Samasung hints @ a Full Frame Camera!

eurostar · 04-17-2008, 07:51 AM

Originally posted by benjikan

I would love to see a 645D. Compact, Ergonomically Sound, Mobile, Great Lens Choices and Resolution.

You know that because you are using it, right?

**barondla** · 04-18-2008, 05:33 AM

Even if smaller formats like the Olympus match the quality of larger ones there is a reason to not go smaller. The slr view finder also gets smaller and darker. In the future chip size may have little to do with image quality. The "right" format may be based on how it fits humans. Olympus could make a camera smaller than the E420. It would be too small for many. Makes no sense to put small chip in too large a camera for decent ergonomics. Not bashing Olympus (have E300 & 330).
thanks
barondla

mattdm · 04-18-2008, 07:22 AM

Originally posted by barondla

Even if smaller formats like the Olympus match the quality of larger ones there is a reason to not go smaller. The slr view finder also gets smaller and darker.

In general, yes. But the E3 has a 100% coverage viewfinder with 1.15× magnification. I haven't actually used it in person, but that should make it about equivalent to the K10D/K20D's 1.5×crop/95%/0.95× coverage viewfinder.

simons-photography · 04-18-2008, 07:44 AM

the kit lens and tamron 70-300 will fit a full frame I made a rought test on my MTL5

zntgrg · 04-18-2008, 09:39 AM

Originally posted by simons-photography

the kit lens and tamron 70-300 will fit a full frame I made a rought test on my MTL5

How to fit a K lens on a Praktica? [btw i have a "Super TL 1000"]

kenyee · 04-18-2008, 12:43 PM

And if you still don't believe FF has better performance, check out the dynamic range of the D3 in the DPR review in 14-bit RAW:
Nikon D3 Review: 20. Photographic tests: Digital Photography Review

I'm hoping the Samsung FF can do better but I'd settle for at least as well :-)

Anastigmat · 04-18-2008, 12:55 PM

Originally posted by Matjazz

Judging from interview of Pentax executives old Pentax lenses aren't suitable for digital 35 camera. They don't plan 35, but if once it will happen it will be after 645.

Judging from their use by Canon users on the full frame 5D, Pentax lenses are very much suitable for digital full frame SLR cameras.

simons-photography · 04-19-2008, 01:12 AM

Originally posted by zntgrg

How to fit a K lens on a Praktica? [btw i have a "Super TL 1000"]

I just held the lenses up to the camera and checked they didn't block any of the image out

simons-photography · 04-19-2008, 01:18 PM

wish I had 10 K to spend (£s that is)

heatherslightbox · 04-19-2008, 08:14 PM

Anymore, I'm not sure that FF matters that much to me, personally, as I've learned to deal with the cropping factor of the APS-C. If a Pentax FF body were to be similar to the D3 in size and price, I wouldn't want it anyway. Even if I had the money, it would just be too big for me to carry around. If I were to ever get something that big, it would have to be MedF.

Heather

**barondla** · 04-20-2008, 06:54 PM

While the E3 may match our viewfinder (haven't seen one yet) look at the price camera it took. Oly pulled out all the tricks to achieve this. So we took a smaller format camera and made it bigger than our camera to achieve what? What Oly did to achieve this, APSc can do also. So APSc viewfinder will be closer to FF. With many electronic items the problem isn't how small can it be, but how small can it be and people work it. The mechanical/biological interface is the holdup. Don't see this changing drastically. Neither of my 2 Olys have a finder even close to the K100D never mind the Prismed K10 & 20D.
thanks
barondla

bobrapp · 04-20-2008, 09:29 PM

Originally posted by barondla

While the E3 may match our viewfinder (haven't seen one yet) look at the price camera it took. Oly pulled out all the tricks to achieve this. So we took a smaller format camera and made it bigger than our camera to achieve what? What Oly did to achieve this, APSc can do also. So APSc viewfinder will be closer to FF. With many electronic items the problem isn't how small can it be, but how small can it be and people work it. The mechanical/biological interface is the holdup. Don't see this changing drastically. Neither of my 2 Olys have a finder even close to the K100D never mind the Prismed K10 & 20D.
thanks
barondla

Think of the 4/3rds as the "110" format of DSLRs (sensor almost matches the size of 110 film format). However, that format does have some advantages due to the increased depth of field for any field of view. This means that it would do a better job in macro photography.

To expect the same viewfinder image size would call for increased magnification and the resulting loss of brightness.

Bob
Loyal Pentax ("Funtax") user since 1968.

Matjazz · 04-21-2008, 08:02 AM

Originally posted by bobrapp

To expect the same viewfinder image size would call for increased magnification and the resulting loss of brightness.

Perhaps a better design of viewfinder optics can gather more light from focusing screen. Just like f2.8 lens can gather more light than f4 lens from the same scene.

