Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
08-10-2010, 06:33 AM   #166
Senior Member




Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Osaka
Posts: 144
QuoteOriginally posted by Rupert Quote
I don't care if Pentax produces FF camera....and I don't care if they don't. The vast majority of Pentax shooters are not Pros, they are amateur enthusiasts or hobbyists and FF will be a very expensive change of course for them...so they will stick with what they have. If it wasn't expensive, many would have already gone to the D700.....and almost as many of those amateurs, like me, would be sorely disappointed at what they got for their major expense. I have shot with a D700, and while it is a fine camera, it is not fine for my shooting needs or skills. There is a reality in shooting FF that has been neglected by those that have made it the "holy grail" of cameras, when in fact, it just isn't.

You take a look over in the Exclusive Gallery Pentax User Photo Gallery - PentaxForums Exclusive Gallery and then come back right here and tell me which ones would be better with FF?

Now, I don't mind that some think FF will change their lives, and make them 100% better shooters, I love a good Fairy Tale about "shoots happily ever after", but the reality is quite different. I can afford any FF camera out there, but it would be a financial mistake for me, and the reason I can afford any camera I want is that I seldom make financial mistakes based on emotions. Maybe that is why Pentax is not into FF at this time of troubled world economies...they think with their minds, not the emotions of a few that scream FF!

Like most here, give me a K7 replacement with a little better high ISO, and the same great features of the K7 + a better SD door system and I will buy it.
Best Regards
Good, you made the point. Good for you if you don't need, you will save money for many years.
Now why don't you accept that some people, even Pentaxian, can need a FF camera. For many kind of reasons (DOF, resolution, isos, DR, 100% aspect of images, crop factor 1X, etc.). And some (most?) of them are already heavily equipped in FF capable lenses, making the jump to another brand almost "economically impossible". Not even mentioning the psychological links to this brand, we are not talking about a coffee machine here.
So please, can everybody stop to think for other people. There is some photographer (not professional) that want/need to shoot FF in every brand, all the 3 other big brand offer this possibility to their costumers, only Pentax is not in that game. Do not wonder why some people are screaming for a FF (especially when you remember that Pentax was the 1st one to try to offer a digital FF camera! Ironic... )

08-10-2010, 06:48 AM - 1 Like   #167
Pentaxian
mecrox's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Oxford, UK
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,101
QuoteOriginally posted by Rupert Quote
I don't care if Pentax produces FF camera....and I don't care if they don't. The vast majority of Pentax shooters are not Pros, they are amateur enthusiasts or hobbyists and FF will be a very expensive change of course for them...so they will stick with what they have. If it wasn't expensive, many would have already gone to the D700.....and almost as many of those amateurs, like me, would be sorely disappointed at what they got for their major expense. I have shot with a D700, and while it is a fine camera, it is not fine for my shooting needs or skills. There is a reality in shooting FF that has been neglected by those that have made it the "holy grail" of cameras, when in fact, it just isn't.

You take a look over in the Exclusive Gallery Pentax User Photo Gallery - PentaxForums Exclusive Gallery and then come back right here and tell me which ones would be better with FF?

Now, I don't mind that some think FF will change their lives, and make them 100% better shooters, I love a good Fairy Tale about "shoots happily ever after", but the reality is quite different. I can afford any FF camera out there, but it would be a financial mistake for me, and the reason I can afford any camera I want is that I seldom make financial mistakes based on emotions. Maybe that is why Pentax is not into FF at this time of troubled world economies...they think with their minds, not the emotions of a few that scream FF!

Like most here, give me a K7 replacement with a little better high ISO, and the same great features of the K7 + a better SD door system and I will buy it.
Best Regards
The best comment on this whole debate I've read. Thank you. It occurs to me that Pentax could kill two birds at once - full frame and EVIL - by going after the Leica M9. Such a Pentax could be priced up to attract those who want something special, but even at 2000 bucks for a rugged camera and one of Pentax's fine lenses it would be a fraction of the cost of a Leica. Once there is a basic template for a design for this form factor then it can be shrunk down to produce smaller models at a few hundred bucks for the APS-C market. But back to reality: in the meantime, the K7 replacement you suggest would suit me very well.
08-10-2010, 07:18 AM   #168
Pentaxian




Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Madison, Wis., USA
Posts: 1,510
QuoteOriginally posted by falconeye Quote
Well, the camera used by the reporter in the moon meeting room in the movie "2001: A Space Odyssey" is still the reference design how an EVIL camera would look like in .. well 2001, right? Still looks more convincing to me than current SLD designs.
I couldn't find the image with a quick Google search but I recall something very small and used with a single hand, perhaps more like a hand-held lens with insignificant associated hardware?

