New Pentax as good as FF?...

Ivan J. Eberle · 05-31-2010, 06:42 AM

"What they need there is a screen that's made with some kind of design for manual focus."

Certain design features do not scale down with formats; for instance, with wide angles it's hard to get sufficient detail for manual focusing whatever the focusing screen.

I agree with the observation that no APS-C viewfinder is likely to ever hold a candle to a well-designed FF one. Viewfinder real estate is also large factor in why some of us prefer medium format cameras like the 645N over 35mm offerings.

Historically, a big bright viewfinder contributed greatly to the reputions other legendary cameras-- notably the Pentax LX.

porterHause · 05-31-2010, 03:30 PM

Quote:

The "super telephoto" is still on the roadmap... In the meantime we have the Sigma zooms and prime 500mm, have you considered these?

Where is this roadmap you mention? I haven't seen a new one since around March 2009.

regor · 05-31-2010, 09:33 PM

Originally posted by JohnBee

I too thought that too, but since the conversation was about my frustrations and need for low light capabilities of the D700, I just don't feel as though the 645D would address such a need. So I'm thinking that he was most likely referencing something specific to that statement(FF or a really good crop sensor type of thing).

Wouldn't that be simpler to ask him if he was referring to the D645 rather than speculating ?

To "blow away" the D700, one would have to greatly increase the Signal-to-Noise ratio. Only three ways to accomplish that:

1. increase the size of the pixels = more photons hence stronger signal (that also means fewer pixels for same sensor size or larger sensor),

2. decrease the noise. Light noise cannot be reduced, it's plain physics. Signal Amplification Noise generated by the electronics can be reduced to a point, but not by an order of magnitude, or

3. improve the effectiveness of the sensor in capturing light, such as the new sensor from Kodak, which increases the sensitivity to light from two to four times as much when compared to digital camera sensors in common use today.

So if I were to speculate, such claim could only be achieved with option 3, but is that really an option ? There's been rumors of Pentax-Hoya and Kodak talking !

Eruditass · 05-31-2010, 10:48 PM

Originally posted by 24X36NOW

More to the point, any APS-C camera will still be stuck with a viewfinder that sucks.

Not necessarily.

Originally posted by Ivan J. Eberle

"What they need there is a screen that's made with some kind of design for manual focus."

Certain design features do not scale down with formats; for instance, with wide angles it's hard to get sufficient detail for manual focusing whatever the focusing screen.

I agree with the observation that no APS-C viewfinder is likely to ever hold a candle to a well-designed FF one. Viewfinder real estate is also large factor in why some of us prefer medium format cameras like the 645N over 35mm offerings.

Historically, a big bright viewfinder contributed greatly to the reputions other legendary cameras-- notably the Pentax LX.

Agreed! See my thread on the upside of a less than great(imo) movement: https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-dslr-discussion/102947-one-evil-mi...advantage.html

WerTicus · 06-01-2010, 02:31 AM

the kx's sensor already out performs the 5d mk1 today... pointless comparison though.

ddhytz · 06-01-2010, 03:20 AM

I actually shoot 50% film now. My next upgrade will have to be a FF digital body, whether it is Pentax or other brands.

eigelb · 06-01-2010, 04:51 AM

Originally posted by WerTicus

the kx's sensor already out performs the 5d mk1 today... pointless comparison though.

I dont think so and its a bit hard to compare this two models. The Kx does RAW (at high iso)and jpg Noisreduction. This are softwaretweeks that the old 5d dont have. I think when you compare 5ds 3200iso RAW files convertet whit some good software they will look a bit better not so fluffy and fuzzy and with more details.

JohnBee · 06-01-2010, 06:02 AM

Originally posted by regor

Wouldn't that be simpler to ask him if he was referring to the D645 rather than speculating ?

I am preparing a response, but I want to avoid sounding petty about it. In the past, I ended-up asking him a series of questions, and he stopped corresponding with me. I suspect he's most likely not interested in small talk, and so I'm trying to avoid doing that again.

rawr · 06-01-2010, 05:47 PM

Originally posted by eigelb

I dont think so and its a bit hard to compare this two models.

