Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
05-25-2010, 07:23 AM   #226
Pentaxian
Asahiflex's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Netherlands
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,753
QuoteOriginally posted by thibs Quote
The 15/3.5 has fallen in price much (not up to bargain but still) as it seems it really isn't up to it's reputation on aps-c at least.
OT, but indeed... Most old wide-angles are really not up to the task. And in this day and age, who would want to lug around such a big piece of glass when there's the excellent DA15 Limited? (Of course it's not really usable on FF, but there's no FF body yet )

05-25-2010, 07:33 AM   #227
Senior Member




Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 125
QuoteOriginally posted by Asahiflex Quote
All I ask is that Pentax does what they're always bragging about in their marketing materials: that the cameras have backwards compatibility, but not the half-assed "compatibility" used since 2004 (which is a bloody shame), but FULL compatibility. Otherwise I'm afraid there's indeed no place for a Pentax FF camera, being a "me too" product which will fail just like the Sony A900.
Supporting millions of cheap lenses out there is not a strength of the Pentax system - Nikon has more old lenses out there, for cheaper, and with fuller support - just turn that aperture ring and the body will detect the aperture (well, after setting a wide open aperture on the body). No need to press that green button crap.

Does it hurt Nikon in new lens sales? Certainly. But clearly they understand what attract users - their AF is so good that there's a compelling reason to upgrade from MF lenses.
05-25-2010, 07:49 AM   #228
Pentaxian




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Perth Australia
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,511
i wouldn't be interested in a full frame body from Pentax anymore because of the simple fact that the DA limited lens system is so very very very good.

full frame does not really give you much except for a different crop factor and maybe one stop advantage in light sensitivity. That advantage stop existing after 18 months of technology change anyway, just look at the Kx's sensor capabilities. Id rather upgrade my crop body twice as often than have full frame.
05-25-2010, 07:49 AM   #229
Pentaxian
Asahiflex's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Netherlands
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,753
QuoteOriginally posted by wolfier Quote
Supporting millions of cheap lenses out there is not a strength of the Pentax system - Nikon has more old lenses out there, for cheaper, and with fuller support - just turn that aperture ring and the body will detect the aperture (well, after setting a wide open aperture on the body). No need to press that green button crap.
Have fun mounting a pre-AI lens then. You simply can't, unless you have hem AI'd. And on cameras like the D90 you don't even have metering. So long for the 'fuller support'.

05-25-2010, 08:00 AM   #230
Veteran Member
philippe's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Flanders Fields
Posts: 463
QuoteOriginally posted by WerTicus Quote
i wouldn't be interested in a full frame body from Pentax anymore because of the simple fact that the DA limited lens system is so very very very good.

full frame does not really give you much except for a different crop factor and maybe one stop advantage in light sensitivity. That advantage stop existing after 18 months of technology change anyway, just look at the Kx's sensor capabilities. Id rather upgrade my crop body twice as often than have full frame.
agreed
05-25-2010, 08:44 AM   #231
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Romania
Posts: 8,426
QuoteOriginally posted by Asahiflex Quote
Maybe, but then there should be lenses available in the first place. There hasn't been a new lens for ages (apart from the FF DA 100 Macro WR) so there's not much to choose from.

BTW, the days that those lenses were $20 are long over. If you find a SMC Pentax 15mm f/3.5 or 28mm f/2 or 18mm or... etc. etc. then please drop me a note! Most old Pentax prime lenses are currently worth more than many new lenses from different manufacturers. And that's for a reason, because Pentax does not have any new ones for sale.

And I thought Pentax wanted to be a quality brand, finding its own niche. If Leica can do it for much, much more money (Leica M9 accepts all old lenses) then surely Pentax can do that for a little less
Of course they should; that's the general idea. Who says they can't launch the camera with 2-3 lenses? The FA Limiteds, DFAs and the few DAs that can cover FF would do the trick, until they can complete the lens range. IMO that's the only way to do it.

