[normhead]

I guess then the K-3 was brought out without investment. I'm having a bit of trouble understanding your "nobody wants to invest statement". Or did you mean, ivest in something new. With Japan being Pentax's main market, and with Nikon and Pentax Canon FFs with between them 2.5% of the market in Japan with their FFs, there's a difference between not wanting to invest, and not wanting to throw away money.

I read the article and get something completely different. I read the interview and see a company with firm plans and timetable, and an executive who isn't into the Microsoft vapourware tradition. More of an Apple guy. It doesn't exist until it's ready to launch. After all, we got definitive leaks about the K-3 about 2 weeks before launch. There is more than one way of looking at this. But then, I'm still thinking I'd like a 645D to go with my K-3. And eventual some kind of 4x5 tilt shift. FF to me is only one stop better than APS-c. Hardly worth buying a system for.

[ElJamoquio]

I'm not dissing them at all, that's probably just you projecting your dissing mindset on me… Quite the contrary, my point was that Sony launched their A7 cameras with very few lenses, and so could Pentax.

I've never heard of a system that was released with so much support as Pentax's FF would be.

The last time I enumerated, there were 39 lenses on the market marked as full frame for the Pentax system, and another few that were not marked as full frame (35mm f/2.4, 40mm f/2.8, etc).

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/10-pentax-slr-lens-discussion/183420-curr...me-lenses.html

Forty some odd lenses. WOW.

[DeadJohn]

This sounds contradictory...like they can't make things smaller but they need to because the market is headed that way.
It does sounds like SR-AA is coming to the low end though. I'm hoping they add SR-AA to video as well to get rid of the moire issues of the non-full-sensor video scanline system....

My takeaway from the SR section is that SR adds bulk so they are working to make the SR system more compact.

[normhead]

I've never heard of a system that was released with so much support as Pentax's FF would be.

The last time I enumerated, there were 39 lenses on the market marked as full frame for the Pentax system, and another few that were not marked as full frame (35mm f/2.4, 40mm f/2.8, etc).

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/10-pentax-slr-lens-discussion/183420-curr...me-lenses.html

Forty some odd lenses. WOW.

Exactly, I'm not even a big supporter of FF, and I could see buying an FF system, because I already own almost 10 FF capable lenses, and having an FF body would effectively change the FoV of every lens, making every lens like two lenses. It's not a" Pentax has to make an FF" kind of thing. But I can't see how anyone can say it wouldn't be another useful tool in their kit.

[Zygonyx]

From DPR poll.

Sony A7R, 2 1/2 month old, 156 owners (62 per month), 49 ''had it'' (31%) !!!
.

I would be a Ricoh manager, i guess i would spend some time trying to understand this...
Do the DPR members concerned give any explanation for their aborted choices ?

[normhead]

I would be a Ricoh manager, i guess i would spend some time trying to understand this...
Do the DPR members concerned give any explanation for their aborted choices ?

Because the sale of 156 cameras should be worthy of note? Meanwhile in the rest of the forum, a D800 owner explains how there's not much difference between his D800 and his K-3. and even provided images to prove his point. Yet not one of the A7 owners seems to have come to a similar conclusion. ( I'm slowly coming to the conclusion that A7 owners may be a rabidly biased lot.) Yet the D800 and Sony A7r seem to be practically identical, in the review on Imaging Resources.)

I'd suggest that A7 owners shouldn't be commenting on other's "aborted choices". From the viewpoint of many on the forum buying a system with 3 native lenses would be dumb. And committing yourself to a life of adapters would be even dumber. And committing to a system who's viewfinder lags in low light and panning, would be the height of stupidity. Do you really want to go there?

SO maybe you should tone down the assumptions about who might be making "aborted choices " here. The A7s are expensive cameras with limited functionality compared to a DSLR.

[JimmyDranox]

I've read the firsts 20 or so comments, there is none explanation for this. But this number, 31% aborted for Sony A7R is very different than others, like Nikon D610, with 10%, but very close to Sony A7, with 26%. I think that is related to other factors than FF sensor. Maybe ergonomics, maybe so ''many and affordable'' lenses, maybe the viewfinder lag, I don't know. I have seen some forums discussions about some problems of A7-R on DPR, but I didn't read it.

[MJSfoto1956]

Meanwhile in the rest of the forum, a D800 owner explains how there's not much difference between his D800 and his K-3. and even provided images to prove his point.

Just to be sure: what my quick tests demonstrated was that a K-3 + 60-250mm produced roughly similar IQ as a D800 + AF-S 80-400mm. One should note that the D800 used with other (better) lenses would produce quite different results (e.g. D800 + 14-24mm would be no contest. This combination cannot be beat by any camera on the market).

