New Pentax cameras 2013

**monochrome** · 02-22-2013, 08:13 AM

IIUC, the real advantage of a FF camera over a top-end APSc camera is limited to the UWA boundary of an APSc for a given UWA lens, and the DoF boundary of an APSc for a given very fast lens.

If I rarely or never need to shoot outside the APSc boundaries, all other things being equal, I really don't need a FF camera to produce a similar or even an identical print.

audiobomber · 02-22-2013, 08:17 AM

Originally posted by monochrome

IIUC, the real advantage of a FF camera over a top-end APSc camera is limited to the UWA boundary of an APSc for a given UWA lens, and the DoF boundary of an APSc for a given very fast lens.

If I rarely or never need to shoot outside the APSc boundaries, all other things being equal, I really don't need a FF camera to produce a similar or even an identical print.

The only real FF attraction for me is one stop less noise. I don't expect I'll ever want anything but APS-C as my main camera, but a compact FF MILC would be interesting for casual use.

ElJamoquio · 02-22-2013, 08:34 AM

Originally posted by Digitalis

The Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L is bigger than the Tamron 16-50mm f/2.8 DX format lens - this is a fact.

A full-frame 16-35 f/2.8 on canon will make the same pictures as a 10mm-22mm F/1.9 or so on APS-C.

aleonx3 · 02-22-2013, 08:35 AM

Originally posted by monochrome

IIUC, the real advantage of a FF camera over a top-end APSc camera is limited to the UWA boundary of an APSc for a given UWA lens, and the DoF boundary of an APSc for a given very fast lens.

If I rarely or never need to shoot outside the APSc boundaries, all other things being equal, I really don't need a FF camera to produce a similar or even an identical print.

Originally posted by audiobomber

The only real FF attraction for me is one stop less noise. I don't expect I'll ever want anything but APS-C as my main camera, but a compact FF MILC would be interesting for casual use.

Good discussion, thanks, I am not convince that FF will take over the APS-C. It may sound more significant to those who know very little about the pro-and-cons. Even if the FF becomes a main stream dslr or milc, I still want to keep the APS-C. My last on-stage shooting event convinced me more that I don't need a FF equivalent to get the job done better. I used my k-5 and DA* 50-135mm combo and I got more than satisfactory results - I don't want to lug around a 70-200 f2.8 or f4 with a FF body. Also, the argument about the ability to crop with FF sensor is not really an attractive point. However, WA and UWA shots will definitely be an advantage with the FF camera.

ElJamoquio · 02-22-2013, 08:37 AM

Originally posted by audiobomber

The only real FF attraction for me is one stop less noise.

That's fine. If you don't care about the shallower depth of field or desire shallower depth of field then you're all set with FF.

ElJamoquio · 02-22-2013, 08:41 AM

Originally posted by aleonx3

I don't want to lug around a 70-200 f2.8 or f4 with a FF body.

IIRC Canon's 24-105 F/4 (on FF) is sharper, slightly faster, slightly wider, slightly cheaper, and much longer than the 17-50 F/2.8.

I could be off on a couple of stats but, from a lens perspective, it was no contest in my mind. Camera bodies historically have been heavier on the FF side, but the penalty doesn't have to be much... the 6D/D600 are changing that.

I don't feel like looking up the Canon 70-200 f/4 and comparing it to the slower, slightly less wide, slightly longer pentax 50-135. The differences might be less than you think... often the FF lens is lighter.

**Rondec** · 02-22-2013, 09:31 AM

Originally posted by ElJamoquio

That's fine. If you don't care about the shallower depth of field or desire shallower depth of field then you're all set with FF.

The differences with regard to depth of field are primarily noticed on the wide end. There isn't really an APS-C equivalent of something like the FA 31 limited on full frame. That said, I don't really use shallow depth of field with wide angles. For most landscape photographers, the goal is to having things in focus, not blurred out.

