FF out in 4 months

Zygonyx · 08-14-2015, 08:21 AM

Let there not be years this time....

Quicksand · 08-14-2015, 08:52 AM

Oh great, we've moved back into the "is doooomed" part of the cycle. Let's try to make it quick this time.

dr100hr · 08-14-2015, 08:58 AM

can i use sdm 50-135 lens on ff ?
or tamron 17-50 ?

thibs · 08-14-2015, 09:01 AM

Originally posted by dr100hr

can i use sdm 50-135 lens on ff ?
or tamron 17-50 ?

99 % yes. But in crop mode.

D1N0 · 08-14-2015, 10:20 AM

Originally posted by normhead

Translation, the longer you wait, the more chance you'll die waiting.

I didn't say that good things would come to all who wait

Mistral75 · 08-14-2015, 11:28 AM - **3 Likes**

Originally posted by normhead

I just wish we were hearing a little more about what's coming. The deafening silence is a bad omen. Same with the D FA 70-200. There's been no interviews with smiling Pentax execs for quite a while now. And they don't come out unless they've got something to smile about.

Guys, remember that the first leaks concerning K-3 were published 14 days before the actual announcement (11 days for the first picture) and those concerning K-3 II, on the eve of the actual announcement (with pictures).

Conqueror · 08-14-2015, 11:49 AM

Originally posted by Quicksand

Oh great, we've moved back into the "is doooomed" part of the cycle. Let's try to make it quick this time.

Doom will always be there

Even after the FF we'll be doomed

Asahiflex · 08-14-2015, 12:14 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by D1N0

all good things come to those who wait

...a lot.

Matthew Saville · 08-14-2015, 01:27 PM

Originally posted by IchabodCrane

Matthew, what you're essentially saying is a 9 MP uncompressed file is the same size as a 36 MP compressed file. I've never seen that kind of claim before. Instead, I think I've read you might get a 25% reduction in file size... but certainly not a 75% reduction.

I don't know what Nikon did, just that it is indeed a serious failure of raw algorithms.

kenspo · 08-14-2015, 02:15 PM

Originally posted by monochrome

Just remember Kenneth often refers to the long-term direction Ricoh has set for the brand, not just the next body or lens.

Exactly!

drougge · 08-14-2015, 02:35 PM

Originally posted by Matthew Saville

I don't know what Nikon did, just that it is indeed a serious failure of raw algorithms.

7360x4912 36.2 MP: 30.7 MB
3680x2459 9.0 MP: 29.5 MB

I can make a reasonable guess at what they did. They demosaic the image, scale it down, and call it a day. That comes to 3680 * 2459 * 3 * 12/8 bytes (assuming 12 bit). 39MB. Lossless compression could reasonably bring that down to 29MB.

I assume the lower res file must be intended for quicker processing, not quicker writing to the card or saving space.

deus ursus · 08-14-2015, 02:41 PM

Originally posted by IchabodCrane

Nice catchy line but it's not necessarily true.

If death is a good thing, then it is true.

**monochrome** · 08-14-2015, 05:07 PM

Originally posted by Winder

Who will be disappointed? What could Ricoh do that would disappoint some users with the new FF body? Are the legacy users going to be unhappy? Are those who are looking for small, compact, economical system going to be unhappy? Is Ricoh going for the bigger, better, & more expensive game plan?

My bet is that group who bought Pentax in the Hoya pricing scheme days are going to be very unhappy. Small numbers of users with very specific needs not met might grumble a bit (e.g. Bah - no flash).

And the people who have been calling for a FF for a decade - but who wouldn't have bought one anyway whenever it came out - are going to continue to complain.

Winder · 08-14-2015, 06:19 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by monochrome

My bet is that group who bought Pentax in the Hoya pricing scheme days are going to be very unhappy. Small numbers of users with very specific needs not met might grumble a bit (e.g. Bah - no flash).

And the people who have been calling for a FF for a decade - but who wouldn't have bought one anyway whenever it came out - are going to continue to complain.

Looking at the size of the D-FA* 70-200mm I get the feeling Rioch is moving away from the compact system and going for speed. I think the people who bought into the system for its size will be disappointed, but its going to be hard for DSLRs to compete with that model against mirrorless systems like Fuji. I'm guessing we see bigger, faster, & more expensive. D-FA* 85mm F/1.8, D-FA* 135mm F/1.8, A 50mm F/1.2.....

