[Lucky Sky]

to his credit, he wasn't predicting bankruptcy again, he was just stating the Photokina disappointments thus far, which many here have echoed.

that said, being handed off to two separate owners in the past ten years isn't quite bankruptcy, but its not exactly an encouraging sign of runaway progress either.

I'm still waiting/betting my (FA) lens collection for further Pentax announcements this year.

In my industry, I saw a big player go bankrupt four (that's right, four) times in about 15 years. They finally got it right and reincarnated themselves as an impact player in my industry. As an aside, the US Federal government rightfully saw their four trips into Bankruptcy Code Chapter 11 as an abuse of the system, and subsequently limited the number of times a company may go bankrupt.

Just because Pentax has had two owners in what? four years? does not doom it to a slow (or fast demise). Either Ricoh ownership is a good thing or not. Or another way of stating this is to ask if Ricoh management is a collection of buffoons who can't make a decent acquisition.

I come down on the side that Pentax will prosper. Too many people I meet want/need instant gratification, in this case in the form of overly rapid results from the Ricoh purchase of Pentax. It just don't happen that way.

[illdefined]

Just because Pentax has had two owners in what? four years? does not doom it to a slow (or fast demise). Either Ricoh ownership is a good thing or not. Or another way of stating this is to ask if Ricoh management is a collection of buffoons who can't make a decent acquisition.

I come down on the side that Pentax will prosper. Too many people I meet want/need instant gratification, in this case in the form of overly rapid results from the Ricoh purchase of Pentax. It just don't happen that way.

If I felt Pentax was destined for certain doom I wouldnt be reading this site much less keep my lenses and bodies this long.

the K5 was a huge positive step, financially and philosophically. as an object it's near perfect, It's proof to me there's still a philosophy at all vs. what I feel is the soullessness of the big two. but it's important for any company to keep moving forward and not rest on their laurels. The II and IIs smack of just treading water, moves to buy time, so I patiently remain hopeful there's more to come, because frankly there needs to be.

[Pål Jensen]

to his credit, he wasn't predicting bankruptcy again, he was just stating the Photokina disappointments thus far, which many here have echoed. .

Its weird to be dissapointed about Photokina as it hasn't started yet!

[Pål Jensen]

Yes, where I live, a K-5 II and DA* 16-50mm is about 1000 gbp less than a D600 and 24-85mm. However, this doesn't play to Pentax's strengths since in terms of size and weight the Pentax kit with that zoom is still a bit of a heffalump albelt less so than the Nikon kit. .

But you don't have to buy the 16-50/2.8. You can choose the almost free kit lens. No such option for the Nikon. Not to mention pancake lenses....

[Blue]

Its weird to be dissapointed about Photokina as it hasn't started yet!

Press Day is Monday!

[ihasa]

But you don't have to buy the 16-50/2.8. You can choose the almost free kit lens. No such option for the Nikon. Not to mention pancake lenses....

The kit lens is slow and pretty average though.

[ElJamoquio]

But you don't have to buy the 16-50/2.8. You can choose the almost free kit lens. No such option for the Nikon. Not to mention pancake lenses....

Yes, if you're satisfied with what most of us would consider poor IQ (but still want a DSLR for other reasons), the kit lens is the least expensive option.

[mecrox]

But you don't have to buy the 16-50/2.8. You can choose the almost free kit lens. No such option for the Nikon. Not to mention pancake lenses....

Lol, the 18-135mm I would understand but the shorter kit lens is like buying a Maserati and then hanging furry dice from the rear-view mirror. If you're buying a quality camera, at least get a quality lens or two for it, strictly imho.

[northcoastgreg]

1) There's no reason a FF body has to be appreciably larger than a APS-C.

That's true, and the D600 is an important step in getting FF cameras to a more reasonable size. However, $2,100 is still a lot of money for a camera, particularly when very capable APS-C and m43 cameras can be bought for a third to a quarter that price.

Equivalent FF zooms cost less than APS-C zooms. Check out the new Nikon. 24-85 f/3.5-4.5 = APS-C 15-55 f/2.2-2.9. $600.

I find this equivalency argument to be specious on a number of levels. Most people do not think of equivalency in terms of DOF, but only in FOV and aperture. For most photographers, the Panasonic 12-35/2.8 is "equivalent" to the Canikon 24-70/2.8s, even though there's more than two stops difference in DOF. Furthermore, even when lenses are "equivalent" in DOF and FOV, this does not mean they're equivalent in quality. The Nikon 24-85 may be (roughly) equivalent to the DA* 16-50/2.8, but are these lenses really "equivalent" in terms of the images they produce? I doubt it. There's a lot more to image quality than mere numerical resolution and DOF.

But even if they were equivalent, so what? Why would anyone move to FF for equivalency? Isn't FF supposed to be "better"? Isn't that the whole point of FF, the better IQ? I wouldn't buy a $2,000+ camera only to skimp on the glass.