ElJamoquio · 02-22-2013, 09:39 AM

Originally posted by Rondec

The differences with regard to depth of field are primarily noticed on the wide end. There isn't really an APS-C equivalent of something like the FA 31 limited on full frame. That said, I don't really use shallow depth of field with wide angles. For most landscape photographers, the goal is to having things in focus, not blurred out.

Let's say I'm doing a 31 limited on full frame, say, a late sunset. I don't want any noise, so I'm shooting it wide open.
Hyperfocal is 60 something feet. Things are in 'acceptable focus' from 30 feet to infinity.

My friend is using a 21mm f/3.2 on APS-C. Hyperfocal is 24 feet. Everything is in 'acceptable focus' from 12 feet to infinity.

The APS-C/21mm has more things in focus but also has roughly 3 stops worse noise (or slower shutter duration), and only 65% of the sharpness (assuming both lenses are ideal, or at least equivalently flawed).

A lot of the time... maybe even MOST of the time, the landscapes I'm taking a pictures of are WAY past 50 feet away from me. The other times, I can go to F/5 on my FF, still have 1.5x better sharpness and lose nothing in DOF or SNR.

Franky2step · 02-22-2013, 10:02 AM

Originally posted by WillWeaverRVA

They have the K-3 and K-3s listed in April. Don't tell me they ran with the silly April Fools' joke too.

Of course, if it's true then I'll be telling Pentax to shut up and take my money.

Also, it makes me wonder if they'll make a K-300 to replace the K-r...

who are "they"

Clavius · 02-22-2013, 10:19 AM

Originally posted by audiobomber

The only real FF attraction for me is one stop less noise. I don't expect I'll ever want anything but APS-C as my main camera, but a compact FF MILC would be interesting for casual use.

+1

A very compact MILC. Lots smaller then the 6D. Look how close in size the FF Canon 6D is to the APSC-C Pentax K5: Compare camera dimensions side by side

If it could also be more affordable, it would be a giant success.

Kunzite · 02-22-2013, 10:22 AM

Note to Pentax: people would want a MILC only if it's cheaper, preferably below production cost

audiobomber · 02-22-2013, 10:49 AM

Originally posted by ElJamoquio

A lot of the time... maybe even MOST of the time, the landscapes I'm taking a pictures of are WAY past 50 feet away from me. The other times, I can go to F/5 on my FF, still have 1.5x better sharpness and lose nothing in DOF or SNR.

Sounds like you need a tripod.

Clavius · 02-22-2013, 10:52 AM

Originally posted by Kunzite

Note to Pentax: people would want a MILC only if it's cheaper, preferably below production cost

From what do you draw that conclusion? I think anyone would understand that a lower tier MILC is to be priced accordingly, and a pro level MILC accordingly.

**Rondec** · 02-22-2013, 11:18 AM

Originally posted by ElJamoquio

Let's say I'm doing a 31 limited on full frame, say, a late sunset. I don't want any noise, so I'm shooting it wide open.
Hyperfocal is 60 something feet. Things are in 'acceptable focus' from 30 feet to infinity.

My friend is using a 21mm f/3.2 on APS-C. Hyperfocal is 24 feet. Everything is in 'acceptable focus' from 12 feet to infinity.

The APS-C/21mm has more things in focus but also has roughly 3 stops worse noise (or slower shutter duration), and only 65% of the sharpness (assuming both lenses are ideal, or at least equivalently flawed).

A lot of the time... maybe even MOST of the time, the landscapes I'm taking a pictures of are WAY past 50 feet away from me. The other times, I can go to F/5 on my FF, still have 1.5x better sharpness and lose nothing in DOF or SNR.

As Dan says, you need a tripod. I shoot at iso 80 when shooting landscapes as much as possible, primarily due to the significantly better dynamic range you get there. In addition, I am usually stopped down at f8 to f11 and prefer to have something relatively close in foreground that I can focus on, while keeping background sharp. An FA 31 at f1.8 on full frame is just not going to cut it for for most landscape photography.

