Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
01-31-2008, 01:46 PM   #61
Senior Member




Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 195
QuoteOriginally posted by TaoMaas Quote
You're right. But (using your analogy) 24X36NOW is making the argument that the car companies shouldn't even be selling models for the technology to trickle down to. Everyone ought to just buy a race car.
The 24x36 sensor of those higher end units are one of the things that will trickle down though. Not saying tomorrow, but eventually they will.

01-31-2008, 01:56 PM   #62
Veteran Member




Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,299
QuoteOriginally posted by txbonds Quote
The 24x36 sensor of those higher end units are one of the things that will trickle down though. Not saying tomorrow, but eventually they will.
But I don't see the relevance of sensor size though. Say, the K1D will have a new AF and new metering system. Those technology would trickle down to lesser models in the future as well. So why is FF necessary to have a high end state-of-the-art model?
The sensor itself would be the least likely to trickle down as the lesser model has to be priced lower. And there is very little demand from the consumer for camera based on sensor size.

Last edited by nosnoop; 01-31-2008 at 02:07 PM.
01-31-2008, 04:02 PM   #63
Veteran Member




Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Ontario
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 630
First point:

QuoteOriginally posted by 24X36NOW:
You do NOT NEED A LONGER FOCAL LENGTH LENS ON A FULL FRAME CAMERA TO TAKE THE SAME PICTURE WITH THE SAME MAGNIFICATION AS YOU CAN TAKE ON A SMALLER FORMAT CAMERA - all you need to do to get the EXACT SAME picture on a Full Frame camera is CROP the Full Frame picture down to the size of the smaller format. You DO NOT GAIN A THING - YOU ONLY LOSE SOMETHING - 58% of your image size.
Conflicting point:
QuoteQuote:
Full Frame sensor chips can reduce pixel density and thus noise as compared with APS-C sensor chips while maintaining superior image quality. Even at equivalent pixel density, Full Frame provides less amplification of existing noise (again, due to reduced magnification) and thus superior IQ.
You can't have it both ways. Your first argument only holds up given equal pixel density on both sensors. But in the second point you suggest that FF will have lower density. Pick one.

You also mention that magnification doesn't change between FF and APS-C. In the second point, you say that FF has reduced magnification. Pick one.

QuoteQuote:
SECOND, the supposed "size/weight reduction" of (in particular) "digital only" lenses designed to cover a smaller image circle rather than the full 24 x 36 frame. More agricultural commodity! Let's see how the specs of the two new "digital only" tele primes recently announced compare with their predecessors:

DA* 200 F 2.8 - 83mm wide x 134 mm long; 825 grams
FA 200 F 2.8 - 83mm wide x 134mm long; 785 grams
A 200 F 2.8 - 91mm wide x 138mm long; 850 grams

DA* 300 F 4.0 - 83mm wide x 184mm long; 1,070 grams
FA 300 F 4.5 - 73mm wide x 160mm long; 935 grams (no F 4.0 available)
A 300 F 4.0 - 84mm wide x 132mm long; 850 grams

The APS-C "digital only" lenses not only are not smaller and lighter by any significant amount, THEY ARE ACTUALLY LARGER AND HEAVIER than some comparable 24 x 36 format lenses. Certainly there is NOT sufficient downsizing of size OR weight to justify LOSING 58% OF YOUR ORIGINAL IMAGE SIZE! However, once again defenders of the compromise "crop cameras" tout this non-existent "advantage." You've been sold a bill of goods again!
You're comparing a star* rated lens with a pro build quality and weather seals to non-professional, non-sealed full frame lens. Apples and oranges.

