Photokina 2010, Pentax and the full frame mystery

civiletti · 08-25-2010, 09:36 AM

Originally posted by Mohawk

Are we still waxing lyrical about the 135 format? FFfanboys, do you really think FF is the be-all and end-all?

Good point. I'd like to see a new digital format that uses the image circle of full-frame 35mm lenses, but with 4x5 proportions. That would give images with more pixels from the same lens.

The 24x36mm format has a diagonal of 43.27mm. That would allow ~27x34 format and an area of 918mm sq, compared to 862mm sq for 35mm film format. The new format would have 6% more area from the same lenses.

A square format would maximize area, but most images would end up cropped, I imagine.

35mm format is derived from film that is 35mm wide, but has sprocket holes on each side, leaving room for 24mm across the film. There is no reason to be constrained by that with digital sensors. Existing lenses [for Pentaxians] are the constraint. 27x34 would make our images bigger than Canikon's.

**Aristophanes** · 08-25-2010, 09:43 AM

Originally posted by Rondec

I just think that it is beyond imagination that every time Sony comes with a new sensor (for example a 16 megapixel sensor) then Nikon starts producing a similar sensor with almost exactly the same specs. I understand that Nikon is spinning it as though they are producing these, but I think they are buying sensors from Sony, same as always, and then doing their own processing on top, whether it is hardware or software tweaks.

Not for the D700 and D3s. I think it was Nikon's design team with Renesas for the production, but it might have been Toshiba. It's definitely not a Sony, and it appears there has been a break with Sony with Nikon investing in fabs, either jointly or singly. To track it down one can either follow the chip fabs chatter, or one can follow the money. The money says that Nikon has been hoarding cash to invest in capital. Speculation is that this is chip fabs.

The understanding of Thom's article about Sony pulling out of FF production is premised on the fact that the largest purchaser of FF sensors has been Nikon. Without their economy-of-scale, there is a financial hole for Sony to fill.

For the D3x and D200 sensors, rumour has it that Sony jacked the price. Nikon is notorious for not getting along with suppliers AND distributors, much less a competitor, so a fallout here is not unexpected. Nikon's charge up the sales charts has given them cash to invest in their own production. or joint production with other-than-Sony partners.

falconeye · 08-25-2010, 01:31 PM

Originally posted by civiletti

That would allow ~27x34 format

OT but a nice variation of a repeating theme.

Technically, you're totally right. Well, almost

Because you would have to consider a variation of target aspect ratios (i.e., aspect ratios used for the actual composition). All sort of ratios are in use:

Landscape 2.4:1, 2:1, 16:9, 3:2, 4:3, 5:4
Square: 1:1
Portrait: 4:5, 3:4, 2:3

Without knowing the exact usage distribution it is impossible to compute the "best" sensor aspect ratio for a given image circle. But the fact that turning the sensor 90° into portrait mode can yield extra pixels for some aspect ratios -- and that that advantage disappears for an (amlost) square sensor -- let's me guess that 3:2 is already very close to a scientifically computed optimum.

m8o · 08-25-2010, 03:21 PM

Originally posted by falconeye

Tell me what you think. Shall we make it an Open Letter to Pentax?

Me thinks Pentax thinks their releasing the 645D was their answer to your concerns & desires (never mind its availability and cost).

dankoBanana · 08-26-2010, 11:51 AM

Personally, I would like to see a hint of FF plans in the future, although I'm commited to APS-c for now

If Pentax could make a FF DSLR thats smaller then Canikon/Sony behemonts, coupled with a new set of FF primes, it could be a great hit

glennm · 08-26-2010, 09:53 PM - **1 Like**

I will begin by stating that i am a newcomer to photography and may therefore make stupid remarks based on false assumptions. But, since becoming interested in photography, I have been an avid reader of all relating to the subject, to include discussions on this forum re the full frame debate. I further state that the reason I went Pentax is their dedication to mainting compatibility with legacy lenses. That said, am I correct in assuming that the older lenses (M42,M, K, A, etc.) were designed to produce images on the 24x36 film of the time? If so, then any FF camera they might come out with should be a better fit for use of the old glass than the APS-C DSLRs so far. changing the format to other than 24x36 would require buying new lenses and would negate the reason I went with Pentax in the first place. I am not interested in paying big bucks for new lenses. The benefit of FF is that you can hang so-so glass on the camera and make images superior to APS-C systems with the best glass. The problems encountered with APS-C (noise, etc) don't seem to be mentioned by user forums of FF cameras (the solution to said APS-C problems usually being get a better lens). I, for one would pay $2000+ for a pentax FF that lets me use my old glass to its optimum. I am not interested in a FF that requires new lenses.

