Win a Pentax Limited Lens: Raffle Now Live!

i83N · 10-08-2012, 11:10 PM

Look at this Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX1 Sample Gallery HI-ISO shots. They look worth than a two years old APS-C K5 same iso shots. You will say it's PS camera, but it's the same sensor and same processor that is in Sony A99. So do you really need unfinished FF camera that makes HI-ISO shots worth than your old APS-C camera? I don't.
P.S. If a moderator thinks my thread is in wrong section please move it.

hansenn · 10-09-2012, 12:56 AM

That camera might have a lot of pixels, but that isn't a guarantee for quality. I have to admit the quality of the pics is good, but I noticed in all of them some softness.
None of them were really sharp.
The amount of noise is reasonable, but still visible at 1000/1250 ISO.
I guess the price of this camera will be pretty close to the new K-5 II, so your choice may depend on what type of photographer you are.
I still prefer a (compact) dslr with changeable lenses, and that's why i still want pentax to develop a ff with perfect high ISO performances with optimal sharpness. Also it has to be a pretty compact one like the k-5, not a monster like some of its concurrents.

i83N · 10-09-2012, 01:06 AM

Originally posted by hansenn

I guess the price of this camera will be pretty close to the new K-5 II

It's price is 2800$ so K5IIs is cheeper

Clavius · 10-09-2012, 01:06 AM

Originally posted by hansenn

That camera might have a lot of pixels, but that isn't a guarantee for quality. I have to admit the quality of the pics is good, but I noticed in all of them some softness.
None of them were really sharp.
The amount of noise is reasonable, but still visible at 1000/1250 ISO.
I guess the price of this camera will be pretty close to the new K-5 II, so your choice may depend on what type of photographer you are.
I still prefer a (compact) dslr with changeable lenses, and that's why i still want pentax to develop a ff with perfect high ISO performances with optimal sharpness. Also it has to be a pretty compact one like the k-5, not a monster like some of its concurrents.

Realisticly speaking, an FF DSLR can never be as small as the K5. An FF sensor is huge, twice the size of APSC, and the mirror, that has to swing up and down, is also twice as large. The only way an FF camera is going to be compact is if it has no mirror.

Personally, I would love Pentax to issue a MILC FF with good EVF. New lensmount to make it even smaller and enable SR. Off course to be delivered with dedicated K-mount adapter with AF motor.

hansenn · 10-09-2012, 01:07 AM

Originally posted by i83N

It's price is 2800$ so K5IIs is cheeper

i83N · 10-09-2012, 01:09 AM

Because Sony RX1 is pocket size point&shoot FF camera that is aming for Lieca market.

hansenn · 10-09-2012, 01:12 AM

Originally posted by Clavius

Realisticly speaking, an FF DSLR can never be as small as the K5. An FF sensor is huge, twice the size of APSC, and the mirror, that has to swing up and down, is also twice as large. The only way an FF camera is going to be compact is if it has no mirror.

???? my old analogue MZ-S was of the same size as my k20d. That was ff format including film + transporting mechanism. Why would a ff dslr be so much larger?

i83N · 10-09-2012, 01:18 AM

Because it needs more power for all the fancy electronics inside so battery compartment takes 30-40% of DSLR body. Plus the heet from sensor and procesers.

Fogel70 · 10-09-2012, 01:33 AM

Originally posted by i83N

Because it needs more power for all the fancy electronics inside so battery compartment takes 30-40% of DSLR body. Plus the heet from sensor and procesers.

How can then Sony fit a FF sensor in RX1? I actually think that RX1 is more power hungry than a DSLR as RX1 is a full time live-view camera.

But I don't think it's much advantage in using FF sensors in small P&S cameras as you can make a APS-C version with 95% of the IQ for less than half its price.

Clavius · 10-09-2012, 01:40 AM

Originally posted by hansenn

???? my old analogue MZ-S was of the same size as my k20d. That was ff format including film + transporting mechanism. Why would a ff dslr be so much larger?