QuoteQuote:
FOURTH, the "file size is too big" non-issue. Memory has gotten amazingly cheap and amazingly compact. Buffer sizes, etc. can be increased as necessary to accommodate ever larger files without any problem (20+ megapixel cameras already offer 5fps, which is more than adequate for ANY photographer; until late in the film-only years, 5 fps was the most you got with motor drives even on "professional" cameras). Technology will continue to enable faster processing and greater storage, so this is a meaningless "issue."
But owners have to upgrade other technology like computers processors and (remote) storage on top of buying the more expensive FF camera. Just because the technology exists does not mean that it is automagically placed in the hands of the consumer. Do you know how long it takes to perform image operations (raw processing, sharpening, noise reduction, etc) on hundreds of uncompressed 20+ megapixel 16bit colour raw files on my workstation class laptop? Do you know how much it is going to cost me to replace this laptop with tomorrow's workstation class version of the same thing?

QuoteQuote:
In short, APS-C offers NO operational advantages, NO appreciable size/weight advantages, and inferior IQ. The ONLY "advantage" about APS-C is that it is CHEAPER.
You are omitting details here. Pentaxke mentioned this, but it is worth reiterating to those who have been 'sold' on your argument. APS-C employs the use of the 'sweet spot' of FF lenses, the higher resolving centre portion of the lens. It is fact that for most lenses, edge performance on the frame of an aps-c will be better than the same lens on an FF camera. All of a sudden the lens you once loved on your aps-c camera doesn't cut it on FF anymore. It is my understanding that as lens elements get larger, it is more difficult and expensive to maintain the optical quality and consistency across the lens. Forget MF, look at hubble All the arguments about dynamic range, resolution, and noise don't mean a thing if your glass isn't good enough (at the centre or the edge) to resolve the detail. The same poster mentioned light fall-off (vignetting) at the edges as well...another advantage of aps-c that isn't "bs" as you so often and so eloquently put it.

QuoteQuote:
And as the old saying goes, "you get what you pay for."
Right...and a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. We can swap colloquialisms all night if you want to, but it's not a very cogent way of arguing a point.

Cheers,
Damian

**Incidentally, I don't appreciate the CAPS LOCK you have employed in your post. I understand that you are frustrated, but please respect the forum etiquette and refrain from yelling at everyone.
01-31-2008, 04:07 PM   #64
Veteran Member
*isteve's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: London, England
Posts: 1,187
QuoteOriginally posted by 24X36NOW Quote
Maybe the question needs to be framed this way: If you had a choice between APS-C and Full Frame, and the prices of those two cameras allowed you to afford either one, which would you buy? It's a no-brainer. Full Frame wins hands down. There's so much speculation about how expensive such a camera "has" to be, when I don't think we've got anyone from the Pentax BOD on here lol.

Pentax NEEDS to make a Full Frame dSLR, because it is being left behind in the marketplace.
Really? And FF would help? FF that accounts for 2.5% of the total DSLR market? 5% market share of 2.5% of the market - hmm - sounds like a really dumb idea to me since it would take all of Pentax's design and engineering resources for the next couple of years and therefore reduce the advances in all its other models that actually generate revenue.....

QuoteOriginally posted by 24X36NOW Quote
Whether people "NEED" more IQ is not the point. People will WANT more IQ if it is available, regardless of their "needs."
If you can afford it. The trouble very few of these rabid FF campaigners would ever actually buy one because it would be too expensive so Pentax would waste all that money and go bankrupt. Great.

QuoteOriginally posted by 24X36NOW Quote
Unless you are a professional photographer, you don't "need" a digital SLR at all. You buy one because you WANT one. APS-C is an inferior format, because it is smaller than 24 x 36 (with all of the inherent disadvantages of a smaller format) without providing any equipment size/weight reduction of any significance
Not true. Bigger sensor = bigger mirror (which if you want an 8fps machine gun means much harder to design and much more expensive) bigger shutter (ditto), larger prism (heavy) and if it has SR, a much larger and heavier SR system. Check out a 5D next to a 30D and you will see there is a difference. If its not significant to you then fine, but it weighs quite a bit more (895g vs 785g with battery - thats around a 14% weight gain).