**jatrax** · 08-14-2015, 06:39 PM

Originally posted by Winder

Looking at the size of the D-FA* 70-200mm I get the feeling Rioch is moving away from the compact system and going for speed. I think the people who bought into the system for its size will be disappointed, but its going to be hard for DSLRs to compete with that model against mirrorless systems like Fuji. I'm guessing we see bigger, faster, & more expensive. D-FA* 85mm F/1.8, D-FA* 135mm F/1.8, A 50mm F/1.2.....

Seems that way, certainly the 150-450 and 70-200 are not smaller or lighter than the competition. Would be nice to see those primes again as well but I wonder what the volume on those would be now compared to back when. Perhaps intentional differentiation between APS-C and FF? If you want the "small, but not fast" limited primes you go APS-C. If you want pro, fast and big & heavy you go FF.

I would really, really like to see the specs for the 24-70, I think that will be a deciding factor for me. I keep going back & forth, I want FF (not sure why) but not sure I want the weight penalty over the k-3. If the 24-70 is comparable to the DA*16-50 I'm OK with that but much heavier and I think maybe I stay with the k-3II for now.

If the only way we get FF is to leave the Pentax DNA behind I guess Kenspo's "some will be disappointed" might ring true.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Crazy way-out theory on the FF (just for fun).	pathdoc	Pentax Full Frame	17	05-13-2015 05:30 PM
Pets Ricoh Pup 4 months	sherrvonne	Post Your Photos!	5	05-08-2015 04:03 PM
Any Pentax FF camera field testers out there?	rawr	Pentax Full Frame	46	05-03-2015 04:37 PM
People 4 months in the world	derelict	Post Your Photos!	3	04-11-2015 06:39 AM
Online Photographer: FF will die out, except...	philbaum	Pentax Full Frame	401	07-11-2014 05:13 AM

08-14-2015, 08:21 AM	#346
Zygonyx Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: Ile de France Posts: 4,032	Let there not be years this time....

08-14-2015, 08:52 AM	#347
Quicksand Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: Central Ohio (formerly SF Bay Area) Posts: 1,519	Oh great, we've moved back into the "is doooomed" part of the cycle. Let's try to make it quick this time.

08-14-2015, 08:58 AM	#348
dr100hr New Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: croatia Posts: 13	can i use sdm 50-135 lens on ff ? or tamron 17-50 ?

08-14-2015, 09:01 AM	#349
thibs Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Belgium Photos: Albums Posts: 7,001	Originally posted by dr100hr can i use sdm 50-135 lens on ff ? or tamron 17-50 ? 99 % yes. But in crop mode.

08-14-2015, 10:20 AM	#350
D1N0 Pentaxian Join Date: May 2012 Location: --- Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,802	Originally posted by normhead Translation, the longer you wait, the more chance you'll die waiting. I didn't say that good things would come to all who wait

08-14-2015, 11:28 AM - 3 Likes	#351
Mistral75 Pentaxian Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Paris, France Posts: 7,526	Originally posted by normhead I just wish we were hearing a little more about what's coming. The deafening silence is a bad omen. Same with the D FA 70-200. There's been no interviews with smiling Pentax execs for quite a while now. And they don't come out unless they've got something to smile about. Guys, remember that the first leaks concerning K-3 were published 14 days before the actual announcement (11 days for the first picture) and those concerning K-3 II, on the eve of the actual announcement (with pictures).

08-14-2015, 11:49 AM	#352
Conqueror Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2011 Location: UK Posts: 440	Originally posted by Quicksand Oh great, we've moved back into the "is doooomed" part of the cycle. Let's try to make it quick this time. Doom will always be there Even after the FF we'll be doomed

08-14-2015, 12:14 PM - 1 Like	#353
Asahiflex Pentaxian Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Netherlands Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,795	Originally posted by D1N0 all good things come to those who wait ...a lot.

