[rparmar]

D700 owners are still very happy with the body and would like a higher MP count with the rumoured new version as long as the high ISO's can match or exceed the current camera. If it were to perform like the Sony's in low light, they won't upgrade. I tried the 850. Sucks pure and simple.

Peter, good post. If I needed full-frame now, I'd just buy a D700 and be happy. Canon ergonomics and Sony feature set are simply inferior. I do not see a compelling need for a Pentax FF. The only market is for people who a) need (or think they need) FF features and b) won't switch to the D700 for some reason. Anyone who uses lens investment as a reason is not a pro, that's for sure. Simply sell the old lenses and buy new. Anyone who uses price differential as a reason is also delusional, since a Pentax FF would be in the same ball-park.

Any pro buying into a brand should be considering a) support, b) system completeness and c) support. In which of these would Pentax be superior?

If the reason for buying is pure technical ability for rendering beautiful art images, then buy the 645D and trump all the FF gear.

So what market is Pentax left with? Older shooters from film era with an attachment to Pentax that over-rides common sense? Woo-hoo, that looks like a great marketing plan!

Yes the 77mm is stunning but the A*/FA*85mm is a better lens. It's been gone for what? 10 years? Just comparing the 77mm vs the Nikon 85mm f1.8 D, they are both excellent units with similar speed. The 77mm Limited is better built but the optics are marginally better at 3x the price. There's also no 77mm f1.4 or 85mm f1.4

I will pay for better design and build, all else being equal. The FA77 Limited is the best of all the lenses you mention, for me. I would never haul around the larger 85mm lenses you compare it to. I have the 77 with me every day of my life and so it takes pictures the FA*85 never would, since it would be back in the studio. Pentax made the right compromises with this lens: build and portability over ultimate speed that is just for show and trick shots anyway.

P.S. I am not a pro; I am an art photographer.

[Mohawk]

Look what Pentax really needs more than FF is better accessories.

Today I was playing with a Canon 580EXII flash, which here in Australia is at a similar price point to the Pentax AF540GZ and wow what a difference.

The AF540GZ feels like flimsy plastic whereas the 580EXII feels like a professional unit well worth the money, has environmental seals, feels solid, tight and well worth its money.

The 540GZ looks pathetic by comparison.

I've used both and I actually prefer the Pentax af540FGz (and af360FGz which I own 3) for its UI and better and more intuitive button layout/functions. I particularly like the 540/360's sync slider, dedicated button for wireless mode and fast access to flash exposure compensation via a wheel. The Canon has an idiotic way to change wireless mode by pressing the zoom button for two seconds and then scrolling through a menu options. This is unacceptable to me as I often switch between modes.

I also have the power pack for the 540 which provides much higher capacity over the equivalent Canikon products.

It would be nice to environmental seals on the Pentax flash products, but then again, I simply don't use flash in inclement weather. As for FEB and FEC I get consistent results with bracketing and AE-L with AF via the camera and the flash P-TTL.

And other differences - the 580ex ii has a plastic post but a metal shoe, and the 540FGz has a metal post and a plastic shoe. And the 580ex ii has a sprung catch for the battery slider door.

[rparmar]

I thought that I was crying in the dessert, now I am no more alone…

Don't do that, the pudding will get all runny.

[rparmar]

The 540GZ looks pathetic by comparison.

What about the Metz 58?

[Christopher M.W.T]

I've used both and I actually prefer the Pentax af540FGz (and af360FGz which I own 3) for its UI and better and more intuitive button layout/functions. I particularly like the 540/360's sync slider, dedicated button for wireless mode and fast access to flash exposure compensation via a wheel. The Canon has an idiotic way to change wireless mode by pressing the zoom button for two seconds and then scrolling through a menu options. This is unacceptable to me as I often switch between modes.

I also have the power pack for the 540 which provides much higher capacity over the equivalent Canikon products.

It would be nice to environmental seals on the Pentax flash products, but then again, I simply don't use flash in inclement weather. As for FEB and FEC I get consistent results with bracketing and AE-L with AF via the camera and the flash P-TTL.

And other differences - the 580ex ii has a plastic post but a metal shoe, and the 540FGz has a metal post and a plastic shoe. And the 580ex ii has a sprung catch for the battery slider door.

I can't really comment on the UI as I didn't spend enough time with it. But in terms of build quality the 580EXII is miles ahead of the Pentax equivalent. By comparison the 540 feels extremely fragile.

What about the Metz 58?

True, but why should we have to rely on 3rd party manufacturers to deliver a quality product?

[Blue]

What about the Metz 58?

It rivals the price of a K-x body.

[Christopher M.W.T]

It rivals the price of a K-x body.

Also I don't think it has the same ruggedness as the Canon 580EXII.

[Kenn100D]

Just been to my friend (Pentax Reatiler). No FF will be out in Photokina. K-R and K-5 is true. K-R will be between K-X and K-7. K-5 cost 2K+ or - Euros.

He said K-R will be most exciting. Look it out when you go to Photokina.

[Winder]

Please, read ClassA's link.
Whatever Peter meant, it is wrong. Noise is ONLY a function of sensor size (when considering f-stop and exposure time to be constant). It is not a function of pixel surface.

I expect Exmor and Exmor HD to have similar performance. Exmor HD was optimized for more versatile video readouts and may have advantages for contrast AF too.

Low light performance is a function of quantum efficiency and overall sensor surface. All current Bayer micro lens CMOS sensors currently seem to be very similar in this department. So, no substitute for surface here.
.

I'm not an engineer, but I have several issues with the idea that sensor size is the primary factor in low-light performance. While I agree it plays a role there significant variables.

