New Pentax body?

Lance B · 05-12-2010, 11:21 PM

Originally posted by WMBP

This is, I think, critical.

Absolute image quality isn't everything, and once a camera can take "extraordinarily good" photos, people like me who think of cameras as tools to make money aren't going to go out and spend a ton of money for an improvement in image quality that is so small you have to view images at 100% to see it.

The advantage of FF over APS C is more than just IQ at base ISO, it will be the advantage of using a faster shutter speed at a higher ISO for the same IQ. This is where the advantages really take hold and are quanitifiable.

Quote:

If absolute image quality were all that mattered, nobody would be using full-frame cameras: they'd all be buying medium format digital cameras.

If they could make a MF camera the same size and price as an APS C camera, then we would all be using one, although I doubt we will see one that small. A MF camera gives at least a 2 stop advantage over the best APS C cameras for the same IQ and therefore this is very important to low light photography especially where fast moving kids/animals etc in the golden hour before dusk and after dawn.

Lance B · 05-12-2010, 11:32 PM

Originally posted by nosnoop

I don't agree with this view, as consumer's demand dictates how well the camera would sell.

No, just look at the Mp race and see my reasoning below.

Quote:

But that's the whole point, it will NOT be equal! No matter how much price drop FF has, APS-C will ALWAYS be cheaper. The price gap may narrow somewhat, but the gap would still be very significant in the foreseeable future.

But, advanced amateurs/semi pros etc don't buy down to a price, they have an amount that they want to spend and get the best they can for that money and that price point is about US$1,500-$1,600 at the moment. This is where the D300s and 7D are aimed squarely at and are selling well. If the people with this sort of money to spend were offered a FF camera for the same price as the current price 7D/D300s or they could buy a FF camera with the same specs, do you really think they would opt for the APS C version? These are people who after the best IQ for their money at this price point and if a FF camera was offered at this level, then they wouldn't be able to keep up with demand.

What will happen is that there will be a flow on effect down the model range and therefore a high end APS C (today) will then be in the price bracket of those with "only" $1,000 to spend and so on down the line.

It is no different to buying a car. Let's say that cars are priced like this:
V6's at $35,000
V8's at $40,000

You want a V8, but can only afford a V6. Then, a car company offers a V8 for $35,000 with all the same features and the same price as a V6, but also offers a V6 at $30,000, you are still going to buy the V8 because it is "better" and not the V6 even though you can still save $5,000. This is because you have decided on a price that you want to spend and you also get what you want.

Now, there are people who will jump at the chance to get the cheaper V6, but these people are more than likely only buying on price and not enthusiasts and probably would have gone for the cheaper 4cylinder anyway until the V6 came into their price bracket.

Don't start about fuel economy etc of the V8 as that is not the discussion. The example is still relevent.

Angevinn · 05-13-2010, 12:06 AM

Originally posted by WMBP

...If absolute image quality were all that mattered, nobody would be using full-frame cameras: they'd all be buying medium format digital cameras.

Medium format cameras do have advantages but they are a lot to lug around. A photographer can comfortably carry a FF DSLR around their neck and be very mobile with it. I could not lug around a MF camera and lenses all day, that's too much. Try hiking, cycling, climbing, etc. the bulk of MF becomes even more of a hindrance.

No camera format is absolutely perfect. MF does have some advantages, but 24x36 (FF) has been around for a long time for a number of good reasons. Image quality for the size is one, portability, is another, etc.

I'm really looking forward to a Pentax FF DSLR and new D-FA lenses!

thibs · 05-13-2010, 01:19 AM

Originally posted by Lance B

True, but the same advantages applied to APS C sensors to better the IQ can be applied to FF making the difference the same once again. The laws of physics stipulate that the advantages will always be there, so if APS C looks good at ISO 3200, then FF will look good at say, ISO5000 which will be great for capturing low light fast moving images.

I can guarantee that entry level cameras will still be small, like the K-7, because there is a market that dictates that size of camera. In fact, the APS C sensored camera will still be very much used for the foreseeable future, IMO.

Agreed to everything written here but let's keep something in mind, if the reasoning is correct (IMO) the details (effective sizes... APS vs FF etc) are valid mainly because this dicussion occurs now.
What I mean:

* A couple years ago, people moaned because Sony 6Mpix CCD ->Sony 10Mpix CCD was a noisy transitionand those pixels added were mostly useless anyway. Some still say the same now about 14Mpix and more but who'd want to go back to 6Mpix ?