QuoteOriginally posted by 24X36NOW Quote
and in fact uses a lens mount designed to support 24 x 36. It is a compromise that did not arise from any quality/convenince balancing act (which is what made 35mm popular) but to reduce COST. That is the ONLY reason APS-C format dSLRs exist - COST.
Cost seems like a very good reason to me. I dont use a camera as neck jewelry, it has to pay for itself so I want the most camera I can get for the money and right now thats APSC and Pentax. If it changes I will let you know.

One of the reasons its cheaper - apart from sensors - is because there are far more engineering issues to overcome with large sensors, including the poor performance on such sensors of lenses designed for film and the fact that sensors do not perform like film, especially at the edges. Add the two effects together and you have some serious issues. Yes, you can work to reduce them but its hard work and there is just too little gain for all the extra $$$$.

The real issue with FF is the fact that despite showing some IQ improvement, the difference between a $500 10MP entry level 400D and a $2000 12MP 5D is not that impressive considering the difference in cost and it will NEVER be as cheap however "cheap" it gets. 1 stop less noise and a little more DR is all you get, and the 40D pretty much matches the 5D on both counts so all I would say is APSC will always catch up with FF in 2 years. If you can wait 2 years, you will save a whole bunch of cash....

QuoteOriginally posted by 24X36NOW Quote
If the technology for sensor chips allowed 24 x 36 sensor chips to be cheaper from the start, you would have never seen an APS-C dSLR, period. However, technology marches on. All you need do is look at the relative prices for dSLRs and the sophistication/feature levels of those products over the last 5 - 7 years and you can see it clearly. I paid $1800 for an *istD with a mere 6 megapixels just a few years ago. In April, I'll be able to buy a K20D with 14.6 megapixels for at least $500 LESS (it'll be more than that once a "street" price is established). The advance toward Full Frame is inevitable, because of the inherent compromise of APS-C
What the reduction in price of APSC cameras has to do with the price of FF cameras exactly I am not sure. But 36 X 22 is a compromise too. Everything is a compromise. In the old days anyone who cared a sh*t about IQ would buy an MF or LF camera.

QuoteOriginally posted by 24X36NOW Quote
and because the cost will keep getting more reasonable until more and more people are willing to pay the extra fare to get better cameras.
No sign of that happening so far though.

QuoteOriginally posted by 24X36NOW Quote
There's tons of talk here about how APS-C format is "good enough," but I suspect that this is much the same as people who said that a digital point and shoot was "good enough" until they could afford a digital SLR. THEN, suddenly the digital point and shoot wasn't "good enough" any more. :ugh: When Full Frame digital SLRs are more affordable, all the "I have no interest" crowd will be buying them, guaranteed.
I'm sure there will be plenty of defensive comments regarding those who will defend the compromised APS-C format to the death since they have invested in it and don't feel comfortable with "their" cameras being criticized, so let's examine some of the so-called "advantages" in the harsh light of reality:
Please dont put words in everyones mouth. I dont remember anyone saying P&S cameras were good enough, but for many uses they are actually. I have no issue with my camera being "criticised" I have an issue with people ranting on about what Pentax should do, speaking for the rest of us and assuming we are all stupid and deaf and dont understand the issues here.

QuoteOriginally posted by 24X36NOW Quote
FIRST, the much-worshipped "telephoto advantage:" This one is pure agricultural commodity (read: BS) cooked up by camera maker marketing departments and swallowed hook, line and sinker by many who are going a long way towards proving P.T. Barnum right. The focal length of a lens does NOT increase when you put it on a smaller format camera. The magnification of a lens does NOT increase when you put it on a smaller format camera. You do NOT NEED A LONGER FOCAL LENGTH LENS ON A FULL FRAME CAMERA TO TAKE THE SAME PICTURE WITH THE SAME MAGNIFICATION AS YOU CAN TAKE ON A SMALLER FORMAT CAMERA - all you need to do to get the EXACT SAME picture on a Full Frame camera is CROP the Full Frame picture down to the size of the smaller format. You DO NOT GAIN A THING - YOU ONLY LOSE SOMETHING - 58% of your image size.
And you give up 58% of your resolution as well. Clever....why on earth would I want to do that? With an APS camera I can give up none of my image size or resolution but carry a much smaller lens.

