Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
09-30-2008, 05:26 AM   #61
RaduA
Guest




QuoteOriginally posted by Anastigmat Quote
That is simply not possible. No matter what is done to the APS-C sensor, it cannot rival full frame image quality. The K20D already outresolves a vast majority of lenses, adding more pixels to the sensor will not deliver more resolution to the prints, only more noise. Not adding pixels mean that it is easily outclassed by the Sony A900 and Canon 5DMKII in the market place.
The answer may be simplier than you think IMO he was reffering at the image QUALITY not QUANTITY. So a revised/totaly new 14-15 Mp APS-C sensor that will match an over 20Mp FF one in terms of DR @ different ISO, noise @ all ISO levels and possibly feature something new (like 16 bit RAW?!). The whole idea is that Canon's 21Mp sensor is a bit long in the teeth and Sony's 24Mp is their first try. So, even it looks hard (comparing the pixel density) to match them I don't think it's impossible. And for a huge proportion of buyers 14,6Mp maybe not too small compared to 21 or even 24Mp of course considering the price difference.

Radu

09-30-2008, 05:27 AM   #62
Senior Member
Spongefingers's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: UK
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 238
QuoteOriginally posted by lithos Quote
Crazy thought - Pentax re-releases the LX.

As a film camera.
QuoteOriginally posted by Blue Quote
That would be cool.
Dreams can be fun, I suppose...
Modern world says no. :ugh:
09-30-2008, 07:13 AM   #63
Veteran Member




Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Copenhagen
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,845
QuoteOriginally posted by mattdm Quote
Olympus and Panasonic should be put into a separate 4/3rds bin. Sigma's main characteristic is Foveon — sensor size is secondary. And presumably, Sony, Canon, and Nikon are going to aim at full frame for their "serious" offerings and leave cropped sensors for the low-end.

That leaves Pentax alone in a pretty sweet niche of 1.5 crop advanced cameras.

I agree. A FF will always be more bulky than crop format, and the lenses for it are no pancakes neither.
For a landscape trip, where I wanted maximum IQ, I could be tempted by a Medium Format, but else I go compact primes and weathersealed K10.
Even the original Eos 5D, which has been described as a stripped consumer camera, but with a great sensor, is bulkier than my K10. And the original Eos 5D is not even sealed.

Canon & Nikon users are asking why they can’t get pancake size lenses. But high-quality primes are generally made for their FF models as well.
(In film, I seldom used wider than 24 mm)

I think Pentax could do well, having an APS-C sensor crop DSLR, and then an IQ beast in Medium Format.
A 645D with better ISO performance than film Medium Format, and you can easily handhold a lot of your shots. Like Andy Rouse did, shooting wildlife in Africa with Pentax Medium Format.
I expect a 645D to be 8.-10.000 $


BTW, I thought one of the reasons that FF cams have better View Finders, are larger mirror boxes ?

I don’t think we’ll see much smaller FF cameras than the Eos 5D, all these cameras are for use with big FF lenses, so they are built for a size comfortable with Pro grade glass. (Maybe could be made smaller, but don’t think it will happen).

Form factor is a big deal for many upgraders from P&S. It is only us old users, who like to accept bigger DSLR’s, because we feel SLR should be Film factor in sensor size.
The volume and money is made in crop, this is the SLR format of today.
09-30-2008, 08:00 AM   #64
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Colorado USA
Posts: 1,337
Two Ounces more for FF Dslr vs K20D

