What if?

Eigengrau · 08-13-2010, 09:18 PM

Originally posted by shuie

What if the folks at pentax do what they have previously said and not announce a FF camera. What would you do if instead they concentrated in the same direction they have been heading all along in APS-C. What would you do if they released a camera with the latest sensor technology, not the last great thing, but the current next best thing. what if it had class leading AF. what if it had a stronger, more robust, weathersealed body than currently available from the other guys. what if the DR and high ISO specs where at the top of the class, rather than yesterdays news? Would you buy it? Would you say" yes, its the best that there is, but its not FF"?

If truly top-end performance could be had from APS-C, then FF would only really appeal to people with a glass investment or who really want thin DoF. The problem is that physics makes it a virtual certainty that FF will always be the best out there: you just have more photons to work with. Ever since FF has been around, it has been significantly better than the best APS-C. The K-x, which has been reported to be one of the best APS-C sensors to date, still does not compete with the D700, which was released quite a while ago.

You are basically asking "If APS-C could outperform FF, would you buy it", and the answer is of course yes. But I don't think that will ever happen, outside of edge cases like Sony.

noahpurdy · 08-13-2010, 11:05 PM

Here's a what if: What if you had to choose one of the following:

1. Full-frame Pentax with same SAFOX autofocus as the K-7.
2. APS-C Pentax with redesigned AF system on par with competition.

I know what I'd pick.

ilya80 · 08-13-2010, 11:46 PM

Originally posted by Pål Jensen

This get repeated over and over.

Great pic! About impossibility of take such a pic on FF camera - there is always focus stacking.

I fully understand what it is about, and indeed it has more to do with FOV rather than DOF, however these two cant be viewed separately.

SPB · 08-14-2010, 12:16 AM

Originally posted by Zebooka

I'll be very sad, because I need FF for my wife for work (weddings).
But still I'll be happy f I get really new AF with cool AF-C and more points and wider and diffrerent points layout

Pentax have a 40MP 645D medium format DSLR that surely would be better than a FF anything.

So in my view they already cover the APS and FF market, and despite what some people make out they have one of the biggest lens ranges of all.

youky63 · 08-14-2010, 04:40 AM

Originally posted by SPB

"Originally posted by Zebooka
I'll be very sad, because I need FF for my wife for work (weddings).
But still I'll be happy f I get really new AF with cool AF-C and more points and wider and diffrerent points layout"

Pentax have a 40MP 645D medium format DSLR that surely would be better than a FF anything.

So in my view they already cover the APS and FF market, and despite what some people make out they have one of the biggest lens ranges of all.

Sure, I think Zebrooka's wife will be very happy to work in churches with a camera limited to 1600 isos and without any fast lens.

Medium format is good for some applications, but is not good for all of them. As FF is better than PAS-C for some applications, but not for all (wild life is much easier with the crop factor of APS-C cameras).
All these different format exists for good reasons, one of them is that they do not deserve the same purpose.
So please people stop to argue every time that 645D is much better than any FF and that there is no reason to go that way for Pentax (not a remark especially for you SPB, many people are telling that same thing

). The lens system is totally different, the entry price is totally different, and the purpose is somehow different. Period. For what I need, a MF would be totally useless. For studio portraiture with controlled light, a 645D is a must. Just another kind of photography.

And about the new "what if", between a FF with K7 AF module or an APS-C with "Nikon's equivalent" high end AF module, the choice for me is clear. FF.
AF is nice for sport and wild life, I do mainly static or slow moving subjects. For me the point to FF is not in AF performance... (even if it is actually better than Pentax one's, and it will not hurt to get that better one

)

**ManuH** · 08-14-2010, 05:30 AM

The 645D is great but has limited applications vs FF. First thing to note, there's almost no lens below f/2.8 on MF. Very few zooms and the speed very limited. So it's not as versatile as a FF system. And FF/APS-C technology is moving faster: Nothing prevents a 40MP FF from appearing. And then the 645D advantage would be very small.

The samples with the 30mm f/1.4 are not that convincing. On a FF you'd need a 50mm f/1.4 to have the same FOV. Let's say you can get a good f/1.4 (most 50mm lenses are not good at f/1.4), you gain about 1.3 stop. So instead of shooting at 1/10s you shoot at 1/25s to get the same noise. That's good but does it worth 3x the price? Not sure.

OTOH there are situations where the FF would run circles around an APS-C. On canon for example, you can get a 24mm f/1.4. The fastest 16mm you can get on APS-C is f/2.8, it's already a 2 stops advantage, combined with the 1.3 stop sensor noise advantage, you'd get almost 4 stops above an APS-C camera, this is huge.

