Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
04-27-2012, 08:29 AM   #286
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Romania
Posts: 9,230
QuoteOriginally posted by falconeye Quote
I don't know how many more times this needs to be repeated ...

Everything else being equal (i.e., equivalent lenses, same image quality), full frame lenses are cheaper (to build) than crop lenses.
No, only some of them are.

04-27-2012, 08:33 AM   #287
Veteran Member




Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,893
QuoteOriginally posted by Kunzite Quote
No, only some of them are.
Specifically, which lenses are you talking about that are more expensive for FF than APS-C? Are you assuming cropping is not a decent solution?

Last edited by ElJamoquio; 04-27-2012 at 08:40 AM.
04-27-2012, 09:01 AM   #288
Pentaxian
Pål Jensen's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Norway
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,139
QuoteOriginally posted by Supernaut Quote
As I have written before, Pentax will have easier to compete in the $1500-2000 price range with a cheap FF rather than a expensive (and therefore high tech in every way) crop sensor camera. If the rumor is true and if Pentax is not too far behind this time, I'd say it's perfect for Pentax with its limited technology regarding AF and flash system.
But the problem for Pentax is the lack of FF lenses. Hence, it might be that Pentax target it at people that already own FF lenses and consequantly price it higher...
04-27-2012, 09:02 AM   #289
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Romania
Posts: 9,230
Let's say, DA* 200mm f/2.8 vs. DA* 300mm f/4 (they both cover "ff", right?)
Neither cropping nor jumping to an "equivalent" FF system are solutions, IMO - but compromises. Btw, in order to crop and get similar results from a 200mm I would need the D800, a 3000 euro camera. Nice!

04-27-2012, 09:03 AM   #290
Forum Member




Join Date: Apr 2010
Photos: Albums
Posts: 91
Sorry for off-topic from lens equivalence. I saw that many people (here) are after dual-card SD slot.
Why? Speed? AFAIK writing simultaneously is slower. Reliability? I had a failed SD card only once through 5 years of digital cameras usage and it was a good lesson for me to not use cheap cards. Capacity? Modern SD cards are so cheap compared to offers 2-3 years back. You can get a 32Gb class 10 card for what you had to pay for 4GB card a few years back.
I don't want to outvoice anyone but rather get the idea behind dual slots. I see why I would have dual CF-SD slot but dual SD... So, please, tell what do you think are the benefits.
04-27-2012, 09:04 AM   #291
Pentaxian
Pål Jensen's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Norway
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,139
QuoteOriginally posted by falconeye Quote
I don't know how many more times this needs to be repeated ...

Everything else being equal (i.e., equivalent lenses, same image quality), full frame lenses are cheaper (to build) than crop lenses.
.
This is cheating. Different format do not give same image quality. If they did having them would have been mostly pointless. With few exceptions, reasonable equal lenses for larger formats are more expensive than for smaller formats. This is obvious and also reflected in the price lists....
04-27-2012, 09:14 AM   #292
Moderator
Site Supporter
Blue's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Florida Hill Country
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 17,211
QuoteOriginally posted by Dave L Quote
And presumably, bigger and heavier. That, I for one do not want!

Same with the camera: I didn't start off with ME/MX/ME Supers because I wanted large heavy Canikon type cameras OR lenses (think the 'M' series). K5 is definitely at my upper limit from that point of view.

But if Pentax do FF as a higher level alternative that's fine for those who want that, as long as they do not neglect advanced but smaller lighter APS-C models and lenses for folks like me.
If they ME/ME Super were large for you, did you carry an Auto 110? That said, the lens size argument isn't as much a problem with Pentax glass as you may think. Take a look at the relative size of lenses such as the FA 28/2.8, FA 35/2, FA 50/1.4, FA 43/1.9 LTD, FA 77/1.8 LTD and compare them to the DA 40 LTD, DA 70 LTD and DA* 55/1.4.
04-27-2012, 09:18 AM   #293
Pentaxian
Pål Jensen's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Norway
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,139
QuoteOriginally posted by Blue Quote
If they ME/ME Super were large for you, did you carry an Auto 110? That said, the lens size argument isn't as much a problem with Pentax glass as you may think. Take a look at the relative size of lenses such as the FA 28/2.8, FA 35/2, FA 50/1.4, FA 43/1.9 LTD, FA 77/1.8 LTD and compare them to the DA 40 LTD, DA 70 LTD and DA* 55/1.4.
..but when you come to longer telephotos, where people want magnification and speed for exposure, the difference becomes substantial. Also in price....