Almost anything would make more sense than APS-C glass on a miniscule rectangular box. With plenty of buttons and dials.

Perhaps an LCD/control pad that straps to the lens and sits on top of it? With an EVF sitting directly behind the sensor, the user appears to be looking through a telescope.

Off-topic again. I'll stop here.
08-10-2010, 07:25 AM   #169
Pentaxian
falconeye's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Munich, Alps, Germany
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,863
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by RBellavance Quote
Interesting thread on a related subject in the DPReview Sony DLSR forum: Why don't more A700 users upgrade to FF?
I've read thru this, thanks for the link.

I think I covered the major reason why Sony's FF isn't flying: Crippled camera.

Add to this a small and expensive selection of FF lenses (the Alpha lenses are expensive anyway to start with).

This is why I wrote that Pentax can wait with releasing a FF camera until an uncrippled one can be offered in the enthusiast market. But just not remain silent and maybe start launching some full frame lenses again so everybody can fuel his LBA without remorse

08-10-2010, 07:28 AM   #170
Veteran Member
Christopher M.W.T's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Geelong, Victoria, Australia
Posts: 1,689
QuoteOriginally posted by falconeye Quote
I've read thru this, thanks for the link.

I think I covered the major reason why Sony's FF isn't flying: Crippled camera.

Add to this a small and expensive selection of FF lenses (the Alpha lenses are expensive anyway to start with).

This is why I wrote that Pentax can wait with releasing a FF camera until an uncrippled one can be offered in the enthusiast market. But just not remain silent and maybe start launching some full frame lenses again so everybody can fuel his LBA without remorse
Im curious what you mean when you say crippled?

Ive looked at the A900 whilst it looks like a great camera on paper the issues of ISO noise surprise me greatly.
08-10-2010, 07:31 AM   #171
New Member




Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Chicago
Posts: 18
Petavoxel's comments

Petavoxel has a new entry in his great blog about Pentax and full frame. As always, he's thoughtful and opinionated.

Here's a small quote on costs. But read the whole thing.
QuoteQuote:
The perpetual cry from full-frame enthusiasts is that Moore’s Law will eventually slash 24x36mm sensor pricing. To me, this seems like a wishful misunderstanding of the facts.

The shrinking of circuit sizes which permits faster processors and denser memory chips is irrelevant to sensor design—the overall chip dimensions are fixed, and the circuitry features are already as small as they need to be.

Also, figuring the costs of CMOS chip production is not entirely straightforward. It costs money to research and develop significant new improvements over prior sensor generations; it’s expensive to create the photolithography masks for all the circuit layers. Then, remember that all these overhead costs must be recouped over only two, perhaps three years of sales. After that, your sensor will be eclipsed by later and even whizzier designs.

Thus, there is more to a sensor price than just the production-line cost; it also depends on the chip quantities sold. And full-frame DSLRs have never been huge sellers.

If APS-C sensors prove entirely satisfactory for 95% of typical photographs (counting both enthusiasts and professionals), a vicious circle results. With no mass-market camera using a full-frame sensor, volumes stay low, prices high. But with sensor prices high, it’s hard to create an appealing camera at a mass-market price point.
I forgot he also addressed the debate back in March:
QuoteQuote:
Note that one cost challenge for full-frame sensors is the rarity of chip fabs who can produce masks of the needed size in one piece. “Stitching” together smaller masks adds to the complexity and cost of producing full-frame sensors—Chipworks was doubtful that the yield of usable full-frame parts was even 50%.

Thus, Chipwork’s best estimate was that a single full-frame sensor costs a camera manufacturer $300 to $400! (This compares to $70-80 for an APS-C sensor.)

And that’s the wholesale cost. What full-frame adds to the price the consumer pays must be higher still.

Thus, it seems unlikely the price of a full-frame DSLR will ever drop under $1000 (that magic number again)—at least, not anytime soon.
And in May:

QuoteQuote:
Now, functionally, the main advantage of 24×36 over APS-C is in high-ISO performance. All other things being equal, the larger sensor area potentially yields about one f/stop’s gain over APS-C.