**Pål Jensen** · 08-14-2010, 05:40 AM

Originally posted by Eigengrau

If truly top-end performance could be had from APS-C, then FF would only really appeal to people with a glass investment or who really want thin DoF. The problem is that physics makes it a virtual certainty that FF will always be the best out there: you just have more photons to work with. Ever since FF has been around, it has been significantly better than the best APS-C. The K-x, which has been reported to be one of the best APS-C sensors to date, still does not compete with the D700, which was released quite a while ago..

But this was also the case when 35mm overtook MF film as the prefered format among serious photographers. FF has about the same market penetration compared to APS as MF had compared to 35mm film. This is because the smaller formats was (is) considered good enough for most usages and the fact that the larger format was considerably more expensive.

**ManuH** · 08-14-2010, 05:50 AM

Originally posted by Pål Jensen

But this was also the case when 35mm overtook MF film as the prefered format among serious photographers. FF has about the same market penetration compared to APS as MF had compared to 35mm film. This is because the smaller formats was (is) considered good enough for most usages and the fact that the larger format was considerably more expensive.

I'm not sure the situation is the same. In the past when you bought a camera you expected it to last for years, maybe even decades. In the current fast technology pace, new models are expected every year. What will happen if the manufacturer run out of idea to make you upgrade to the next APS-C model? FF seems an easy solution to provide you with an incentive to upgrade to something with a definitely better IQ. For years the incentive to upgrade was more MP, that's starting a fade a little, right now the rage is the video but once you get to 1080p/60fps and AF during video, there's not much you can really add. Same for fps, once you get to 8-9fps, there's not much to upgrade for a mirror based system.

**Pål Jensen** · 08-14-2010, 05:58 AM

Originally posted by ManuH

I'm not sure the situation is the same. In the past when you bought a camera you expected it to last for years, maybe even decades. In the current fast technology pace, new models are expected every year. .

But that is a good argument as to why people are reluctant to buy an expensive camera. In the film days you could justify an expensive MF camera because you may use it for 10+ years....

traderdrew · 08-14-2010, 06:36 AM

Originally posted by shuie

What if the folks at pentax do what they have previously said and not announce a FF camera.....

My paradigm says APS-C is just going to get better and better because megapixels climb and sensor quality will continue to get better. Sure I could get slightly better performance with a FF or an APS-H camera. It gives me more freedom to crop images for one thing.

I'm looking for Pentax cameras to (ranked according to my priorities):

1. get better in low light 2. slightly better autofocus 3. creep up megapixels 4. become even faster 5. keep weather sealed bodies and lenses

For the life of me,... I can't understand why some people continue to post wishing they had a FF camera. Maybe they don't wish to pay a high amount from those other manufacturers.

I can't understand what the big deal is with EVIL cameras too. I couldn't use one because it would be hard to track moving objects with it or keep the camera stable during low shutter speeds.

My buddy on flickr.com uses a Canon Mark III. He says it is an APS-H but the quality of some of his birding images reminds me of Swarovski glass. They are that clear and sharp. I sat down with him on his computer and looked at his best images.

I can somewhat emulate what he is doing but I am just not there yet. My lenses are not long enough for one thing.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/andrewdalerichardson

**Pål Jensen** · 08-14-2010, 06:58 AM

Originally posted by traderdrew

For the life of me,... I can't understand why some people continue to post wishing they had a FF camera.

I certainly wish to have the viewfinder of an FF camera....

lurchlarson · 08-14-2010, 07:17 AM

I noticed that some people are saying that DSLRs are nearing their max for capabilities. That got me thinking, what still is there to improve? Here are 10 things that I came up with. I know that some of this is possible with accessories but I mean everything here is built in.

1) Video, as already stated. The fusion of video and still photos will continue. I wouldn't be surprised that if in 5 years we will see cameras that shoot 4k video.

2)ISO. Nikon and Canon are insane with how high their ISOs can go but from what I understand they aren't very good above 12,800.

3) Faster Auto-focus.

4)Greater Dynamic Range

5)Better and more accurate Shake Reduction.

6)Even better Power Management.

7)Faster Shutter Speeds (above 1/8000). May not be completely necessary but it is still something that can be marketed.

8)Truly Waterproof DSLRs. I'm thinking down to 15-20 meters. This will require truly waterproof glass as well.

9)GPS Location tagging built in.