Well, if there is demand but there are no such lenses on the market, the logical response is to launch such new lenses - not to do nothing (as you're suggesting). I wouldn't want to have to explain to the customers that the only ultrawide is a decade old, under-performing, manual focus 15mm f/3.5 that can sometimes be found on e-bay for outrageous prices - but it's ok, since they can use open-aperture metering

Again, you're confusing Pentax for Leica. I'm not sure Leica fans are complaining as much as Pentaxians, about the pricing

I'm not necessarily interested in a FF (but I could be tempted by one, if else for a much better viewfinder), and I certainly don't need one. But I still think they should make one, if and only if they can sell it and make a profit.
In fact I'm waiting for the K-7's successor, I'm sure it will be a fantastic camera.

Last edited by Kunzite; 05-25-2010 at 08:52 AM.
05-25-2010, 09:03 AM   #232
ogl
Pentaxian
ogl's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Siberia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 7,114
QuoteOriginally posted by Kunzite Quote
Of course they should; that's the general idea. Who says they can't launch the camera with 2-3 lenses? The FA Limiteds, DFAs and the few DAs that can cover FF would do the trick, until they can complete the lens range. IMO that's the only way to do it.
.
Oh...You know something...
05-25-2010, 09:23 AM   #233
Veteran Member
MrPetkus's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Long Island, NY
Posts: 388
Look - I don't want to agitate the waters and create a flame war but...

Without debating the merits of a Pentax FF offering (of which there are many) I am genuinely curious why those who:
A) Are doubtful and pessimistic of the future viability of Pentax
B) Are willing to pay a premium for a FF Pentax
C) Are willing to purchase a complete set of new FF lenses for this new FF Pentax
D) Professionally require FF
E) Obsess over a FF offering, posting forceful diatribes on multiple threads within this forum each and every day

Why not simply purchase one of the perfectly capable FF cameras available right now on the market from Nikon or Canon? Certainly the well-known cost disadvantages of Canon and Nikon glass won't be an issue for those willing to pay a premium for a boutique Pentax FF. For those who pine for an inexpensive Pentax FF, why not purchase the Sony A900? There are some nice lenses out for that model including offerings from Zeiss.

Is it unwavering brand loyalty? A hatred for Canikon? Both?

Personally I don't require a FF camera but if I did I would have no problems purchasing an existing FF. I also knew when I bought into Pentax digital that the company stood out above all others for having dedicated themselves to the APS-C format with the best dedicated APS-C prime lenses on the market.

05-25-2010, 09:34 AM   #234
Veteran Member
WMBP's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Dallas, Texas
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,496
QuoteOriginally posted by WerTicus Quote
i wouldn't be interested in a full frame body from Pentax anymore because of the simple fact that the DA limited lens system is so very very very good.

full frame does not really give you much except for a different crop factor and maybe one stop advantage in light sensitivity. That advantage stop existing after 18 months of technology change anyway, just look at the Kx's sensor capabilities. Id rather upgrade my crop body twice as often than have full frame.

I agree with this completely.

I'm still baffled about the allure of "full frame." I mean, I'm utterly baffled. I hear everybody going on about the absolute necessity of Pentax releasing a "full frame" camera, without it Pentax will die a horrible death, etc. I just don't understand it.


Get rid of the term "full frame"

Try this little experiment. Get rid of the term "full frame." Purge this term and its acronym "FF" from your vocabulary. We really ought to, anyway. It's a misleading and prejudicial term. I gather the terms "full-frame" and "half-frame" go way back into film and movie photography. And in any case, calling the 5D MkII or the D700 or D3 "full frame" seems to imply that my Pentax cameras are "less than" full frame, in other words, somehow inadequate. This is silly, bordering on absurd. I keep pointing out that if sensor size is really the end-all and be-all, why don't all "serious" pros shoot medium format?

Let's instead talk about the 36x24 sensor and the APS-C sensor. And let's recognize that, as of today, the APS-C actually is the standard. The 36x24 sensor cameras are somewhere in between standard and medium format.


36x24 vs APS-C

Anyway, what is so special about the 36x24 sensor? NOTHING.