Because film is quite a bit thinner then an LCD screen and supporting electronics + sensor + sensor stabilisation & its needed clearence & support frame / plate + processors + IR & low pass filter + giant battery + all the stuff I'm forgetting about.

i83N · 10-09-2012, 01:51 AM

Originally posted by Fogel70

How can then Sony fit a FF sensor in RX1? I actually think that RX1 is more power hungry than a DSLR as RX1 is a full time live-view camera.

But I don't think it's much advantage in using FF sensors in small P&S cameras as you can make a APS-C version with 95% of the IQ for less than half its price.

Yes it's power hungry and shot cout is only around 200 percarge.
My point exactly, why should we need an FF if APS-C has still room to grow.
What really Pentax user community need is cheeper 645D.

Fogel70 · 10-09-2012, 02:00 AM

Originally posted by i83N

Yes it's power hungry and shot cout is only around 200 percarge.
My point exactly, why should we need an FF if APS-C has still room to grow.
What really Pentax user community need is cheeper 645D.

The need of FF DSLR is because many users have loads of FF lenses. APS-C and 645D is not the best replacement for those users.

i83N · 10-09-2012, 02:05 AM

Originally posted by Fogel70

The need of FF DSLR is because many users have loads of FF lenses. APS-C and 645D is not the best replacement for those users.

But the FF lenses work on APS-C don't they?

Fogel70 · 10-09-2012, 02:07 AM

Not the same way they where designed for in the first place.

i83N · 10-09-2012, 02:21 AM

Originally posted by Fogel70

Not the same way they where designed for in the first place.

Yes, they were designed for film not sensors, what makes you think that they will work on FF digital sensors same way they were working on film?

10-08-2012, 11:10 PM	#1
i83N Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Lithuania Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,203	Do you really want a FF??? Look at this Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX1 Sample Gallery HI-ISO shots. They look worth than a two years old APS-C K5 same iso shots. You will say it's PS camera, but it's the same sensor and same processor that is in Sony A99. So do you really need unfinished FF camera that makes HI-ISO shots worth than your old APS-C camera? I don't. P.S. If a moderator thinks my thread is in wrong section please move it.

10-09-2012, 12:56 AM	#2
hansenn Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: twente Photos: Gallery Posts: 123	That camera might have a lot of pixels, but that isn't a guarantee for quality. I have to admit the quality of the pics is good, but I noticed in all of them some softness. None of them were really sharp. The amount of noise is reasonable, but still visible at 1000/1250 ISO. I guess the price of this camera will be pretty close to the new K-5 II, so your choice may depend on what type of photographer you are. I still prefer a (compact) dslr with changeable lenses, and that's why i still want pentax to develop a ff with perfect high ISO performances with optimal sharpness. Also it has to be a pretty compact one like the k-5, not a monster like some of its concurrents.

10-09-2012, 01:06 AM	#3
i83N Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Lithuania Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,203 Original Poster	Originally posted by hansenn I guess the price of this camera will be pretty close to the new K-5 II It's price is 2800$ so K5IIs is cheeper

10-09-2012, 01:06 AM	#4
Clavius Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2011 Location: De Klundert Photos: Gallery Posts: 4,150	Originally posted by hansenn That camera might have a lot of pixels, but that isn't a guarantee for quality. I have to admit the quality of the pics is good, but I noticed in all of them some softness. None of them were really sharp. The amount of noise is reasonable, but still visible at 1000/1250 ISO. I guess the price of this camera will be pretty close to the new K-5 II, so your choice may depend on what type of photographer you are. I still prefer a (compact) dslr with changeable lenses, and that's why i still want pentax to develop a ff with perfect high ISO performances with optimal sharpness. Also it has to be a pretty compact one like the k-5, not a monster like some of its concurrents. Realisticly speaking, an FF DSLR can never be as small as the K5. An FF sensor is huge, twice the size of APSC, and the mirror, that has to swing up and down, is also twice as large. The only way an FF camera is going to be compact is if it has no mirror. Personally, I would love Pentax to issue a MILC FF with good EVF. New lensmount to make it even smaller and enable SR. Off course to be delivered with dedicated K-mount adapter with AF motor.