**acoufap** · 02-22-2013, 12:12 PM

Originally posted by Clavius

+1

A very compact MILC. Lots smaller then the 6D. Look how close in size the FF Canon 6D is to the APSC-C Pentax K5: Compare camera dimensions side by side

If it could also be more affordable, it would be a giant success.

Recently I shot nearly 200 Photos with the Canon 6D / L-Glass f4/24-105 at a sports event in a sports hall. The 6D worked great and for me the ergonomics were ok. Size and weight are not that different compared with the K5. To me the image quality of the 6D seems to be similar the K5's (I always develop jpegs from raw). The reason I would like to have a FF camera:

- big bright view finder (pentaprism based - I shoot a lot of macro photos)
- image quality above ISO 3200
- wide and ultra wide photography

So I hope Pentax will offer a FF camera within two or three years. But before I would like to see a great sharp fast FF WR alround zoom lens - something like f2.8/16-85 - with high resolution from the center to the edges over the hole zoom range, no PF, no distorsion and with high build quality at a not too high price tag. This would fit for both: my K5 and a Pentax FF camera in the future

acoufap

02-22-2013, 09:39 AM	#188
ElJamoquio Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 4,873	Originally posted by Rondec The differences with regard to depth of field are primarily noticed on the wide end. There isn't really an APS-C equivalent of something like the FA 31 limited on full frame. That said, I don't really use shallow depth of field with wide angles. For most landscape photographers, the goal is to having things in focus, not blurred out. Let's say I'm doing a 31 limited on full frame, say, a late sunset. I don't want any noise, so I'm shooting it wide open. Hyperfocal is 60 something feet. Things are in 'acceptable focus' from 30 feet to infinity. My friend is using a 21mm f/3.2 on APS-C. Hyperfocal is 24 feet. Everything is in 'acceptable focus' from 12 feet to infinity. The APS-C/21mm has more things in focus but also has roughly 3 stops worse noise (or slower shutter duration), and only 65% of the sharpness (assuming both lenses are ideal, or at least equivalently flawed). A lot of the time... maybe even MOST of the time, the landscapes I'm taking a pictures of are WAY past 50 feet away from me. The other times, I can go to F/5 on my FF, still have 1.5x better sharpness and lose nothing in DOF or SNR. Last edited by ElJamoquio; 02-22-2013 at 10:16 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Minikina 2013 vsl 01/02.06.2013 in Wiesbaden	veraikon	General Talk	9	05-27-2013 10:37 AM
Weekly Challenge POTW #251 27 Jan 2013 through 10 Feb 2013	Dr Orloff	Weekly Photo Challenges	54	02-10-2013 11:59 AM
Weekly Challenge POTW #250 20 Jan 2013 through 3 Feb 2013	Douge	Weekly Photo Challenges	43	02-03-2013 09:45 PM
PENTAX Introduces New K-5 II & K-5 IIs DSLR Cameras Versatile cameras feature newly d	Adam	Homepage & Official Pentax News	18	09-13-2012 07:14 AM
NEW Pentax Lens Roadmap 2012/2013	oddesy	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	331	04-07-2012 02:42 PM

02-22-2013, 08:13 AM	#181
monochrome Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Working From Home Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 26,276	IIUC, the real advantage of a FF camera over a top-end APSc camera is limited to the UWA boundary of an APSc for a given UWA lens, and the DoF boundary of an APSc for a given very fast lens. If I rarely or never need to shoot outside the APSc boundaries, all other things being equal, I really don't need a FF camera to produce a similar or even an identical print.