It's not that hard at all

:

From
Compare cameras

The K-x does in fact have some sensor advantages over the 5D, which is unsurprising I guess given the age of the 5D.

lithos · 06-01-2010, 10:04 PM

Originally posted by rawr

It's not that hard at all

rawr, you magnificent smartarse! *salutes*

With that "Low-light ISO" bar, is a higher number better or a lower number better?

ogl · 06-01-2010, 10:22 PM

FF low ISO is better

eigelb · 06-02-2010, 01:17 AM

Originally posted by lithos

With that "Low-light ISO" bar, is a higher number better or a lower number better?

higher number is better.

youky63 · 06-02-2010, 01:36 AM

Who really believe in these benchmark results?
They have the same probems than for computer graphic card benchmark: they are true only in THEIR conditions, and especially not in field conditions.
Ask any photographer if he prefer to shoot a wedding with a FF body (5D) or any APS-C body (including Kx), answers will be quick and definitive...
Sure jpeg engine on 5D is old and outperformed by more recent bodies, but still RAW results (especially for DR) are not comparable. And I am saying that while I really really don't like Canon bodies...

**Digitalis** · 06-02-2010, 02:16 AM

I don't trust DxO test results...I find their impartiality questionable.

WerTicus · 06-02-2010, 03:40 AM

I have a Kx and a 5d and i honestly though the Kx was even better than those numbers suggest it is. (over the 5d)

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Please recommend a good multifunction ADF printer with good scanning quality	raider	General Talk	0	01-02-2010 07:03 PM
For Sale - Sold: Pentax F 50mm 1.7 in very good condition with a working Pentax SF1 Free	jjdgti	Sold Items	2	09-11-2009 09:04 AM
For Sale - Sold: Good Condition Pentax LX with FA-1 Finder, Custom Pentax Soft Case	LX60	Sold Items	2	01-07-2009 09:26 PM
Is it good idea if Pentax makes new compact zoom for Pentax K-m	ogl	Photographic Technique	4	10-13-2008 08:46 AM
Proof that crappy lens + good light = good photos	Finn	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	8	11-02-2007 11:19 PM

05-31-2010, 06:42 AM	#61
Ivan J. Eberle Forum Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Ventana Wilderness, CA Posts: 83	"What they need there is a screen that's made with some kind of design for manual focus." Certain design features do not scale down with formats; for instance, with wide angles it's hard to get sufficient detail for manual focusing whatever the focusing screen. I agree with the observation that no APS-C viewfinder is likely to ever hold a candle to a well-designed FF one. Viewfinder real estate is also large factor in why some of us prefer medium format cameras like the 645N over 35mm offerings. Historically, a big bright viewfinder contributed greatly to the reputions other legendary cameras-- notably the Pentax LX.

05-31-2010, 03:30 PM	#62
porterHause Inactive Account Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Seattle, WA Posts: 55	Quote: The "super telephoto" is still on the roadmap... In the meantime we have the Sigma zooms and prime 500mm, have you considered these? Where is this roadmap you mention? I haven't seen a new one since around March 2009.

05-31-2010, 09:33 PM	#63
regor Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Victoria, BC Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 356	Originally posted by JohnBee I too thought that too, but since the conversation was about my frustrations and need for low light capabilities of the D700, I just don't feel as though the 645D would address such a need. So I'm thinking that he was most likely referencing something specific to that statement(FF or a really good crop sensor type of thing). Wouldn't that be simpler to ask him if he was referring to the D645 rather than speculating ? To "blow away" the D700, one would have to greatly increase the Signal-to-Noise ratio. Only three ways to accomplish that: 1. increase the size of the pixels = more photons hence stronger signal (that also means fewer pixels for same sensor size or larger sensor), 2. decrease the noise. Light noise cannot be reduced, it's plain physics. Signal Amplification Noise generated by the electronics can be reduced to a point, but not by an order of magnitude, or 3. improve the effectiveness of the sensor in capturing light, such as the new sensor from Kodak, which increases the sensitivity to light from two to four times as much when compared to digital camera sensors in common use today. So if I were to speculate, such claim could only be achieved with option 3, but is that really an option ? There's been rumors of Pentax-Hoya and Kodak talking !

