Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
08-16-2014, 05:02 AM   #781
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,545
QuoteOriginally posted by dcshooter Quote
However a large part of Lumo's analysis hinges on the fact that a FF can go wider, with a faster aperture, cheaper than can an APS-C, which is something pretty much everyone knows already. The problem is that the ratio of size between an APS-C and 35mm sensor is such that there are not neat correspondences between many of the common/useful focal lengths - e.g. to acheive a 50mm equivalent, you need a 33mm lens. Yeah, a 35mm is pretty close (and in fact, the 35mm 2.8 is my most commonly-used DA lens), but lenses optimized for the APS-C sensor will likely be the preferable choice for APS-C only consumers, since those will still be cheaper and more suitable for the cameras they own. That's why Nikon maintains separate lines of DX and FX lenses. Focal lengths like 28mm and 135mm are oddballs on APS-C, which is why you don't tend to see them in Pentax's DA lineup, and probably won't be big sellers except for FF shooters if re-introduced. Likewise, given the built-in width advantages of FF sensors, things like walk-around zooms are likely to be designed with long-end reach in mind rather than maximum short-end width, meaning that APS-C shooters will still have a strong incentive to opt for DA lenses with ranges more suitable for their sensor size.
That's not how I feel. I would really want a 28mm as I think 35mm is just too narrow. We have 35mm because it was already here for FF, not as a APSC design. 28 seems like a very interresting focal lens. Sigma 30mm seems to be very popular, and show that you can have dedicated focal lens APSC design in this range. The reason I don't have a modern Pentax 28mm is pentax doesn't sell it. The reason I don't have a modern 24mm is also Pentax doesn't sell it.

For events, 24-70 & 28-75 transtandard are really interresting on APSC (more than on FF). The crop factor make them more interresting as for even you don't need to go much wider than 24mm anyway but on the opposite the 70mm with crop factor give you much more reach and portraiture possibilities.

Many use 70-200 on APSC and add even a TC. This give you equivalent of 150-420mm f/4 lens. Something very expensive and even more bulky on FF.

There sense to have many more focal lenses for prime and zooms to better fit each need. It is just one has to take into factor cost into it.

08-16-2014, 05:06 AM - 1 Like   #782
Pentaxian
Uluru's Avatar

Join Date: May 2010
Location: Back to my Walkabout Creek
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,400
QuoteOriginally posted by dcshooter Quote
To some extent, yes.

However a large part of Lumo's analysis hinges on the fact that a FF can go wider, with a faster aperture, cheaper than can an APS-C, which is something pretty much everyone knows already. The problem is that the ratio of size between an APS-C and 35mm sensor is such that there are not neat correspondences between many of the common/useful focal lengths ...
Frank Lumo is right, but our thinking about implementation of the FF is wrong. We wait for something else to happen because we think 'something else' invisible to us causes the delay.

Yet in reality, only thing Ricoh needs to do now is to equip one K-mount camera with a 36MP FF sensor, and let the users decide what to do with it. 36MP FF will allow some ~15 MP in APS-C crop mode, so users of the DA lenses can be happy as well — its like having a K5IIs together with an FF.

Having an FF camera and also some DA lenses is like having two amazing cameras in one. And who wants to go for the FF lenses, let him do that too. Lots of Tamron and Sigma lenses cover the FF, at least 6 or 7 current Pentax lenses can fit the bill as well. So the FF tech is not an obstacle at all. The obstacle is something else.

This is a matter of a pragmatic approach of the brand owner — how far Ricoh is willing to imagine, see possibilities, inform and excite its audience. Can they do the above? Yes.

But will they do that? I don't think their imagination stretches that far. Ricoh imposes pragmatic problems, one after another, and as a consequence the audience — in lack of brand owner's vision — suddenly 'sees' "explanations" for such problems. It's a sad life in a Shakespearean existential "to be or not to be" loop — too afraid to live, too scared to die.

Last edited by Uluru; 08-16-2014 at 05:23 AM.
08-16-2014, 05:20 AM - 1 Like   #783
Site Supporter
Cynog Ap Brychan's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Gloucester
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,090
QuoteOriginally posted by dcshooter Quote
Focal lengths like 28mm and 135mm are oddballs on APS-C,
I'm curious. 28mm gives a FF equivalent FL of 42 mm - close to the diagonal of 35mm film (hence the Pentax FA 43mm Ltd) and 135 is just over 200 mm a popular focal length in FF. So, why are these oddball?
08-16-2014, 05:48 AM - 2 Likes   #784
Loyal Site Supporter
GlassJunkie's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: St Petersburg
Photos: Albums
Posts: 327
QuoteOriginally posted by ElJamoquio Quote
Actually he's quite correct. His physics and math are sound.
In any cost study there are impericals (cost to make, design, ship). Pricing studies involve elasticity. For those that are involved in manufacturing, we work with these outside physics.

