Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
10-01-2008, 08:24 AM   #91
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Philippines
Posts: 1,399
QuoteOriginally posted by Pål Jensen Quote
No. They have not made anything clear. They may indeed never be a 645D either.
Again, what I'm alluding to is the non-existence of the much-debated FF DSLR in the *immediate future*, though I would concede that the term "immediate" is relativistic. My own definition of "immediate future" in this case would be 4 months.

I'm not totally concerned by the lack of an FF DSLR as well as a 645D, if your statement was intended to put fear into me, since the response you were quoting didn't even make any mention of the 645D.

I can live with the compromises of APS-C. Others can't, which is the point of the response you were quoting, which is to go with the system which offers the least compromise for you and be happy with it.

10-01-2008, 08:51 AM   #92
Pentaxian
Pål Jensen's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Norway
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,145
QuoteOriginally posted by vinzer Quote
Again, what I'm alluding to is the non-existence of the much-debated FF DSLR in the *immediate future*, though I would concede that the term "immediate" is relativistic. My own definition of "immediate future" in this case would be 4 months..

My point is that Pentax have been completely uncommitical and that hardly any information can be gathered from their comments (apart form a three model APS DSLR line-up). Pentax will never admit to FF as it interfere with the APS line-up as APS and FF are part of the K-mount system. The 645D is a system apart with no risk of internal conflicts and are consequently more willing to discuss that syetm .
10-01-2008, 11:02 AM   #93
Pentaxian
thibs's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Belgium
Photos: Albums
Posts: 5,260
QuoteOriginally posted by Pål Jensen Quote
My point is that Pentax have been completely uncommitical and that hardly any information can be gathered from their comments (apart form a three model APS DSLR line-up). Pentax will never admit to FF as it interfere with the APS line-up as APS and FF are part of the K-mount system. The 645D is a system apart with no risk of internal conflicts and are consequently more willing to discuss that syetm .
This is nonsense. They *are commited* to APS-C. Saying they are uncommitical utter BS. Sorry.
10-01-2008, 12:10 PM   #94
Pentaxian
Pål Jensen's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Norway
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,145
QuoteOriginally posted by thibs Quote
This is nonsense. They *are commited* to APS-C. Saying they are uncommitical utter BS. Sorry.

Can't you read? I said they were uncomittical regarding MF Digital and FF.

10-01-2008, 01:06 PM   #95
Pentaxian
thibs's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Belgium
Photos: Albums
Posts: 5,260
QuoteOriginally posted by Pål Jensen Quote
Can't you read? I said they were uncomittical regarding MF Digital and FF.
You can't write then, your sentence was "My point is that Pentax have been completely uncommitical and that hardly any information can be gathered from their comments (apart form a three model APS DSLR line-up).".
10-01-2008, 02:02 PM   #96
Pentaxian
Pål Jensen's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Norway
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,145
QuoteOriginally posted by thibs Quote
You can't write then, your sentence was "My point is that Pentax have been completely uncommitical and that hardly any information can be gathered from their comments (apart form a three model APS DSLR line-up).".

Yes. And that sentence was a reply to a post about FF, duly cited, and that was obviously its context. I even made an exception for APS. Duh.....
It is also obviously in context of the topic of the thread with is about FF....
10-01-2008, 06:36 PM   #97
Inactive Account




Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Nanaimo, BC
Posts: 261
When all of this hot air dies down and someone can show me a reason to go FF, I'll be concerned. Let's get some shots together with the K20D and K200D and the DA* glass and compare it to some FF shots from Canikon. If there's a difference that's worth 2k in 11x14 prints, I'll eat my shorts and give you the 2k.

I think Pentax has the right idea focusing on APS-C. 800 grams worth of camera is a LOT to some people. My roomate owns an XTi and he hates my K200, saying its way too heavy. The Canon weighs in around 510 grams with the kit lens, my Pentax tips the scales at 670. If he can get all whiny about 150 grams, then imagine the stink over an extra 2-300 for full frame cameras. The improvements made to APS-C will benefit far more people than a FF camera would.

Is this the end of Pentax? No. On the contrary, they seem to be doing exactly what they should be doing: leaving the potentially money-losing FF market to larger buzzards while they seek profitability with better consumer-grade equipment. Like it or lump it, the professional market is not as large as you'd like to think: the consumer market dwarfs it in comparison. Where is a company going to make the most money? You be the judge.

It's not the camera, it's the photographer.
10-02-2008, 04:15 AM   #98
Forum Member




Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: LA
Posts: 74
I skipped much of the thread, but I'll just agree that this is (as I've been saying for some time) the smartest way for Pentax to go. If they can get to market with that 645D before too long, they have a chance of making a real splash. MF digital may be a crowded market right now, but it is a pricey crowded market and one can already see evidence that there are winners (PhaseOne), losers (the Hy6 partners), and those doing well that fear the loss of their market (Hasselblad). None of them offer anything in the way of affordability or portability. Say what you want about a Pentax 645NII being a "tripod camera," but it really isn't. It is quite portable, especially compared to current MF digital gear. Meanwhile, current MF digital stuff is very studio-bound in design, from low ISOs to low shooting speeds. Leica's S2 will be a game changer in this regard, though not in price. Nikon's MX camera, if it exists, could be a game changer on both counts. A Pentax 645D could be more affordable and more field-ready than either if they design it right and hit the market before it all feels like more of the same. But the market is there. Remember medium format film? It was a pro's game, but an enthusiastic amateur could buy an MF camera and lenses as part of a hobby. People still want that, they just need to have a camera they can afford. If Pentax can hit a price under the Canon 1DsMkIII with a 645D, they'll have a hell of a product for today's market.