I'm not saying that 36x24 doesn't have some advantages. It does and I'm aware of them:
  1. Possibility of shallower depth of field, other things being equal.
  2. Possibility of less noisy shots in low-light, high-ISO shooting conditions.
  3. Possibly higher dynamic range in high-contrast shooting conditions

Nice set of advantages and I would not mind having all of these advantages myself. But they are all incremental or comparative advantages, not absolute advantages. Interchangeable lens cameras (including DEVIL/EVIL bodies) have an absolute advantage over fixed-lens cameras. But 36x24 has no absolute advantages over APS-C, and no advantages that you don't get in spades with medium format (at least none I can think of).

And now that we've had almost a decade of APS-C as the standard, well, what APS-C can do has defined what is "good enough" for most pros. Using the right lens, and using my camera properly, I am already able to take a portrait photo in which the subject's eyes are tack-sharp and her ears are slightly blurred. Actually I can slice the depth of field thinner than that. The argument that I could slice it thinner with a D3s interests me, but is not compelling.

And of course 36x24 cameras have their disadvantages, too, as every camera format does. They're necessarily bigger. The bodies are more expensive and they seem to demand even more expensive lenses. The bodies will always be bigger, and I suspect they will always be more expensive. The only way 36x24 becomes CHEAPER than APS-C is if 36x24 somehow takes over the market so that 95% of the interchangeable-lens bodies being sold are 36x24 and APS-C (and micro-4/3, etc) become niche products. Don't see that happening.

With my current Pentax APS-C cameras, I can take photos and make large prints that nobody in the world could tell were not taken with a full-frame camera. Yes, if I'm shooting in a badly lit church, I do kind of wish that the results I got at ISO 2000 were cleaner. But I sell a fair number of prints of photos taken with a K20D at ISO 2000 (I seldom go higher than that).


Price

Say Pentax releases a 36x24 body for about $1500. I'll be happy, I guess, but not because I'll run out and buy one. I'll be happy because the price of the K-7 (or its APS-C successor) will come down to where I can't afford NOT to pick one up. If the D700's price drops close to $1500, the D300's price will drop close to $1000.

And then I'm switching to Nikon. :-)

Will
05-25-2010, 10:53 AM   #235
Senior Member




Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Michigan
Posts: 176
These discussions always get progressively more intense...

My thoughts are:

For the money, I can take a better picture with my K20d and 50-135 than if I had a D700 and NO 70-200 due to cost. The fact that the quality aps-c lenses from Pentax are so much cheaper than the FF offerings from Nikon allows me to fund my LBA and actually HAVE multiple zooms and primes.

Yes, FF and a D700 would be nice, but the cost to re-buy all FF glass... hell, that's a small car.

I think the thing that people seem to overlook is that Pentax will make new bodies... People act like the k7 is the last thing that will ever be made. The issues of AF and high ISO... how will these NOT be improved in the future? I think the "value" of the pentax system warrants a little patience. If you want FF right now, pay twice the price, and carry the extra weight, the products are out there and available right now.

When I think of the cost of a D700 body, I think "hey, that's not that bad". It's the cost of a 24-70, a 70-200, a 12-24, that really make you think.

Walking around with that Nikon 70-200... it's huge, most people in public see that and want to run for their lives, lol.

Anyways, that ends my semi-rant
05-25-2010, 12:41 PM   #236
Pentaxian
johnmflores's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Somerville, NJ
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,006
Wow this thread just won't die. Amazing. To give it some added life maybe we should talk about Mac/PC as well!