Depending on one's shooting style, accessing the greater potential quality of FF sensors can be prohibitively costly. I don't do narrow DOF stuff at normal or wide angle FOVs, so the advantage that FF has in that respect is irrelevant to me (as it is to many other photographers). So the only advantage of FF for me is the added resolution. However I'm already getting stunning resolution at 18 x 12 print sizes from my K-5. At 18 x 12, you wouldn't be able to visually perceive the difference in resolution between the K-5 and any camera with any camera with a larger sensor and more MP. So the primary raison d'etre of the D800 is to make large prints. How large I can't say, as I've never seen any prints from that camera. Would you be able to perceive a difference in 16 x 24 prints? Probably not. But even if you could, even printing at 16 x 24 would lead to substantially greater costs. I can print and frame (in a glass, matted frame) an 18 x 12 print for under $25. A 16 x 24 easily costs me over $100. Now this is just one instance of many in which an FF that would actually bring about perceivable gains in quality raises costs. Larger sensors tend to lead to larger glass; larger glass leads to larger filters; larger filters cost more. Larger MP files require more expensive computing hardware and greater storage costs. So attempts to argue that FF doesn't necessarily cost more than APS-C are misleading, particularly for those of us who are not true believers in the religion of narrow DOF.

[illdefined]

Its weird to be dissapointed about Photokina as it hasn't started yet!

no, but the PhotoKina announcements have. hence, 'thus far'.

fingers crossed.

[Pål Jensen]

That's true, and the D600 is an important step in getting FF cameras to a more reasonable size. .

Reasonable size is debatable. It is bigger than any K-mount camera ever made...

The rest of your post is absolutely spot on and have for the time being given up arguing along the same lines...

Just let me say one thing; APS lets you shoot at one stop faster shutterspeed at the same DOF compared to FF (Ie you need the higher ISO quality of FF). That is demonstrably a advantage in approximate 99,999% of all photographic situations based on the sucessful images people are actually shooting and publishing...

Almost every week I spot a post on this forums from people switching TO APS from FF. I'm sure we will see more of it in the future; when people realise that 24mp sensor won't give them appreciably better prints, that they suddenly have less reach, longer close focusing distances for the same angle of view, shoot at one stop longer shutterspeed they are used too, thin DOF doesn't get the subject in focus, ...and that their images are getting no better.

[Danny Delcambre]

Find out next week at Photokina. Will Pentax will be there? More other new Products?? Pentax already have new 8 products. I will see next week if there have Pentax FF or not.

[illdefined]

Depending on one's shooting style, accessing the greater potential quality of FF sensors can be prohibitively costly. I don't do narrow DOF stuff at normal or wide angle FOVs, so the advantage that FF has in that respect is irrelevant to me (as it is to many other photographers). So the only advantage of FF for me is the added resolution. However I'm already getting stunning resolution at 18 x 12 print sizes from my K-5. At 18 x 12, you wouldn't be able to visually perceive the difference in resolution between the K-5 and any camera with any camera with a larger sensor and more MP. So the primary raison d'etre of the D800 is to make large prints. How large I can't say, as I've never seen any prints from that camera. Would you be able to perceive a difference in 16 x 24 prints? Probably not. But even if you could, even printing at 16 x 24 would lead to substantially greater costs. I can print and frame (in a glass, matted frame) an 18 x 12 print for under $25. A 16 x 24 easily costs me over $100. Now this is just one instance of many in which an FF that would actually bring about perceivable gains in quality raises costs. Larger sensors tend to lead to larger glass; larger glass leads to larger filters; larger filters cost more. Larger MP files require more expensive computing hardware and greater storage costs. So attempts to argue that FF doesn't necessarily cost more than APS-C are misleading, particularly for those of us who are not true believers in the religion of narrow DOF.

Don't forget the larger FF sensor area ostensibly gives greater ISO ability and dynamic range, two major factors in image quality other than narrow DOF. This allows use of slower (and cheaper) glass than a smaller sensor would in low or interior light. not to mention higher shutter speeds.

[gazonk]

Just let me say one thing; APS lets you shoot at one stop faster shutterspeed at the same DOF compared to FF. That is demonstrably a advantage in approximate 99,999% of all photographic situations based on the sucessful images people are actually shooting and publishing...

With the D800, you can use roughly one stop faster ISO than with the K-5 (according to DxO, S/NR is a little more than one step better, DR a little less) - so in the end you can use the same shutter speed with the same DoF after all

[Pål Jensen]

Lol, the 18-135mm I would understand but the shorter kit lens is like buying a Maserati and then hanging furry dice from the rear-view mirror. If you're buying a quality camera, at least get a quality lens or two for it, strictly imho.

I've seen wonderful pictures shot with the kit lens. It is a question of using where it is good. The point is you got the option.
I look foreward to the roadmapped Limited zoom lens. That promise a very compact zoom lens where optical quality has not been compromised.