Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
05-27-2010, 03:26 AM   #286
Veteran Member
Asahiflex's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Netherlands
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,754
QuoteOriginally posted by youky63 Quote
Yes, but only with SR into a body of the size of K7!
Who knows... I did notice that from the *ist D on, each body type gradually went deeper (measured from the K-mount to the back). The K-7 is the deepest one so far. Maybe they already "reserved" some space inside

05-27-2010, 03:32 AM   #287
Senior Member




Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Osaka
Posts: 144
It is even bigger than my K20D? It seemed so compact in my hand when I tried it!
At least, I really believe that K7 body is a kind of piece of art and it can make a (good) turn in Pentax design for the next years... They were good before, better than other brands (for my hands), but now it is almost perfect (and seems that 645D use the same kind of very deep handgrip, perfect for people like me keeping the camera in the hand all during the day during shot sessions)
05-27-2010, 03:35 AM   #288
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Romania
Posts: 9,336
Asahiflex, please note that I was mentioning the K-7 and the K-x, not the *istD. And I find it strange to draw your conclusion solely based on the first Pentax DSLR. More so, since all the others have APS-C-sized mirror boxes.
However, this doesn't mean I don't believe a compact "FF" (let's say not much bigger than the K-7) can be made.
05-27-2010, 03:41 AM   #289
Veteran Member
Asahiflex's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Netherlands
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,754
QuoteOriginally posted by Kunzite Quote
Asahiflex, please note that I was mentioning the K-7 and the K-x, not the *istD. And I find it strange to draw your conclusion solely based on the first Pentax DSLR. More so, since all the others have APS-C-sized mirror boxes.
However, this doesn't mean I don't believe a compact "FF" (let's say not much bigger than the K-7) can be made.
In the end, it's the conclusion that counts At least we have the same belief. I just found it remarkable that the *ist D had a FF mirror box. And if the mirror box was the right size in the first place, the step to a FF sensor would not be that big.

05-27-2010, 03:45 AM   #290
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Romania
Posts: 9,336
I think they just re-used existing components (postponing the development of a "properly" sized mirror box for the next model). But a "FF"-sized mirror box doesn't necessarily mean the camera itself had room for a "FF" sensor.
05-27-2010, 03:47 AM   #291
Senior Member




Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Osaka
Posts: 144
QuoteOriginally posted by Kunzite Quote
I think they just re-used existing components (postponing the development of a "properly" sized mirror box for the next model). But a "FF"-sized mirror box doesn't necessarily mean the camera itself had room for a "FF" sensor.
Oh really? So what is missing in your opinion?
05-27-2010, 03:55 AM   #292
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Romania
Posts: 9,336
Nothing is "missing"; the question is if there's enough room for adapting larger components (sensor and viewfinder) instead of the original, smaller ones.
I don't have the answer; do you?

At this point I have to remind you I was arguing against the idea that "APS-C dSLRs still house their sensors in cameras sized for 24x36 sensors" - this means current cameras, like the K-7 and the K-x.
05-27-2010, 03:59 AM   #293
Veteran Member
Asahiflex's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Netherlands
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,754
QuoteOriginally posted by Kunzite Quote
I think they just re-used existing components (postponing the development of a "properly" sized mirror box for the next model). But a "FF"-sized mirror box doesn't necessarily mean the camera itself had room for a "FF" sensor.
Well, based on the photos on this page: Pentax *ist D IR Mod (Enzo's Home) the*ist D did not look very cramped around the sensor. I think... that there was enough room.

05-27-2010, 04:08 AM   #294
Senior Member




Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Osaka
Posts: 144
For what I can see when I open my K20D, a FF sensor can enter more than certainly, but there is not so much the problem. The problem would be to find the room for its SR system. They recently developed a new SR system, so they probably designed it to be the size they need it to be (and nobody today can say what it is).
And about the prism, for sure it will be bigger and will need to rearrange the top of the body, but it must not double the size of the body itself...

So for me, nothing to worry about. And if you want don't believe me, just remember the size of the old film bodies.They were not all build big as a D3 for what I can remember...
05-27-2010, 06:18 AM   #295
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 16,243
There was a really long thread earlier where it was discussed that the high iso advantage of full frame comes only at a loss of depth of field. So the real advantage of full frame is that there is faster glass available (relatively speaking). I didn't understand all of the discussion, but it certainly was interesting to think about.
05-27-2010, 09:20 AM   #296
Forum Member
slocant's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Rio de Janeiro
Posts: 56
But I don't want to increase ISO...

