Pentax/Camera Marketplace |
Pentax Items for Sale |
Wanted Pentax Items |
Pentax Deals |
Deal Finder & Price Alerts |
Price Watch Forum |
My Marketplace Activity |
List a New Item |
Get seller access! |
Pentax Stores |
Pentax Retailer Map |
Pentax Photos |
Sample Photo Search |
Recent Photo Mosaic |
Today's Photos |
Free Photo Storage |
Member Photo Albums |
User Photo Gallery |
Exclusive Gallery |
Photo Community |
Photo Sharing Forum |
Critique Forum |
Official Photo Contests |
World Pentax Day Gallery |
World Pentax Day Photo Map |
Pentax Resources |
Articles and Tutorials |
Member-Submitted Articles |
Recommended Gear |
Firmware Update Guide |
Firmware Updates |
Pentax News |
Pentax Lens Databases |
Pentax Lens Reviews |
Pentax Lens Search |
Third-Party Lens Reviews |
Lens Compatibility |
Pentax Serial Number Database |
In-Depth Reviews |
SLR Lens Forum |
Sample Photo Archive |
Forum Discussions |
New Posts |
Today's Threads |
Photo Threads |
Recent Photo Mosaic |
Recent Updates |
Today's Photos |
Quick Searches |
Unanswered Threads |
Recently Liked Posts |
Forum RSS Feed |
Go to Page... |
|
Search this Thread |
01-31-2008, 08:43 AM | #46 |
Very cogent and logical arguments in favor of full frame. I knew of most advantages, but I for one had no idea that the "benefit" of the lens multiplication factor of APS-C over FF is bunk. Also very interesting to see real numbers showing that FF lenses do not have to weigh more than their APS-C counterparts. Bravo! Addressing APS-C vs. FF I'd probably choose APS-C. I don't need more than the K20D offers, and I prefer lighter cams. K10D / K20D certainly is my upper limit. I'd rather like a K20D in a K100 D body. Final sentences: FF will never get in the price range of APS-C, no chance regarding the dimensions of the sensor and the dimensions of the glas (if you take the crop factor into account). Sometimes these FF-APS-C-discussions remind me of certain enlargement offers I sometimes find in my spam folder | |
01-31-2008, 10:12 AM | #47 |
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. Whether people "NEED" more IQ is not the point. People will WANT more IQ if it is available, regardless of their "needs." 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 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. 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 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. 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: 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. 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! 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. 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.) 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." 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. 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). Up until yesterday I had been a complete agnostic on the Full Frame vs. APS-C issue. You may now count me among the ranks of the Full Frame faithful. -XM | |
01-31-2008, 10:22 AM | #48 |
...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. 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). What I slowly garnered was what 24x36NOW has now assembled into a neat little (?) package (well written, sir). As such, all the lenses I've purchased until now (12 in total) are 35mm compatible in anticipation of _possible_ FF bodies. Even if this never comes to pass for Pentax, I figured these lenses still represent some of the finer moments in their history, and I'll always have the choice, either way the future goes. Now, from the outside looking in, it seems to me Pentax has and is creating powerful (and reliable) tools, priced at a point that allows the curious to come in instead of standing outside and wondering. In doing so they have made (in me) a loyal fan, and if it took APS-C to create that price point, I thank them for that. BUT it does seem to me they are creating a limitation for themselves by not simply allowing their lenses to have a few mm more glass to accomodate for the possibility at least of a FF body option. The only logical solution is that they can resell you the lenses all over again if they do a 35mm sensor. Maybe they know something I don't, I've considered this too (heh) but my cross-compatible purchase choice remains (hence my love of the new Cosina Voigtlanders, but I digress). These are just my thoughts, my perception of the whole FF debate. Some of you have me nearly convinced that I should just enjoy some of the current DA glass, but I do have my nagging doubts on the longevity of the format (certainly, in the lessened versatility of the cropped glass). The view put forth by 24x36NOW neatly outlines why the 35mm format is dominant (and I concur) but I AM a loyal and happy Pentaxian. They've done right by me and I really enjoy the cameras for what they are right now and simply remain ready for a possible full format sensor in future. Short term, I look forward to enjoying the K20D (and most likely breaking my own rule by purchasing the DA*60-250 to go with it, even if it means reselling it later on for a discount.) Its good to be ready for the future, but I gotta live in the now and Pentax is still making great cameras, APS-C, FF or otherwise. | |