My take on my test: Nikon has deliberately not delivered a "killer" 80-400mm lens most likely because they are protecting their 200-400mm cash cow @ $7000 a pop. Pentax does't have anything to lose and thus the 60-250mm can be (and demonstrably is) a much superior lens in comparison. My tests bear this out. As such, the Pentax combination (better lens, less capable sensor) produces roughly equivalent IQ as the Nikon combination (less capable lens, better sensor).

That being said, one should NOT come to the conclusion that a K-3 is "equivalent" to a D800. I would never say that. That was not the intention of my test. Sorry if there was any confusion.

Michae

[normhead]

Just to be sure: what my quick tests demonstrated was that a K-3 + 60-250mm produced roughly similar IQ as a D800 + AF-S 80-400mm. One should note that the D800 used with other (better) lenses would produce quite different results (e.g. D800 + 14-24mm would be no contest. This combination cannot be beat by any camera on the market).

I've done a comparison of K5 Sigma 8-16 to D800 and 14-24. I'm not convinced for landscape the D800 gives you a better image. In some places the K-5 images look better. Sometimes a nice wide brush stroke looks better than fine detail of un-photogenic minutiae... I work as a canoeing guide, and take out a few photographers every year. So when a guy with a D800 hired me this year, I paid close attention to his results. I didn't have any inclination to run out and buy a D800.

[Mistral75]

(...)

2) FF - which brings about the benefit of background : subject separation and also minimizes distortion/compression due to using a wider FL to obtain a similar and wider view when compared with larger format. (think 50mm vs 85mm with exact same composition or 28mm vs 50mm)

(...)

I am afraid I have to disagree with you. Shot from the same point, a 28mm on APS-C and a 43mm on 24x36 or a 55mm on APS-C and a 85mm on 24x36 produce the same image with the same perspective (what you call "distortion/compression") -to be exact, almost the same image since the equivalence is only approximative.

The perspective depends on the distance only, not on the focal length nor on the size of the image sensor.

Another example: take from the same point a picture with a 200mm and another one with a 24mm. The first one and the centre of the second one will exactly coincide.

[Zygonyx]

Because the sale of 156 cameras should be worthy of note? Meanwhile in the rest of the forum, a D800 owner explains how there's not much difference between his D800 and his K-3. and even provided images to prove his point. Yet not one of the A7 owners seems to have come to a similar conclusion. ( I'm slowly coming to the conclusion that A7 owners may be a rabidly biased lot.) Yet the D800 and Sony A7r seem to be practically identical, in the review on Imaging Resources.)

I'd suggest that A7 owners shouldn't be commenting on other's "aborted choices". From the viewpoint of many on the forum buying a system with 3 native lenses would be dumb. And committing yourself to a life of adapters would be even dumber. And committing to a system who's viewfinder lags in low light and panning, would be the height of stupidity. Do you really want to go there?

SO maybe you should tone down the assumptions about who might be making "aborted choices " here. The A7s are expensive cameras with limited functionality compared to a DSLR.

Yes, and thanks for D800/K-3 link.
Maybe this part of DPR members are also just the "geekiest part" of them, jumping from "innovative products" to other suspected to be even "better"...

I've read the firsts 20 or so comments, there is none explanation for this. But this number, 31% aborted for Sony A7R is very different than others, like Nikon D610, with 10%, but very close to Sony A7, with 26%. I think that is related to other factors than FF sensor. Maybe ergonomics, maybe so ''many and affordable'' lenses, maybe the viewfinder lag, I don't know. I have seen some forums discussions about some problems of A7-R on DPR, but I didn't read it.

Maybe also the handling of the combination A7r + zoom is just too critical not to avoid lots of decays due to absence of sensor stabilisation.

In the end, my own bad impression when i did hold A7 and A7r in Paris' salon de la photo was the rear tilt-screen : fragile and too small (effective viewing area), for an almost useless function...
There was good ambiant light, so i couldn't observe the EVF's limitations.

[MJSfoto1956]

I've done a comparison of K5 Sigma 8-16 to D800 and 14-24. I'm not convinced for landscape the D800 gives you a better image. In some places the K-5 images look better. Sometimes a nice wide brush stroke looks better than fine detail of un-photogenic minutiae... I work as a canoeing guide, and take out a few photographers every year. So when a guy with a D800 hired me this year, I paid close attention to his results. I didn't have any inclination to run out and buy a D800.

I think a more compelling argument for the K-3 is its wonderful handling, light weight, speed, lack of mirror slap, waterproofing, etc. Comparing a K-3 body to a D800 body is clearly an apples and oranges comparison. However, comparing a K-3 + lensX to D800 + lensY is no longer really an apples and oranges comparison since you are now comparing systems to systems -- and if system X works better for your kind of photography then that is the system to invest in. I encourage people to rent gear before buying it precisely to evaluate these cameras as complex "systems". I can't tell you how many times I've rented an expensive lens thinking this would be the "cats meow" and only after using it determined that it was not for me. There is nothing worse than buyers remorse! Which is why I was so pleased with the K-3 + 60-250mm combination: it both fit my shooting style quite nicely *and* delivered the goods.

