[illdefined]

I'm not seeing why Pentax would want either the 24 Mp APS-c sensor or the 24MP FF sensor. Why wouldn't they go with something that got them to equal to or surpassing the best out there? Where's the logic in producing something less than that? They have the best APS-c. They should go for the best FF...

Price. Pentax can't charge the premium required for the 36mp FF sensor, especially considering it only has a handful (literally) of FF lenses to go with it.

[Venturi]

I think he's a sad little looser with no competence or skill to speak of. Not only gearwise. Everything. An irrelevant old man who has missed an opportunity to stay still where it would have been advised.

Frankly, I think he's one of the most relevant voices in photography today.

The Online Photographer: The Difference Between a Photographer and an Artist

[illdefined]

I think he's a sad little looser with no competence or skill to speak of. Not only gearwise. Everything...

at least he has skill and competence in spelling..

[normhead]

Price. Pentax can't charge the premium required for the 36mp FF sensor, especially considering it only has a handful (literally) of FF lenses to go with it.

Oh get outta town. If Nikon can get one out for 3k, Pentax can get one out for 3k. You can't say Pentax users won't pay 3 k for an FF. Lot's already have, and lots more are considering it. The price of 35 MP sensors will continue to come down, just as every other sensor has. As soon as one company gets it, sooner or later they all get it. The price of Pentax glass for their FF's will be seriously offset by the fact that many of those lenses will also be used by APS-c shooters. Plus Pentax has a huge number of viable lens patents that can be altered for SDM and brought into production very quickly if need be. For example if Pentax came out with a digital remake of their FA 80-200 2.8 in FF, I'd buy it for my APS-c camera, even if I didn't go for an FF. They are in a way better position to release top quality glass than any company that has to develop all new glass. And there are lot's of those.

Have you even looked at 24 Mp images compared to the k-5 images blown up to 24 MP? Or are you one of those who think more MP without added detail is some kind of advantage, because I would argue it's a disavantage. Larger files mean longer processing times on my computer and more need for file space on my hard drive. Just based on my own brief research, it's D800 (or equivalent) or nothing. I've yet to find an IQ advantage I'd pay for looking at other systems. Take out the "I'd pay for"... I've yet to find an advantage...period. In many cases the K-5 IIs images look better for at least part of the comparison image.

If you want 24 MP just put your images in photoshop and blow them up to 24 MP. You've got it. For printing I blow mine up to 66 MP, 10,000 x 6,600 pixels because that's what my printer wants. That doesn't mean my pictures would be better if I had a camera that produced an image that size. The images from my k-5 come out just fine. (So do the images from my 10 MP Optio W80.)

---

Last edited by normhead; 11-25-2012 at 09:19 AM.

[illdefined]

Oh get outta town. If Nikon can get one out for 3k, Pentax can get one out for 3k. You can't say Pentax users won't pay 3 k for an FF. Lot's already have, and lots more are considering it. The price of 35 MP sensors will continue to come down, just as every other sensor has. As soon as one company gets it, sooner or later they all get it. The price of Pentax glass for their FF's will be seriously offset by the fact that many of those lenses will also be used by APS-c shooters. Plus Pentax has a huge number of viable lens patents that can be altered for SDM and brought into production very quickly if need be. For example if Pentax came out with a digital remake of their FA 80-200 2.8 in FF, I'd buy it for my APS-c camera, even if I didn't go for an FF. They are in a way better position to release top quality glass than any company that has to develop all new glass. And there are lot's of those.

I think you have a very skewed view of Pentax. aside from both making SLRs, Pentax in no way resembles the mammoth that is Nikon.

the difference between dozens of long available FF lenses and 20 year old film era patents is immeasurable. The number of Nikon FF bodies, lenses, users, aftermarket options and equipment, and professional service centers worldwide vastly outnumber Pentax's even if that number was 1. everything we've talked about is purely theoretical. While Nikon has been doing FF DSLRs as a main part of their global business for years. there's simply no comparison and that's why Pentax has always had to undersell them to have the minuscule impact on the market that they've managed to get thus far. Pentax could never come close to approaching Nikon's economies of scale on such a high-end part.

