[gazonk]

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.

IMHO that's a world view from the film days. The 645D is already an interbreed, and there's no reason other than legacy lens compatibility that makes 33x44 more than a slightly larger 24x36.

[Paul the Sunman]

All other things being equal, FF should deliver better image quality than APS-C, and greater flexibility to crop ... at the expense of a larger camera and probably larger lenses. But before we all get carried away with FF lust, take a look at the dpreview studio scene comparison tool. Compare the Nikon D600, D800, Canon 5DMkIII, and the humble Pentax K-5. Set ISO100 and RAW. Now look at the Queen of Hearts card at frame centre, the Queen's face say. Tell me which you prefer, how much more you'd be willing to pay for the FF and lenses, and how much weight you'd be willing to carry for the privilege. Try it with high ISO too if you like.

The grass always looks greener ....

[Clavius]

All other things being equal, FF should deliver better image quality than APS-C, and greater flexibility to crop ... at the expense of a larger camera and probably larger lenses. But before we all get carried away with FF lust, take a look at the dpreview studio scene comparison tool. Compare the Nikon D600, D800, Canon 5DMkIII, and the humble Pentax K-5. Set ISO100 and RAW. Now look at the Queen of Hearts card at frame centre, the Queen's face say. Tell me which you prefer, how much more you'd be willing to pay for the FF and lenses, and how much weight you'd be willing to carry for the privilege. Try it with high ISO too if you like.

The grass always looks greener ....

This is a very good point, good enough for me to "like" it. I agree with it completely. I myself can't tell the difference between an APSC image and an FF image in 9 out of 10 cases. But...

My clients (advertising agency, realestate agencies) want me to shoot FF. Ohterwise they'll just find a different photographer. Even though I'm completely convinced that my beloved K5 can produce almost the same quality as my 12MP Canon 5D that I had to buy to get these assignments.

And because of such "bureaucracy" Pentax will only be seen as FULL by the pro's (or rather the clients of the pro's) if they actually deliver an FF camera. Despite the small advantage.

[Medium FormatPro]

Compare the Nikon D600, D800, Canon 5DMkIII, and the humble Pentax K-5. Set ISO100 and RAW. Now look at the Queen of Hearts card at frame centre, the Queen's face say. Tell me which you prefer, how much more you'd be willing to pay for the FF and lenses, and how much weight you'd be willing to carry for the privilege. Try it with high ISO too if you like

Not really a good example to use a playing card. How about something such as a leaf from a tree of a certain size; or even currency?

The small advantage is that there are full frame cameras on the market now that cost at about 2,100 and also offer results that are literally two to four times better than anything Pentax can offer short of medium format. I also own nineteen (existing marketed) PK full fame lens. But if I didn't have any of them, that the non full frame ones wold also work at a different resolution setting - as is the case with most full frame cameras.

[Kunzite]

"Literally two to four times better"? Please elaborate - in which conditions, and what kind of metrics you were using.

And because of such "bureaucracy" Pentax will only be seen as FULL by the pro's (or rather the clients of the pro's) if they actually deliver an FF camera. Despite the small advantage.

Marketing at work. "Your results are not important; the only thing that matters is what tools you're using".

[MrPetkus]

* Edit - I see you already have a Canon 5D. Still - they're paying you - shoot with what the client wants.

If your clients want you to shoot FF (and the additional business earned would pay for itself) then why not simply purchase one of the excellent FF cameras already on the market?

If I was in your position I would have done this already. You're a businessman, not a Pentax evangelist.

This is a very good point, good enough for me to "like" it. I agree with it completely. I myself can't tell the difference between an APSC image and an FF image in 9 out of 10 cases. But...

My clients (advertising agency, realestate agencies) want me to shoot FF. Ohterwise they'll just find a different photographer. Even though I'm completely convinced that my beloved K5 can produce almost the same quality as my 12MP Canon 5D that I had to buy to get these assignments.

And because of such "bureaucracy" Pentax will only be seen as FULL by the pro's (or rather the clients of the pro's) if they actually deliver an FF camera. Despite the small advantage.

[Clavius]

* Edit - I see you already have a Canon 5D. Still - they're paying you - shoot with what the client wants.

Yes, and, I have to admit, although being sceptical about the proclaimed FF advantages, that it is lots of fun to mount FF Pentax glass on an FF camera. And that the quality difference really is there.

If I was in your position I would have done this already. You're a businessman, not a Pentax evangelist.

Haha! No, I'm not. But I am a Pentax fanboy though. Hope they're going to do very good under Ricoh and on more stable waters. FF or not.

---

Last edited by Clavius; 10-01-2012 at 10:15 AM.

[spade111]

My clients (advertising agency, realestate agencies) want me to shoot FF. Ohterwise they'll just find a different photographer. Even though I'm completely convinced that my beloved K5 can produce almost the same quality as my 12MP Canon 5D that I had to buy to get these assignments.

