting, that if traditional artistic/compositional practice is to use a rectangle, that a camera manufacturer would be looking to make a square sensor.

On the other hand, I seem to like squares - many of my pictures are cropped almost square.
mtngal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 24, 2009, 2:07 AM   #15
Senior Member
 
snostorm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Chicago Suburb, IL, USA
Posts: 2,770
Default

mtngal wrote:
Quote:
it does make it interesting, that if traditional artistic/compositional practice is to use a rectangle, that a camera manufacturer would be looking to make a square sensor.
Hi Harriet,

The idea behind the square sensor would be to allow in-camera cropping to portrait or landscape without having to rotate the camera. That's why I said that the vertical grip would become irrelevant. With the "heads up" overlay, you'd be able to see the crop lines in the viewfinder, and 4/3 5/4, 3/2, and 16/9 could also be made available. . . and if they used the same pixel density as the K20, the marketing guys could say that it was the first APS-C 21.8 MP sensor.:-)

I normally crop to print size (5x7 or 8x10) but I think I'll start allowing for square as some of my shots would work in a square format.

Scott
snostorm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 24, 2009, 7:28 AM   #16
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 477
Default

IMO, why waste one third of the pixels on a sensor just so the photographer doesn't have to turn the camera sideways like we've been doing for more than 100 years???
Why not just have FF, then you can crop it any way you like, OR have FF??

Anyway, we'll find out in about a month!!!! :-)
dnas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 24, 2009, 6:26 PM   #17
Senior Member
 
Monza76's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 4,095
Default

The classic Hasselblad and Rollei medium format cameras used a 2 1/4" (6cm) square negative from which any other ratio could be cropped. Yes this meant that some of the resolution of the negative was lost, but the convenience of not changing the orientation of the camera, and the option of deciding later what your final image would be, far outweighed the small loss.

I am not lobbying for a square aensor but it does have its advantages.
Monza76 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 24, 2009, 9:38 PM   #18
Senior Member
 
tacticdesigns's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 998
Default

Hello,


IMHO, I think the concept of a square sensor is really cool!


When my wife and I got married, a family friend took our pictures with his Bronica square-format camera. When the film was developed, he didn't crop the pictures, instead he asked us if we wanted to do it. My wife and I had a lot of fun taking his square proofs and deciding whether we wanted the image to be the vertical, horizontal or square format. (He gave us a bunch of cards with various sized windows that we taped to the proof to show the processor what the finished prints should look like.)

It's amazing how much impact you have (even after the picture has been taken) by being able to choose the format afterwards. And we were only able to do this because, by shooting square, we got the possibility of both a vertical & horizontal format.


I think the square format could really have a place in today's TV centric world.

I just finished putting together a picture slide show (consisting of ~159 pictures across 3 songs) for my 2nd daughter's 1st birthday. Of those ~159 pictures, probably a little more than 1/3 of them are vertical format. Which means, when they get displayed on the TV screen, there is a bunch of dead black space to either side. (I never seem to remember or have the time to go back and take a horizontal version of the picture for the picture slide show.)

The ultimate would be a camera that let you decide whether the image is classified as vertical or horizontal, but records the whole square image. Then if you need / want to re-crop the picture you can load up the whole RAW image and go to town.


Also, regarding the 4x6 format. That is one odd format.

I tried printing out an image I took with my Pentax K100D to my inkjet. I had squeezed in someone at 18mm and they pretty much filled in the full APS-c format frame. I tried to print the picture out on a 4x6 & in order to get the image to be wide enough, I ended up having to cut off either their feet or head. After cursing for a while, I went through the regular format aspect ratios and cursed some more. (Nothing matches up!) Since then I try to leave more breathing room around stuff I'm shooting.

But that gets right back into the idea of a square format.


I know I'm rambling on . . . but when I come up across the aspect ratio problems of going from vertical format to TV or to different aspect ratios, I keep thinking to myself how cool it was working with that square proof.


Take care,
Glen


tacticdesigns is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 24, 2009, 11:19 PM   #19
Senior Member
 
nhmom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Southern New Hampshire
Posts: 5,202
Default

Interesting conversation. Not so much the new camera on the horizon, but the topic of the sensor shape. I think the K20 is going to keep me busy for a long time learning new things.

But, the sensor shape is one thing I'd never thought much about until a few years ago. I used to always take my photos and print as 4 x 6 and that was that! It wasn't until I started submitting to contests that I started struggling with needing 8 x 10 format. I kept struggling with having to cut something off in the images to get the proportions right.

Once I figured it out, I now try to take my photos with the plan of having extra crop room on either end (landscape-wise). And, often times find myself taking photos in both directions to cover any future possible crop I might want.

I went to a seminar with Rick Sammons one time and he talked about how he takes photos considering how it would look on a National Geographic cover. Always considering his future cropping needs in his shots. I now find myself doing that. No, not considering how to shoot for NG cover. Although, I wish. But, to print at 8 x 10. I have been playing with the square shot lately, though. I do love square crops.

Anyway, it will be interesting to see what they are coming out with. But, I'm sticking with my K20.

Patty
nhmom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 25, 2009, 9:01 PM   #20
Senior Member
 
Monza76's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 4,095
Default

Having used a square format Yashica D extensively< I must say that it is a different experience, and a very enjoyable one.

I also don't think we should belittle the importance of a camera that does not need to be rotated for vertical shots. This greatly simplifies use for flash photographers and for those who use a tripod for most of their images.

Ira
Monza76 is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 9:26 PM.