QuoteOriginally posted by 24X36NOW Quote
SECOND, the supposed "size/weight reduction" of (in particular) "digital only" lenses designed to cover a smaller image circle rather than the full 24 x 36 frame. More agricultural commodity! Let's see how the specs of the two new "digital only" tele primes recently announced compare with their predecessors:

DA* 200 F 2.8 - 83mm wide x 134 mm long; 825 grams
FA 200 F 2.8 - 83mm wide x 134mm long; 785 grams
A 200 F 2.8 - 91mm wide x 138mm long; 850 grams

DA* 300 F 4.0 - 83mm wide x 184mm long; 1,070 grams
FA 300 F 4.5 - 73mm wide x 160mm long; 935 grams (no F 4.0 available)
A 300 F 4.0 - 84mm wide x 132mm long; 850 grams

The APS-C "digital only" lenses not only are not smaller and lighter by any significant amount, THEY ARE ACTUALLY LARGER AND HEAVIER than some comparable 24 x 36 format lenses. Certainly there is NOT sufficient downsizing of size OR weight to justify LOSING 58% OF YOUR ORIGINAL IMAGE SIZE! However, once again defenders of the compromise "crop cameras" tout this non-existent "advantage." You've been sold a bill of goods again!
Sorry, you are missing the issue here. The size of a lens of a given speed is dictated by the size of the front element and the quality of construction. The former is a function of actual focal length not format or image circle. So a 200mm F2.8 lens with quality construction will weigh the same whatever format I use. But on my APS camera I can use a 200mm lens whereas I would need a 300mm lens on the FF camera. Please dont deny this, thats just being silly. Furthermore a 200mm F2.8 lens is faster as well as lighter, smaller and cheaper than a 300mm F4 lens by your own admission.

QuoteOriginally posted by 24X36NOW Quote
THIRD, the "size doesn't matter, only image quality matters" argument. This I'm sorry to say is self-contradictory. LARGER FORMAT PHOTOS HAVE SUPERIOR IMAGE QUALITY TO SMALLER FORMAT PHOTOS, BECAUSE LESS ENLARGEMENT (MAGNIFICATION) IS REQUIRED TO PRODUCE ANY GIVEN PRINT SIZE.
Oh come ON!!!! This is DIGITAL. A 12MP image can print at the same resolution on the same paper whatever camera it was taken on from a P&S to a MF back. This is not a film negative - there is no "enlargement" going on. Files from my Ricoh GX10 are the same size as those from my K10D and have the same number of pixels.

QuoteOriginally posted by 24X36NOW Quote
This is why large format is better than medium format, medium format is better than 35mm, 35mm is better than APS, and APS is better than 110. THIS WILL NOT CHANGE REGARDLESS OF TECHNOLOGY ADVANCES, since any such advances will be applied to sensor chips of both formats. Further, Full Frame sensor chips can reduce pixel density and thus noise as compared with APS-C sensor chips while maintaining superior image quality. Even at equivalent pixel density, Full Frame provides less amplification of existing noise (again, due to reduced magnification) and thus superior IQ. (It's the same reason thumbnail sensors with similar megapixels produce inferior IQ as compared with the larger sensors in dSLRs.)
You clearly know nothing at all about sensor technology or physics. Magnification has nothing to do with anything, amplification does. Larger physical photosites are more sensitive in proportion to their area so have lower shot noise and require less amplification as ISO increases therefore causing less amplification of noise at higher ISO.

However this only applies at higher ISO. At lower ISO the sensor shot noise is relatively small compared to the signal. The main issues become thermal/dark current noise (which is actually worse on larger sensors) and noise from the rest of the circuitry in the camera which is the same for both. In fact, at low ISO, many APS sensors have lower noise than FF ones, though not by much.

You only have to look at Phils noise graphs for the Canon CMOS sensors. the 40D has pretty much the same noise and better DR as the 5D, the only difference is 2 years and 2 megapixels. The 40D also is 6.5fps, and costs 1/3 as much. Not bad.