1. If size is the most important then MF sensor should be low-light champs.
2. If size is the most important factor then why does the GH1 4/3 sensor outperform most APS-C sensors?
3. If noise is generated at the photosite/pixel level how does having more surface area improve the efficiency of a single photosite?

Larger sensors typically have larger photosites and thus more well capacity.

The GH1 and the 7D have almost the same pixel density, but the 4/3 sensor is only 60% the size of the Canon sensor. The GH1 is with in 1/3 of a stop of the larger APS-C sensor.

Sensors of the same pixel density and technology level exhibit the same level of performance even if they are different sizes. Architecture and micro-lenses play a bigger role than size, which is why Nikon is getter better performance out of Sony sensors than Sony is. The D3x and the A900 should be identical since they are the same base sensor and the same size, but Nikon is doing more with the same sensor. Pentax is doing pretty good things with the 3 year old Sony sensor that is in the K-x. That sensor has been used by Sony and Nikon, but Pentax is getting the best results out of it. If size is the most important factor and size is equal then I would not expect to see any significant difference between the K-x and any of the other 12MP cameras that use the same Sony sensor. There are other factors that are more significant than size.

Show me a real world example of two different size sensors that use the same architecture, photosite density, & micro-lenses.

[philippe]

Don't do that, the pudding will get all runny.

Sorry, I had no native English speaker at hand to check the spelling...

[Kunzite]

K-5 cost 2K+ or - Euros..

This sounds way off.

[bodhi]

Just been to my friend (Pentax Reatiler). No FF will be out in Photokina. K-R and K-5 is true. K-R will be between K-X and K-7. K-5 cost 2K+ or - Euros.

He said K-R will be most exciting. Look it out when you go to Photokina.

No way it could cost that much . For that price I could byu a D700

[falconeye]

I really do think there's a connection between pixel density and digital noise. Since I have no engineering background, I can only go by what I see. Look again at Nikon. D3s is the ISO champ (12MP). D3x is the resolution champ (24.5 MP).

The internet is 99% noise. So, by only reading about the topic w/o gaining a true understanding will leave you in the dark. You either have to try out (shoot and print) yourself or listen to engineers or physicists like DxO. Even DPReview wrote an article which was wrong in essence because they did not take into account that Bayer demosaicing reduces noise. The topic is a mine field for those "half in the know". Not unlike DoF ... Which is why I make this last clarification and won't continue discussing the noise topic (because it would become offtopic).

D3X, D3s, D700:
D3X is the only camera which needs to exist. But because Nikon prefers to maximize profit, they made two crippled versions: D3s in resolution and D700 in resolution and ergonomics. D3X and D700 have about the same age and almost identical low light performance. The D3X has much better (1.5EV) dynamic range though. The D3s is a newer camera. It still has the lower dynamic range (compared to D3X), but has a slightly improved low light performance (about 0.5EV better) than both D3X and D700. Pixel size has nothing to do with that.

I post this much detail to make you think about it.

Below is another misled "non engineer" let me explain again ...

1. If size is the most important then MF sensor should be low-light champs.
2. If size is the most important factor then why does the GH1 4/3 sensor outperform most APS-C sensors?
3. If noise is generated at the photosite/pixel level how does having more surface area improve the efficiency of a single photosite?

Larger sensors typically have larger photosites and thus more well capacity.

The GH1 and the 7D have almost the same pixel density, but the 4/3 sensor is only 60% the size of the Canon sensor. The GH1 is with in 1/3 of a stop of the larger APS-C sensor.

Ad 1. They are. Pentax 645D should beat any non MF camera in low light. I already guesstimated (and posted) figures from available data.

Ad 2. Size is the most important factor for a given technology. No pixel size over 2µm currently is in conflict with existing technology. All dSLRs are over 4µm.

Ad 3. You talk about pixel noise, not image noise. Pixel noise is irrelevant. E.g., what is pixel noise for a film image? The link which ClassA provided for your convenience was there for a reason

Also, I don't know if you know what the full well capacity is. It basically is the number of electrons a sensor can gather before it starts to become "full". It is basically independent of pixel size but dependent on overall sensor area and well depth. Of course, smaller pixels make a pixel's full well capacity smaller. But not that of the sensor simply because it then has more of them. That's just one example where people on the internet really always jump to conclusion too quickly. And this was a trivial consideration to rectify. E.g., the dependence of read-out noise or dark current are more interesting topics really ...


BTW, the sweet spot is nowhere near 12MP. It is about 3µm.

This translates to about 6MP - 8+MP for P&S (1/2" - 1/1.7+"), and led to the 6mpixel.org initiative.
But it also translates to 25MP for FourThird, 40MP for APSC and 100MP for full frame.



Like DoF, I won't participate (beyond this point) in a technical discussion of technical advantages/disadvantages of any particular sensor size or pixel pitch. Threads which do are legion.

I invite more contributions about what Pentax should communicate and do in the next 2 years though.

[ManuH]

I invite more contributions about what Pentax should communicate and do in the next 2 years though.

As much as I'd like a FF camera being presented at Photokina, I don't think they will because it's still not urgent. Maybe next year, But right now with a small market there's no money to be made there yet. Moreover the only sensor that seems to be available is the Sony 24MP which got a bad reputation for low-light performance.

They also cannot announce they will release a FF camera if their own strategy is not yet fixed. That's probably why the most they can do is to say "we evaluate the possibility". It doesn't close the door on FF but they don't commit themselves either.

So I think the tight lip strategy is still the best. It's better for them to be ready and be able to react fast than to launch a product prematurely and being beaten by the competition. Of course, they may lose their more loyal users, but so be it...

[ManuH]

K-5 cost 2K+ or - Euros.

No way an APS-C can be sold for that price unless there is a really special feature. Unless the K-5 is not an APS-C camera...