But the current Pentax K-x already gives quite decent performance at ISO 1600. And rather than fetishize a particular sensor size, our question is really “what do I need to get the shot?”

An equally valid route is to use APS-C lenses that are one f/stop brighter. (Depth of field stays comparable, if you use the correspondingly shorter focal lengths.)

So Pentax could also expand its choices of “DA” (APS-C) lenses—offering brighter apertures—even if it meant duplicating some existing focal lengths. (People may forget that two-tier lens lineups were standard practice for most manufacturers’ film SLRs.)
It would be great to watch Falk and Petavoxel debate live!

Last edited by chicagonyc; 08-10-2010 at 07:43 AM.
08-10-2010, 07:34 AM - 1 Like   #172
Pentaxian
TaoMaas's Avatar

Join Date: May 2007
Location: Oklahoma City
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,195
Last night, I listened to a program by someone who had been one of the top advertising photographers in our area for the last 20-25 years. He'd recently converted from Nikon to Canon after having been a Nikon guy since the '70's. His reasons for switching (and 100% of the ensuing conversation) had absolutely nothing to do with FF. It was about Canon's superior video abilities. If Pentax wants to compete, it's not enough for them to play catch-up with Canon/Nikon by coming out with a "me, too" FF camera. If they want to be a player...they need to start playing 'leap frog'.
08-10-2010, 08:33 AM   #173
Moderator
Site Supporter
Blue's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Florida Hill Country
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 17,211
QuoteOriginally posted by openyourap Quote
It's not the same thing. Adapting a lens to a smaller format and/or registration distance is done all the time with simple adaptors. Decreasing the registration distance is a little more challenging, as it requires major lens/camera surgery or negotiation with the laws of physics
Why is a new mount for an EVIL system not the same thing as having a different one for the 645 & 645D. At least there is a K adapter for them. With EVIL, people want the registration distance reduced which rules out the current line of lenses. The FA 43 was adapted for the m39 mount but apparently they played games with the lens and merely integrated an adapter into the mount. Therefore, it still apparently has the registration distance of 45.46 instead of the 28.8 of the m39 rangefinder. I never said anything about "adapting" lenses. I said EVIL would result in a new line of lenses. unless it is an aps-c k-mount EVIL body, but based on physical constraints, 60mm is probably the thinnest they could build them.

08-10-2010, 08:37 AM   #174
New Member




Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Ann Arbor, MI, USA
Posts: 8
QuoteOriginally posted by Christopher M.W.T Quote
I really wonder how many Pentax users that actively go on about wanting FF actually believe that a FF camera would instantly make them better photographers?
Same question can be applied to any new APS-C camera.
Do you think a new APS-C camera would instantly make them better photographers?
At least FF provides more advantages and higher flexibility to create a image.
08-10-2010, 08:42 AM   #175
Moderator
Site Supporter
Blue's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Florida Hill Country
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 17,211
QuoteOriginally posted by Aristophanes Quote
At the bottom, repeated elsewhere:

Canon Rumors
This has come up before, but people seem to think Canon committed to a EVIL and they actual implied they were going to make smaller dSLR

QuoteQuote:
Maeda also said the company was working on a smaller version of its upmarket single-lens reflex (SLR) cameras in a bid to compete with the new breed of mid-range so-called “mirrorless” cameras launched by Sony Corp, Olympus Corp, and Panasonic Corp.
Maeda went a few steps further.
“It’s not a question of whether or not you have a mirror. There is a consumer need for good-quality cameras to be made smaller,” Maeda said. “We will meet this need.”
He did mention that a mirror may still be part of the equation. So perhaps not an EVIL but a really small digital SLR that could take EF & EF-S lenses?


He denied this would be difficult without removing the internal mirror, adding that Canon had produced very small SLR cameras in the past.
08-10-2010, 08:48 AM   #176
Pentaxian
falconeye's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Munich, Alps, Germany
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,863
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by chicagonyc Quote
It would be great to watch Falk and Petavoxel debate live!
Yes, let's make a round table. With the Hoya president in the middle

I've no problem with what Petavoxel wrote (except he didn't do his avatar name justice ).

There are two minor points I beg to differ: There is a factor between what is a full frame sensor's manufacturing cost, and what it costs a camera manufacturer. Assuming the factor be 3 and we actually agree on figures here. And this factor (a Fab's margin) depends on volume and competition... And the total cost per wafer is going down too. Albeit not as fast as Moore's law, of course. Nevertheless, full frame sensors now aren't more expensive than APS-C was when dSLR launched.