I agree with some of Lumos physical math.... HOWEVER...

The following are not supported by conventional methodology and are in fact Lumo's opinions:

1,1 "So overall, body size or weight is not an priori argument against full frame. However, there is still a market niche for smaller propositions. Many people though can live with a camera the size of a D800 just fine." Not supported any quantitative data., or even qualitative user analysis.. Opinion or supposition

1.1 " Full frame SLR cameras will soon be sub $ 2,000 items and absolutely rule the enthusiast SLR market." Absolutely NO quantitative customer / market support. No behavioral analysis, No focus group scoring. Pure opinion and supposition. IMHO

"In theory, pixels < 1 m are doable if diffraction-limited (sharp) <F/1.2 lenses can be made. In practice though, full frame cameras have a resolution advantage over APSC cameras." On pixels < 1m, yes. On "in practice FF has resolution advantage" ? Really? Not true... a 24mpFF does NOT deliver the same resolution of a 24mp APSc on a pixel density/given area basis. There ARE however (per Lumo's analysis) IQ tradeoffs in the corners due to APSC lens image circle size than a FF lens on an APSC does not have.

"It is a myth that APSC cameras crop the "sweet spot" from the center of full frame lenses. Such myths can arise when comparing non-equivalent cameras (cf. [camera equivalence 4.2.2] for further detail). Correct...



1.3.2 Overall, equivalent full frame lenses deliver better image quality. Or at a given image quality, they are cheaper (like in consumer grade full frame lens vs. professional grade APSC lens). In a vacuum, yes, but this does not consider the rest of the system, hence the argument is non-sequitur to the overall premise. Poorly built case... There are many variables like cross-pixel "crosstalk" which can effect "quality" significantly and he has totally discounted algoritmic effectiveness of the processor. IMHO



1.3.1 " An image downsampled from a higher resolution to a destination resolution will look sharper than one captured at that resolution, everything else being equal." Correct



1.3.1.2 "And the cost of a hole is zero, nothing, nada. This is an extreme example which illustrates that lens cost decreases and ultimatively vanishes as the sensor size increases, for any given predefined image quality." An absurd statement. It has nothing to do with a price/IQ/ customer cost effectiveness curve used to actually sell something. Purely abstract analysis. IMHO



1.3.3 "My personal opinion is that the accuracy of focus (both automatic and manual) is the strongest single argument in favour of full frame over APSC." Stated as opinion, not supported in analysis I have ever used in product design or manufacturing. IMHO


1.6 "Another example where bigger may mean cheaper." Not supported by ABC allocations in materials, conversion, margining of componentry, R&D allocations. Assumed economy of scale? Not stated by any manufacturing cost methodology... Pure opinion. IMHO



2.1 " This means the market must have moved away from its point of equilibrium. Sensor sizes have been kept smaller than technically appropriate, possibly to protect good margins in a growing and prospering market. Such a state of any system is known as supercritical: any small perturbation may suffice to throw it back into a state of equilibrium." Markets are not ideal systems. They do not always behave rationally, logically,and the effects of emotion, ergonomics, user acceptance (in this case of the imaging system, output media, and human perception of the value and quality of the output, delivered medium, and imaging system) have been totally discounted in this analysis. Questionably relevant in 2012, less in '13, not at all in '14. Apart from some areas of solid theoretical physics, the "Value of FF over APSc" on both quantitative and qualitative bases was not established. Nice opinion piece though... IMHO



ANY production engineer, product developer, activity based cost trained manufacturing manager, marketing executive that I know (and I have been) would put his analysis in the "fun to talk about" His snippets have some validity, and some arguments are supported, but the outcome is clearly not supported, logically , mathematically, or in any actionable fashion. His reasoning works for him, and others, I am sure, not for me.


And for Cali92rs, I have a graduate engineering degree, graduate work in R&D management, operations research, materials engineering, process engineering, market research, and have run multi-billion dollar manufacturing and automated production operations. Real world and the math tools... A "Doctorate" is Not required to make a sound argument,,... Logic, process, sound analytics, and in this case an understanding of how markets and the human element work are.