Have you even looked at 24 Mp images compared to the k-5 images blown up to 24 MP? Or are you one of those who think more MP without added detail is some kind of advantage, because I would argue it's a disavantage. Larger files mean longer processing times on my computer and more need for file space on my hard drive. Just based on my own brief research, it's D800 (or equivalent) or nothing. I've yet to find an IQ advantage I'd pay for looking at other systems. Take out the "I'd pay for"... I've yet to find an advantage...period. In many cases the K-5 IIs images look better for at least part of the comparison image.

I'm not one who thinks more MP = more better. I am one who thinks more sensor area = better however, all else being equal (ie. Sony sensor) and I think the vast majority would agree (as would DxO). apparently you think 36mp is better than 24mp but what makes both sensors objectively better than the K-5 is that they are the same or newer technology at more than double the size. just facts, your purely subjective judgements on massively upscaled prints not withstanding. (how big are those files on your computer and hard drive btw?)

[normhead]

I'm not one who thinks more MP = more better. I am one who thinks more sensor area = better however, all else being equal (ie. Sony sensor) and I think the vast majority would agree (as would DxO). apparently you think 36mp is better than 24mp but what makes both sensors objectively better than the K-5 is that they are the same or newer technology at more than double the size. just facts, your purely subjective judgements on massively upscaled prints not withstanding. (how big are those files on your computer and hard drive btw?)

I'm one who could care less about sensor size, or any theoretical gymnastics. I read the theory to give me an idea what to look for. Then I look at the images. If what you're talking about doesn't show up in the images, as far as I'm concerned, it's not real. Theory that is irrelevant to the end product, the image, is just hype and hyperbole. It's all about the image baby.

The files on my hard drive are 88 MB tiffs, but I send them to my printer as 12 MB jpegs.

[illdefined]

Physics isn't a theory Normhead. Pentax working on a 36mp FF is.

[normhead]

Physics isn't a theory Normhead. Pentax working on a 36mp FF is.

A theory without empirical evidence to back it up is a notion. Your notion that you've correctly applied Optical physics in a manner that takes in to account all relevant parameters is unsupported by anything I've seen posted. You can't provide empirical evidence with a bunch of numbers.

[illdefined]

A theory without empirical evidence to back it up is a notion. Your notion that you've correctly applied Optical physics in a manner that takes in to account all relevant parameters is unsupported by anything I've seen posted. You can't provide empirical evidence with a bunch of numbers.

Lord knows ive tried, but I don't think you know the definition of empirical evidence. nor physics for that matter.

[normhead]

Empirical evidence in terms of camera systems, is images that demonstrate your point. There are so many things that go into making an image that obscure references to laws of physics that apply to one part of a camera system isn't science. It's propaganda. You've haven't tried at all as far as I can see. Please point me to your comparison photos that illustrate your point. Through the various threads I can point to at least 2 or three different places where I've worked with comparison images to show what I'm talking about. What have you shown? Where can I give it the eye test? Please don't bother pointing to a bunch of numbers, unless you can explain why what they say is true in theory, doesn't pan out in real life.

[illdefined]

Empirical evidence in terms of camera systems, is images that demonstrate your point. There are so many things that go into making an image that obscure references to laws of physics that apply to one part of a camera system isn't science. It's propaganda. You've haven't tried at all as far as I can see. Please point me to your comparison photos that illustrate your point. Through the various threads I can point to at least 2 or three different places where I've worked with comparison images to show what I'm talking about. What have you shown? Where can I give it the eye test? Please don't bother pointing to a bunch of numbers, unless you can explain why what they say is true in theory, doesn't pan out in real life.

"Bigger" being larger than "smaller" is not an obscure law of physics.