08-14-2015, 01:27 PM	#354
Matthew Saville Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2014 Location: Southern California Posts: 250	Originally posted by IchabodCrane Matthew, what you're essentially saying is a 9 MP uncompressed file is the same size as a 36 MP compressed file. I've never seen that kind of claim before. Instead, I think I've read you might get a 25% reduction in file size... but certainly not a 75% reduction. I don't know what Nikon did, just that it is indeed a serious failure of raw algorithms.

08-14-2015, 02:15 PM	#355
kenspo Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2014 Location: Oslo Posts: 2,207	Originally posted by monochrome Just remember Kenneth often refers to the long-term direction Ricoh has set for the brand, not just the next body or lens. Exactly!

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

08-14-2015, 02:35 PM	#356
drougge Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: Malmö Photos: Gallery Posts: 787	Originally posted by Matthew Saville I don't know what Nikon did, just that it is indeed a serious failure of raw algorithms. 7360x4912 36.2 MP: 30.7 MB 3680x2459 9.0 MP: 29.5 MB I can make a reasonable guess at what they did. They demosaic the image, scale it down, and call it a day. That comes to 3680 * 2459 * 3 * 12/8 bytes (assuming 12 bit). 39MB. Lossless compression could reasonably bring that down to 29MB. I assume the lower res file must be intended for quicker processing, not quicker writing to the card or saving space.

08-14-2015, 02:41 PM	#357
deus ursus Pentaxian Join Date: Nov 2012 Location: Stårheim, Norway Posts: 658	Originally posted by IchabodCrane Nice catchy line but it's not necessarily true. If death is a good thing, then it is true.

08-14-2015, 05:07 PM	#358
monochrome Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Working From Home Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 26,276	Originally posted by Winder Who will be disappointed? What could Ricoh do that would disappoint some users with the new FF body? Are the legacy users going to be unhappy? Are those who are looking for small, compact, economical system going to be unhappy? Is Ricoh going for the bigger, better, & more expensive game plan? My bet is that group who bought Pentax in the Hoya pricing scheme days are going to be very unhappy. Small numbers of users with very specific needs not met might grumble a bit (e.g. Bah - no flash). And the people who have been calling for a FF for a decade - but who wouldn't have bought one anyway whenever it came out - are going to continue to complain.

08-14-2015, 06:19 PM - 1 Like	#359
Winder Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: Tennessee Posts: 6,617	Originally posted by monochrome My bet is that group who bought Pentax in the Hoya pricing scheme days are going to be very unhappy. Small numbers of users with very specific needs not met might grumble a bit (e.g. Bah - no flash). And the people who have been calling for a FF for a decade - but who wouldn't have bought one anyway whenever it came out - are going to continue to complain. Looking at the size of the D-FA* 70-200mm I get the feeling Rioch is moving away from the compact system and going for speed. I think the people who bought into the system for its size will be disappointed, but its going to be hard for DSLRs to compete with that model against mirrorless systems like Fuji. I'm guessing we see bigger, faster, & more expensive. D-FA* 85mm F/1.8, D-FA* 135mm F/1.8, A 50mm F/1.2.....

08-14-2015, 06:39 PM	#360
jatrax Site Supporter Join Date: May 2010 Location: Washington Cascades Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 12,991	Originally posted by Winder Looking at the size of the D-FA* 70-200mm I get the feeling Rioch is moving away from the compact system and going for speed. I think the people who bought into the system for its size will be disappointed, but its going to be hard for DSLRs to compete with that model against mirrorless systems like Fuji. I'm guessing we see bigger, faster, & more expensive. D-FA* 85mm F/1.8, D-FA* 135mm F/1.8, A 50mm F/1.2..... Seems that way, certainly the 150-450 and 70-200 are not smaller or lighter than the competition. Would be nice to see those primes again as well but I wonder what the volume on those would be now compared to back when. Perhaps intentional differentiation between APS-C and FF? If you want the "small, but not fast" limited primes you go APS-C. If you want pro, fast and big & heavy you go FF. I would really, really like to see the specs for the 24-70, I think that will be a deciding factor for me. I keep going back & forth, I want FF (not sure why) but not sure I want the weight penalty over the k-3. If the 24-70 is comparable to the DA*16-50 I'm OK with that but much heavier and I think maybe I stay with the k-3II for now. If the only way we get FF is to leave the Pentax DNA behind I guess Kenspo's "some will be disappointed" might ring true.