08-16-2014, 05:51 AM   #785
PJ1
Site Supporter
PJ1's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Mosquito Creek, Australia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,311
QuoteOriginally posted by D1N0 Quote
The same reason why Pentax doesn't have a MILC with a aps-c sensor yet

I thought the K-01 was a Pentax aps-c sensor MILC. They've had it already! (Or maybe I only think my K-01 is a Pentax.)
08-16-2014, 06:49 AM - 1 Like   #786
Pentaxian
RonHendriks1966's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2009
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,556
QuoteOriginally posted by boriscleto Quote
It was designed by Hoya and sold by Ricoh

And according to two douchebags who work at a camera shop and post videos to YouTube it's a 'complete piece of garbage'.
Chris Niccolls came by and left a comment

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/138-pentax-k-01/270339-absolute-piece-garbage.html#post2909098

---------- Post added 16-08-14 at 15:50 ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by PJ1 Quote
I thought the K-01 was a Pentax aps-c sensor MILC. They've had it already! (Or maybe I only think my K-01 is a Pentax.)
Maybe not counting as a MILC, since its just a BRICK.
08-16-2014, 07:44 AM   #787
Pentaxian
D1N0's Avatar

Join Date: May 2012
Location: ---
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,613
QuoteOriginally posted by PJ1 Quote
I thought the K-01 was a Pentax aps-c sensor MILC. They've had it already! (Or maybe I only think my K-01 is a Pentax.)

K-01 was a a dslr without a mirror
08-16-2014, 08:11 AM   #788
Site Supporter




Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,892
I just saw a grey market D610 for sale for $1389. I paid more than that for my K-5.

08-16-2014, 09:13 AM   #789
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,545
QuoteOriginally posted by ElJamoquio Quote
I just saw a grey market D610 for sale for $1389. I paid more than that for my K-5.
I sold my K-5 300 a few month ago for a K-3. The K-3 I paid 1050. You can also buy an A7, new for 1200 without grey market or anything.

That's can be said the sensor is better and compared to K5, a D610 is surely a superior offering. Now compared to K3, the D610 has sure a bigger sensor, but that's about it. For the rest, the K3 tend to (slightly) be better.

But honestly, if you one want an FF, go for it, that way there no more thinking of it, years after years.
08-16-2014, 09:50 AM   #790
Site Supporter




Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,892
QuoteOriginally posted by Nicolas06 Quote
I sold my K-5 €300 a few month ago for a K-3. The K-3 I paid €1050. You can also buy an A7, new for €1200 without grey market or anything.

That's can be said the sensor is better and compared to K5, a D610 is surely a superior offering. Now compared to K3, the D610 has sure a bigger sensor, but that's about it. For the rest, the K3 tend to (slightly) be better.

But honestly, if you one want an FF, go for it, that way there no more thinking of it, years after years.
Personally I don't think I'll purchase a grey market camera. A grey market lens, sure. I was posting the price for general market knowledge; as general information in a debate. I have no need for an additional FF camera.


Right now the US version of the D610 is $1700, for reference. The US K-3 is $1200 (both at adorama). A few years ago the K-5 was $1400 or so and the D800 was $3k or so. What will next year bring?
08-16-2014, 11:10 AM   #791
Marketplace Reseller
dcshooter's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Washington DC
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 4,115
More for artistic reasons than anything else. The 43mm on 35mm film gives a useable focal length that is somewhere between the standard 50mm (long considered to be closest to what "the eye sees") and the traditional wide angle range beginning at 35mm and proceeding to 28mm, etc. As a result, it gives a rather uncomfortable field of view that falls somewhere between the two. It of course makes up for this in other ways (notably, superior image quality), but there is a reason that it is the only 43mm on the market.

The formerly ubiquitous 135mm, usually seen at f/3.5, was previously dsigned and marketed primarily as a lightweight portrait lens, rather than a telephoto, and is not really the equivalent to the very few 200mms that you see today, the only examples of which I can think of are optimized as telephoto lenses, and as a result are large beasts, with 2.8 or wider apertures, fast focus, Optical stabilization etc. The Canon 200mm 2.8 is a 765g lens. The f/2 version is a whopping 2520g! The Pentax-F 135mm 2.8, by comparison, weighs a mere 395g and is substantially heavier than its predecessors. But still, Pentax users are not clamoring for it, despite its excellent image quality, since it is useless as a portrait lens on APS-C due to the long distance needed for good framing, and it does not have the handling characteristics suitable to a high-end telephoto which compensate for the short fixed reach it has. By comparison the Limited 50-135mm and and even DA 18-135 get you the same place without substantially reduced image quality and with better range versatility and better telephoto handling.



