Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
09-21-2012, 08:07 PM - 1 Like   #106
Pentaxian
Class A's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 9,193
QuoteOriginally posted by gazonk Quote
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.
Above ISO 1600 you are seeing digital amplification and noise reduction trickery.

All else being equal (i.e., sensor technology and f-ratio), FF will always have a 1+ stop advantage. Simple Physics.

QuoteOriginally posted by Pål Jensen Quote
This is like saying a Pentax LX have no reach advantage over a Pentax 67 when using the same film.
Yeah, so what?
Just take a smaller photographic paper to develop your Pentax 67 negative (i.e., crop during development) and your 67 has the same "reach" as the LX.

QuoteOriginally posted by Pål Jensen Quote
Of course APS has an advantage over D800. If you remove that advantage the D800 is not an FF camera anylonger and hence the comparison becomes meaningless.
The thing is that the D800 is both a 36MP FF camera and a 16MP APS-C camera and one can chose which one to use at the switch of a button.

I don't know how you are going to sell that as an advantage of APS-C to me.

09-21-2012, 08:18 PM   #107
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: CT, USA
Posts: 499
QuoteOriginally posted by ogl Quote
Against the background of announcements of Canon, Nikon, Sony, Panasonic, Leica - Pentax looks pale.
Indeed.
09-21-2012, 08:23 PM   #108
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: CT, USA
Posts: 499
QuoteOriginally posted by Pål Jensen Quote
But aren't they loud and clear? There are no hints of FF from Pentax (that doesn't mean it won't come one day). The roadmaps clearly says APS, Q system and 645. Ricoh have said that one of their main priorities is MF digital probably the source for the statements of more professional products from Pentax.
I sincerely believe that People who want FF should go to those who offers them; Pentax haven't promised one (that doesn't mean it won't come)
They've never been "loud and clear." It's always been "not planned right now - but maybe later," etc.

I always find it curious when supposed supporters of Pentax encourage others to leave the brand, as if that would somehow be beneficial.
09-21-2012, 08:26 PM   #109
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: CT, USA
Posts: 499
QuoteOriginally posted by gazonk Quote
As a provider of "enthusiast" DSLRs, I don't think Pentax can ignore FF very much longer.
Agreed.

QuoteOriginally posted by gazonk Quote
They may have a possibility to compute with high-end FF by developing the 645D even more in the direction of a standard DSLR camera, but larger-than-FF sensors will probably stay very expensive compared to 24x36 sensors, especially now that the latter probably will be produced in larger quantities.
I don't think they can compete with FF with the 645 at all, since 645 and FF are different animals altogether. They need a FF for the FF market, 645 will never fill that hole.

09-21-2012, 08:35 PM   #110
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: CT, USA
Posts: 499
QuoteOriginally posted by nomadkng Quote
I'm gonna call it "sipping from the full frame cool-aide". I personally don't want and wouldn't buy a Pentax FF. Why? becuase i have alot of full frame glass and LOVE the fact that my APS-C sensor ignores the inherent flaws of extreme image corners. Even with my 12-24, the field curvature is slightly reduced becuase the sensor never sees the edges. It's like eating the middle of mom's apple pie and getting away with it. Who wants the crust anyway?
Obviously, you have been guzzling the APS-C Kool-Aid.

Even with less pixels, FF can match or better APS-C resolution, including in the corners, since the lens on an APS-C camera is saddled with the disadvantage of needing to resolve the same details at less than half the size, which is a disadvantage across the entire frame, including the center where it matters most.

DxOMark - Compare lenses
09-21-2012, 08:56 PM - 1 Like   #111
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: CT, USA
Posts: 499
QuoteOriginally posted by Greyser Quote
Whining about FF absence many forget about a few obvious things.
There are a few areas where APS-C has advantages over FF:
  • Immediate 1.5x advantage when shooting small wildlife
  • Smaller RAW files, meaning faster card writing speed
  • More of frames per second of continues shooting
  • Lens choice
  • etc.
1.5X is not an "advantage," you can crop a FF image to get the same framing on FF any time you need to. A forced "crop" like an APS-C camera is an image quality disadvantage all the time.

RAW file size is dependent on how many pixels, not how big the sensor. It has nothing to do with format size.

How many frames per second varies by camera, and is also not an "advantage" of the APS-C format.

Lens choice for Nikon and Canon is much better, unless you're talking about legacy manual focus lenses only, in which case Canon has none, but Nikon's backward compatibility is comparable to Pentax's.
09-21-2012, 09:04 PM   #112
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: CT, USA
Posts: 499
QuoteOriginally posted by Class A Quote
This is not an APS-C advantage. The K-5, for example, does not have a 1.5x "reach" advantage over the Nikon D800. The relevant spec here is pixel pitch and the latter is orthogonal to sensor size.


If you are talking about keeping the pixel-pitch the same then yes. Otherwise a FF 12MP procuces smaller files than a 16.3 MP APS-C camera. Card writing speed is furthermore dependent on the processor technology. The 24MP FF Sony A900 easily beats a 6MP APS-C K100D.


Same as above.


Really? How so?


Eh, no.

APS-C really has no advantages over FF, except for price, but note that there is a threshold of IQ at which FF equipment becomes cheaper to make (and purchase).