10)Wireless Data transfer over Cell/WiFi networks. Can be done in the background. Like an Eye-Fi, but built in.

mickey · 08-14-2010, 07:53 AM

Pentax has a small market share in APS-C.

Is it realistic to expect Pentax to muscle into FF territory and take away a huge chunk of sales from Canon, Nikon, and even Sony?

I understand that some may need FF for work, and so on, but the whole "I'm moving to Canon/Nikon if Pentax doesn't release FF at Photokina..." argument is a bit stale.

Move on.
Don't be so dramatic.

Urkeldaedalus · 08-14-2010, 08:03 AM

I think it would be OK for Pentax to stay with its APS-C system for at least another year, but that's only if they keep releasing new lenses and accessories for this system. The D-FA WR 100 Macro was the last lens they released way early this year, and despite the fact that this is a great lens, it's not really what anybody was asking Pentax to release. If they really want to stay with the APS-C sensor size, they could do a lot better making the users of that system feel like they've got some things to look forward to.

milarmon · 08-14-2010, 08:18 AM

As Falk Lumo said some time ago:

"I smell FF for 2010.

DA 60-250 was delayed. I still have to run my lens test over Xmas to see if it rates +++ as a FF lens. If it does (and it may well do) then the lens situation isn't that bad:

FA 31, DA*55, DFA100WR (NEW!!), DA*200 primes (new tele coming?)
1.4x (FF?) converter (another curious delay ...)
DA* 60-250/4 zoom

The only lens missing for a launch would be
DFA* 24-70/2.8 zoom

(It should be noted that an 1.4x converter makes a sharp DA lens full frame capable by definition (it magnifies the image circle).)

I mean, why not call the DFA100WR DA100WR and ignore the 35mm suitability if APS-C would be carved in stone?

The problem I see is that a FF body implies a comittment for the SLR business I don't see Hoya is yet ready to make. But this must not prevent them to develop the body."

So, if the TC can make the lenses FF... Why not a FF body? What if they do it?

08-14-2010, 06:36 AM	#70
traderdrew Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Florida Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 640	FF cameras Originally posted by shuie What if the folks at pentax do what they have previously said and not announce a FF camera..... My paradigm says APS-C is just going to get better and better because megapixels climb and sensor quality will continue to get better. Sure I could get slightly better performance with a FF or an APS-H camera. It gives me more freedom to crop images for one thing. I'm looking for Pentax cameras to (ranked according to my priorities): 1. get better in low light 2. slightly better autofocus 3. creep up megapixels 4. become even faster 5. keep weather sealed bodies and lenses For the life of me,... I can't understand why some people continue to post wishing they had a FF camera. Maybe they don't wish to pay a high amount from those other manufacturers. I can't understand what the big deal is with EVIL cameras too. I couldn't use one because it would be hard to track moving objects with it or keep the camera stable during low shutter speeds. My buddy on flickr.com uses a Canon Mark III. He says it is an APS-H but the quality of some of his birding images reminds me of Swarovski glass. They are that clear and sharp. I sat down with him on his computer and looked at his best images. I can somewhat emulate what he is doing but I am just not there yet. My lenses are not long enough for one thing. http://www.flickr.com/photos/andrewdalerichardson

08-14-2010, 07:17 AM	#72
lurchlarson Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Oregon, USA Photos: Albums Posts: 681	10 Things that can still be improved on DSLRs I noticed that some people are saying that DSLRs are nearing their max for capabilities. That got me thinking, what still is there to improve? Here are 10 things that I came up with. I know that some of this is possible with accessories but I mean everything here is built in. 1) Video, as already stated. The fusion of video and still photos will continue. I wouldn't be surprised that if in 5 years we will see cameras that shoot 4k video. 2)ISO. Nikon and Canon are insane with how high their ISOs can go but from what I understand they aren't very good above 12,800. 3) Faster Auto-focus. 4)Greater Dynamic Range 5)Better and more accurate Shake Reduction. 6)Even better Power Management. 7)Faster Shutter Speeds (above 1/8000). May not be completely necessary but it is still something that can be marketed. 8)Truly Waterproof DSLRs. I'm thinking down to 15-20 meters. This will require truly waterproof glass as well. 9)GPS Location tagging built in. 10)Wireless Data transfer over Cell/WiFi networks. Can be done in the background. Like an Eye-Fi, but built in.