QuoteOriginally posted by wolfier Quote
If you desire a DOF the same as what you get on APS-C, it can be achieved on the 24x36 by stopping down by 1.3 stops and turn up the ISO respectively.

e.g. 50/2.8 on APS-C vs 77/4.4 on 24x36, same shutter time, distance, but while remaining at ISO 400 on the APS-C, turn up ISO to 1000 on the 24x36.

You'll get the same DOF. So, until you use up the aperture stops all the way to f/16 or f/22 on most lenses, you can achieve the whatever APS-C DOF you want on a 24x36.
But what if I don't want to go to ISO 1000, or 2500, etc, and don't want to stop down past f/8 or f/11 (if possible)?

Because smaller apertures and increased ISO take toll on image quality?

Cheers,
05-27-2010, 09:24 AM   #297
Veteran Member
WMBP's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Dallas, Texas
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,496
QuoteOriginally posted by Angevinn Quote
All this curmudgeonry against Fullframe is silly. There are many advantages to the Fullframe format over APS-C.
Goodness. I don't think I'm being "curmudgeonly". I'm certainly not hammering the 36x24 format. If I could justify the expense, I'd own a D3s already. If I could afford it, I'd buy and enjoy using a medium format digital camera. I might even occasionally take a photo with the expensive cameras that was a little better than what I can take with my K20D and my good lenses.

I'm simply trying to argue the position that many serious photographers could continue with APS-C sensors for a good while, taking great photos. I have never denied there are "differences" between cameras. Heck, there are differences between the Nikon D300 and the Pentax K-7 (both APS-C) but those differences apparently don't drive all the serious Pentax photographers to buy D300s.

APS-C was a technical compromise from the get go. So what? 35mm film was a technical compromise, too. But it worked. APS-C has apparently worked very well for almost a decade now.

I watched the video and read the article you linked to. Thanks for the links. But look at the video and read the article yourself, again. Although both photographers are admittedly trying to make the case for 36x24, both are honest enough to acknowledge that comparisons are difficult, that some of the advantages of the 36x24 are less than overwhelming, and that APS-C has some advantages of its own—not the least of which is price. The video grades the two formats in (if I recall) 11 or so different areas. It's a pretty subjective grading system; for example, he gives the viewfinder advantage to full-frame because he finds using a full-frame finder "more enjoyable." Even so, at the end of his video, APS-C and 36x24 are nearly tied—and then he admits that people will weight the various factors differently. Precisely. It's nearly a toss-up on the technical merits. But APS-C continues to enjoy a very significant price advantage: By his own estimates, the full-frame cameras cost THREE TIMES as much as the APS-C cameras. Do they take three times better photos?

The web article uses graphs and charts and numbers. Woof. As soon as a photographer brings out the charts, I know I'm in for some special pleading.


A real test

I really need to find a friend who has a 36x24 camera and go out for a side-by-side shoot. We'll do some morning shots at the lake, some wide angle panos and some telephoto shots of egrets and cormorants. We'll do some early evening shots inside a church. We'll do a studio portrait, too. As much as possible, we'll try to take the same photos, from the same perspectives; but of course we get to use the lenses that are appropriate for our cameras. I think we should occasionally take individual photos that aren't taken by both cameras, just to mix things up a little, so not every photo has a twin in the collection.

In the end, we'll agree to post our photos all together, but not side by side, and without any clues outside the photos themselves about which camera took which pictures. Heck, I'd be willing to go further than that. Let's make good prints, say, at 8" x 10" or 8" x 12". Then we'll let some discerning friends view the images and try to guess which camera took which photos. No microscopes or magnifying glasses allowed. No viewing images on the computer screen at 100%. I'd be willing to bet serious money that nobody could identify, most of the time, which camera took which.


Be different!
As I said, I have no idea what Pentax is thinking. None. So I won't be surprised whatever they do. My personal feeling—if I were king of Pentax—is that the company would do itself a favor by trying to distinguish itself clearly in some area. Adding a 36x24 camera to their line-up will not, in my opinion, do this. Making the best APS-C camera anywhere might. Building their future systems around a collection of awesome, lightweight APS-C optimized primes, would be even better. They need to be DIFFERENT.

There was a time when I thought Pentax was a bit like Apple Computer—a company with a small market share, making outstanding products. Increasingly, alas, I realize that Pentax is more like Dell. A company making pretty good products but staying in the game mainly by being cheaper than the competition. I like my Pentax cameras and I'm writing this on a Dell computer that I like very much too. But I don't mean the comparison as a compliment.