04-27-2012, 09:19 AM   #294
Loyal Site Supporter
eddie1960's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 12,264
QuoteOriginally posted by disya2 Quote
Sorry for off-topic from lens equivalence. I saw that many people (here) are after dual-card SD slot.
Why? Speed? AFAIK writing simultaneously is slower. Reliability? I had a failed SD card only once through 5 years of digital cameras usage and it was a good lesson for me to not use cheap cards. Capacity? Modern SD cards are so cheap compared to offers 2-3 years back. You can get a 32Gb class 10 card for what you had to pay for 4GB card a few years back.
I don't want to outvoice anyone but rather get the idea behind dual slots. I see why I would have dual CF-SD slot but dual SD... So, please, tell what do you think are the benefits.
Actually i''d like to see dual SD/XQD. CF will be replaced by XQD. XQD doesn't have the speed size limitations of SD

Dual slots are also popular with guys who shoot video. not for shooting simultaneous but so they don't have a card run out mid scene
Simultaneous writing is slower if processors don't change. I would think on a FF we would see a more advance prime engine yet again (say Dual Prime M processors for instance)
04-27-2012, 09:26 AM   #295
Loyal Site Supporter
eddie1960's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 12,264
QuoteOriginally posted by Pål Jensen Quote
..but when you come to longer telephotos, where people want magnification and speed for exposure, the difference becomes substantial. Also in price....
Reach is only an apsc benefit when sensors aren't equivalent. the K5 has no better reach potential than the D800 does. a 24mp apsc gains ground here again though. Effectively though shooting in crop mode on a 24MP will satisfy many shooters for reach as the file size will still be respectable.
For guys shooting Wide FF has the benefit of more wide lenses, though that has mostly been addressed either through wide zooms or a couple of wide primes for apsc now. But I would have a hard time finding an apsc equivalent for low light street shooting to say even the lowly 14mm 2.8 Bower which is FF. I know of no 10mm 2.0 out there, and it would likely cost a fortune if it was
04-27-2012, 09:30 AM   #296
Moderator
Site Supporter
Blue's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Florida Hill Country
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 17,211
QuoteOriginally posted by Pål Jensen Quote
..but when you come to longer telephotos, where people want magnification and speed for exposure, the difference becomes substantial. Also in price....
Since there currently isn't anything beyond DA* 300/4 from Pentax, the argument is moot. We will see about the 560/5.6 when it is released. However, the D FA 100/2.8 WR is fairly small even compared to the Sigma 105/2.8 EX DG macro. The Sigma 180, 150 and 105 HSM macros will not offer a price advantage if they were offered in K-mount over the Nikon mount. Further more, the discontinued Sigma 105 was competitively priced. The FA* 600/4 was expensive because it was what it was.

The FA* 300/4.5 was actually lighter and slightly more compact than the DA* 300/4.

http://kmp.bdimitrov.de/lenses/primes/extreme-tele/FA300f4.5.html

http://kmp.bdimitrov.de/lenses/primes/extreme-tele/DA300f4.html
04-27-2012, 09:39 AM   #297
Senior Member




Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Hampshire UK
Posts: 280
QuoteOriginally posted by Blue Quote
If they ME/ME Super were large for you, did you carry an Auto 110? That said, the lens size argument isn't as much a problem with Pentax glass as you may think. Take a look at the relative size of lenses such as the FA 28/2.8, FA 35/2, FA 50/1.4, FA 43/1.9 LTD, FA 77/1.8 LTD and compare them to the DA 40 LTD, DA 70 LTD and DA* 55/1.4.
I seem to have worded that ambiguously. I did indeed have an ME, MX and ME Super, because their size and weight suited me, and their quality was high for the size, price and weight. Having said that, I have to confess that it is far easier for me to produce good photos these days with my larger heavier K5, even though I had a reasonable range of "M" lenses then (and I still have them). Also, I can produce much larger prints of acceptable quality now than in my manual days - everything is better for me, so I don't need FF.