And because of such "bureaucracy" Pentax will only be seen as FULL by the pro's (or rather the clients of the pro's) if they actually deliver an FF camera. Despite the small advantage.

I heartily agree with everything you just said. The advertising dollars that the big boys are putting behind FF (shill marketing mostly) - will - irrespective of the legitimacy of their claims (ie: that FF is in every way better than APS-C) - convince everyone that has a cursory opinion... that yes indeed, pro level gear means FF sensor gear. I think that mentality is already present in the zeitgeist to a degree.

When your uncle who got a camera for christmas asks you if your camera has a FF sensor, then chortles condescendingly when you say APS-c.... their marketing will have been 100% successful.


It doesn't really matter what we think (or know for that matter). Your uncle will know better than you, because canon wills it.

[MrPetkus]

Finally someone "gets" it. Uncles. Chortling, condescending, preferably bald and bearded uncles. We have to prove our value to these overbearing men of distinction.
I suspect that's why so many on this forum want a FF Pentax - to placate the uncles in their lives.

I heartily agree with everything you just said. The advertising dollars that the big boys are putting behind FF (shill marketing mostly) - will - irrespective of the legitimacy of their claims (ie: that FF is in every way better than APS-C) - convince everyone that has a cursory opinion... that yes indeed, pro level gear means FF sensor gear. I think that mentality is already present in the zeitgeist to a degree.

When your uncle who got a camera for christmas asks you if your camera has a FF sensor, then chortles condescendingly when you say APS-c.... their marketing will have been 100% successful.


It doesn't really matter what we think (or know for that matter). Your uncle will know better than you, because canon wills it.

[Clavius]

I heartily agree with everything you just said. The advertising dollars that the big boys are putting behind FF (shill marketing mostly) - will - irrespective of the legitimacy of their claims (ie: that FF is in every way better than APS-C) - convince everyone that has a cursory opinion... that yes indeed, pro level gear means FF sensor gear. I think that mentality is already present in the zeitgeist to a degree.

When your uncle who got a camera for christmas asks you if your camera has a FF sensor, then chortles condescendingly when you say APS-c.... their marketing will have been 100% successful.


It doesn't really matter what we think (or know for that matter). Your uncle will know better than you, because canon wills it.

People can chortle all they want, I wouldn't care about that under any circumstance. Pentax was already chortled at before FF became so available. I didn't care then and I don't care now. But when potential clients chortle and my equipment (or lack of) is making me miss assignments, then there's a real problem. And that's why I got me a Canon FF.

So I agree with you, the FF marketing is clearly working to its fullest when my clients prefer 12mp pictures from an outdated Canon 5D MKI, with shitty DR, shitty ISO and shitty ergonomics over those produced by a K5. I'm perfectly capable of working around the DR, ISO and ergonomics, but I can't work around the smaller sensor of my K5.

[spade111]

... But when potential clients chortle and my equipment (or lack of) is making me miss assignments, then there's a real problem. And that's why I got me a Canon FF.

Indeed. That mentality is only manifest to most of us by our uncles, but some of us are unfotunately employees to - or contractors for - those uncles.

The marketing works throughout the market to varying degrees, and pervades the culture that we work so hard to protect. In any case, get ready for opinions from all sides.

[spade111]

May I present to you: Exhibit A

This article is basically the wet dream of the hypothetical FF marketing consortium (similar bodies exist for all kinds of stuff... remember Got Milk?)

Examples from this amazing piece of literary scholarship: (tongue in cheek of course... this article was directed at finance type people after all)

finally, FINALLY, ordinary folks such as you and me (well, such as me at least – you, I’m not so sure about) can get our hands on cameras that begin to realise the full potential of digital photography.

Full-frame cameras are, in short, the real deal.

They’re the Holy Grail of mass-market digital photography...

[monochrome]

I'll say again, my son's wife's father paid $15,000 for 3,000 crap wedding jpeg's and the choice of 80 prints in a book. But the photographer used a 5dMkII so the MotB was impressed.

[TomTextura]

I suspect that's why so many on this forum want a FF Pentax - to placate the uncles in their lives.

Any high dollar product is going to have some buyers who buy whatever it may be for little more reason than to impress others with it. Me, however, I just want a Pentax FF to placate and finally truly satisfy my little FA Limiteds. The poor fellas are all bummed out that the greatness of their image circles are not being taken full advantage of. All they want is to live up to their full potential! Is that asking too much?

[illdefined]

Me, however, I just want a Pentax FF to placate and finally truly satisfy my little FA Limiteds. The poor fellas are all bummed out that the greatness of their image circles are not being taken full advantage of. All they want is to live up to their full potential! Is that asking too much?

It is here. Asking for the full potential of the mirror box and glass prism we're already carrying is too much to ask for too. APS-C is the best didn't you know? (but only with a mirror...)