[illdefined]

Also an FF camera need to increase ISO one stop in order to give the exact same image as on APS. This is a disadvantage.

Except modern FF sensors have at least one stop ISO quality advantage over APS-C, so each format's 'advantage' cancels the other out in this respect.

if DoF is your thing, there are a plethora of smaller sensors than APS-C. like your iPhone.

[Pål Jensen]

Except modern FF sensors have at least one stop ISO quality advantage over APS-C, so each format's 'advantage' cancels the other out in this respect. .

Absolutely. But thats not impression you get from some on this forum that promotes FF as some sort of wonder format that is just about advantages.

[Pål Jensen]

Suppose, for instance, that Pentax makes our dream camera, a K-5-like camera, not much larger, and with good viewfinder support for APS-C lenses. Further, suppose that it has the 36mp sensor so it's roughly equivalent to the K-5 when cropping..

But thats a different discussion. Then we are comparing APS with APS. If you are happy with APS quality an FF camear used as APS make no sense. No one have suggested that the D800 don't make sense...it does. However, I have a harder time seeing the point of a 24mp FF sensor

[gazonk]

Except modern FF sensors have at least one stop ISO quality advantage over APS-C, so each format's 'advantage' cancels the other out in this respect.

Actually, for high (higher than 1600) ISOs, the difference between D600 (and D800) and K-5 in S/N ratio is less than 1 step, according to DxOMark. Add to that the fact that K-5 has better DR than 5d Mk III at ISOs below 800. So "at least" is not true.

[gazonk]

But thats a different discussion. Then we are comparing APS with APS. If you are happy with APS quality an FF camear used as APS make no sense. No one have suggested that the D800 don't make sense...it does. However, I have a harder time seeing the point of a 24mp FF sensor

My point was that you can have your cake and it it too. You can use FF with its advantages and still not miss out on those occasional tele shots where you grab your lightweight APS-C zoom from your bag. 24mp FF - again, if those tele shots are just occasional, why not? After all you get 10mp in cropped mode.

[thibs]

Except modern FF sensors have at least one stop ISO quality advantage over APS-C, so each format's 'advantage' cancels the other out in this respect.

if DoF is your thing, there are a plethora of smaller sensors than APS-C. like your iPhone.

5Dmk3 doesn't seem to it is so much better than K5...
Sure DXO's Sport ISo is (that'd be funny huh) but otherwise... DR is pretty much unimpressive.
So much for FF...

FF isn't automagically better, can someone get this? And the reverse it true as well. Having shitty FF sensor isn't gonna help much. This is the difference between theory and practice.

[illdefined]

Actually, for high (higher than 1600) ISOs, the difference between D600 (and D800) and K-5 in S/N ratio is less than 1 step, according to DxOMark. Add to that the fact that K-5 has better DR than 5d Mk III at ISOs below 800. So "at least" is not true.

how much less than 1 stop? if you want to get super technical, the K-5 also does NR on RAWs above 1600, negatively affecting resolution while those other cameras you mentioned don't, what of it?

APS-C in DSLRs have always been a compromise for PRICE, nothing more. it is NOT some technical "sweet spot" for performance that a lot of people here have convinced themselves of.

---

Last edited by illdefined; 09-21-2012 at 09:25 AM.

[illdefined]

5Dmk3 doesn't seem to it is so much better than K5...
Sure DXO's Sport ISo is (that'd be funny huh) but otherwise... DR is pretty much unimpressive.
So much for FF...

FF isn't automagically better, can someone get this? And the reverse it true as well. Having shitty FF sensor isn't gonna help much. This is the difference between theory and practice.

Stop cherry picking. yes we understand Canon's sensors are inferior to Sony's.

Pentax and Nikon both use superior Sony sensors, are you really going to claim that ~ 60% more of it isn't 'better' in a potentially same-sized camera?

[ENicolas]

Maybe in the next year or two Ricoh will pull things out and the company will thrive again. Maybe they won't and Pentax may fold up.