* The current sensors are LESS noisy or equal than old 6Mpix Sony CCD. Who would have bet on that? The point is tech continuously gets better at a given sensor size. One (Lance for sure

)will say that those improvements will drive FF better too. This is very true but again, it is not a generality. MF sensors are crap from a high Iso perspective but for how long?

* All this (sensors sizes and performance) depends a lot where the market will go IMO. Clearly, it leans to FF for advanced cameras. But I wouldn't predict anything else. Will 4/3-like sensors match and basicaly "eat" APS-C sensors? Will FF match MF sensors? There's no only physics here, but also where are the investments done. If there's not much more MF investments and FF receives large investments, MF market may almost disappear... This is also a possibility.
Well you get my point IMO ...

JTninja · 05-13-2010, 02:07 AM

Hopefully we'll hear something soon enough...

Originally posted by Lance B

It is no different to buying a car. Let's say that cars are priced like this:
V6's at $35,000
V8's at $40,000

2011 Ford Mustang 5.0 GT (V8) - 412hp - $30,000

mattdm · 05-13-2010, 03:25 AM

Originally posted by Lance B

True, but the same advantages applied to APS C sensors to better the IQ can be applied to FF making the difference the same once again. The laws of physics stipulate that the advantages will always be there, so if APS C looks good at ISO 3200, then FF will look good at say, ISO5000 which will be great for capturing low light fast moving images.

Sure, but there's a point at which you say "ISO 51200 vs. ISO 102400.... eh, whatever". Plus, it doesn't necessarily work quite like that — there are other factors involved in noise which don't scale linearly with size. So, at this point, when the difference is, on an arbitrary scale, ★★ vs ★★★, it's a big deal. But when it's ★★★★★ vs ★★★★★★ at high ISO and ★★★★★★★ vs ★★★★★★★ at low ISO?

Originally posted by Lance B

I can guarantee that entry level cameras will still be small, like the K-7, because there is a market that dictates that size of camera. In fact, the APS C sensored camera will still be very much used for the foreseeable future, IMO.

That is exactly what I am afraid of. I don't want an "entry level" camera. I want a K-7 level camera. Maybe a bit more, even. I don't care if it's full-frame, but I do care very much about the form factor.

mattdm · 05-13-2010, 03:35 AM

Originally posted by Lance B

It is no different to buying a car. Let's say that cars are priced like this:
V6's at $35,000
V8's at $40,000

You want a V8, but can only afford a V6. Then, a car company offers a V8 for $35,000 with all the same features and the same price as a V6, but also offers a V6 at $30,000, you are still going to buy the V8 because it is "better" and not the V6 even though you can still save $5,000. This is because you have decided on a price that you want to spend and you also get what you want.

Now, there are people who will jump at the chance to get the cheaper V6, but these people are more than likely only buying on price and not enthusiasts and probably would have gone for the cheaper 4cylinder anyway until the V6 came into their price bracket.

Don't start about fuel economy etc of the V8 as that is not the discussion. The example is still relevent.

I agree very much with your example, but it reminds me of another one which demonstrates my fear for the K-7 (and the D300s and etc.). If you a reservation at a car rental place for a small, fuel-efficient car, you'll get a "budget" car. Then, when you actually get to the lot, 90% of the time, they're out of that class of car, and they say "Fortunately, we've given you a free upgrade to a premium car! Here's your Jeep Grand Cherokee! Lucky you!"

$#☆$%*☠&!!!

**Pål Jensen** · 05-13-2010, 05:24 AM

Originally posted by Angevinn

Medium format cameras do have advantages but they are a lot to lug around. A photographer can comfortably carry a FF DSLR around their neck and be very mobile with it. I could not lug around a MF camera and lenses all day, that's too much. Try hiking, cycling, climbing, etc. the bulk of MF becomes even more of a hindrance.

Huh?? The Pentax 645D is about the same size and weight as the Nikon and Canon professional FF cameras. The lenses are similar in size to canon L-lenses....

eigelb · 05-13-2010, 05:48 AM

Originally posted by Pål Jensen

Huh?? The Pentax 645D is about the same size and weight as the Nikon and Canon professional FF cameras. The lenses are similar in size to canon L-lenses....