For me, I find the K-3 overall handling and usability much more compelling than splitting hairs pixel peeping. Heck I shot the D200 for years and got great shots out of that old camera -- and while the D800 is a huge leap forward, the camera hasn't changed *me*: my imagery still exhibits the same overall "feel" (but with a lot less work than I had to do with the D200).

As such, I am totally confident that should I decide to ultimately make a K-3 + 60-250mm investment, I will be able do great work with the system even though the K-3 sensor is demonstrably one-stop noisier than the D800. I'll just take that into account when shooting and compensate for it! :P

M

[northcoastgreg]

I've read the firsts 20 or so comments, there is none explanation for this. But this number, 31% aborted for Sony A7R is very different than others, like Nikon D610, with 10%, but very close to Sony A7, with 26%

I think much of the turnover rate for the Sony FF cameras results from the fact that many people bought it with unrealistic expectations. Compact FF mirrorless sounds good in theory. But in practice there are huge challenges, many of which have not well met by Sony, which is an engineer-centric, rather than a photographer-centric, company. As with the original NEX system, Sony inexplicably believes that all you have to do to make a compact system camera is to make the camera as small as possible. The lenses, meanwhile, have to fend for themselves. So you end up getting a small camera paired with large lenses. The promised 70-200 f4 weighs over 800 grams! Even the primes are rather large, considering their apertures.

I find the Sony A7r to be a particularly cynical product. Instead of pursuing photocentric values, the camera plays on the prejudices propagated by the gearhead crowd. In some quarters, the words "mirrorless," "full-frame," "EVF," "compact," "high-resolotion," "megapixels" take upon the glow of holiness. In the historicist fantasy propagated by the gearhead crowd, mirrorless and full-frame are The Future. Old school photographers who stubbornly prefer DSLRs are pathetic reactionaries who are standing in the way of "progress" and who deserve the humiliation of a force march into the brave new world of the All Digital Camera. The A7r is sort of the ultimate gearhead camera. It checks on the gearhead boxes: mirrorless, FF, EVF, high megapixel. It features impressive technology and is capable of achieving gaudy numerical specs in tests. But as an actual tool for photographic ends, it's deeply flawed. Sony never really did the math on the photographer's experience with the camera, on issues revolving around handling the camera in the field. A 36 MP FF camera is often seen as a landscape photographer's camera. The problem is, most landscape photographers shoot with zoom lenses on tripods. You need the highest quality FF zoom lenses to take full advantage of that 36 MP camera, and those lenses tended to be quite large. The Nikkor and Canon FF standard f2.8 zooms weigh around 900 grams and don't feature a tripod mount. Try mounting one of those lenses, via an adapter, on an A7r, and then mounting that tiny camera on a tripod. That will prove a very cumbersome combination. Nor will it be saving you that much weight, since you still have to carry the lenses and tripod.

Some photographers get conned into buying the Sony A7r because, on paper at least, it's a stunning camera. But once they get a chance to use it they quickly learn that, due to the size of FF glass coupled with poor design decisions, the camera doesn't handle well in the field, that it's really a camera best fit for those who like using old glass via adapters and who are, ipso facto, more open to working around handling issues, then a reevaluation becomes necessary. Add the slow AF and the misplaced shutter button, and you're bound to have a higher turnover rate with this camera than with other, better designed, more photographer-centric cameras.

[TedH42]

I am afraid I have to disagree with you. Shot from the same point, a 28mm on APS-C and a 43mm on 24x36 or a 55mm on APS-C and a 85mm on 24x36 produce the same image with the same perspective (what you call "distortion/compression") -to be exact, almost the same image since the equivalence is only approximative.

The perspective depends on the distance only, not on the focal length nor on the size of the image sensor.

Another example: take from the same point a picture with a 200mm and another one with a 24mm. The first one and the centre of the second one will exactly coincide.

I recall an article in a 1971 (or maybe 1972) issue of Petersen's PHOTOgraphic magazine that conclusively demonstrated that a 200, 100, 50, and 24 mm lens all produced the same perspective from the same distance from the subject, as Mistral75 says. It is only when you move so as to get the same image framing (width of field) at the subject (think flower) location (not the background), with the 200 at twice the distance as the 100, 100 twice as far as the 50, etc., that the perspective/distortion/compression changes. Those early Petersen's ("Think of us as equipment") were very instructive to me, and made many photographic concepts very clear.

[c.a.m]

[ ... ] you're bound to have a higher turnover rate with this camera than with other, better designed, more photographer-centric cameras.

Thanks for your thoughts.

I think you've expressed very well the essence of the state of the art of photography. In other fields, we call it "human systems design" or "human systems integration." Just because components and assemblies can be made smaller and smaller, doesn't mean they should be - especially when humans are involved in their use and handling. On the other hand, larger is not necessarily a good thing.

- Craig