I've owned pentax equiptment for 6 years now. This year I bought two brand new 5D to add to my bag of tools instead of waiting around another year for the often rumored Pentax K Mount full frame dslr. It always makes me wonder why size of full frame 5D is considered to be so much bigger than aps-c crop format K20D? Look at the specs. 5D is just 2 ounces heavier than K20D. My wife uses one of my 5D, infact its pretty much hers now. Shes only 5'5" and she has no problem getting great images from my 2nd 5D and my f2.8 70-200mm image stabilized eos zoom & f2.8 16mm-35mm II L. We're just back from our annual Grand Tetons/Yellowstone National Parks extended stay and this is our first visit since 2002 we carried no pentax digital tools and no film cameras. Weight issues? None for us concerning almost 5,000 captures between us in past two weeks. Is two ounces more weight for a consumer grade full frame dslr versus K20D really a deal killer? It sure is nice to have a full size viewfinder with affordable & specific lens speed focusing screens that allow for spot on manual focus capture. "Perfect manual focus capture" I'll add is just like I have achieved for years via various brand pro level 35mm film bodies. In my opinion 2 ounces more for full frame is well worth it. Look at 5D Mark II weight specs and I think you'll find its about the same 2 ounce increase over K20D.

09-30-2008, 09:24 AM   #65
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Philippines
Posts: 1,399
QuoteOriginally posted by Samsungian Quote
I've owned pentax equiptment for 6 years now. This year I bought two brand new 5D to add to my bag of tools instead of waiting around another year for the often rumored Pentax K Mount full frame dslr. It always makes me wonder why size of full frame 5D is considered to be so much bigger than aps-c crop format K20D? Look at the specs. 5D is just 2 ounces heavier than K20D. My wife uses one of my 5D, infact its pretty much hers now. Shes only 5'5" and she has no problem getting great images from my 2nd 5D and my f2.8 70-200mm image stabilized eos zoom & f2.8 16mm-35mm II L. We're just back from our annual Grand Tetons/Yellowstone National Parks extended stay and this is our first visit since 2002 we carried no pentax digital tools and no film cameras. Weight issues? None for us concerning almost 5,000 captures between us in past two weeks. Is two ounces more weight for a consumer grade full frame dslr versus K20D really a deal killer? It sure is nice to have a full size viewfinder with affordable & specific lens speed focusing screens that allow for spot on manual focus capture. "Perfect manual focus capture" I'll add is just like I have achieved for years via various brand pro level 35mm film bodies. In my opinion 2 ounces more for full frame is well worth it. Look at 5D Mark II weight specs and I think you'll find its about the same 2 ounce increase over K20D.
Good that you're happy with the 5D. The point of contention, I believe, is not the body to body weight comparison. It's the body + lenses total weight, especially with longer telephoto lenses.

Of course, if you're really adamant about bringing heavy gear, no weight penalty would or should faze you. Horses for courses.
09-30-2008, 09:39 AM   #66
Veteran Member




Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,299
QuoteOriginally posted by Samsungian Quote
In my opinion 2 ounces more for full frame is well worth it.
It's not just the weight, it's the size! 5D II is 30% larger than K20D, and it does not even have built-in flash. Sure, some people don't mind the size and weight, but I certainly do. So from my point of view, the extra price, weight and size is not worth it for me.
09-30-2008, 10:05 AM   #67
Site Supporter
Aristophanes's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Dartmouth, Nova Scotia
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,790
QuoteOriginally posted by Anastigmat Quote
That is simply not possible. No matter what is done to the APS-C sensor, it cannot rival full frame image quality.
So what? IQ is already maxxed for the vast majority of users and applications. You're now talking maybe 1% of the whole market by unit, and 3% by sales and margins. That's cash for an advertising campaign, not market share nor gross revenues.

QuoteQuote:
That would be a mistake. The future of DSLR cameras is full frame, and Pentax would not have much of a future if it does not have a full frame model. Even Sony has a full frame DSLR.
So, when GM said the future of personal vehicles was SUV's we believed them, right? ;-)

Sorry, that statement holds no water at all. The FF form factor will always be an issue. The cost of the larger sensor will limit sales. As noted with Intel's baselines for chip costs over the last 4 years, an economy of scale diminishes to a certain point where the cost becomes more or less fixed. Sensors are expensive to produce. Unlike with film, there will always be a market reason to emphasize a smaller sensor in a DSLR body. FF will be a premium product for a long while.