If you haven't seen it, there's a survey in the Pentax dSLR section where I ask people to choose between FF and improved APS-C. Take a look. And vote if you haven't already...
05-25-2010, 08:48 PM   #237
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: CT, USA
Posts: 499
QuoteOriginally posted by WMBP Quote
Try this little experiment. Get rid of the term "full frame." Purge this term and its acronym "FF" from your vocabulary. We really ought to, anyway. It's a misleading and prejudicial term. I gather the terms "full-frame" and "half-frame" go way back into film and movie photography. And in any case, calling the 5D MkII or the D700 or D3 "full frame" seems to imply that my Pentax cameras are "less than" full frame, in other words, somehow inadequate. This is silly, bordering on absurd. I keep pointing out that if sensor size is really the end-all and be-all, why don't all "serious" pros shoot medium format?Will
There's nothing misleading about the term "Full Frame" at all, since APS-C dSLRs are nothing more than 35mm format cameras with undersized sensors. If they made a purpose-built APS-C system specifically designed around the APS-C format, with a lens mount and register distance designed specifically for APS-C, then it might make sense to argue that it shouldn't be compared with FF 35mm. But no camera maker did that (and the even smaller variant where Olympus tried it certainly didn't set the world on fire, because like every other smaller-than-35mm format attempted over the years, it falls short on image quality compared with the 35mm format and fails to deliver any significant size/weight reduction), because they knew that backward compatibility with the 35mm format was the only way to hang onto their customer bases. APS-C was a compromise dictated by sensor costs, but the need for that compromise is quickly fading as FF sensor fabrication technology and costs improve. As FF prices continue to fall, the FF market share will continue to rise. APS-C will remain the "standard" no more than film did when APS-C dSLRs first hit the market at prices that look an awful lot like top-tier FF prices do now. Might as well give up your anti-35mm Full Frame format crusade, because more FF dSLRs are coming, whether you like it or not!

Try looking at it this way - would you buy a 645D with a 24x36 sensor in it to use with your 645 glass (assuming you had 645 film equipment)? That's basically what you think long-time Pentax 35mm users should "settle for" with "less than half frame" APS-C sensors in 35mm sized equipment. My K Mount glass doesn't get any smaller or lighter when I mount it on an APS-C dSLR, but the viewfinder sure does suck!
05-25-2010, 08:55 PM   #238
Senior Member




Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 125
QuoteOriginally posted by Asahiflex Quote
Have fun mounting a pre-AI lens then. You simply can't, unless you have hem AI'd.
Pre-AI is not needed.

AI lenses date back to 1977. K-mount was created in 1975.
I'd take 33 years of directly controllable lenses over 35 years of green-button-controllable lenses any day.

Plus, as of year 2000, there were still AIS lenses still in production, while KA/KM lenses have gone out of production for years.

QuoteQuote:
And on cameras like the D90 you don't even have metering. So long for the 'fuller support'.
Fuller support at least on flagships (the single digit D) and numerous less than flagship cameras, such as a Dx00. I wished Pentax added the aperture coupler for *one* camera only, the flagship - it never happened.
05-25-2010, 09:11 PM   #239
Senior Member




Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 125
QuoteOriginally posted by WMBP Quote
Get rid of the term "full frame"

Try this little experiment. Get rid of the term "full frame." Purge this term and its acronym "FF" from your vocabulary. We really ought to, anyway. It's a misleading and prejudicial term. I gather the terms "full-frame" and "half-frame" go way back into film and movie photography. And in any case, calling the 5D MkII or the D700 or D3 "full frame" seems to imply that my Pentax cameras are "less than" full frame, in other words, somehow inadequate. This is silly, bordering on absurd. I keep pointing out that if sensor size is really the end-all and be-all, why don't all "serious" pros shoot medium format?
You can't, unless all of your lenses are APS-C lenses. Any 35mm lens that you use on an APS-C body, you're wasting some money buying portion of the lens you are not able to use.

QuoteQuote:
Let's instead talk about the 36x24 sensor and the APS-C sensor. And let's recognize that, as of today, the APS-C actually is the standard. The 36x24 sensor cameras are somewhere in between standard and medium format.
Medium format is not a standard, not by any measure. I'd say currently the standards are APS-C and 36x24.

QuoteQuote:
36x24 vs APS-C

Anyway, what is so special about the 36x24 sensor? NOTHING.
Again, it means nothing only if none of your lenses are from the film era.

QuoteQuote:
I'm not saying that 36x24 doesn't have some advantages. It does and I'm aware of them:
  1. Possibility of shallower depth of field, other things being equal.
  2. Possibility of less noisy shots in low-light, high-ISO shooting conditions.
  3. Possibly higher dynamic range in high-contrast shooting conditions

Nice set of advantages and I would not mind having all of these advantages myself. But they are all incremental or comparative advantages, not absolute advantages. Interchangeable lens cameras (including DEVIL/EVIL bodies) have an absolute advantage over fixed-lens cameras. But 36x24 has no absolute advantages over APS-C, and no advantages that you don't get in spades with medium format (at least none I can think of).
Advantage is advantage - all advantages are comparative advantages, and all comparative advantages are advantages. There is no such a thing called "absolute" advantage in the world. So just call it advantage.

