Surprise.. Pentax?

[Raist3d]

I want to put this in conext. I said before I want the E-3 to improve dynamic range. Looks like Pentax is taking this seriously:

http://stock-photo.blogspot.com/2006...dr-adjust.html

"Quotes from nucore material:
"22 Bit ADC with up to 16 Bit Output: Unprecedented noise reduction is achieved using 22 bit ADC compared to 12 or 14 bit ADCs typically used. Quantization errors and false color artifacts are dramatically reduced providing cleaner, more pleasant pictures..."

"Dynamic Range Enrichment - 16 Point Pre Gamma Correction: Patent pending technology allows precise picture tuning increasing the effective dynamic range of digital pictures to more accurately approach that of film-based photography. The pre-gamma correction minimizes the typical “crushed” dark or bright areas...""

I hope Olympus doesn't lose sight of keeping up the DR.

- Raist

[Paul Shields]

Sounds interesting. Wouldn't the increase in number of bits mean a much larger RAW file?

[Raist3d]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Sounds interesting. Wouldn't the increase in number of bits mean a much larger RAW file?

Just got a link to a full spec. This camera so far, looks *KICK ASS*.

http://ericcloninger.com/albums/DPRS...10DRelease.pdf

I saw their RAW files are still 12-bit.. so the dynamic range may not be all up there, to an S3 from Fuji or even E-1- perhaps. But the tonal range will be better (in theory) than any of those two. So basically the camera can "read" from the sensor far more tonal gradiations and calculate a final image.

I for one I am very excited to see what this camera can do.

And USD $999 $899 body only? 12 raw images at 10.2 megapixels, unlimited jpeg shooting, 3 fps (seems like 3fps is the number to break in the low end).

Man, I hope that E-3 shocks the world, otherwise hmm....

- Raist

[Raist3d]

Moreover, the Pentax is water resistant (thoguh I wonder what lenses Pentax offers for that), has an antidust shaker and has a 4 stops (according to Pentax) camera in-body image stabilization. Wow is all I have to say. I wouldn't touch a Sony Alfa after seeing this announcement with a 5 mile pole

Almost makes it look like "E-3 is now."

- Raist

[Mr. Pickles]

I read the announcment, and I don't know what you read that would make not touch a Sony with a 5 mile pole.

If this is a REAL model and spec sheet (a PDF claiming to be from "Steve's", but not on Steve's site? Yet?), the Pentax is a bit better here and there maybe, but not by any measurable distance. Pretty much the same as the Sony and a few others if you ask me.

Pentax claims they have a wider tonal range that they "use". Sounds like some fluff marketing to me. If you can "see" it, why can't you record all of it. That is what you want, isn't it? You do want to capture the whole range with as good a gradual color shift as possible, correct? Are they magically getting some red or green that is more red or green than anybody else, and capturing that, but by doing that, they have to eliminate another "shade" of red or green because they can't capture more thna the 12-bits?

Speaking of real, if it is a 10mp (10.2, 10.7, whatever), how much money you got that says the sensore has Sony written on it?

Pentax (anybody) can say all they want about its features, and use big fancy words, but it still comes down to useability, ergonomics and results.

[cyclohexane]

Pentax cameras are actually known for their ergonomics and usability. Results have been a mixed bag, as they have a strong AA filter over their Sony sensors, but noise levels are low.

The Pentax K100D is the third-bestselling DSLR in Japan.

[Raist3d]

Originally Posted by Mr. Pickles

I read the announcment, and I don't know what you read that would make not touch a Sony with a 5 mile pole.

The fact that Pentax has announced a camera that on paper seems to beat the Alpha in almost every way I can think of? The fact I trust Pentax more as a camera brand than Sony? Not saying Sony's bad... but...


If this is a REAL model and spec sheet (a PDF claiming to be from "Steve's", but not on Steve's site? Yet?), the Pentax is a bit better here and there maybe, but not by any measurable distance. Pretty much the same as the Sony and a few others if you ask me.
Ughh.. no. This camera is water resistant (can shoot in the rain), has vastly better (on paper) analog to digital converter (14 bits vs 21 or was it 22 bits?)- this one in particular beats everybody in the market right now. The fact it can buffer 12 raw shots.

Pentax claims they have a wider tonal range that they "use". Sounds like some fluff marketing to me. If you can "see" it, why can't you record all of it. That is what you want, isn't it? You do want to capture the whole range with as good a gradual color shift as possible, correct? Are they magically getting some red or green that is more red or green than anybody else, and capturing that, but by doing that, they have to eliminate another "shade" of red or green because they can't capture more thna the 12-bits?

Tonal range here means they can calculate better steps from one shade to the other. Their sensor can distinguish this. Even if you have to then resample down to 12 bits this helps tons. It's like video cards on the PC earlier when they rendered in 16 bit but did everything internally at 24 bit color. It's not true 24 bits but it helps tons in getting a higher (much higher quality) 16 bits. You avoid mathemathical errors you may inccur also during the image curve optimization phase, etc.