Will
05-27-2010, 09:41 AM   #298
Veteran Member
WMBP's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Dallas, Texas
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,496
QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
There was a really long thread earlier where it was discussed that the high iso advantage of full frame comes only at a loss of depth of field. So the real advantage of full frame is that there is faster glass available (relatively speaking). I didn't understand all of the discussion, but it certainly was interesting to think about.

Rondec,

I've been studiously avoiding a reference to that thread, but since you've brought it up, I can't any longer help myself. Forget the thread (especially since it was very long and I was on the wrong side of the argument for at least half of it). Here's the article that the thread was about:

Equivalence

Once I finally managed to understand it—which I confess took longer that it should have—it changed my view about cameras completely. This article helped me feel MUCH happier sticking with Pentax and APS-C. I had already decided to sell my zooms and start shooting with excellent, fast primes; but this article confirmed me in that plan (which is now accomplished).

NOTE: The article on equivalence absolutely does NOT say that APS-C cameras are as good as full-frame cameras. Nothing like that. What it does say (among many other things) is that comparisons are very, very difficult, and that it is not the case that a bigger sensor simply or inevitably means better photos.

Will
05-27-2010, 10:00 AM   #299
Veteran Member
WMBP's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Dallas, Texas
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,496
QuoteOriginally posted by slocant Quote
But what if I don't want to go to ISO 1000, or 2500, etc, and don't want to stop down past f/8 or f/11 (if possible)?

Because smaller apertures and increased ISO take toll on image quality?
I agree with wolfier here: Getting greater depth of field from a 36x24 camera is not as significant a challenge as slicing the depth of field thinner when you're using an APS-C camera.

If you're shooting 36x24 and want greater depth of field, you simply stop down and/or step back. People seem always to forget the DISTANCE factor in depth of field, not sure why. Perhaps it's because most people use zoom lenses and they don't think about actually moving their butts around. This is what you do on ANY CAMERA.


If you stop down the aperture, you may of course need to compensate either by slowing the shutter and/or increasing the ISO. If for some reason you don't want to do either of those (can't think why you wouldn't, but say you don't), or if you are already shooting at f/8 and you want greater depth of field but, for some reason that I can't possibly imagine, you do NOT want to go to f/11, then you're only option is to step back.

When you step back, your framing changes. If you accept that and are willing to crop in post, then you're done. You've gotten more depth of field simply by moving back. If you move back and then change your focal length to achieve the same composition, well, I think you usually end up with about the same amount of depth of field you had in the first place.


Look, the depth of field advantage goes to 36x24, plain and simple. And medium format beats 36x24.

My only claim is that the advantage, most of the time, is not critically important. The difference in depth of field control between small-sensor point and shoots and APS-C cameras is dramatic; the difference between APS-C and 36x24 is not, unless you have a really heightened sense of drama. I've never seen somebody criticize a photo by saying, "Good shot, but it could have been great if you'd had a centimeter shallower (or deeper) depth of field." IN the markets where all the photographers shoot medium format, perhaps they DO say this sort of thing all the time.

Will
05-27-2010, 02:36 PM   #300
Senior Member




Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 125
QuoteOriginally posted by slocant Quote
But what if I don't want to go to ISO 1000, or 2500, etc, and don't want to stop down past f/8 or f/11 (if possible)?

Because smaller apertures and increased ISO take toll on image quality?

Cheers,
These are valid reasons to not want to increase ISO and not want to stop down, but in doing so, you'll not get a worse image quality than you could otherwise be able to achieve using an APS-C body.

It is because by increasing the ISO, we're simply offsetting the ISO advantage of the 24x36 sensor, and stopping down, by the same token as well because 24x36 has a higher diffraction limit than APS-C with the same amount of MP on the sensor.

At the end, you'll get exactly the same image quality as if you can do on APS-C - i.e. if you want to go deeper and get exactly the same composition as you do on APS-C: FOV, distance, shutter time, you'll *have* to stop down, turn up the ISO, and lose the inherent IQ advantage 24x36 over APS-C.

However, in real life, there are different ways of achieving the same thing if you allow any of FOV/distance/shutter time to change slightly. So you'll have the option to either go shallower/less noise/higher IQ if you want that combination.

I'm not sure if I've explained adequately, but the gist is, FF's main advantage regarding DOF is the option to go shallower, or if you want as deep, fine, but you'll lose the noise and diffraction limit advantages.

Last edited by wolfier; 05-27-2010 at 02:44 PM.
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 09:25 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.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