???

Leica M8 : 139 x 80 x 37 mm 591 g
Canon 5d MarkII: 152 x 114 x 75 mm 920 g
DSLR-A900 : 156 x 117 x 82 mm 939 g
Nikon D700 : 147 x 123 x 77 mm 1,095 g
Nikon D3x : 160 x 157 x 88 mm 1,220 g
1D Mark IV : 156 x 157 x 80 mm 1,390 g
Pentax 645D : 156 x 117 x 119mm 1480 g

thibs · 05-13-2010, 05:51 AM

5Dmk2 or D700 aren't anywhere near pro FF camera.

Its (645D) weight and dimensions is indeed comparable to D3X/1Dmk4, like it or not and doing so it provides a 1.5X bigger sensor.

awo425 · 05-13-2010, 09:08 AM

Originally posted by thibs

5Dmk2 or D700 aren't anywhere near pro FF camera.

Its (645D) weight and dimensions is indeed comparable to D3X/1Dmk4, like it or not and doing so it provides a 1.5X bigger sensor.

D700 is, doesn't matter what magazines are saying about it. I have a friend who is a pro fotog, traveling all around the globe. His cameras are 2xD700 and Leica.
According to him D700 handle stress, moisture, extremely low temperatures in high altitude environment and hi temperatures in desert. He is one of the early adopters, he never had an issues with D700 in 2 years and never missed a shot.
He got his Leica froze and stop working and D700 still taking pictures. Now if this is not a qualities of a pro camera, then what is? Size and weight?

Angevinn · 05-13-2010, 09:31 AM

I'd consider the D700 professional grade also. I didn't realize that the Pentax 645D was so light weight. That's another strong selling point for the Pentax system!

Originally posted by awo425

D700 is, doesn't matter what magazines are saying about it. I have a friend who is a pro fotog, traveling all around the globe. His cameras are 2xD700 and Leica.
According to him D700 handle stress, moisture, extremely low temperatures in high altitude environment and hi temperatures in desert. He is one of the early adopters, he never had an issues with D700 in 2 years and never missed a shot.
He got his Leica froze and stop working and D700 still taking pictures. Now if this is not a qualities of a pro camera I what is? Size and weight?

MMVIII · 05-13-2010, 10:48 AM

Quote:

eigelb: ???

Leica M8 : 139 x 80 x 37 mm 591 g
Canon 5d MarkII: 152 x 114 x 75 mm 920 g
DSLR-A900 : 156 x 117 x 82 mm 939 g
Nikon D700 : 147 x 123 x 77 mm 1,095 g
Nikon D3x : 160 x 157 x 88 mm 1,220 g
1D Mark IV : 156 x 157 x 80 mm 1,390 g
Pentax 645D : 156 x 117 x 119mm 1480 g

Thanks for the data. I would say this does support Pal's statement quite well.

F. e.
the combination 645D + 75/2,8: 156 x 117 x 157,5 mm 1.695 g
vs. a combination D3x + 50/1,4: 160 x 157 x 120,5 mm 1.450 g

shows that the one is higher while the other one is longer; while the length is of course dependent on the lens attached.

thibs · 05-13-2010, 12:40 PM

Well, D700 is nothing but a D300 with FF sensor, so the D300 must be considered as PRO as well.
Secondly, if you consider the real use to label a camera as pro or not, almost any camera is a pro camera and the K-7 certainly is then IMO.

deadwolfbones · 05-13-2010, 01:04 PM

Originally posted by thibs

Well, D700 is nothing but a D300 with FF sensor, so the D300 must be considered as PRO as well.
Secondly, if you consider the real use to label a camera as pro or not, almost any camera is a pro camera and the K-7 certainly is then IMO.

If a camera is capable of being used by a pro for pro work, it's a pro camera. QED.