QuoteOriginally posted by Cynog Ap Brychan Quote
I'm curious. 28mm gives a FF equivalent FL of 42 mm - close to the diagonal of 35mm film (hence the Pentax FA 43mm Ltd) and 135 is just over 200 mm a popular focal length in FF. So, why are these oddball?
08-16-2014, 11:16 AM   #792
Site Supporter




Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,892
I love the 43mm focal length. The reason there aren't other 43's from other manufacturers is that we have five fingers on each hand. There's plenty of options at 40, 45... and even 50 isn't too far away. I like the 43 field of view better than 40 or 50 myself.

If you think the 18-135 has comparable image quality (at 135) to a 135 prime... I'd argue that the 135 prime doesn't have good IQ. YMMV.
08-16-2014, 12:37 PM   #793
Loyal Site Supporter
GlassJunkie's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: St Petersburg
Photos: Albums
Posts: 327
QuoteOriginally posted by ElJamoquio Quote
I love the 43mm focal length. The reason there aren't other 43's from other manufacturers is that we have five fingers on each hand. There's plenty of options at 40, 45... and even 50 isn't too far away. I like the 43 field of view better than 40 or 50 myself.

If you think the 18-135 has comparable image quality (at 135) to a 135 prime... I'd argue that the 135 prime doesn't have good IQ. YMMV.
... Having owned both lenses, the 18-135 WR is a great lens, but it's not a SMCP-F 135 F2.8 that's a good copy. I agree with you, miss the F, but advanced age says I need to reduce glass tonnage when afield. The DA* 50-135 is nice, and despite it being at the long end of its range, very nice. I do occasionally notice that I don't manage my K-3 properly and oversaturate color with the 50-135. USER Error...
08-16-2014, 12:48 PM - 1 Like   #794
Site Supporter
stevebrot's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Vancouver (USA)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 26,196
QuoteOriginally posted by RonHendriks1966 Quote
Maybe not counting as a MILC, since its just a BRICK.
You mean something like this?



The Argus C3 (above) was a very serviceable interchangeable lens 35mm camera that supported an assortment of quality lenses and was capable of very nice photos. Unfortunately it handled like a brick. I have held a C3 and while the K-01 is softer and grippier in the hand the two are eerily the similar in the hand.

BTW...If I came across a K-01 at a good price I may well buy it. The form factor has its plus points in my opinion over the compromise of mounting the same K-mount lenses on a NEX.

Are we sufficiently off-topic yet?

Steve
08-16-2014, 01:39 PM - 1 Like   #795
Site Supporter




Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Northern Wisconsin
Posts: 691
QuoteOriginally posted by stevebrot Quote
You mean something like this?



The Argus C3 (above) was a very serviceable interchangeable lens 35mm camera that supported an assortment of quality lenses and was capable of very nice photos. Unfortunately it handled like a brick. I have held a C3 and while the K-01 is softer and grippier in the hand the two are eerily the similar in the hand.

BTW...If I came across a K-01 at a good price I may well buy it. The form factor has its plus points in my opinion over the compromise of mounting the same K-mount lenses on a NEX.

Are we sufficiently off-topic yet?

Steve
"Off topic".. are you kidding? we've been off the planet for the last while! But that is one beautiful little camera you're showing there.. WOW! thanks for posting it.
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!
645z, anniversary, body, canon, cif, dslr, ff, focus, hood, hoya, jp, lens, lenses, line, market, mf, nikon, pentax, pentax news, pentax rumors, photokina, post, pre-orders, release, ricoh, rumors, stock, train
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Photokina 2014 - FF Tesla Pentax Full Frame 797 11-14-2014 11:14 PM
Official PF Photokina Meetup Adam Travel, Events, and Groups 42 09-26-2012 11:33 AM
Photokina interview larkis Pentax Medium Format 5 09-22-2012 04:36 PM
Photokina price drop? Dynasty Pentax DSLR Discussion 10 08-21-2012 04:27 PM
Predict Pentax Photokina Announcements selar Photographic Industry and Professionals 72 08-20-2012 04:04 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:52 PM. | See also: NikonForums.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