02-22-2013, 08:17 AM	#182
audiobomber Veteran Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Sudbury, Ontario Photos: Albums Posts: 6,806	Originally posted by monochrome IIUC, the real advantage of a FF camera over a top-end APSc camera is limited to the UWA boundary of an APSc for a given UWA lens, and the DoF boundary of an APSc for a given very fast lens. If I rarely or never need to shoot outside the APSc boundaries, all other things being equal, I really don't need a FF camera to produce a similar or even an identical print. The only real FF attraction for me is one stop less noise. I don't expect I'll ever want anything but APS-C as my main camera, but a compact FF MILC would be interesting for casual use.

02-22-2013, 08:34 AM	#183
ElJamoquio Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 4,873	Originally posted by Digitalis The Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L is bigger than the Tamron 16-50mm f/2.8 DX format lens - this is a fact. A full-frame 16-35 f/2.8 on canon will make the same pictures as a 10mm-22mm F/1.9 or so on APS-C.

02-22-2013, 08:35 AM	#184
aleonx3 Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Brampton, Ontario Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,996	Originally posted by monochrome IIUC, the real advantage of a FF camera over a top-end APSc camera is limited to the UWA boundary of an APSc for a given UWA lens, and the DoF boundary of an APSc for a given very fast lens. If I rarely or never need to shoot outside the APSc boundaries, all other things being equal, I really don't need a FF camera to produce a similar or even an identical print. Originally posted by audiobomber The only real FF attraction for me is one stop less noise. I don't expect I'll ever want anything but APS-C as my main camera, but a compact FF MILC would be interesting for casual use. Good discussion, thanks, I am not convince that FF will take over the APS-C. It may sound more significant to those who know very little about the pro-and-cons. Even if the FF becomes a main stream dslr or milc, I still want to keep the APS-C. My last on-stage shooting event convinced me more that I don't need a FF equivalent to get the job done better. I used my k-5 and DA* 50-135mm combo and I got more than satisfactory results - I don't want to lug around a 70-200 f2.8 or f4 with a FF body. Also, the argument about the ability to crop with FF sensor is not really an attractive point. However, WA and UWA shots will definitely be an advantage with the FF camera.

02-22-2013, 08:37 AM	#185
ElJamoquio Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 4,873	Originally posted by audiobomber The only real FF attraction for me is one stop less noise. That's fine. If you don't care about the shallower depth of field or desire shallower depth of field then you're all set with FF.

02-22-2013, 08:41 AM	#186
ElJamoquio Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 4,873	Originally posted by aleonx3 I don't want to lug around a 70-200 f2.8 or f4 with a FF body. IIRC Canon's 24-105 F/4 (on FF) is sharper, slightly faster, slightly wider, slightly cheaper, and much longer than the 17-50 F/2.8. I could be off on a couple of stats but, from a lens perspective, it was no contest in my mind. Camera bodies historically have been heavier on the FF side, but the penalty doesn't have to be much... the 6D/D600 are changing that. I don't feel like looking up the Canon 70-200 f/4 and comparing it to the slower, slightly less wide, slightly longer pentax 50-135. The differences might be less than you think... often the FF lens is lighter.

02-22-2013, 09:31 AM	#187
Rondec Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Gladys, Virginia Photos: Gallery Posts: 27,652	Originally posted by ElJamoquio That's fine. If you don't care about the shallower depth of field or desire shallower depth of field then you're all set with FF. The differences with regard to depth of field are primarily noticed on the wide end. There isn't really an APS-C equivalent of something like the FA 31 limited on full frame. That said, I don't really use shallow depth of field with wide angles. For most landscape photographers, the goal is to having things in focus, not blurred out.