QuoteOriginally posted by 24X36NOW Quote
FOURTH, the "file size is too big" non-issue. Memory has gotten amazingly cheap and amazingly compact. Buffer sizes, etc. can be increased as necessary to accommodate ever larger files without any problem (20+ megapixel cameras already offer 5fps, which is more than adequate for ANY photographer; until late in the film-only years, 5 fps was the most you got with motor drives even on "professional" cameras). Technology will continue to enable faster processing and greater storage, so this is a meaningless "issue."
Filesize has nothing to do with format and has everything to do with resolution, bit depth aand compression. Like I said, my GX100 file sizes are the same as my K10D. The issue is not the camera but my computers ability to edit 16bit 14MP files which use up about 56MB of RAM per layer.

QuoteOriginally posted by 24X36NOW Quote
In short, APS-C offers NO operational advantages, NO appreciable size/weight advantages, and inferior IQ.
Sorry I am going to have to turn this round. FF offers very few practical ADVANTAGES for the extra cost and for most of us is pointless since we dont print at sizes that warrent the pixel level difference. At most, you get a stop more useful high ISO, and a little more DR, and considerably greater outlay. Noone is saying you cant have that if you want it, there is plenty of choice, so how come no-one is really buying into it?

QuoteOriginally posted by 24X36NOW Quote
The ONLY "advantage" about APS-C is that it is CHEAPER. And as the old saying goes, "you get what you pay for." So please, stop rationalizing about APS-C format as being a replacement for 24 x 36. It's not. Rather, it's just a stop-gap whose coffin is (albeit, slowly) being constructed as Full Frame inexorably becomes more mainstream (which will bring prices down). Full Frame is the future, and Pentax needs to get with the program. Once it becomes more affordable (and it will, because that is the nature of technological advance), nobody in their right mind will want a camera of similar size and weight in a smaller image format, because aside from cost differential there is NO BENEFIT (highly successful marketing BS notwithstanding lol).
FF will always represent the high end of the SLR style cameras, and APS is a perfectly valid format in its own right and will always remain cheaper, more accessible to the masses and only slightly less decent quality wise. For many uses it is likely to remain the prefered format.

The fact that many accessories and lenses can be shared keeps manufacturers costs down, but the two formats can and will coexist quite happily indefinately and until Pentax decides to build professional grade DSLRs it has no need to build FF cameras to survive, quite the opposite.

You on the other hand seem to have based your entire desire for FF on a number of misundertsandings about the basics of digital imaging and the state of the camera market.

01-31-2008, 04:12 PM   #65
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Romania
Posts: 9,323
I'm thinking... what if the new DA*, 200mm f/2.8 and 300mm f/4, can cover the 135 format? After all, afaik the 200mm is based on the FA* - and there is no point in crippling it in order to make it APS-C only (if that would be true, Pentax won't want to hear my oppinion. But I trust them to do the right thing).
If that's the case, we're comparing a FF lens with a FF lens. Which format wins?

Btw: I'd also like a FF camera for the viewfinder; the 645D would be even better (much better). But I'm not prepared to pay the $$... anything over 2000 euro is out of reach, for me.
01-31-2008, 04:29 PM   #66
Senior Member




Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 195
QuoteOriginally posted by *isteve Quote
Really? And FF would help? FF that accounts for 2.5% of the total DSLR market? 5% market share of 2.5% of the market - hmm - sounds like a really dumb idea to me since it would take all of Pentax's design and engineering resources for the next couple of years and therefore reduce the advances in all its other models that actually generate revenue.....


If you can afford it. The trouble very few of these rabid FF campaigners would ever actually buy one because it would be too expensive so Pentax would waste all that money and go bankrupt. Great.