I recently upgraded my istD to a K7 and I do like the camera. The K7 is excellent. But, it is my last APS-C. If Pentax doesnt go to FF before I get the itch to move on, I will go Nikon FF. Their mounts allow use of old glass back to AI.

It may cost a little more to produce FF sensors, but Pentax should seriously listen to loyal pentaxians who want a FF system. FF is truly the quantum leap that all manufacturers must make if they want a long-term customer base other than point and shoot. The other manufacturers have already done so. Serious amateurs who are willing to spend sub-$3000 can already satisfy their need for better IQ using old glass with Nikon and Sony. The debate here has been heated, now I have spent my 2 cents. I too, hope Pentax has been listening.

obheng · 08-26-2010, 10:07 PM

How hard can it be to stick a FF sensor in the K7? It's a stupid question, I realise, but really, just how much effort (therefore $$) will it take to achieve that? And I am not talking about replacing the current AF system or adding any super-duper fancy features.

Kunzite · 08-26-2010, 11:51 PM

No, the question is: how hard would it be to sell enough cameras in order to make (at least) a small profit?
Some pentaxians are whishing for a FF; few of them would even buy one. Others are complaining that cameras and lenses are too expensive (guess how they'll react to a "FF", and semi-pro "FF" lenses...). Are there enough customers? Is the risk acceptable? Is it the right moment to divert resources from other project?
Most likely, Hoya/Pentax can answer this better than I

glennm, I agree - "FF" is the quantum leap - judging by the market share. Quantum, as in the smallest possible unit.

Mohawk · 08-27-2010, 04:31 AM

Originally posted by civiletti

Good point. I'd like to see a new digital format that uses the image circle of full-frame 35mm lenses, but with 4x5 proportions. That would give images with more pixels from the same lens.

The 24x36mm format has a diagonal of 43.27mm. That would allow ~27x34 format and an area of 918mm sq, compared to 862mm sq for 35mm film format. The new format would have 6% more area from the same lenses.

A square format would maximize area, but most images would end up cropped, I imagine.

35mm format is derived from film that is 35mm wide, but has sprocket holes on each side, leaving room for 24mm across the film. There is no reason to be constrained by that with digital sensors. Existing lenses [for Pentaxians] are the constraint. 27x34 would make our images bigger than Canikon's.

Yes, it's a bit disappointing that people are so hung up about an arbitrary size.

But we can all argue and have hissy fits about formats. But it all goes down to cost vs. profitability (and risk), which most of us don't have a clue about in terms of Hoya-Pentax's position.

mysterick · 08-27-2010, 04:55 AM

OT: There seem to be a lot of "new members" on this thread with contrary opinions. (?)

TaoMaas · 08-27-2010, 05:39 AM

Originally posted by obheng

How hard can it be to stick a FF sensor in the K7? It's a stupid question, I realise, but really, just how much effort (therefore $$) will it take to achieve that? And I am not talking about replacing the current AF system or adding any super-duper fancy features.

I think it would require a larger prism and mirror box, for starters. That would mean an all new re-design of the camera.

m8o · 08-27-2010, 07:36 AM

RE:

Originally posted by glennm

The benefit of FF is that you can hang so-so glass on the camera and make images superior to APS-C systems with the best glass.

To anyone in the know in the peanut gallery... is this true?

m8o · 08-27-2010, 07:42 AM

Originally posted by glennm

I recently upgraded my istD to a K7 and I do like the camera. The K7 is excellent. But, it is my last APS-C.

Why? Low-light + HIGH-ISO performance? or something else in combination with that? (the former is the sole reason I did not upgrade to the K-7 btw)

And then what if the K-5 can match (exceed?) the Low-light + High-ISO performance of the K-x + give you everything else of the K-7 + advancements?

Kunzite · 08-27-2010, 08:09 AM

Originally posted by glennm

The benefit of FF is that you can hang so-so glass on the camera and make images superior to APS-C systems with the best glass.

Somehow, I doubt that. Either the "so-so glass" is not really "so-so", or the "best glass" is far from being the "best" - or we're not comparing lens-related image quality (e.g. by talking about noise).

TaoMaas · 08-27-2010, 08:17 AM

Originally posted by m8o

RE: To anyone in the know in the peanut gallery... is this true?

I guess it depends upon your definition of "so-so". What good is it to shoot a FF camera with a lens which is soft around the edges? Or one in which you have to stop down to f8 to start getting good sharpeness?