02-22-2013, 10:02 AM	#189
Franky2step Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2011 Location: Niagara Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 793	Originally posted by WillWeaverRVA They have the K-3 and K-3s listed in April. Don't tell me they ran with the silly April Fools' joke too. Of course, if it's true then I'll be telling Pentax to shut up and take my money. Also, it makes me wonder if they'll make a K-300 to replace the K-r... who are "they"

02-22-2013, 10:19 AM	#190
Clavius Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2011 Location: De Klundert Photos: Gallery Posts: 4,150	Originally posted by audiobomber The only real FF attraction for me is one stop less noise. I don't expect I'll ever want anything but APS-C as my main camera, but a compact FF MILC would be interesting for casual use. +1 A very compact MILC. Lots smaller then the 6D. Look how close in size the FF Canon 6D is to the APSC-C Pentax K5: Compare camera dimensions side by side If it could also be more affordable, it would be a giant success.

02-22-2013, 10:22 AM	#191
Kunzite Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Romania Posts: 15,132	Note to Pentax: people would want a MILC only if it's cheaper, preferably below production cost

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

02-22-2013, 10:49 AM	#192
audiobomber Veteran Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Sudbury, Ontario Photos: Albums Posts: 6,806	Originally posted by ElJamoquio A lot of the time... maybe even MOST of the time, the landscapes I'm taking a pictures of are WAY past 50 feet away from me. The other times, I can go to F/5 on my FF, still have 1.5x better sharpness and lose nothing in DOF or SNR. Sounds like you need a tripod.

02-22-2013, 10:52 AM	#193
Clavius Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2011 Location: De Klundert Photos: Gallery Posts: 4,150	Originally posted by Kunzite Note to Pentax: people would want a MILC only if it's cheaper, preferably below production cost From what do you draw that conclusion? I think anyone would understand that a lower tier MILC is to be priced accordingly, and a pro level MILC accordingly.

02-22-2013, 11:18 AM	#194
Rondec Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Gladys, Virginia Photos: Gallery Posts: 27,652	Originally posted by ElJamoquio Let's say I'm doing a 31 limited on full frame, say, a late sunset. I don't want any noise, so I'm shooting it wide open. Hyperfocal is 60 something feet. Things are in 'acceptable focus' from 30 feet to infinity. My friend is using a 21mm f/3.2 on APS-C. Hyperfocal is 24 feet. Everything is in 'acceptable focus' from 12 feet to infinity. The APS-C/21mm has more things in focus but also has roughly 3 stops worse noise (or slower shutter duration), and only 65% of the sharpness (assuming both lenses are ideal, or at least equivalently flawed). A lot of the time... maybe even MOST of the time, the landscapes I'm taking a pictures of are WAY past 50 feet away from me. The other times, I can go to F/5 on my FF, still have 1.5x better sharpness and lose nothing in DOF or SNR. As Dan says, you need a tripod. I shoot at iso 80 when shooting landscapes as much as possible, primarily due to the significantly better dynamic range you get there. In addition, I am usually stopped down at f8 to f11 and prefer to have something relatively close in foreground that I can focus on, while keeping background sharp. An FA 31 at f1.8 on full frame is just not going to cut it for for most landscape photography.

02-22-2013, 12:12 PM	#195
acoufap Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: Munich, Germany Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 4,187	Originally posted by Clavius +1 A very compact MILC. Lots smaller then the 6D. Look how close in size the FF Canon 6D is to the APSC-C Pentax K5: Compare camera dimensions side by side If it could also be more affordable, it would be a giant success. Recently I shot nearly 200 Photos with the Canon 6D / L-Glass f4/24-105 at a sports event in a sports hall. The 6D worked great and for me the ergonomics were ok. Size and weight are not that different compared with the K5. To me the image quality of the 6D seems to be similar the K5's (I always develop jpegs from raw). The reason I would like to have a FF camera: - big bright view finder (pentaprism based - I shoot a lot of macro photos) - image quality above ISO 3200 - wide and ultra wide photography So I hope Pentax will offer a FF camera within two or three years. But before I would like to see a great sharp fast FF WR alround zoom lens - something like f2.8/16-85 - with high resolution from the center to the edges over the hole zoom range, no PF, no distorsion and with high build quality at a not too high price tag. This would fit for both: my K5 and a Pentax FF camera in the future acoufap