I've posted two crops of lab controlled comparisons in this thread clearly showing the shadow noise difference in the aforementioned sensors. try turning your monitor's brightness up.

Other people have posted professional lab tests with empirical data backing up the noise implications I've posted. What have you shown besides your purely subjective thoughts on prints that nobody else here have seen?

[rparmar]

Mike Johnston is an experienced photographer, fun writer, and camera enthusiast who is honest about making money off his site and how that might influence his opinions. He has been a big champion of Pentax and honest about the system's failings, of which the lack of a contemporary normal prime is a large one. And I'm the dude with a rack full of Vivitar 28mms after researching the heck out of them in an attempt to make up for that lack... an oversight that the brand still hasn't fixed.

There is no doubt that Pentax makes great cameras for some people, but that is a pretty small subset. They have basically squandered time on two half-baked systems, letting other companies trump them. Now Olympus essentially makes what should have been the Pentax mirrorless system. The E-M5 handles so much like a Pentax it's not funny, but with superior options, interface, EVF, etc. In a smaller package. With incredible range in lens options. For people who want a smaller camera it's a no-brainer.

For people with deeper wallets who want a larger camera with superior imaging, the D800 has been a no-brainer ever since it was released.

For people in between, the K-5 can be a good option, which I continue to recommend. But most prefer an Olympus (or Panasonic for video). I have posted pro-Pentax comments on his blog for ages, and one was even featured in a follow-up article. But I am not a cheerleader.

People slagging Johnston here are doing so only because he no longer thinks their special toy is his favourite toy. How sad you are!

[normhead]

First of all, I didn't really pay much attention to your comparisons, because every image in your comparison doesn't meet my standards. I don't care about how bad it is. "Sometimes bad is bad." (ah dip dip dip dip dip doo wap, wap) (Huey Lewis and the News reference.)

Second since you missed my posts that "nobody has seen" here you go.

SO I cropped an Image Resources 100 ISO image from a D800e, then did the same crop on a Canon 1D x, A Nikon D600, and a K-5 IIs. Then I expanded the other smaller MP count images to be the same size as the D800e image. The D800 is so much the winner, it really is in a class all it's own, predictable and unsurprising. What is surprising is the other 3 are very close, and you could make a case that the K5IIs is the best image of the other 3. So comparing a $7,000 camera and a $2,000, the $1,300 camara gives you arguably the best image, at least in these test conditions on this one small portion of a frame. Still the best apart from the D800. Also confirming my suspicion, that as an upgrade path, it's D800 or nothing. Even if you argue that the others are marginally better in IQ, it's not enough difference to be worth money.

The surprise for me, is the D600. I had hopes for that camera. Theoretically a 16MP APS-c shouldn't be in the same ball park as a 24 MP FF. Both images are enlarged not reduced, so the K-5 is actually expanded by a larger amount and by theories expressed many times on this board, should suffer as an image, from being enlarged more. I'm not seeing it. The theory says one thing, the images say another.

[msatlas]

There's a perfectly good 24mm prime available for Pentax: the Tamron 17-50/2.8!

24mm just so happens to be the point at which the 17-50's distortion zeroes out, and it's plenty sharp. It's not any bigger or heavier than the FA* 24/2 or Sigma 24/1.8, and outperforms them optically.

[illdefined]

First of all, I didn't really pay much attention to your comparisons, because every image in your comparison doesn't meet my standards. I don't care about how bad it is. "Sometimes bad is bad." (ah dip dip dip dip dip doo wap, wap) (Huey Lewis and the News reference.)

...right.

first of all, your post looks like JPGs. since Imaging Resource seems to meet 'your standards', here's a RAW ISO 6400 crop with zero NR. There's plenty more detail (the weave on both the dark and light blue squares) and considerably less crunchiness and chroma noise (false color) on the dark fabrics. for the record, that's simultaneously more detail *and* less noise, benefits of an empirically bigger (Sony) sensor.

PF has downsized the attachment but its still quite evident. I encourage you to look at the RAWs again yourself.