Good gosh, did signing NDA's make you folks blind one sided coolaid drinkers for the Pentax cult? Full Frame only has a 2.5% market share because it hasn't been presented by the camera makers to the consumers at an affordable level yet. It's not because everyone just loves their aps-c so much that they choose not to get full frame, it's because at the price point there isn't another option. But, if the camera makers don't make full frame ever, then we never will see the features and prices come down to put full frame into a higher percentage of users hands.

I saw these same sorts of APS-C devotees on the Nikon forums a few years ago, and they had the exact same arguments as you do now. How nikon aps-c was so much better than what ever full frame Canon was offering, and for this and that reason Aps-c was the clear answer. Well, now that Nikon put out a full frame option, that camp is singing the praises of Full Frame like there never was any other belief.

Whether you like it or not, and whether it threatens you or not, people want full frame cameras to be available as an option. I agree that the cost puts them out of many peoples hands, but if Pentax never starts making one, then there will never be an option and there will never be a chance for the price to eventually come down. All full frames don't have to be mounted in Nikon D# bodies to be produced. There is plenty of market for a good full frame sensor in a good body like a K10D that could be marketed at different levels depending on buffer and other internals that allow higher and lower feature sets around a 24x36 sensor.

With this, I give up on my argument though because I realize it's a lost cause in the pentax forums to try to ever convince a few devotees otherwise.
01-31-2008, 04:49 PM   #67
Veteran Member




Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,299
QuoteOriginally posted by txbonds Quote
Good gosh, did signing NDA's make you folks blind one sided coolaid drinkers for the Pentax cult?
Do you have to get personal?
Sure, it falls into the same line that every time someone say something remotely positive about Pentax, he is automatically labeled as a "fanboy". So now, we have a new label - "cult"? Geez.

QuoteQuote:
Full Frame only has a 2.5% market share because it hasn't been presented by the camera makers to the consumers at an affordable level yet.
Well, not a question of "presentation", because FF camera really isn't affordable yet.

QuoteQuote:
Well, now that Nikon put out a full frame option, that camp is singing the praises of Full Frame like there never was any other belief.
Sure, and the Nikon Camp now has a chance to vote with their wallet - but did they?
Forum noise is one thing, actual sales figure doesn't lie. And its number though good for a FF camera, is still very small in comparison with the rest of Nikon models.

QuoteQuote:
but if Pentax never starts making one, then there will never be an option and there will never be a chance for the price to eventually come down.
Surely they can start anytime when the cost is already down.

QuoteQuote:
With this, I give up on my argument though because I realize it's a lost cause in the pentax forums to try to ever convince a few devotees otherwise.
Yeah yeah, the fanboys and the cult.
01-31-2008, 04:53 PM   #68
Senior Member




Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Berlin, Germany
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 151
QuoteOriginally posted by txbonds Quote
Good gosh, did signing NDA's make you folks blind one sided coolaid drinkers for the Pentax cult? Full Frame only has a 2.5% market share because it hasn't been presented by the camera makers to the consumers at an affordable level yet. It's not because everyone just loves their aps-c so much that they choose not to get full frame, it's because at the price point there isn't another option. But, if the camera makers don't make full frame ever, then we never will see the features and prices come down to put full frame into a higher percentage of users hands.
You obviously don't know how sensors are made and how expensive large high resolution chips are. Even today there is a lot of waste in the production due to spoiled circuitry. The chance to get a a number of functioning aps-c-sensors from a wafer is much higher than to get half the number of FFs - because faults are spread statistically on the wafers. There is no way to get the price of FFs down to double the price of aps-c sensors.

QuoteOriginally posted by txbonds Quote
I saw these same sorts of APS-C devotees on the Nikon forums a few years ago, and they had the exact same arguments as you do now. How nikon aps-c was so much better than what ever full frame Canon was offering, and for this and that reason Aps-c was the clear answer. Well, now that Nikon put out a full frame option, that camp is singing the praises of Full Frame like there never was any other belief.