05-31-2010, 10:48 PM	#64
Eruditass Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,207	Originally posted by 24X36NOW More to the point, any APS-C camera will still be stuck with a viewfinder that sucks. Not necessarily. Originally posted by Ivan J. Eberle "What they need there is a screen that's made with some kind of design for manual focus." Certain design features do not scale down with formats; for instance, with wide angles it's hard to get sufficient detail for manual focusing whatever the focusing screen. I agree with the observation that no APS-C viewfinder is likely to ever hold a candle to a well-designed FF one. Viewfinder real estate is also large factor in why some of us prefer medium format cameras like the 645N over 35mm offerings. Historically, a big bright viewfinder contributed greatly to the reputions other legendary cameras-- notably the Pentax LX. Agreed! See my thread on the upside of a less than great(imo) movement: https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-dslr-discussion/102947-one-evil-mi...advantage.html

06-01-2010, 02:31 AM	#65
WerTicus Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Perth Australia Photos: Albums Posts: 1,514	the kx's sensor already out performs the 5d mk1 today... pointless comparison though.

06-01-2010, 03:20 AM	#66
ddhytz Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Melbourne Posts: 602	I actually shoot 50% film now. My next upgrade will have to be a FF digital body, whether it is Pentax or other brands.

06-01-2010, 04:51 AM	#67
eigelb Inactive Account Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Italy Posts: 174	Originally posted by WerTicus the kx's sensor already out performs the 5d mk1 today... pointless comparison though. I dont think so and its a bit hard to compare this two models. The Kx does RAW (at high iso)and jpg Noisreduction. This are softwaretweeks that the old 5d dont have. I think when you compare 5ds 3200iso RAW files convertet whit some good software they will look a bit better not so fluffy and fuzzy and with more details.

06-01-2010, 06:02 AM	#68
JohnBee Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Newrfoundland Photos: Albums Posts: 4,667 Original Poster	Originally posted by regor Wouldn't that be simpler to ask him if he was referring to the D645 rather than speculating ? I am preparing a response, but I want to avoid sounding petty about it. In the past, I ended-up asking him a series of questions, and he stopped corresponding with me. I suspect he's most likely not interested in small talk, and so I'm trying to avoid doing that again.

06-01-2010, 05:47 PM	#69
rawr Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 11,913	Originally posted by eigelb I dont think so and its a bit hard to compare this two models. It's not that hard at all : From Compare cameras The K-x does in fact have some sensor advantages over the 5D, which is unsurprising I guess given the age of the 5D.

06-01-2010, 10:04 PM	#70
lithos Inactive Account Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Brisbane, QLD, AUS Posts: 3,261	Originally posted by rawr It's not that hard at all rawr, you magnificent smartarse! salutes With that "Low-light ISO" bar, is a higher number better or a lower number better?

06-01-2010, 10:22 PM	#71
ogl Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Sankt Peterburg Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 8,382	FF low ISO is better

06-02-2010, 01:17 AM	#72
eigelb Inactive Account Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Italy Posts: 174	Originally posted by lithos With that "Low-light ISO" bar, is a higher number better or a lower number better? higher number is better.

06-02-2010, 01:36 AM	#73
youky63 Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: Osaka Posts: 143	Who really believe in these benchmark results? They have the same probems than for computer graphic card benchmark: they are true only in THEIR conditions, and especially not in field conditions. Ask any photographer if he prefer to shoot a wedding with a FF body (5D) or any APS-C body (including Kx), answers will be quick and definitive... Sure jpeg engine on 5D is old and outperformed by more recent bodies, but still RAW results (especially for DR) are not comparable. And I am saying that while I really really don't like Canon bodies...

06-02-2010, 02:16 AM	#74
Digitalis Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Melbourne, Victoria Photos: Gallery Posts: 11,694	I don't trust DxO test results...I find their impartiality questionable.

06-02-2010, 03:40 AM	#75
WerTicus Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Perth Australia Photos: Albums Posts: 1,514	I have a Kx and a 5d and i honestly though the Kx was even better than those numbers suggest it is. (over the 5d)