I'm still shooting with a K100D, BTW, and I love it. That doesn't stop me from acknowledging the superiority of larger sensors, though.
Well stated. Careful you don't get accused of heresy.
09-21-2012, 09:11 PM   #113
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: CT, USA
Posts: 499
QuoteOriginally posted by David&karen Quote
Aps-c allows deeper depth of field
No, it does not. You can stop down FF to get the same "deep" DOF, and the point at which diffraction takes away what stopping down gives occurs earlier on APS-C than on FF, in both cases well within the available range of f-stops. The result being that you CAN get the same "deep" DOF on FF, but CAN'T get the same "shallow" DOF on APS-C that you can on FF, because you would need lenses a stop or more faster that nobody will make since the whole APS-C market is about price point, i.e., being cheap, and essentially no APS-C shooters would buy the necessarily pricier APS-C lenses needed to match available FF lenses in that respect.

09-21-2012, 09:24 PM   #114
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: CT, USA
Posts: 499
QuoteOriginally posted by Pål Jensen Quote
Of course APS has an advantage over D800. If you remove that advantage the D800 is not an FF camera any longer and hence the comparison becomes meaningless.
No, APS has no "reach" advantage. You can crop your FF any time (i.e., rarely) that you actually "need" additional "reach" beyond your longest focal length lens. The only possible "advantage" is one of pixel density and the D800 has essentially made that a non-issue. Even though yet more pixel density (i.e., 24 MP sensors) is available in APS-C at this point, it won't matter, because what is now available is more than necessary for quality images.

The comparison is not meaningless, it simply reveals that FF encompasses all of the image possibilities of APS-C via a simple crop, while APS-C does not encompass all of the image possibilities of FF, since the same shot will be at less magnification (i.e., less telephoto compression, for example) given the same field of view, whether by using a shorter focal length or by changing distance to subject (which also changes perspective).

QuoteOriginally posted by Pål Jensen Quote
You buy the D800 to get the FF advantage not to make it equal to an APS camera.
Of course. With the exception of the rare circumstance of finding that you need more reach than that of your longest lens, that's exactly what you have.
09-21-2012, 09:29 PM   #115
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: CT, USA
Posts: 499
QuoteOriginally posted by Pål Jensen Quote
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.
Not true, since FF generally has more than that one stop advantage in ISO performance anyway - no "penalty" is involved. Further, FF can be cropped to get exactly the same image as APS-C, using exactly the same settings, at will, whereas APS-C actually can get only a "similar" but not exactly the same, image as FF (i.e., different magnification or perspective is required).

The APS-C "talking points" are really tired at this point.
09-21-2012, 09:34 PM   #116
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: CT, USA
Posts: 499
QuoteOriginally posted by gazonk Quote
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.
I don't put much faith in those numbers, since it's pretty obvious that the K5, even in RAW, uses heavy-handed (and detail destroying) noise reduction to make it look "better" than it actually is. I prefer the detail to the false impressions, personally.
09-21-2012, 09:36 PM   #117
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: CT, USA
Posts: 499
QuoteOriginally posted by gazonk Quote
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.
Exactly. You lose nothing and gain plenty.
09-21-2012, 09:38 PM   #118
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: CT, USA
Posts: 499
QuoteOriginally posted by illdefined Quote
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.
Well said. Keep it up around here and you might be subject to the inquisition, though.
09-21-2012, 09:41 PM - 1 Like   #119
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: CT, USA
Posts: 499
QuoteOriginally posted by Class A Quote
Above ISO 1600 you are seeing digital amplification and noise reduction trickery.

All else being equal (i.e., sensor technology and f-ratio), FF will always have a 1+ stop advantage. Simple Physics.


Yeah, so what?
Just take a smaller photographic paper to develop your Pentax 67 negative (i.e., crop during development) and your 67 has the same "reach" as the LX.


The thing is that the D800 is both a 36MP FF camera and a 16MP APS-C camera and one can chose which one to use at the switch of a button.

I don't know how you are going to sell that as an advantage of APS-C to me.
You must stop all of this use of logic!
09-21-2012, 10:25 PM - 1 Like   #120
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: NYC
Posts: 896
QuoteOriginally posted by ENicolas Quote
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.
Are you really trying to suggest I should buy products I don't want to help Pentax make products that I do want? um, sorry that's not how it works. People should buy Pentax products when it provides products people actually want. That's how it works, and telling them what we want will definitely help them. IF they decide to listen.

you're welcome to think in terms of right now if you wish, but buying a camera is investing in a system and the future matters very much.

objectively speaking, buying the best APS-C camera right now with CP+ less than four months away is simply not a wise investment. especially with the K30 available at less cost and 90% of the feature set.

Last edited by illdefined; 09-21-2012 at 10:53 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!
bit, camera, course, ii, k-5, k30, pentax, pentax news, pentax rumors
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Cheer me up.. Tell me this is a scam, $300 K-r?? PandaSPUR Pentax K-r 40 07-30-2012 06:30 AM
Anyone shooting gymnastics / cheer w. K-r? tacticdesigns Pentax K-r 1 07-17-2011 09:50 PM
Some Christmas Cheer Griswald style :) vievetrick Post Your Photos! 0 11-26-2007 08:06 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:19 PM. | 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