01-31-2008, 10:34 AM | #49 |
Thanks 24x36Now. I posted some stuff earlier this week about Full Frame and was pretty much roasted for it on here and on dpreview. Guess it took more eloquent writing than mine to make people stop and think about it for a moment. Full Frame is the way to go and aps-c doesn't offer any of the advantages claimed. The only thing you get is a higher pixel density on the cropped view from your telephoto lens. Otherwise, full frame meaning 24x36 should be the future. Forget all the MF 645 talk too, as that is an entirely different format and has nothing to do with 24x36 sensors being put into our current aps-c type cameras. Drives me nuts when everyone throws out the 645D talk as being a replacement for 24x36 sensor needs in pentax slr's. Just not the same. We may need both, but the 645 is not a replacemetn for a full frame slr. | |
01-31-2008, 10:35 AM | #50 |
Forget 35mm FF. Go 645D!!! Pentax should skip FF in a 35mm style body and blow the market away with a 645D than puts canon and nikon's FF pro models in the dust. This is one area where Pentax has an undisputable advantage. When was the last time you saw a medium format canon or nikon? NEVER! (and for the Hassy fans... a comparable Hassy would cost 3-4 times what a 645D will... so Pentax will hold a significant price-point advantage) Last edited by MRRiley; 01-31-2008 at 10:55 AM. | |
01-31-2008, 10:57 AM | #51 |
Originally posted by 24X36NOW: 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 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. Another comparison would be DA 50-200mm vs FAJ 75-300mm. The former weighs 255g with a 52mm filter; the 75-300mm weighs 385g with a 58mm filter. | |
01-31-2008, 11:12 AM | #52 |
As I stated before, the size of the body does matter. I can see squeezing a FF sensor in a K10d size body but not a MF sensor. There are a lot of MF lenses floating around but nothing compared to the amount of FF lenses. One of the reason a pro like Ben has opted for the K10D is body size, easy to work with all day. Considering the quality of some of his poster sized photos now, I wonder what you would do with more than a FF sensor. | |
01-31-2008, 11:14 AM | #53 |
In case this hasn't been posted yet, the new sony with 24x36 will also have Super Steady Shot Stabilization. From today's announcement on dpreview regarding Sony PMA press conference: " Key points: No high end DLSR announced today, but a little more detail: It's going to be a full frame 24.6MP CMOS model with Super Steady Shot stabilization, and it's coming this year. 09:22: Now here's the breaking news. We revealed last year that we would be announcing a high end Alpha. Development is continuing. Here's some detail of the sensor it will be built around. 24.6MP Full Frame CMOS sensor. It will be available by the end of this year (we're guessing a Photokina announcement). 09:23: Guy from DSLR development has taken the stage. Talking about Sony's image sensor ('Exmor'). They're working on the development of the new CMOS full frame (for the flagship model) and he's talking about the new CCD sensor developed for the A350. 09:27: Super Steady Shot for the Full Frame sensor is confirmed. Apparently there's a prototype here we can see in action." Supposed pic of new sony prototype FF: Sony : Download High Resolution Image Last edited by txbonds; 01-31-2008 at 11:25 AM. | |
01-31-2008, 11:50 AM | #54 |
Quote: People will WANT more IQ if it is available, regardless of their "needs." Quote: APS-C is an inferior format, because it is smaller than 24 x 36... without providing any equipment size/weight reduction of any significance and in fact uses a lens mount designed to support 24 x 36. Quote: 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. And the same reason why people with FF don't upgrade to Medium Format, which gives superior quality. Quote: When Full Frame digital SLRs are more affordable, all the "I have no interest" crowd will be buying them, guaranteed. Quote: 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. Quote: 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. 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. Reason - COST!!! Quote: FOURTH, the "file size is too big" non-issue. I know I don't. All it does is to fill up my SD card and hard drive faster. So this is not at all a meaningless issue. Quote: 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. And of course, CHEAPER is the best advantage of all, and as I said, it could be the single factor which negates all other factors for most people. The same reason why people are not buying Medium Format digital, which has amazing IQ. K20D is about the most price I would pay for a digicam. Quote: 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. Not FF. | |