Likely the market will contain a scale of sensor sizes to match different markets. DSLR will be dominated by the APS-C and 4/3 sizes because the form factor, production costs and price points hit a sweet spot. FF will occupy a very small niche just below MF (or, another way to look at it is FF is the new MF, and MF is the new LF). APS-C and 4/3 will squeeze into smaller form factors and will add features like video.

Even then, by far the vast majority of cameras sold are P&S. If it can fit in a pocket, it will sell to almost anyone. Much bigger than that and its a hobby. I cannot see going from P&S to FF for both cost and size. There is second tier market space for APS-C and 4/3. This was well-researched and invested by a huge number of industry players. IN fact, APS-C is flagship advertising, not FF. That alone tells you something. They cannot all be wrong.

QuoteQuote:
The full frame market is expanding. It is far from crowded. True, there are now 5 full frame models from 3 different manufacturers, but Nikon alone has 4 different APS-C models: the D40, D60, D90, and D300. The APS-C market is even more crowded, and the profit margins are slimmer because of all that competition.
And the same will happen with FF with or without Pentax. Fighting over a tiny market share is pretty bad on the gross earnings. The FF market is priced to effectively eliminate all but the pixel peeping prosumers. The margins are set for workplace (sidestepping the "pro" designation) buyers.
09-30-2008, 10:17 AM   #68
Site Supporter
stevebrot's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Vancouver (USA)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 26,231
QuoteOriginally posted by Aristophanes Quote
...

The cost of the larger sensor will limit sales...
False assumption!

Who says that the larger FF sensor is more expensive to produce? Price at market is not the same as cost to manufacture. Once the development costs are amortized, the sensor is just another part from the bin. Case in point being the 10 mega pixel CCD used in the K200D. It was not too long ago that detector commanded an additional $400 in price for the K10D. Not so now. The market determined the premium price and once 10 mega pixels became the standard, the price for that feature fell.


Steve

09-30-2008, 10:34 AM   #69
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Colorado USA
Posts: 1,337
According to my 1997 pentax dealer catalogue the long ago discontinued 80-200mm 2.8 FA weighs 1,507 grams or 55.7 ounces. My Canon eos 70-200mm 2.8 Image stabilized lens weighs 3.5 pounds or 56 ounces. Is this .03 ounce difference for these two similar full frame lenses that significant? I find it interesting the canon includes in lens Image Stabilization for .03 of 1 ounce more weight. I agree bulk is a bit bigger for 5D over K20D. Being 6'4" I am not hampered by its bulk & surprisingly neither is my wife. I've read so much on forums about how gigantic the eos system is and I believe it without question. My wife laughed at me the past couple weeks when I continued to be amazed she had no problems handling the 5D and two canon pro lenses. Another thing I've wondered about: For some reason pentax does not include battery weight of K20D and Canon does include battery weight for 5D in their camera specs. I've used old 1970's film cameras without battery installed for metering but I'm hard pressed to figure out how to use a digital camera without battery onboard. I think all dslrs specs should include battery weight and its minimal memory card weights too since they are required to use the cameras.
09-30-2008, 10:43 AM   #70
Veteran Member




Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,299
QuoteOriginally posted by stevebrot Quote
Who says that the larger FF sensor is more expensive to produce?
That's the fact, unfortunately. FF sensor will always be more expensive that APS-C, just because of the much lower yield per wafer.
And FF does not even have to volume to drive the price down. At least not now or the foreseeable future. If company like Nikon can only muster less than 1% DSLR market share for the combined total sales of its FF line up, I just can't see the cost coming down anytime soon.
09-30-2008, 11:28 AM   #71
Veteran Member
Jasvox's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 3,110
Honestly, I dont care what kind of sensor is in my camera as long as it produces great quality photographs in tandem with my lenses. It could be full frame, APS-C, or tin foil pie pan, I really don't care! My lenses fit all Pentax cameras, full frame and cropped, and the world wont end either way if we get a high quality APS-C or a full frame in the next year or so.