Whether you like it or not, and whether it threatens
Huh? Threatened by FF??????
QuoteOriginally posted by txbonds Quote
you or not, people want full frame cameras to be available as an option. I agree that the cost puts them out of many peoples hands, but if Pentax never starts making one, then there will never be an option and there will never be a chance for the price to eventually come down. All full frames don't have to be mounted in Nikon D# bodies to be produced. There is plenty of market for a good full frame sensor in a good body like a K10D that could be marketed at different levels depending on buffer and other internals that allow higher and lower feature sets around a 24x36 sensor.

With this, I give up on my argument though because I realize it's a lost cause in the pentax forums to try to ever convince a few devotees otherwise.
I think many people here listen carefully to the points you make, and in some they agree with you. Maybe you should listen, too?

01-31-2008, 05:23 PM   #69
Senior Member




Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: NJ
Posts: 187
QuoteOriginally posted by *isteve Quote
If you can afford it. The trouble very few of these rabid FF campaigners would ever actually buy one...
Agreed. $2000+ for full frame body? I wouldn't buy.

Really, is cropping *that* big of a deal? A deal big enough to go out and spend $2000 on a FF body... to fix it? Regardless, you only get optimum IQ if you're also shooting on the top of your game yourself. The very top.
01-31-2008, 05:45 PM   #70
Senior Member




Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 269
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Marcus Quote
Agreed. $2000+ for full frame body? I wouldn't buy.

Really, is cropping *that* big of a deal? A deal big enough to go out and spend $2000 on a FF body... to fix it? Regardless, you only get optimum IQ if you're also shooting on the top of your game yourself. The very top.

I would pay $2000 in a heartbeat for a FF Pentax K?D that had specs similar to the Nikon D3. I think if Pentax and Samsung put their minds to it, they could achieve something like this within a couple of years. Seem ludicrous? Perhaps, but think how rapidly technology is advancing.

Ted
01-31-2008, 06:11 PM   #71
Senior Member




Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 195
I know, I replied abruptly just before walking out the door, and to Steve I apologize for taking my frustration out in your direction.

However, I still contend that any time FF is brought up around the Pentax forums, there is a rush to quell the talk. Just don't understand why no one ever wants to discuss the merrits of it. I mean, if Pentax is watching for customer wants and all, they will not know unless it's discussed in open.







QuoteOriginally posted by JanG Quote
You obviously don't know how sensors are made and how expensive large high resolution chips are. Even today there is a lot of waste in the production due to spoiled circuitry. The chance to get a a number of functioning aps-c-sensors from a wafer is much higher than to get half the number of FFs - because faults are spread statistically on the wafers. There is no way to get the price of FFs down to double the price of aps-c sensors.


Huh? Threatened by FF??????


I think many people here listen carefully to the points you make, and in some they agree with you. Maybe you should listen, too?
01-31-2008, 06:35 PM   #72
Veteran Member
*isteve's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: London, England
Posts: 1,187
QuoteOriginally posted by Tbear Quote
I would pay $2000 in a heartbeat for a FF Pentax K?D that had specs similar to the Nikon D3. I think if Pentax and Samsung put their minds to it, they could achieve something like this within a couple of years. Seem ludicrous? Perhaps, but think how rapidly technology is advancing.

Ted
But thats just it isnt it. The D3 is only 12 MP and it costs $5000. Mainstream FF has been around since 2000 and the Contax N digital which bankrupted Contax.

Since then we had the Kodak DCA 14n (July 2002) with a list price of exactly $5000 and the 1Ds (11MP and $8000).

Then the shocker - in 2004 they came out with the IDS mk2 at 16MP which sold up to this day for around $7000. Soon after in 2005 came (taraaa) the 5D with a midrange (read cheap) body and the discarded (amortised) sensor from the 1Ds at $3,300. They had to discount this to around $2700 to shift stock in recent months but then its a bit old now.

And now we also have the wonderful 1DSmk3 at - oh dear - $8000.