05-12-2010, 11:32 PM	#77
Lance B Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Sydney, Australia Photos: Gallery Posts: 593	Originally posted by nosnoop I don't agree with this view, as consumer's demand dictates how well the camera would sell. No, just look at the Mp race and see my reasoning below. Quote: But that's the whole point, it will NOT be equal! No matter how much price drop FF has, APS-C will ALWAYS be cheaper. The price gap may narrow somewhat, but the gap would still be very significant in the foreseeable future. But, advanced amateurs/semi pros etc don't buy down to a price, they have an amount that they want to spend and get the best they can for that money and that price point is about US$1,500-$1,600 at the moment. This is where the D300s and 7D are aimed squarely at and are selling well. If the people with this sort of money to spend were offered a FF camera for the same price as the current price 7D/D300s or they could buy a FF camera with the same specs, do you really think they would opt for the APS C version? These are people who after the best IQ for their money at this price point and if a FF camera was offered at this level, then they wouldn't be able to keep up with demand. What will happen is that there will be a flow on effect down the model range and therefore a high end APS C (today) will then be in the price bracket of those with "only" $1,000 to spend and so on down the line. It is no different to buying a car. Let's say that cars are priced like this: V6's at $35,000 V8's at $40,000 You want a V8, but can only afford a V6. Then, a car company offers a V8 for $35,000 with all the same features and the same price as a V6, but also offers a V6 at $30,000, you are still going to buy the V8 because it is "better" and not the V6 even though you can still save $5,000. This is because you have decided on a price that you want to spend and you also get what you want. Now, there are people who will jump at the chance to get the cheaper V6, but these people are more than likely only buying on price and not enthusiasts and probably would have gone for the cheaper 4cylinder anyway until the V6 came into their price bracket. Don't start about fuel economy etc of the V8 as that is not the discussion. The example is still relevent. Last edited by Lance B; 05-12-2010 at 11:44 PM.

05-13-2010, 05:48 AM	#84
eigelb Inactive Account Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Italy Posts: 174	Originally posted by Pål Jensen Huh?? The Pentax 645D is about the same size and weight as the Nikon and Canon professional FF cameras. The lenses are similar in size to canon L-lenses.... ??? Leica M8 : 139 x 80 x 37 mm 591 g Canon 5d MarkII: 152 x 114 x 75 mm 920 g DSLR-A900 : 156 x 117 x 82 mm 939 g Nikon D700 : 147 x 123 x 77 mm 1,095 g Nikon D3x : 160 x 157 x 88 mm 1,220 g 1D Mark IV : 156 x 157 x 80 mm 1,390 g Pentax 645D : 156 x 117 x 119mm 1480 g Last edited by eigelb; 05-13-2010 at 06:22 AM.

05-13-2010, 09:08 AM	#86
awo425 Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: NYC, USA Posts: 481	Originally posted by thibs 5Dmk2 or D700 aren't anywhere near pro FF camera. Its (645D) weight and dimensions is indeed comparable to D3X/1Dmk4, like it or not and doing so it provides a 1.5X bigger sensor. D700 is, doesn't matter what magazines are saying about it. I have a friend who is a pro fotog, traveling all around the globe. His cameras are 2xD700 and Leica. According to him D700 handle stress, moisture, extremely low temperatures in high altitude environment and hi temperatures in desert. He is one of the early adopters, he never had an issues with D700 in 2 years and never missed a shot. He got his Leica froze and stop working and D700 still taking pictures. Now if this is not a qualities of a pro camera, then what is? Size and weight? Last edited by awo425; 05-13-2010 at 10:57 AM.

05-13-2010, 09:31 AM	#87
Angevinn Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Chicago, Ill. Posts: 204	D700 & 645d I'd consider the D700 professional grade also. I didn't realize that the Pentax 645D was so light weight. That's another strong selling point for the Pentax system! Originally posted by awo425 D700 is, doesn't matter what magazines are saying about it. I have a friend who is a pro fotog, traveling all around the globe. His cameras are 2xD700 and Leica. According to him D700 handle stress, moisture, extremely low temperatures in high altitude environment and hi temperatures in desert. He is one of the early adopters, he never had an issues with D700 in 2 years and never missed a shot. He got his Leica froze and stop working and D700 still taking pictures. Now if this is not a qualities of a pro camera I what is? Size and weight?