10-09-2012, 01:07 AM	#5
hansenn Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: twente Photos: Gallery Posts: 123	Originally posted by i83N It's price is 2800$ so K5IIs is cheeper

10-09-2012, 01:09 AM	#6
i83N Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Lithuania Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,203 Original Poster	Because Sony RX1 is pocket size point&shoot FF camera that is aming for Lieca market.

10-09-2012, 01:12 AM	#7
hansenn Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: twente Photos: Gallery Posts: 123	Originally posted by Clavius Realisticly speaking, an FF DSLR can never be as small as the K5. An FF sensor is huge, twice the size of APSC, and the mirror, that has to swing up and down, is also twice as large. The only way an FF camera is going to be compact is if it has no mirror. ???? my old analogue MZ-S was of the same size as my k20d. That was ff format including film + transporting mechanism. Why would a ff dslr be so much larger?

10-09-2012, 01:18 AM	#8
i83N Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Lithuania Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,203 Original Poster	Because it needs more power for all the fancy electronics inside so battery compartment takes 30-40% of DSLR body. Plus the heet from sensor and procesers.

10-09-2012, 01:33 AM	#9
Fogel70 Pentaxian Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Stockholm, Sweden Photos: Albums Posts: 3,062	Originally posted by i83N Because it needs more power for all the fancy electronics inside so battery compartment takes 30-40% of DSLR body. Plus the heet from sensor and procesers. How can then Sony fit a FF sensor in RX1? I actually think that RX1 is more power hungry than a DSLR as RX1 is a full time live-view camera. But I don't think it's much advantage in using FF sensors in small P&S cameras as you can make a APS-C version with 95% of the IQ for less than half its price.

10-09-2012, 01:40 AM	#10
Clavius Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2011 Location: De Klundert Photos: Gallery Posts: 4,150	Originally posted by hansenn ???? my old analogue MZ-S was of the same size as my k20d. That was ff format including film + transporting mechanism. Why would a ff dslr be so much larger? Because film is quite a bit thinner then an LCD screen and supporting electronics + sensor + sensor stabilisation & its needed clearence & support frame / plate + processors + IR & low pass filter + giant battery + all the stuff I'm forgetting about.

10-09-2012, 01:51 AM	#11
i83N Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Lithuania Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,203 Original Poster	Originally posted by Fogel70 How can then Sony fit a FF sensor in RX1? I actually think that RX1 is more power hungry than a DSLR as RX1 is a full time live-view camera. But I don't think it's much advantage in using FF sensors in small P&S cameras as you can make a APS-C version with 95% of the IQ for less than half its price. Yes it's power hungry and shot cout is only around 200 percarge. My point exactly, why should we need an FF if APS-C has still room to grow. What really Pentax user community need is cheeper 645D.

10-09-2012, 02:00 AM	#12
Fogel70 Pentaxian Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Stockholm, Sweden Photos: Albums Posts: 3,062	Originally posted by i83N Yes it's power hungry and shot cout is only around 200 percarge. My point exactly, why should we need an FF if APS-C has still room to grow. What really Pentax user community need is cheeper 645D. The need of FF DSLR is because many users have loads of FF lenses. APS-C and 645D is not the best replacement for those users.

10-09-2012, 02:05 AM	#13
i83N Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Lithuania Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,203 Original Poster	Originally posted by Fogel70 The need of FF DSLR is because many users have loads of FF lenses. APS-C and 645D is not the best replacement for those users. But the FF lenses work on APS-C don't they?

10-09-2012, 02:07 AM	#14
Fogel70 Pentaxian Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Stockholm, Sweden Photos: Albums Posts: 3,062	Not the same way they where designed for in the first place.

10-09-2012, 02:21 AM	#15
i83N Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Lithuania Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,203 Original Poster	Originally posted by Fogel70 Not the same way they where designed for in the first place. Yes, they were designed for film not sensors, what makes you think that they will work on FF digital sensors same way they were working on film?

Do you really want a FF???

Win a Pentax Limited Lens: Raffle Now Live!