So where is your steady downward trend and rapidly advancing technology? Rapidly advancing age more likely. Above is a potted 8 year history of no real progress at all except more MP!!!
01-31-2008, 09:45 PM   #73
Forum Member




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Manila, Philippines
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 86
Re:

The price points you mention is because full-frame is not ubiquitous. The state of the market now is pre -FF and pro APS-C. You cant possibly site conditions now as if it would still be relevant in the future. The question is not whether Pentax will go FF but when. Tbear and txbonds and 24x36NOW are just suggesting that Pentax do it sooner rather than later. Nikon was wise enough to realise that and is now investing in the future, prior to the D3 it did not produce FF lenses as well, but its sure making it up (with the announcement of a couple of new FF lenses) now. Whose to stop Pentax from doing the same?

Pro APS-C are also claiming that it would be suicidal for Pentax (given its resources) to produce a Full Frame camera, but likewise would it also be suicidal for Pentax not to? I'd say, not producing an answer to Canon, Nikon and now Sony's aspirations for a FF body is just delaying its inevitable demise.

QuoteQuote:
Let's look at another focal length for comparison, how about the Pentax DA 18-250mm. Now let's look at the FF equivalent.... Oops! None available... And that's because 18-250mm is one of those lens made possible by the APS-C sensor. It would be very difficult, if not impossible, to design an equivalent FF lens with reasonable size and weight.
Does the old Sigma 28-300 count? I think that lens was designed for full frame.
01-31-2008, 10:22 PM   #74
Senior Member




Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: NJ
Posts: 187
QuoteOriginally posted by Tbear Quote
I would pay $2000 in a heartbeat for a FF Pentax K?D that had specs similar to the Nikon D3. I think if Pentax and Samsung put their minds to it, they could achieve something like this within a couple of years. Seem ludicrous? Perhaps, but think how rapidly technology is advancing.
To some, it seems shooting on less than FF insults their skill level and intelligence. I can't see how. How often do you FF supporters go shooting and what is your content? What type of scenes are you composing? And does that justify the high price of a FF camera?

I really wouldn't want a D3 unless I shot content that would get the most out of the D3. It would be too much camera with too little content. All the technology in the world can't cover up for bottom of the barrel everyday content. For me, my camera has to be somewhat proportionate to my skill level and content. If I had a camera similar to the D3, I'd feel guilty about letting it sit in a camera bag, if you catch my drift.

And I'd really feel guilty about bringing out a D3 like camera around people who know that I'm no Ansel Adams or Richard Avedon. I can talk them on features all I want but if they know my stuff is nothing to write home about, I'm clearly a joke.
01-31-2008, 11:41 PM   #75
Veteran Member




Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,299
QuoteOriginally posted by txbonds Quote
However, I still contend that any time FF is brought up around the Pentax forums, there is a rush to quell the talk.
I feel exactly the opposite. Every time FF is brought up, there will be claims that Pentax is doomed without FF, FF is the future, APS-C has no merits, APS-C will be obsolete etc. The FF camp simply cannot accept that APS-C will continue to exist even with FF introduction.

QuoteOriginally posted by jef1101:
I'd say, not producing an answer to Canon, Nikon and now Sony's aspirations for a FF body is just delaying its inevitable demise.
See? This is what I am talking about.
If what you say is true, maybe you can sign off Olympus's/Panasonic's death certificate right now? This type of statement is plain absurd.

Last edited by nosnoop; 01-31-2008 at 11:46 PM.
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!
ff, lenses, pentax, pentax news, pentax rumors, pentax/samsung, sensor, sony
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
K-x Sony Sensor vs K-7 Samsung Sensor karl79 Video and Pentax HDSLRs 9 09-23-2010 09:35 AM
Size of Samsung NX-10 compared to Pentax K20D, Samsung GX-20 Clone Samsungian Non-Pentax Cameras: Canon, Nikon, etc. 11 01-21-2010 12:26 PM
Now Sony will release a new EVIL system... where is Samsung? Xian Non-Pentax Cameras: Canon, Nikon, etc. 4 11-11-2009 10:23 PM
The White House joins the 21st century, but not with a Pentax konraDarnok General Talk 13 01-15-2009 10:05 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:13 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