*isteve · 04-21-2008, 08:45 AM

Originally posted by Matjazz

Perhaps a better design of viewfinder optics can gather more light from focusing screen. Just like f2.8 lens can gather more light than f4 lens from the same scene.

The same amount of light enters all of the cameras at the same fstop, the question of it is how much of it do you capture and how much do you divert to the AF sensor? The problem with the 4/3 cameras is the smaller mirror.

The E3 probably uses a very high quality pentaprism and slightly overize mirror with a magnifying eyepeice that reduces the view angle to match the sensor size. This oversize mirror would compensate for the light loss due to magnification and would compete on even terms with good APSC finders.

There is no substitute for the bigger mirror if you want a brighter larger finder.

and · 04-21-2008, 09:57 AM

Originally posted by *isteve

The same amount of light enters all of the cameras at the same fstop, the question of it is how much of it do you capture and how much do you divert to the AF sensor? The problem with the 4/3 cameras is the smaller mirror.

The E3 probably uses a very high quality pentaprism and slightly overize mirror with a magnifying eyepeice that reduces the view angle to match the sensor size. This oversize mirror would compensate for the light loss due to magnification and would compete on even terms with good APSC finders.

There is no substitute for the bigger mirror if you want a brighter larger finder.

Interesting, if this is the case, then wouldnt it be possible to make a Pentax APS-C camera but with a FF mirror since the lens mount is FF, and get brighter viewfinder? or are they arleady doing that. And if the mirror is FF, the lenses cover more than APS-C then should it be a big probelm to get 100% of the APS-C FOV in the VF. if its like taking a FF VF and then just cropping it down to 1.5x then why make it smaller so u dont get 100%.

Heh am sure its not so easy. Actually I wasnt sure 100% was possible with APS-C but then came the D300 and now I want to too

Id love FF, actually the ISO performance of k20d seems fine to me, I stick to lower ISO. I want the more shallow DOF, especially with f2.8 zooms, and the big VF.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
How Many Megapixels Do You Want in a Full-Frame Pentax Camera	Miserere	Pentax DSLR Discussion	72	02-04-2010 01:55 PM
Full frame Samsung Camera?	jadedrakerider	Pentax DSLR Discussion	4	06-04-2009 04:13 PM
Samsung Full Frame Camera	dopeytree	Pentax News and Rumors	31	05-04-2009 01:14 PM
Full frame camera	12divizija	Post Your Photos!	0	01-26-2009 03:29 AM
DA Lenses on a Full-Frame 35mm Camera	YarPcola	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	8	04-26-2008 10:47 AM

04-17-2008, 07:51 AM	#46
eurostar Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Albareto, Italy Photos: Gallery Posts: 819	Originally posted by benjikan I would love to see a 645D. Compact, Ergonomically Sound, Mobile, Great Lens Choices and Resolution. You know that because you are using it, right?

04-18-2008, 05:33 AM	#47
barondla Site Supporter Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: midwest, United States Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 5,715	Even if smaller formats like the Olympus match the quality of larger ones there is a reason to not go smaller. The slr view finder also gets smaller and darker. In the future chip size may have little to do with image quality. The "right" format may be based on how it fits humans. Olympus could make a camera smaller than the E420. It would be too small for many. Makes no sense to put small chip in too large a camera for decent ergonomics. Not bashing Olympus (have E300 & 330). thanks barondla

04-18-2008, 07:22 AM	#48
mattdm Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Boston, MA Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,948	Originally posted by barondla Even if smaller formats like the Olympus match the quality of larger ones there is a reason to not go smaller. The slr view finder also gets smaller and darker. In general, yes. But the E3 has a 100% coverage viewfinder with 1.15× magnification. I haven't actually used it in person, but that should make it about equivalent to the K10D/K20D's 1.5×crop/95%/0.95× coverage viewfinder.

04-18-2008, 07:44 AM	#49
simons-photography Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Northamptonshire - England Photos: Gallery Posts: 496	the kit lens and tamron 70-300 will fit a full frame I made a rought test on my MTL5

04-18-2008, 09:39 AM	#50
zntgrg Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Verona, Italy Posts: 202	Originally posted by simons-photography the kit lens and tamron 70-300 will fit a full frame I made a rought test on my MTL5 How to fit a K lens on a Praktica? [btw i have a "Super TL 1000"]

04-18-2008, 12:43 PM	#51
kenyee Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Boston, PRofMA Photos: Albums Posts: 3,026	And if you still don't believe FF has better performance, check out the dynamic range of the D3 in the DPR review in 14-bit RAW: Nikon D3 Review: 20. Photographic tests: Digital Photography Review I'm hoping the Samsung FF can do better but I'd settle for at least as well :-)

04-18-2008, 12:55 PM	#52
Anastigmat Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: USA Posts: 126	Originally posted by Matjazz Judging from interview of Pentax executives old Pentax lenses aren't suitable for digital 35 camera. They don't plan 35, but if once it will happen it will be after 645. Judging from their use by Canon users on the full frame 5D, Pentax lenses are very much suitable for digital full frame SLR cameras.