So I hope Pentax APS-C development will continue but that they can be made lighter as my ME Super body weighs an ideal 485 grams, and my K5 body 740 grams, which is quite a big difference.

Others don't mind the extra weight, of course.

Last edited by Dave L; 04-27-2012 at 10:02 AM.
04-27-2012, 09:55 AM   #298
Moderator
Site Supporter
Blue's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Florida Hill Country
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 17,211
QuoteOriginally posted by Dave L Quote
I seem to have worded that ambiguously. I did indeed have an ME, MX and ME Super, because their size and weight suited me, and their quality was high for the size, price and weight. Having said that, I have to confess that it is far easier for me to produce good photos these days with my larger heavier K5, even though I had a reasonable range of "M" lenses then (and I still have them). Also, I can produce much larger prints of acceptable quality now than in my manual days - everything is better for me, so I don't need FF.

Pentax APS-C DSLR is all I will ever need or want, preferably a bit lighter than K5 next time, as long as they keep the format going. MX: 520grams, K5 750 grams (with both ready for action) - quite a big difference already.

Others with different needs than me differ, of course.
The top aps-c dSLR are work horses for many of us. Smaller size has been a hall mark of Pentax over the years.
04-27-2012, 10:05 AM   #299
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 16,006
QuoteOriginally posted by eddie1960 Quote
Reach is only an apsc benefit when sensors aren't equivalent. the K5 has no better reach potential than the D800 does. a 24mp apsc gains ground here again though. Effectively though shooting in crop mode on a 24MP will satisfy many shooters for reach as the file size will still be respectable.
For guys shooting Wide FF has the benefit of more wide lenses, though that has mostly been addressed either through wide zooms or a couple of wide primes for apsc now. But I would have a hard time finding an apsc equivalent for low light street shooting to say even the lowly 14mm 2.8 Bower which is FF. I know of no 10mm 2.0 out there, and it would likely cost a fortune if it was
Right. If there is the same pixel density between APS-C and full frame, there will be no difference on cropping ability. Furthermore, as sensors become more pixel-dense, you reach a place where getting sharp photos at a pixel level becomes increasingly difficult. There is some benefit going from 16 megapixels to 24 megapixels (APS-C), but not as much as you would think, in real life shooting.

I really think that for middle focal lengths (30 to 100mm) there isn't that much difference between the two formats. However when you get wider than that, full frame really does have a significant advantage. On the long side, APS-C may have an advantage in some situations, but not as much as it once did.
04-27-2012, 10:16 AM   #300
Senior Member




Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Hampshire UK
Posts: 280
QuoteOriginally posted by Blue Quote
The top aps-c dSLR are work horses for many of us. Smaller size has been a hall mark of Pentax over the years.
Perhaps a KR replacement with no video and a smaller lighter battery and other components could be made significantly smaller and lighter than K5, that would appeal to some. Having the smallest lightest high quality APS-C DSLR could represent a nice return for some to the joys of ME Super days.
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!
consumer, dslr, electronics, expo, ff, pentax news, pentax rumors, pentax-ricoh, photo
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Change Photo Copyright info on a K7 mad editor Pentax DSLR Discussion 2 03-08-2012 06:49 PM
New to the Forum and the world of DSLR tehmole Welcomes and Introductions 2 02-15-2011 08:17 PM
Software not understanding Pentax photo rotation info klh Digital Processing, Software, and Printing 2 12-13-2009 07:35 PM
Awesome Photo Essay of Russia deadwolfbones General Talk 7 05-06-2009 03:08 PM
New To Forum and DSLR But Not Pentax- First From Raw. Mythmaker Post Your Photos! 10 11-17-2008 01:19 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:59 AM. | 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