Second is a lack of consistency in his argument. If APS-C were to stay then one would have to redesign APS-C dSLRs with shorter registration distances and higher viewfinder magnification. That would be consistent and I'd be fine with it. As it is now, it smells like a temporary solution only.
08-10-2010, 08:50 AM   #177
Veteran Member
ghelary's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Paris, France
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 617
QuoteOriginally posted by Blue Quote
This has come up before, but people seem to think Canon committed to a EVIL and they actual implied they were going to make smaller dSLR
There's definitively room to make smaller cameras, by using thinner AMOLED screens, and smaller electronic overall. The distance from focus plane (sensor surface) to back of the camera (screen surface) can definitively be made smaller.

I'm not sure if they can use smaller batteries however, since i don't know what share of power is taking AF.
08-10-2010, 08:51 AM   #178
Pentaxian
gazonk's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Oslo area, Norway
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,512
QuoteOriginally posted by Blue Quote
This has come up before, but people seem to think Canon committed to a EVIL and they actual implied they were going to make smaller dSLR
One possibility is simply to scale an FF dslr by the crop factor. That would give you a quite tiny camera and a much smaller mount.
08-10-2010, 09:01 AM   #179
Site Supporter
Aristophanes's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Dartmouth, Nova Scotia
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,912
QuoteOriginally posted by chicagonyc Quote
Petavoxel has a new entry in his great blog about Pentax and full frame. As always, he's thoughtful and opinionated.

Here's a small quote on costs. But read the whole thing.

I forgot he also addressed the debate back in March:

And in May:

It would be great to watch Falk and Petavoxel debate live!
Petaxovel is just paraphrasing Thom Hogan!

The counter to this is that Canon has a large, new fab that does not need to stitch FF, and Nikon is likely not far behind. That's a motivation to bring sensor development in-house. As with any other capital investment, the total outlay is recouped by BOTH the price per unit and the volume of unit sales. Canon now has incentive to drop FF prices. How far and when, we do not know. but if they get into the K-7 price territory, Pentax will not be able to make an APS-C flagship.

To keep putting out the next "whizzier designs" for FF or APS-C, it will require more capital for every technical advance. This doesn't change based on sensor size. Current Canikon FF users will want "whizzier" as well (du jour video).

At some point it will make more sense to consolidate manufacturing and design process into a single FF fab for as many models as possible, driving the FF sensor cost down as close to APS-C cost we currently experience.

This is precisely how APS-C got to be a commodity product, and FF will follow a similar cost: benefit curve. If an FF sensor can be made within $150 of APS-C, it will be 100% "satisfactory" for all users from flagship DSLR to mirrorless.

The "brighter" APS-C lenses is a silly idea. You already have that: DA 15/4 vs. DA14/2.8. Which one is the keeper and why? The amount trying to capitalize a two-tier lens system is likely proportional to the $$$ that could go to an FF fab instead.
08-10-2010, 09:03 AM - 1 Like   #180
Pentaxian
traderdrew's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Florida
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 570
FF

Well, from public cost models I computed upper bounds
for 2010 manufacturing costs for APS-C and full frame sensrs and the difference isless than $100


If this is true then Canon is making a good mark up on their FF cameras. But I would have to consider the time it takes to manufacture them in relation to how many they sell. I would also have to consider the cost other features they put into those cameras.

It seems to me that Pentax should increase its market share before it reconsiders a FF camera.

For Pentax to increase sales, many of you guys need to help out. Post your best photos in other places on the net. I have my flickr.com page and I could consider other sites as well.

Flickr: Andrew Dale Richardson's Photostream
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!
frame, k-5, lenses, mystery, pentax, pentax news, pentax rumors, photokina, release
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Full frame pentax cem.kumuk Pentax DSLR Discussion 11 11-12-2010 03:13 PM
I think the Pentax FF will be announced at Photokina 2010 whatever7 Pentax News and Rumors 106 02-04-2010 12:45 AM
Expired Theme Theme: Contest #41, January, 2010 (Frame within a Frame) Adam Monthly Photo Contests 11 01-21-2010 12:33 AM
The almost full frame Pentax? denisv Photographic Technique 44 01-19-2009 04:01 AM
New Pentax k18D - Full Frame ebooks4pentax Pentax DSLR Discussion 17 10-31-2007 05:46 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:52 PM. | 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