04-19-2008, 01:12 AM	#53
simons-photography Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Northamptonshire - England Photos: Gallery Posts: 496	Originally posted by zntgrg How to fit a K lens on a Praktica? [btw i have a "Super TL 1000"] I just held the lenses up to the camera and checked they didn't block any of the image out

04-19-2008, 01:18 PM	#54
simons-photography Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Northamptonshire - England Photos: Gallery Posts: 496	wish I had 10 K to spend (£s that is)

04-19-2008, 08:14 PM	#55
heatherslightbox Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Gainesville, FL Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,599	Anymore, I'm not sure that FF matters that much to me, personally, as I've learned to deal with the cropping factor of the APS-C. If a Pentax FF body were to be similar to the D3 in size and price, I wouldn't want it anyway. Even if I had the money, it would just be too big for me to carry around. If I were to ever get something that big, it would have to be MedF. Heather

04-20-2008, 06:54 PM	#56
barondla Site Supporter Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: midwest, United States Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 5,715	While the E3 may match our viewfinder (haven't seen one yet) look at the price camera it took. Oly pulled out all the tricks to achieve this. So we took a smaller format camera and made it bigger than our camera to achieve what? What Oly did to achieve this, APSc can do also. So APSc viewfinder will be closer to FF. With many electronic items the problem isn't how small can it be, but how small can it be and people work it. The mechanical/biological interface is the holdup. Don't see this changing drastically. Neither of my 2 Olys have a finder even close to the K100D never mind the Prismed K10 & 20D. thanks barondla

04-20-2008, 09:29 PM	#57
bobrapp Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Grand Junction Colorado Posts: 209	Originally posted by barondla While the E3 may match our viewfinder (haven't seen one yet) look at the price camera it took. Oly pulled out all the tricks to achieve this. So we took a smaller format camera and made it bigger than our camera to achieve what? What Oly did to achieve this, APSc can do also. So APSc viewfinder will be closer to FF. With many electronic items the problem isn't how small can it be, but how small can it be and people work it. The mechanical/biological interface is the holdup. Don't see this changing drastically. Neither of my 2 Olys have a finder even close to the K100D never mind the Prismed K10 & 20D. thanks barondla Think of the 4/3rds as the "110" format of DSLRs (sensor almost matches the size of 110 film format). However, that format does have some advantages due to the increased depth of field for any field of view. This means that it would do a better job in macro photography. To expect the same viewfinder image size would call for increased magnification and the resulting loss of brightness. Bob Loyal Pentax ("Funtax") user since 1968.

04-21-2008, 08:02 AM	#58
Matjazz Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: EU/Slovenia Photos: Gallery Posts: 774	Originally posted by bobrapp To expect the same viewfinder image size would call for increased magnification and the resulting loss of brightness. Perhaps a better design of viewfinder optics can gather more light from focusing screen. Just like f2.8 lens can gather more light than f4 lens from the same scene.

04-21-2008, 08:45 AM	#59
*isteve Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: London, England Posts: 1,187	Originally posted by Matjazz Perhaps a better design of viewfinder optics can gather more light from focusing screen. Just like f2.8 lens can gather more light than f4 lens from the same scene. The same amount of light enters all of the cameras at the same fstop, the question of it is how much of it do you capture and how much do you divert to the AF sensor? The problem with the 4/3 cameras is the smaller mirror. The E3 probably uses a very high quality pentaprism and slightly overize mirror with a magnifying eyepeice that reduces the view angle to match the sensor size. This oversize mirror would compensate for the light loss due to magnification and would compete on even terms with good APSC finders. There is no substitute for the bigger mirror if you want a brighter larger finder.

04-21-2008, 09:57 AM	#60
and Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,476	Originally posted by *isteve The same amount of light enters all of the cameras at the same fstop, the question of it is how much of it do you capture and how much do you divert to the AF sensor? The problem with the 4/3 cameras is the smaller mirror. The E3 probably uses a very high quality pentaprism and slightly overize mirror with a magnifying eyepeice that reduces the view angle to match the sensor size. This oversize mirror would compensate for the light loss due to magnification and would compete on even terms with good APSC finders. There is no substitute for the bigger mirror if you want a brighter larger finder. Interesting, if this is the case, then wouldnt it be possible to make a Pentax APS-C camera but with a FF mirror since the lens mount is FF, and get brighter viewfinder? or are they arleady doing that. And if the mirror is FF, the lenses cover more than APS-C then should it be a big probelm to get 100% of the APS-C FOV in the VF. if its like taking a FF VF and then just cropping it down to 1.5x then why make it smaller so u dont get 100%. Heh am sure its not so easy. Actually I wasnt sure 100% was possible with APS-C but then came the D300 and now I want to too Id love FF, actually the ISO performance of k20d seems fine to me, I stick to lower ISO. I want the more shallow DOF, especially with f2.8 zooms, and the big VF.