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

05-12-2010, 11:21 PM	#76
Lance B Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Sydney, Australia Photos: Gallery Posts: 593	Originally posted by WMBP This is, I think, critical. Absolute image quality isn't everything, and once a camera can take "extraordinarily good" photos, people like me who think of cameras as tools to make money aren't going to go out and spend a ton of money for an improvement in image quality that is so small you have to view images at 100% to see it. The advantage of FF over APS C is more than just IQ at base ISO, it will be the advantage of using a faster shutter speed at a higher ISO for the same IQ. This is where the advantages really take hold and are quanitifiable. Quote: If absolute image quality were all that mattered, nobody would be using full-frame cameras: they'd all be buying medium format digital cameras. If they could make a MF camera the same size and price as an APS C camera, then we would all be using one, although I doubt we will see one that small. A MF camera gives at least a 2 stop advantage over the best APS C cameras for the same IQ and therefore this is very important to low light photography especially where fast moving kids/animals etc in the golden hour before dusk and after dawn.

05-13-2010, 12:06 AM	#78
Angevinn Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Chicago, Ill. Posts: 204	Originally posted by WMBP ...If absolute image quality were all that mattered, nobody would be using full-frame cameras: they'd all be buying medium format digital cameras. Medium format cameras do have advantages but they are a lot to lug around. A photographer can comfortably carry a FF DSLR around their neck and be very mobile with it. I could not lug around a MF camera and lenses all day, that's too much. Try hiking, cycling, climbing, etc. the bulk of MF becomes even more of a hindrance. No camera format is absolutely perfect. MF does have some advantages, but 24x36 (FF) has been around for a long time for a number of good reasons. Image quality for the size is one, portability, is another, etc. I'm really looking forward to a Pentax FF DSLR and new D-FA lenses!

05-13-2010, 01:19 AM	#79
thibs Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Belgium Photos: Albums Posts: 7,001	Originally posted by Lance B True, but the same advantages applied to APS C sensors to better the IQ can be applied to FF making the difference the same once again. The laws of physics stipulate that the advantages will always be there, so if APS C looks good at ISO 3200, then FF will look good at say, ISO5000 which will be great for capturing low light fast moving images. I can guarantee that entry level cameras will still be small, like the K-7, because there is a market that dictates that size of camera. In fact, the APS C sensored camera will still be very much used for the foreseeable future, IMO. Agreed to everything written here but let's keep something in mind, if the reasoning is correct (IMO) the details (effective sizes... APS vs FF etc) are valid mainly because this dicussion occurs now. What I mean: * A couple years ago, people moaned because Sony 6Mpix CCD ->Sony 10Mpix CCD was a noisy transitionand those pixels added were mostly useless anyway. Some still say the same now about 14Mpix and more but who'd want to go back to 6Mpix ? * The current sensors are LESS noisy or equal than old 6Mpix Sony CCD. Who would have bet on that? The point is tech continuously gets better at a given sensor size. One (Lance for sure )will say that those improvements will drive FF better too. This is very true but again, it is not a generality. MF sensors are crap from a high Iso perspective but for how long? * All this (sensors sizes and performance) depends a lot where the market will go IMO. Clearly, it leans to FF for advanced cameras. But I wouldn't predict anything else. Will 4/3-like sensors match and basicaly "eat" APS-C sensors? Will FF match MF sensors? There's no only physics here, but also where are the investments done. If there's not much more MF investments and FF receives large investments, MF market may almost disappear... This is also a possibility. Well you get my point IMO ...

05-13-2010, 02:07 AM	#80
JTninja Senior Member Join Date: May 2010 Location: WA Photos: Gallery Posts: 176	Hopefully we'll hear something soon enough... Originally posted by Lance B It is no different to buying a car. Let's say that cars are priced like this: V6's at $35,000 V8's at $40,000 2011 Ford Mustang 5.0 GT (V8) - 412hp - $30,000

05-13-2010, 03:25 AM	#81
mattdm Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Boston, MA Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,948	Originally posted by Lance B True, but the same advantages applied to APS C sensors to better the IQ can be applied to FF making the difference the same once again. The laws of physics stipulate that the advantages will always be there, so if APS C looks good at ISO 3200, then FF will look good at say, ISO5000 which will be great for capturing low light fast moving images. Sure, but there's a point at which you say "ISO 51200 vs. ISO 102400.... eh, whatever". Plus, it doesn't necessarily work quite like that — there are other factors involved in noise which don't scale linearly with size. So, at this point, when the difference is, on an arbitrary scale, ★★ vs ★★★, it's a big deal. But when it's ★★★★★ vs ★★★★★★ at high ISO and ★★★★★★★ vs ★★★★★★★ at low ISO? Originally posted by Lance B I can guarantee that entry level cameras will still be small, like the K-7, because there is a market that dictates that size of camera. In fact, the APS C sensored camera will still be very much used for the foreseeable future, IMO. That is exactly what I am afraid of. I don't want an "entry level" camera. I want a K-7 level camera. Maybe a bit more, even. I don't care if it's full-frame, but I do care very much about the form factor.