01-31-2008, 12:45 PM | #55 |
Most folks who are stepping up from point-and-shoot cameras don't want to make that leap from a $200 camera to a $5000 camera w/o lens. Like it or not, these decisions are often made based on what will appeal to the largest group of people. Right now, we can't even get the majority of folks who already own APS-C DSLR's to agree to fork over 3-4 times the cost of their present camera in order to step up to a FF camera, so why would the average consumer make that leap? | |
01-31-2008, 12:56 PM | #56 |
Most folks who are stepping up from point-and-shoot cameras don't want to make that leap from a $200 camera to a $5000 camera w/o lens. Like it or not, these decisions are often made based on what will appeal to the largest group of people. Right now, we can't even get the majority of folks who already own APS-C DSLR's to agree to fork over 3-4 times the cost of their present camera in order to step up to a FF camera, so why would the average consumer make that leap? Lets also put this into the perspective of other arena's. Car companies build race cars and the technology learned during that process eventually trickles down to the cars that you and I buy. The regular consumer eventually benefits from high end, high performance units and R&D put into those items. In the camera world, that high end unit is the pro body flagship model. The R&D put into developing the no stops, bar none camera, eventually finds it's way down to us. Regular consumers are heavily swayed by market perception, advertising, what they see the "pro's" using, etc. If you don't personally see a benefit in there being a full frame camera, surely you can see these things as being good for the brand on a long term basis. | |
01-31-2008, 01:06 PM | #57 |
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. 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.) As far as I'm concerned, full frame is a mere marketing hype. But even then, I don't know why you should shout so loud. My head hurts... | |
01-31-2008, 01:08 PM | #58 |
Lets also put this into the perspective of other arena's. Car companies build race cars and the technology learned during that process eventually trickles down to the cars that you and I buy. The regular consumer eventually benefits from high end, high performance units and R&D put into those items. Maybe it's the other way round: APS-C requires much more sensor knowledge because you have to make use of every little bit of light you capture. Look at C****'s sensor development: the FFs never are the first cams to take the next step. Jan | |
01-31-2008, 01:34 PM | #59 |
Not if the money going into FF development would derail the company. Sony may be able to absorb the cost of a A900 flop, but not Pentax. Even with a FF flagship, Pentax can still implement state-of-the-art technology in a APS-C flagship, and filter down the technology to lesser models. So you don't need FF to have a high end flagship (actually it would be a more affordable flagship without FF).
| |
01-31-2008, 01:39 PM | #60 |
Lets also put this into the perspective of other arena's. Car companies build race cars and the technology learned during that process eventually trickles down to the cars that you and I buy. The regular consumer eventually benefits from high end, high performance units and R&D put into those items. In the camera world, that high end unit is the pro body flagship model. The R&D put into developing the no stops, bar none camera, eventually finds it's way down to us. Regular consumers are heavily swayed by market perception, advertising, what they see the "pro's" using, etc. If you don't personally see a benefit in there being a full frame camera, surely you can see these things as being good for the brand on a long term basis. 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. | |
|
Bookmarks |
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 |
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
K-x Sony Sensor vs K-7 Samsung Sensor | karl79 | Video Recording and Processing | 9 | 09-23-2010 09:35 AM |
Size of Samsung NX-10 compared to Pentax K20D, Samsung GX-20 Clone | Samsungian | Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands | 11 | 01-21-2010 12:26 PM |
Now Sony will release a new EVIL system... where is Samsung? | Xian | Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands | 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 |