As for their APS-C plans? I'm of the opinion that the DA* zooms, the DA Limiteds, and now the ever-growing line of DA* primes are covering all the bases needed for a full APS-C lineup. Already they offer more to APS-C consumers than Canon, Nikon and Sony. That disparity will only grow, and it will serve them well.

Finally, let's remember that the great Pentax glass outperforms the competition. This isn't happening in a vacuum of camera tech alone. The DA Limiteds outperform Canon and Nikon FF glass when tested on APS-C sensors (check photozone's tests). No small feat, given the relative image circles of the lenses involved.

Will

10-02-2008, 04:26 AM   #99
Pentaxian
Pål Jensen's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Norway
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,145
QuoteOriginally posted by wiyum Quote
I skipped much of the thread, but I'll just agree that this is (as I've been saying for some time) the smartest way for Pentax to go. If they can get to market with that 645D before too long, they have a chance of making a real splash. MF digital may be a crowded market right now, but it is a pricey crowded market and one can already see evidence that there are winners (PhaseOne), losers (the Hy6 partners), and those doing well that fear the loss of their market (Hasselblad). None of them offer anything in the way of affordability or portability. Say what you want about a Pentax 645NII being a "tripod camera," but it really isn't. It is quite portable, especially compared to current MF digital gear. Meanwhile, current MF digital stuff is very studio-bound in design, from low ISOs to low shooting speeds. Leica's S2 will be a game changer in this regard, though not in price. Nikon's MX camera, if it exists, could be a game changer on both counts. A Pentax 645D could be more affordable and more field-ready than either if they design it right and hit the market before it all feels like more of the same. But the market is there. Remember medium format film? It was a pro's game, but an enthusiastic amateur could buy an MF camera and lenses as part of a hobby. People still want that, they just need to have a camera they can afford. If Pentax can hit a price under the Canon 1DsMkIII with a 645D, they'll have a hell of a product for today's market.
l


I agree that the 645D is a field camera; the only one of its kind. But just as the argument that FF is not worth it over APS, similar arguments can be used for MF digital over FF. The tradoff is larger both in cost and size. There are no easy answers here. Which way the market will go is an open question. Fact is that the 645D is a bit late.
10-02-2008, 06:43 AM   #100
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Philippines
Posts: 1,399
QuoteOriginally posted by Pål Jensen Quote
I agree that the 645D is a field camera; the only one of its kind. But just as the argument that FF is not worth it over APS, similar arguments can be used for MF digital over FF. The tradoff is larger both in cost and size. There are no easy answers here. Which way the market will go is an open question. Fact is that the 645D is a bit late.
It will be late if it will cost as much as the more established Hasselblad and Phase One offerings. Otherwise, if Pentax can keep the price within reach of FF DSLRs, then it's not late just yet, though it's a whole other question of how they can make it within striking distance of FF DSLR prices.

At least, that's how I see it.
10-02-2008, 07:16 AM   #101
Veteran Member




Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Copenhagen
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,845
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.

As the reviews from Björn Rørslet and other Pro reviewers showed, you can easily have APS-C crop outresolve FF.

Sony might falter with the A900, they need it to be a success, or they might just pull the plug on DSLR, or seriously channel their resources elsewhere. I think they’ll have a difficult time competing against C&N, and the Pro base and catering that they can provide. For amateurs, there really is little difference in FF vs. crop. As Thom Hogan wrote in his review of D2Xs :

“But let me tell you something: all this deep ending into detail isn't particularly useful. The D2x, 5D and 1DsMarkII all outperform 35mm film and easily show the differences between good lenses and bad. So unless you're considering a DSLR in substitute of a medium or large format camera, I think any discussion of how much or how well a D2x or 1DsMarkII resolves is simply overkill. It's like discussing the relative merits of the top speed of a Porsche Boxster versus a Chevy Corvette. Frankly, the D2x is more camera than many amateurs can handle--they simply don't have the shot discipline (or the lenses) to get all the bits of resolution of which the camera is capable (pardon the pun). Pros shooting for large formats may find a deeper discussion of resolution slightly useful, but when I have to get out a magnifying glass to examine differences printed at 13x19" on my Epson 2200, I think that we're beyond the point where 90% of the market will find that discussion useful. For the pros: you'll need Nikon's best lenses to fully achieve what the D2x is capable of capturing, and, yes, we really are in the realm of better-than-35mm resolution. You'll want to avoid using the D2x on light tripods (such as the Gitzo 1228), you'll want to use Mirror Up or delay for shutter speeds in the 1 second to 1/250 range, and other techniques that keep vibration and movement from robbing that last little bit of resolution.”