Speaking of real, if it is a 10mp (10.2, 10.7, whatever), how much money you got that says the sensore has Sony written on it?

Yes it is Sony's. Yet the sensor data processing is different, even to the hardware level when capturing the data.

Pentax (anybody) can say all they want about its features, and use big fancy words, but it still comes down to useability, ergonomics and results.

I agree but I understand Pentax does good here.

- Raist

[Raist3d]

Pentax Canada already has it up:

http://www.pentax.ca/digital/digital_slr/k10d/index.php

- Raist

[sjprg]

This should also give the Leica DMR a run for it money.

[Mr. Pickles]

Maybe I am just too dense, but I don't see the "huge" significance of this.

It can "choose" a much wider color rnage, which internally, it can distinguish more color gradations or shades of each color. More "steps" I think some used as the term. I can see that you would like that. I can see that if the sensor can give you reds or blues or greens that you just can't see or get from all the other DSLRs, that would be a great thing.

But, if the sensor still sends the same number of bits to the file, what happened to all the other bits in between the extremes? Other DSLRs, lets say have a range of colors from 1 to 1,000, and send them all the the file (just say they do). This one can read a range of 1 to 10,000 (lets say). It is gonna send 1,000 of them to the file. Who got left out? Sounds like JPG compression almost to me. Yeah the "steps" are more accurate, but is it really "accurate"?

[Paul Shields]

I agree which is why I was originally asking about file size. If it's a bigger sample of data captured which then gets downsampled to 12bits RAW then that sounds more marketing than reality to me :-\. It may be that the wide initial sample makes it easier to hold highlights or shadows, but I don't think it's the second coming just yet...

[Mr. Pickles]

Another way to say what I wanted. Thanks.

[Raist3d]

So, let's distinguish for a second tonal range and dynamic range..and what the Pentax is doing.

Dynamic range is how much of a stop difference from brightest to darkest can be in a single shot, that the camera can capture. That's it dynamic range.

Tonal range is how many "little steps" can be between each color.

And there's the final RAW file which could reflect as many bits, or in the case of the Pentax, less bits.

Now, why what the Pentax does is important? The Pentax doesn't have more dynamic range, but it has on paper oustading tonal range. Even converting down to the 12 bits raw file this is key because mathemathically you have vastly more information to do more accurate dithering between the colors and in many cases more room for error in a capture to decide which colors out of the 12 bit space, to use more accurately.

So in a shot you have say of a portrait, where you have from the brightest to dark areas, there should be virtually no steps of "posterization effect" even near the shadows- or if there are, vastly reduced compareed to other cameras, on this Pentax.

Hope that helps.

Anyhow, my point is that this is important, but the camera doesn't expand dynamic range though it can help in the calculations....

- Raist

[Mr. Pickles]

Sounds like you basically confirmed my suspicions that it has a wider tonal range, it can get the "real" color much closer to true, but when it saves its gradation steps, it has bigger gaps between them than other cameras, no?

In other words, where another camera takes steps in bites of 10, this does it in 1's. Another camera will have to "choose" a color if the real color is a 6, probably round up to 10, where the Pentax will choose color 6. When the gradation steps happen, the other camera will interpolate each one, 8 becomes 10, 3 becomes 1, etc., where as the Pentax will actually choose 8, 3, etc.

So the Pentax will get the steps more accuratly in the precise "spot" on the tonal scale, but instead of jumps of 10, some may be jumps of 12 or 15, or whatever. This makes more sense from a exact color standpoint.

But I'm thinking the new Sigma w/ Foveon sensor has a better method of color reproduction right now. Or at least it sounds better technically to my brain. Perhaps the images of both when they come out will show this or a different result. If the Pentax has colors as good or better than the Sigma, then the Sigma/Foveon is dead meat probably.

[Raist3d]

Originally Posted by Mr. Pickles

Sounds like you basically confirmed my suspicions that it has a wider tonal range, it can get the "real" color much closer to true, but when it saves its gradation steps, it has bigger gaps between them than other cameras, no?

No, the other way around. I mean the Pentax woudl have less gradation steps/gaps than other cameras. This is of course, on paper/theory. The proof is in real life shots.

In other words, where another camera takes steps in bites of 10, this does it in 1's. Another camera will have to "choose" a color if the real color is a 6, probably round up to 10, where the Pentax will choose color 6. When the gradation steps happen, the other camera will interpolate each one, 8 becomes 10, 3 becomes 1, etc., where as the Pentax will actually choose 8, 3, etc.

Ok, I guess I misread your first paragraph. Yes, kind of, relatively speaking. When you have more data, you can also do a better dithering/interpolation when you have to do it.

So the Pentax will get the steps more accuratly in the precise "spot" on the tonal scale, but instead of jumps of 10, some may be jumps of 12 or 15, or whatever. This makes more sense from a exact color standpoint.

Correct, though I think the other cameras are farily good already probably at capturing the "spot" colors, but is the continous tone, tonality what the Pentax should outdo in spades.

- Raist