I bought my K-5 based on image quality, build quality, and price, and I haven't been disappointed. Maybe next year I'll buy a K-5IIs, and then I'll have a great APS-C camera with improvements. If Pentax goes belly-up, I can still use my cameras until they are dented broken junk.

Why be in a hurry? Did you buy a K-5 because it was crap or because it was a great camera? Why isn't it still a great camera? How good does it have to be?

Chasing the bleeding edge is an expensive and tiresome game. I did it for years with computers and finally got over that. With my K-5 I'm taking great pictures and that's what matters!

[illdefined]

How good does it have to be?

In terms of this brand/market discussion, as good or better than the competition.

for the vast majority of the camera buying population, the K10 or K100 was more than good enough, but Pentax can't survive continuing to sell K10s. for better or worse, cameras are now electronics and the electronic world moves fast.

as of right now, the K-5(II) just qualifies at the high-end APS-C level, but once CaNikon refresh their enthusiast APS-C models early next year (like Jan.), the K-5II will be completely exposed as a 2.5 year old, previous generation camera. worse, 90% of the K5II's feature set has already been handed down to the much more competitive K30, which actually improves upon the K5's features in some instances.

another poster here theorized that the K5II is merely a logistical way for Pentax to flush whatever K5 bodies it had left in the manufacturing chain. this makes sense to me and i sincerely hope he's right. Pentax must bring something substantially new and competitive for the future at next year's CP+ show to convince the buying public it actually has one.

[bobell69]

In this environment, things can happen very quickly. Look at Fuji. Just a short time ago Fuji was known for its point and shoot cameras. Picture quality was ok, but I wouldn't call the products produced by Fuji as Steller. Then came the Fuji X100 and X10. The game was changed and Fuji is now looking pretty good to a lot of people. Same thing can happen to Pentax. Just a matter of getting the right product out to the masses at the right time.

[illdefined]

In this environment, things can happen very quickly. Look at Fuji. Just a short time ago Fuji was known for its point and shoot cameras. Picture quality was ok, but I wouldn't call the products produced by Fuji as Steller. Then came the Fuji X100 and X10. The game was changed and Fuji is now looking pretty good to a lot of people. Same thing can happen to Pentax. Just a matter of getting the right product out to the masses at the right time.

couldn't have said it better myself. only for Pentax it may be more a necessity next year than an aspiration (see Q, K-01, 560mm...)

[LFLee]

.... I did it for years with computers and finally got over that. With my K-5 I'm taking great pictures and that's what matters!

Maybe because computers are at a stage where most of them are pretty good for everyday use?
Cameras certainly haven't reach that stage yet, sensor, memory, AF, still make a differences. =)

[ENicolas]

In terms of this brand/market discussion, as good or better than the competition.

for the vast majority of the camera buying population, the K10 or K100 was more than good enough, but Pentax can't survive continuing to sell K10s. for better or worse, cameras are now electronics and the electronic world moves fast.

as of right now, the K-5(II) just qualifies at the high-end APS-C level, but once CaNikon refresh their enthusiast APS-C models early next year (like Jan.), the K-5II will be completely exposed as a 2.5 year old, previous generation camera. worse, 90% of the K5II's feature set has already been handed down to the much more competitive K30, which actually improves upon the K5's features in some instances.

another poster here theorized that the K5II is merely a logistical way for Pentax to flush whatever K5 bodies it had left in the manufacturing chain. this makes sense to me and i sincerely hope he's right. Pentax must bring something substantially new and competitive for the future at next year's CP+ show to convince the buying public it actually has one.

Yes, I understand all that - but if Hoya didn't have anything in the works, or if what they had was crap, what is Ricoh going to do? It takes time to create a quality product. It's like I said: they are at a tipping point and we have to hope there's enough time for Ricoh to do the job. Complaining isn't helping get that done. Buying some new lenses or a K-5IIs will. If things don't work out we still have the best APS-C camera on the market right now.

[ronniemac]

nice new lens road map though!