08-26-2010, 09:53 PM - 1 Like	#651
glennm Inactive Account Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Thomaville Georgia Photos: Gallery Posts: 22	I will begin by stating that i am a newcomer to photography and may therefore make stupid remarks based on false assumptions. But, since becoming interested in photography, I have been an avid reader of all relating to the subject, to include discussions on this forum re the full frame debate. I further state that the reason I went Pentax is their dedication to mainting compatibility with legacy lenses. That said, am I correct in assuming that the older lenses (M42,M, K, A, etc.) were designed to produce images on the 24x36 film of the time? If so, then any FF camera they might come out with should be a better fit for use of the old glass than the APS-C DSLRs so far. changing the format to other than 24x36 would require buying new lenses and would negate the reason I went with Pentax in the first place. I am not interested in paying big bucks for new lenses. The benefit of FF is that you can hang so-so glass on the camera and make images superior to APS-C systems with the best glass. The problems encountered with APS-C (noise, etc) don't seem to be mentioned by user forums of FF cameras (the solution to said APS-C problems usually being get a better lens). I, for one would pay $2000+ for a pentax FF that lets me use my old glass to its optimum. I am not interested in a FF that requires new lenses. I recently upgraded my istD to a K7 and I do like the camera. The K7 is excellent. But, it is my last APS-C. If Pentax doesnt go to FF before I get the itch to move on, I will go Nikon FF. Their mounts allow use of old glass back to AI. It may cost a little more to produce FF sensors, but Pentax should seriously listen to loyal pentaxians who want a FF system. FF is truly the quantum leap that all manufacturers must make if they want a long-term customer base other than point and shoot. The other manufacturers have already done so. Serious amateurs who are willing to spend sub-$3000 can already satisfy their need for better IQ using old glass with Nikon and Sony. The debate here has been heated, now I have spent my 2 cents. I too, hope Pentax has been listening. Last edited by glennm; 08-26-2010 at 09:57 PM. Reason: change M24 to M42

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

08-25-2010, 09:36 AM	#646
civiletti Pentaxian Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Oregon Photos: Albums Posts: 1,435	Originally posted by Mohawk Are we still waxing lyrical about the 135 format? FFfanboys, do you really think FF is the be-all and end-all? Good point. I'd like to see a new digital format that uses the image circle of full-frame 35mm lenses, but with 4x5 proportions. That would give images with more pixels from the same lens. The 24x36mm format has a diagonal of 43.27mm. That would allow ~27x34 format and an area of 918mm sq, compared to 862mm sq for 35mm film format. The new format would have 6% more area from the same lenses. A square format would maximize area, but most images would end up cropped, I imagine. 35mm format is derived from film that is 35mm wide, but has sprocket holes on each side, leaving room for 24mm across the film. There is no reason to be constrained by that with digital sensors. Existing lenses [for Pentaxians] are the constraint. 27x34 would make our images bigger than Canikon's.

08-25-2010, 09:43 AM	#647
Aristophanes Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Rankin Inlet, Nunavut Photos: Albums Posts: 3,948	Originally posted by Rondec I just think that it is beyond imagination that every time Sony comes with a new sensor (for example a 16 megapixel sensor) then Nikon starts producing a similar sensor with almost exactly the same specs. I understand that Nikon is spinning it as though they are producing these, but I think they are buying sensors from Sony, same as always, and then doing their own processing on top, whether it is hardware or software tweaks. Not for the D700 and D3s. I think it was Nikon's design team with Renesas for the production, but it might have been Toshiba. It's definitely not a Sony, and it appears there has been a break with Sony with Nikon investing in fabs, either jointly or singly. To track it down one can either follow the chip fabs chatter, or one can follow the money. The money says that Nikon has been hoarding cash to invest in capital. Speculation is that this is chip fabs. The understanding of Thom's article about Sony pulling out of FF production is premised on the fact that the largest purchaser of FF sensors has been Nikon. Without their economy-of-scale, there is a financial hole for Sony to fill. For the D3x and D200 sensors, rumour has it that Sony jacked the price. Nikon is notorious for not getting along with suppliers AND distributors, much less a competitor, so a fallout here is not unexpected. Nikon's charge up the sales charts has given them cash to invest in their own production. or joint production with other-than-Sony partners.

08-25-2010, 01:31 PM	#648
falconeye Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Munich, Alps, Germany Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,871 Original Poster	Originally posted by civiletti That would allow ~27x34 format OT but a nice variation of a repeating theme. Technically, you're totally right. Well, almost Because you would have to consider a variation of target aspect ratios (i.e., aspect ratios used for the actual composition). All sort of ratios are in use: Landscape 2.4:1, 2:1, 16:9, 3:2, 4:3, 5:4 Square: 1:1 Portrait: 4:5, 3:4, 2:3 Without knowing the exact usage distribution it is impossible to compute the "best" sensor aspect ratio for a given image circle. But the fact that turning the sensor 90° into portrait mode can yield extra pixels for some aspect ratios -- and that that advantage disappears for an (amlost) square sensor -- let's me guess that 3:2 is already very close to a scientifically computed optimum.