QuoteQuote:
And now that we've had almost a decade of APS-C as the standard, well, what APS-C can do has defined what is "good enough" for most pros. Using the right lens, and using my camera properly, I am already able to take a portrait photo in which the subject's eyes are tack-sharp and her ears are slightly blurred. Actually I can slice the depth of field thinner than that. The argument that I could slice it thinner with a D3s interests me, but is not compelling.
Most of the time, amateurs want to do more than what pros do, so judging on what the general public need by what the pros do is not usually the right thing to do. For example, wealthy members of the general public usually pay for the most expensive lenses they can afford, while pros usually go for the cheapest reliable gear for the job.

QuoteQuote:
And of course 36x24 cameras have their disadvantages, too, as every camera format does. They're necessarily bigger. The bodies are more expensive and they seem to demand even more expensive lenses. The bodies will always be bigger, and I suspect they will always be more expensive. The only way 36x24 becomes CHEAPER than APS-C is if 36x24 somehow takes over the market so that 95% of the interchangeable-lens bodies being sold are 36x24 and APS-C (and micro-4/3, etc) become niche products. Don't see that happening.
36x24 does not demand more expensive lenses - it is a myth. The bodies are bigger, but lenses that are need to achieve the same composition as APS-C bodies can be smaller and cheaper. For example, what you usually need a f/2.8 lens on an APS-C body for, on 24x36 the same can be achieved with an f/4 lens, most likely a smaller and cheaper one at that. So the system weight and price balance out. Plus, if you decide to pay for faster and heavier glass, 24x36 gives you the option to. With APS-C there's no such option.

The APS-C format has some advantages, though - size-wise, it's achieved when you mount small primes such as pancakes on them. It also lets you fill the frame fuller with macros or provide you with higher resolution than if you crop a 24x36 image.

QuoteQuote:
With my current Pentax APS-C cameras, I can take photos and make large prints that nobody in the world could tell were not taken with a full-frame camera. Yes, if I'm shooting in a badly lit church, I do kind of wish that the results I got at ISO 2000 were cleaner. But I sell a fair number of prints of photos taken with a K20D at ISO 2000 (I seldom go higher than that).


Price

Say Pentax releases a 36x24 body for about $1500. I'll be happy, I guess, but not because I'll run out and buy one. I'll be happy because the price of the K-7 (or its APS-C successor) will come down to where I can't afford NOT to pick one up. If the D700's price drops close to $1500, the D300's price will drop close to $1000.

And then I'm switching to Nikon. :-)

Will
Right now I have switched Nikon for its 36x24 solution. However, when it is affordable for Pentax to do so again, I suspect I'll be among the first to jump back. I just like Pentax ergonomics better.
05-25-2010, 10:37 PM   #240
Veteran Member
philippe's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Flanders Fields
Posts: 463
QuoteOriginally posted by MrPetkus Quote
... I also knew when I bought into Pentax digital that the company stood out above all others for having dedicated themselves to the APS-C format with the best dedicated APS-C prime lenses on the market.
Well said, MrPetkus,
Al last, I do not feel like crying in the desert any more!
Now, it is waiting for dessert...
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
k7, pentax news, pentax rumors
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
For Sale - Sold: Pentax Flagship Camera SF1 SF-1 Body with Body Cap, Battery, and Original Manu yyyzzz Sold Items 6 03-15-2010 11:54 PM
For Sale - Sold: Pentax F 70-210mm 4-5.6 and Pentax F 35-70mm 3.5-4.5 Macro and SF1 camera Body jjdgti Sold Items 5 12-30-2009 12:25 PM
For Sale - Sold: FS: Pentax SF7-body / AF400FTZ / 3 Pentax-F lenses / GENUINE Pentax-accessori frederik9111 Sold Items 7 03-23-2008 03:00 PM
For Sale - Sold: FS: Pentax K1000 (Body only)+body cap+leather case+ strap Not Registered Sold Items 3 11-02-2007 07:51 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:07 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top