05-13-2010, 03:35 AM	#82
mattdm Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Boston, MA Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,948	Originally posted by Lance B It is no different to buying a car. Let's say that cars are priced like this: V6's at $35,000 V8's at $40,000 You want a V8, but can only afford a V6. Then, a car company offers a V8 for $35,000 with all the same features and the same price as a V6, but also offers a V6 at $30,000, you are still going to buy the V8 because it is "better" and not the V6 even though you can still save $5,000. This is because you have decided on a price that you want to spend and you also get what you want. Now, there are people who will jump at the chance to get the cheaper V6, but these people are more than likely only buying on price and not enthusiasts and probably would have gone for the cheaper 4cylinder anyway until the V6 came into their price bracket. Don't start about fuel economy etc of the V8 as that is not the discussion. The example is still relevent. I agree very much with your example, but it reminds me of another one which demonstrates my fear for the K-7 (and the D300s and etc.). If you a reservation at a car rental place for a small, fuel-efficient car, you'll get a "budget" car. Then, when you actually get to the lot, 90% of the time, they're out of that class of car, and they say "Fortunately, we've given you a free upgrade to a premium car! Here's your Jeep Grand Cherokee! Lucky you!" $#☆$%*☠&!!!

05-13-2010, 05:24 AM	#83
Pål Jensen Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Norway Photos: Albums Posts: 4,371	Originally posted by Angevinn Medium format cameras do have advantages but they are a lot to lug around. A photographer can comfortably carry a FF DSLR around their neck and be very mobile with it. I could not lug around a MF camera and lenses all day, that's too much. Try hiking, cycling, climbing, etc. the bulk of MF becomes even more of a hindrance. Huh?? The Pentax 645D is about the same size and weight as the Nikon and Canon professional FF cameras. The lenses are similar in size to canon L-lenses....

05-13-2010, 05:51 AM	#85
thibs Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Belgium Photos: Albums Posts: 7,001	5Dmk2 or D700 aren't anywhere near pro FF camera. Its (645D) weight and dimensions is indeed comparable to D3X/1Dmk4, like it or not and doing so it provides a 1.5X bigger sensor.

05-13-2010, 10:48 AM	#88
MMVIII Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: EU Posts: 1,121	Quote: eigelb: ??? Leica M8 : 139 x 80 x 37 mm 591 g Canon 5d MarkII: 152 x 114 x 75 mm 920 g DSLR-A900 : 156 x 117 x 82 mm 939 g Nikon D700 : 147 x 123 x 77 mm 1,095 g Nikon D3x : 160 x 157 x 88 mm 1,220 g 1D Mark IV : 156 x 157 x 80 mm 1,390 g Pentax 645D : 156 x 117 x 119mm 1480 g Thanks for the data. I would say this does support Pal's statement quite well. F. e. the combination 645D + 75/2,8: 156 x 117 x 157,5 mm 1.695 g vs. a combination D3x + 50/1,4: 160 x 157 x 120,5 mm 1.450 g shows that the one is higher while the other one is longer; while the length is of course dependent on the lens attached.

05-13-2010, 12:40 PM	#89
thibs Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Belgium Photos: Albums Posts: 7,001	Well, D700 is nothing but a D300 with FF sensor, so the D300 must be considered as PRO as well. Secondly, if you consider the real use to label a camera as pro or not, almost any camera is a pro camera and the K-7 certainly is then IMO.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-13-2010, 01:04 PM	#90
deadwolfbones Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: La Crescenta, CA Posts: 7,450	Originally posted by thibs Well, D700 is nothing but a D300 with FF sensor, so the D300 must be considered as PRO as well. Secondly, if you consider the real use to label a camera as pro or not, almost any camera is a pro camera and the K-7 certainly is then IMO. If a camera is capable of being used by a pro for pro work, it's a pro camera. QED.