[Malake]

Hello. This is an interesting article from a spanish user, Guillermo Luijk, a great studious of all concerning to RAW world. It's a comparison of Dynamic Range and Noise between Canon cameras and the new K-5

Google Traductor

---

Last edited by Malake; 11-30-2010 at 11:14 AM.

[neurocyclist]

That's a pretty well written article, thanks for sharing. All the more reason, IMO, Pentax needs to put out a FF camera. The K-5 holds its own when compared to other APS-C sized sensors, but if you introduce a FF into the mix, the K-5 doesn't stand up in all conditions. If Pentax managed to get this much DR out of this sensor, can you imagine what they'd be able to do with a FF!

[Eric Seavey]

I have always wanted consideration of the resolution in noise measurement comparisons. Compared to a K10D, for example, the K-5 has 1.29X more pixels in each direction, so in a final print that is scaled down, the pixels are averaged out more, and thereby effectively reducing the noise a little.

[Smolk]

With APS-C performing better and better, and 645D outperforming Canon, there is no need for Pentax FF other than budgetary reasons for consumers—something in between, on which they can use legacy lenses. That is of course a valid reason. If Pentax has the financial and logistic resources (for a full system of FF lenses), I'd be happy with it.

I do like them to continue down the road they've now taken first of all. APS-C provides the portability, and 645D the ‘ultimate’ digital experience in what still handles extremely well (I guess on the basis of the 645N).

(And if the 645D gets updated soon enough, I hope the price will drop of the 645D mark I...)

[Jeff Charles]

All the more reason, IMO, Pentax needs to put out a FF camera.

That might make sense for a Hoya stockholder or employee if they thought it would advance the company's interests. But with Canon and Nikon dominating FF, would it be worth the investment in new cameras and lenses to enter that relatively small market?

For current Pentax APS-C users, what's the interest? Their lenses wouldn't work on the Pentax FF cameras. Buying Pentax FF would be no different than buying Canon or Nikon.

I guess someone with legacy 35mm lenses, or who likes to shop used gear would benefit, but who else?

Jeff

[robgo2]

With APS-C performing better and better, and 645D outperforming Canon, there is no need for Pentax FF other than budgetary reasons for consumers—something in between, on which they can use legacy lenses. That is of course a valid reason. If Pentax has the financial and logistic resources (for a full system of FF lenses), I'd be happy with it.

I do like them to continue down the road they've now taken first of all. APS-C provides the portability, and 645D the ‘ultimate’ digital experience in what still handles extremely well (I guess on the basis of the 645N).

(And if the 645D gets updated soon enough, I hope the price will drop of the 645D mark I...)

As sensor technology improves, the rationale for FF will get weaker, not stronger, even as it maintains its superiority in terms of absolute IQ. At some point, and we may soon be approaching it, the IQ from APS-C will be so good that there will be little practical advantage to FF except under the most extreme shooting conditions. Meanwhile, FF will always be bigger, heavier and more expensive, so most users will not feel a strong need to accept those tradeoffs. MF, OTOH, is a quantum leap or two above APS-C and will continue to be attractive to a small segment of the market that needs &/or can afford it. (Aren't they up to 80MP cameras?)

It's a good time to be digital photographer.

Rob

[dexmus]

As sensor technology improves, the rationale for FF will get weaker, not stronger, even as it maintains its superiority in terms of absolute IQ. At some point, and we may soon be approaching it, the IQ from APS-C will be so good that there will be little practical advantage to FF except under the most extreme shooting conditions. Meanwhile, FF will always be bigger, heavier and more expensive, so most users will not feel a strong need to accept those tradeoffs. MF, OTOH, is a quantum leap or two above APS-C and will continue to be attractive to a small segment of the market that needs &/or can afford it. (Aren't they up to 80MP cameras?)

It's a good time to be digital photographer.

Rob

Well by that logic, as sensor technology improves, the rationale for APS-C will get weaker, not stronger because of improving mirrorless cameras.
And by the same logic, the next iteration of FF cameras will tread on MF territory. Even now, D3s an year old camera (and half the price of 645D) is rated almost same.
logic goes on and on.

[RBellavance]

Well by that logic, as sensor technology improves, the rationale for APS-C will get weaker, not stronger because of improving mirrorless cameras.

You seem to equate "mirrorless" with "smaller than APS-C". I don't see things this way. Sony has just shown, with their NEX-3 and NEX-5, that APS-C mirrorless cameras can be just as small as m4/3 cameras.

I do agree that 24x36 is poised to become the "MF of the digital age", and I believe that APS-C will be the most common format.