08-25-2010, 03:21 PM	#649
m8o Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: 40°-55'-44" N / 73°-24'-07" W [on LI] Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,092	Originally posted by falconeye Tell me what you think. Shall we make it an Open Letter to Pentax? Me thinks Pentax thinks their releasing the 645D was their answer to your concerns & desires (never mind its availability and cost).

08-26-2010, 11:51 AM	#650
dankoBanana Inactive Account Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Zagreb, Croatia Posts: 533	Personally, I would like to see a hint of FF plans in the future, although I'm commited to APS-c for now If Pentax could make a FF DSLR thats smaller then Canikon/Sony behemonts, coupled with a new set of FF primes, it could be a great hit

08-26-2010, 10:07 PM	#652
obheng Junior Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Kuala Lumpur Posts: 30	How hard can it be to stick a FF sensor in the K7? It's a stupid question, I realise, but really, just how much effort (therefore $$) will it take to achieve that? And I am not talking about replacing the current AF system or adding any super-duper fancy features.

08-26-2010, 11:51 PM	#653
Kunzite Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Romania Posts: 15,132	No, the question is: how hard would it be to sell enough cameras in order to make (at least) a small profit? Some pentaxians are whishing for a FF; few of them would even buy one. Others are complaining that cameras and lenses are too expensive (guess how they'll react to a "FF", and semi-pro "FF" lenses...). Are there enough customers? Is the risk acceptable? Is it the right moment to divert resources from other project? Most likely, Hoya/Pentax can answer this better than I glennm, I agree - "FF" is the quantum leap - judging by the market share. Quantum, as in the smallest possible unit.

08-27-2010, 04:31 AM	#654
Mohawk Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2009 Posts: 109	Originally posted by civiletti Good point. I'd like to see a new digital format that uses the image circle of full-frame 35mm lenses, but with 4x5 proportions. That would give images with more pixels from the same lens. The 24x36mm format has a diagonal of 43.27mm. That would allow ~27x34 format and an area of 918mm sq, compared to 862mm sq for 35mm film format. The new format would have 6% more area from the same lenses. A square format would maximize area, but most images would end up cropped, I imagine. 35mm format is derived from film that is 35mm wide, but has sprocket holes on each side, leaving room for 24mm across the film. There is no reason to be constrained by that with digital sensors. Existing lenses [for Pentaxians] are the constraint. 27x34 would make our images bigger than Canikon's. Yes, it's a bit disappointing that people are so hung up about an arbitrary size. But we can all argue and have hissy fits about formats. But it all goes down to cost vs. profitability (and risk), which most of us don't have a clue about in terms of Hoya-Pentax's position.

08-27-2010, 04:55 AM	#655
mysterick Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: 44266 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 568	OT: There seem to be a lot of "new members" on this thread with contrary opinions. (?)

08-27-2010, 05:39 AM	#656
TaoMaas Pentaxian Join Date: May 2007 Location: Oklahoma City Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,574	Originally posted by obheng How hard can it be to stick a FF sensor in the K7? It's a stupid question, I realise, but really, just how much effort (therefore $$) will it take to achieve that? And I am not talking about replacing the current AF system or adding any super-duper fancy features. I think it would require a larger prism and mirror box, for starters. That would mean an all new re-design of the camera.

08-27-2010, 07:36 AM	#657
m8o Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: 40°-55'-44" N / 73°-24'-07" W [on LI] Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,092	RE: Originally posted by glennm The benefit of FF is that you can hang so-so glass on the camera and make images superior to APS-C systems with the best glass. To anyone in the know in the peanut gallery... is this true?

08-27-2010, 07:42 AM	#658
m8o Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: 40°-55'-44" N / 73°-24'-07" W [on LI] Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,092	Originally posted by glennm I recently upgraded my istD to a K7 and I do like the camera. The K7 is excellent. But, it is my last APS-C. Why? Low-light + HIGH-ISO performance? or something else in combination with that? (the former is the sole reason I did not upgrade to the K-7 btw) And then what if the K-5 can match (exceed?) the Low-light + High-ISO performance of the K-x + give you everything else of the K-7 + advancements?

08-27-2010, 08:09 AM	#659
Kunzite Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Romania Posts: 15,132	Originally posted by glennm The benefit of FF is that you can hang so-so glass on the camera and make images superior to APS-C systems with the best glass. Somehow, I doubt that. Either the "so-so glass" is not really "so-so", or the "best glass" is far from being the "best" - or we're not comparing lens-related image quality (e.g. by talking about noise).

08-27-2010, 08:17 AM	#660
TaoMaas Pentaxian Join Date: May 2007 Location: Oklahoma City Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,574	Originally posted by m8o RE: To anyone in the know in the peanut gallery... is this true? I guess it depends upon your definition of "so-so". What good is it to shoot a FF camera with a lens which is soft around the edges? Or one in which you have to stop down to f8 to start getting good sharpeness?