08-13-2010, 09:18 PM	#61
Eigengrau Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Colorado Photos: Albums Posts: 250	Originally posted by shuie What if the folks at pentax do what they have previously said and not announce a FF camera. What would you do if instead they concentrated in the same direction they have been heading all along in APS-C. What would you do if they released a camera with the latest sensor technology, not the last great thing, but the current next best thing. what if it had class leading AF. what if it had a stronger, more robust, weathersealed body than currently available from the other guys. what if the DR and high ISO specs where at the top of the class, rather than yesterdays news? Would you buy it? Would you say" yes, its the best that there is, but its not FF"? If truly top-end performance could be had from APS-C, then FF would only really appeal to people with a glass investment or who really want thin DoF. The problem is that physics makes it a virtual certainty that FF will always be the best out there: you just have more photons to work with. Ever since FF has been around, it has been significantly better than the best APS-C. The K-x, which has been reported to be one of the best APS-C sensors to date, still does not compete with the D700, which was released quite a while ago. You are basically asking "If APS-C could outperform FF, would you buy it", and the answer is of course yes. But I don't think that will ever happen, outside of edge cases like Sony.

08-13-2010, 11:05 PM	#62
noahpurdy Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Pittsburgh, PA Posts: 479	Here's a what if: What if you had to choose one of the following: 1. Full-frame Pentax with same SAFOX autofocus as the K-7. 2. APS-C Pentax with redesigned AF system on par with competition. I know what I'd pick.

08-13-2010, 11:46 PM	#63
ilya80 Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Saint-Petersburg, Russia Photos: Albums Posts: 410	Originally posted by Pål Jensen This get repeated over and over. Great pic! About impossibility of take such a pic on FF camera - there is always focus stacking. I fully understand what it is about, and indeed it has more to do with FOV rather than DOF, however these two cant be viewed separately.

08-14-2010, 12:16 AM	#64
SPB Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Zug Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 132	Originally posted by Zebooka I'll be very sad, because I need FF for my wife for work (weddings). But still I'll be happy f I get really new AF with cool AF-C and more points and wider and diffrerent points layout Pentax have a 40MP 645D medium format DSLR that surely would be better than a FF anything. So in my view they already cover the APS and FF market, and despite what some people make out they have one of the biggest lens ranges of all.

08-14-2010, 04:40 AM	#65
youky63 Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: Osaka Posts: 143	Originally posted by SPB "Originally posted by Zebooka I'll be very sad, because I need FF for my wife for work (weddings). But still I'll be happy f I get really new AF with cool AF-C and more points and wider and diffrerent points layout" Pentax have a 40MP 645D medium format DSLR that surely would be better than a FF anything. So in my view they already cover the APS and FF market, and despite what some people make out they have one of the biggest lens ranges of all. Sure, I think Zebrooka's wife will be very happy to work in churches with a camera limited to 1600 isos and without any fast lens. Medium format is good for some applications, but is not good for all of them. As FF is better than PAS-C for some applications, but not for all (wild life is much easier with the crop factor of APS-C cameras). All these different format exists for good reasons, one of them is that they do not deserve the same purpose. So please people stop to argue every time that 645D is much better than any FF and that there is no reason to go that way for Pentax (not a remark especially for you SPB, many people are telling that same thing ). The lens system is totally different, the entry price is totally different, and the purpose is somehow different. Period. For what I need, a MF would be totally useless. For studio portraiture with controlled light, a 645D is a must. Just another kind of photography. And about the new "what if", between a FF with K7 AF module or an APS-C with "Nikon's equivalent" high end AF module, the choice for me is clear. FF. AF is nice for sport and wild life, I do mainly static or slow moving subjects. For me the point to FF is not in AF performance... (even if it is actually better than Pentax one's, and it will not hurt to get that better one )

08-14-2010, 05:30 AM	#66
ManuH Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Montreal Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,249	The 645D is great but has limited applications vs FF. First thing to note, there's almost no lens below f/2.8 on MF. Very few zooms and the speed very limited. So it's not as versatile as a FF system. And FF/APS-C technology is moving faster: Nothing prevents a 40MP FF from appearing. And then the 645D advantage would be very small. The samples with the 30mm f/1.4 are not that convincing. On a FF you'd need a 50mm f/1.4 to have the same FOV. Let's say you can get a good f/1.4 (most 50mm lenses are not good at f/1.4), you gain about 1.3 stop. So instead of shooting at 1/10s you shoot at 1/25s to get the same noise. That's good but does it worth 3x the price? Not sure. OTOH there are situations where the FF would run circles around an APS-C. On canon for example, you can get a 24mm f/1.4. The fastest 16mm you can get on APS-C is f/2.8, it's already a 2 stops advantage, combined with the 1.3 stop sensor noise advantage, you'd get almost 4 stops above an APS-C camera, this is huge.