I bet if you took every full frame camera on the market at present and compared photos made from them along with the top 5 APS-C cameras (with relative lenses), 95% of those who judged could not tell a difference in the end result.

The rest is just minutiae.

Jason
09-30-2008, 11:34 AM   #72
Moderator
Site Supporter
Blue's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Florida Hill Country
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 17,166
QuoteOriginally posted by Spongefingers Quote
Dreams can be fun, I suppose...
Modern world says no. :ugh:
I guess that's why Leica, Nikon, Canon and Promaster still build film cameras. The last one is the only one that doesn't cost a left arm.

Edit: The Promaster 2500PK also takes k-mount lenses! I shouldn't have left out Cosina which also takes k-mount.

Last edited by Blue; 09-30-2008 at 11:42 AM.
09-30-2008, 11:39 AM   #73
Moderator
Site Supporter
Blue's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Florida Hill Country
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 17,166
QuoteOriginally posted by Jasvox Quote
Honestly, I dont care what kind of sensor is in my camera as long as it produces great quality photographs in tandem with my lenses. It could be full frame, APS-C, or tin foil pie pan, I really don't care! My lenses fit all Pentax cameras, full frame and cropped, and the world wont end either way if we get a high quality APS-C or a full frame in the next year or so.

I bet if you took every full frame camera on the market at present and compared photos made from them along with the top 5 APS-C cameras (with relative lenses), 95% of those who judged could not tell a difference in the end result.

The rest is just minutiae.

Jason
That is a very realistic assessment of the current situation!
09-30-2008, 11:45 AM   #74
Damn Brit
Guest




QuoteOriginally posted by Jasvox Quote
Honestly, I dont care what kind of sensor is in my camera as long as it produces great quality photographs in tandem with my lenses. It could be full frame, APS-C, or tin foil pie pan, I really don't care! My lenses fit all Pentax cameras, full frame and cropped, and the world wont end either way if we get a high quality APS-C or a full frame in the next year or so.

I bet if you took every full frame camera on the market at present and compared photos made from them along with the top 5 APS-C cameras (with relative lenses), 95% of those who judged could not tell a difference in the end result.

The rest is just minutiae.

Jason
QuoteOriginally posted by Blue Quote
That is a very realistic assessment of the current situation!
There speak the voices of reason.
09-30-2008, 12:23 PM   #75
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Charlotte, NC
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 886
QuoteOriginally posted by Aristophanes Quote
So what? IQ is already maxxed for the vast majority of users and applications. You're now talking maybe 1% of the whole market by unit, and 3% by sales and margins. That's cash for an advertising campaign, not market share nor gross revenues.
Exactly. I really don't get the FF or bust people. Maybe 1% of the market actually needs FF...if that. Why do people always gripe about Pentax needing it? Canon, Nikon and now Sony & Leica have camera's that suit your needs. Why does it matter what name is on the front? Just buy one if that's what you want.

I personally want something smaller, and if Pentax doesn't join the MFT's consortium then I will probably switch to Olympus. I'm going to use what ever brand suits my needs. I suggest the FF people do the same.
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!
development, full-frame, future, interview, pentax, pentax news, pentax rumors, sensor, thread
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Full frame pentax cem.kumuk Pentax DSLR Discussion 11 11-12-2010 03:13 PM
Pentax and Full Frame... Shutter-bug Photographic Technique 60 11-03-2010 10:03 AM
Hopes for the future? Pentax full frame (ff), K-5, and lenses Clinton Pentax DSLR Discussion 35 09-05-2010 05:07 PM
The almost full frame Pentax? denisv Photographic Technique 44 01-19-2009 04:01 AM
Need more megapix? Future possibilities and no need for full frame! rburgoss Pentax DSLR Discussion 57 10-16-2008 03:16 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:16 AM. | 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