08-14-2010, 05:40 AM	#67
Pål Jensen Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Norway Photos: Albums Posts: 4,371	Originally posted by Eigengrau If truly top-end performance could be had from APS-C, then FF would only really appeal to people with a glass investment or who really want thin DoF. The problem is that physics makes it a virtual certainty that FF will always be the best out there: you just have more photons to work with. Ever since FF has been around, it has been significantly better than the best APS-C. The K-x, which has been reported to be one of the best APS-C sensors to date, still does not compete with the D700, which was released quite a while ago.. But this was also the case when 35mm overtook MF film as the prefered format among serious photographers. FF has about the same market penetration compared to APS as MF had compared to 35mm film. This is because the smaller formats was (is) considered good enough for most usages and the fact that the larger format was considerably more expensive.

08-14-2010, 05:50 AM	#68
ManuH Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Montreal Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,249	Originally posted by Pål Jensen But this was also the case when 35mm overtook MF film as the prefered format among serious photographers. FF has about the same market penetration compared to APS as MF had compared to 35mm film. This is because the smaller formats was (is) considered good enough for most usages and the fact that the larger format was considerably more expensive. I'm not sure the situation is the same. In the past when you bought a camera you expected it to last for years, maybe even decades. In the current fast technology pace, new models are expected every year. What will happen if the manufacturer run out of idea to make you upgrade to the next APS-C model? FF seems an easy solution to provide you with an incentive to upgrade to something with a definitely better IQ. For years the incentive to upgrade was more MP, that's starting a fade a little, right now the rage is the video but once you get to 1080p/60fps and AF during video, there's not much you can really add. Same for fps, once you get to 8-9fps, there's not much to upgrade for a mirror based system.

08-14-2010, 05:58 AM	#69
Pål Jensen Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Norway Photos: Albums Posts: 4,371	Originally posted by ManuH I'm not sure the situation is the same. In the past when you bought a camera you expected it to last for years, maybe even decades. In the current fast technology pace, new models are expected every year. . But that is a good argument as to why people are reluctant to buy an expensive camera. In the film days you could justify an expensive MF camera because you may use it for 10+ years....

08-14-2010, 06:58 AM	#71
Pål Jensen Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Norway Photos: Albums Posts: 4,371	Originally posted by traderdrew For the life of me,... I can't understand why some people continue to post wishing they had a FF camera. I certainly wish to have the viewfinder of an FF camera....

08-14-2010, 07:53 AM	#73
mickey Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Japan Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,146	Pentax has a small market share in APS-C. Is it realistic to expect Pentax to muscle into FF territory and take away a huge chunk of sales from Canon, Nikon, and even Sony? I understand that some may need FF for work, and so on, but the whole "I'm moving to Canon/Nikon if Pentax doesn't release FF at Photokina..." argument is a bit stale. Move on. Don't be so dramatic.

08-14-2010, 08:03 AM	#74
Urkeldaedalus Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Iowa Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,369	I think it would be OK for Pentax to stay with its APS-C system for at least another year, but that's only if they keep releasing new lenses and accessories for this system. The D-FA WR 100 Macro was the last lens they released way early this year, and despite the fact that this is a great lens, it's not really what anybody was asking Pentax to release. If they really want to stay with the APS-C sensor size, they could do a lot better making the users of that system feel like they've got some things to look forward to.

08-14-2010, 08:18 AM	#75
milarmon Junior Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Montevideo - Uruguay Posts: 48	As Falk Lumo said some time ago: "I smell FF for 2010. DA 60-250 was delayed. I still have to run my lens test over Xmas to see if it rates +++ as a FF lens. If it does (and it may well do) then the lens situation isn't that bad: FA 31, DA55, DFA100WR (NEW!!), DA200 primes (new tele coming?) 1.4x (FF?) converter (another curious delay ...) DA* 60-250/4 zoom The only lens missing for a launch would be DFA* 24-70/2.8 zoom (It should be noted that an 1.4x converter makes a sharp DA lens full frame capable by definition (it magnifies the image circle).) I mean, why not call the DFA100WR DA100WR and ignore the 35mm suitability if APS-C would be carved in stone? The problem I see is that a FF body implies a comittment for the SLR business I don't see Hoya is yet ready to make. But this must not prevent them to develop the body." So, if the TC can make the lenses FF... Why not a FF body? What if they do it?