I agree with the original post by Rparmar, why settle for FF, when you can have superior Medium Format IQ.
This makes a clear distinction between formats. APS-C crop for portability and convenience, and 645D when maximum IQ is wanted.


Newer technology provides better IQ output. The Pro cam Eos 1D Mark II, was an improvement over the back-up cam Eos 5D, and Michael Reichmann concluded that the Eos 1D Mark II had an Iso advantage over the Eos 5D. Many even found the Eos 40D, to be an improvement over the Eos 5D, Iso wise.
So we can easily have future APS-C sensor that will be ahead of what current FF sensors can provide. It is a question of technological advancement, which will bring improvements to Dynamic Range, high Iso ability, colour rendering, etc.

At base Iso, CCD sensors also holds the advantage over FF CMOS, due to CMOS sensors having somewhat more support circuitry per photosite than CCD ones, thus the packing efficiency or amount of photosensitive area per photosite would be slightly less.
Several reviews even stated that at Iso 100 the Nikon D2Xs could easily hold its own against the Eos 1Ds Mark II. (At higher Iso, the 1Ds MII held the advantage though).


On DPr, the highly regarded John Sheehy responded to a question regarding lenses, compared to sensor resolution :
"
> There has to be a limit. And frankly, based on my glass collection,
> the 40D is already right about there.


Not even close. APS-C needs 100MP or even more to get almost everything an excellent lens can offer.”



QuoteOriginally posted by Anastigmat Quote
Nikon has not discontinued the D300. It has just introduced the D90, which has some nice features from the pro bodies, such as GPS connectivity and of course the gimmick of HD movies. Canon has just announced the 50D. Sony is still selling the A700. The APS-C market is crowded and there is no sign that any of these 3 companies is going to abandon the APS-C market soon.
That is funny, you haven't told then that crop is dead, and FF is the wave of the future :-?
10-02-2008, 07:43 AM   #102
Pentaxian
Pål Jensen's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Norway
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,145
QuoteOriginally posted by Jonson PL Quote
As the reviews from Björn Rørslet and other Pro reviewers showed, you can easily have APS-C crop outresolve FF.

Sony might falter with the A900, they need it to be a success, or they might just pull the plug on DSLR, or seriously channel their resources elsewhere. I think they’ll have a difficult time competing against C&N, and the Pro base and catering that they can provide. For amateurs, there really is little difference in FF vs. crop. As Thom Hogan wrote in his review of D2Xs :

“But let me tell you something: all this deep ending into detail isn't particularly useful. The D2x, 5D and 1DsMarkII all outperform 35mm film and easily show the differences between good lenses and bad. So unless you're considering a DSLR in substitute of a medium or large format camera, I think any discussion of how much or how well a D2x or 1DsMarkII resolves is simply overkill. It's like discussing the relative merits of the top speed of a Porsche Boxster versus a Chevy Corvette. Frankly, the D2x is more camera than many amateurs can handle--they simply don't have the shot discipline (or the lenses) to get all the bits of resolution of which the camera is capable (pardon the pun). Pros shooting for large formats may find a deeper discussion of resolution slightly useful, but when I have to get out a magnifying glass to examine differences printed at 13x19" on my Epson 2200, I think that we're beyond the point where 90% of the market will find that discussion useful. For the pros: you'll need Nikon's best lenses to fully achieve what the D2x is capable of capturing, and, yes, we really are in the realm of better-than-35mm resolution. You'll want to avoid using the D2x on light tripods (such as the Gitzo 1228), you'll want to use Mirror Up or delay for shutter speeds in the 1 second to 1/250 range, and other techniques that keep vibration and movement from robbing that last little bit of resolution.”


I agree with the original post by Rparmar, why settle for FF, when you can have superior Medium Format IQ.
This makes a clear distinction between formats. APS-C crop for portability and convenience, and 645D when maximum IQ is wanted.


Newer technology provides better IQ output. The Pro cam Eos 1D Mark II, was an improvement over the back-up cam Eos 5D, and Michael Reichmann concluded that the Eos 1D Mark II had an Iso advantage over the Eos 5D. Many even found the Eos 40D, to be an improvement over the Eos 5D, Iso wise.
So we can easily have future APS-C sensor that will be ahead of what current FF sensors can provide. It is a question of technological advancement, which will bring improvements to Dynamic Range, high Iso ability, colour rendering, etc.

At base Iso, CCD sensors also holds the advantage over FF CMOS, due to CMOS sensors having somewhat more support circuitry per photosite than CCD ones, thus the packing efficiency or amount of photosensitive area per photosite would be slightly less.
Several reviews even stated that at Iso 100 the Nikon D2Xs could easily hold its own against the Eos 1Ds Mark II. (At higher Iso, the 1Ds MII held the advantage though).


On DPr, the highly regarded John Sheehy responded to a question regarding lenses, compared to sensor resolution :
"
> There has to be a limit. And frankly, based on my glass collection,
> the 40D is already right about there.


Not even close. APS-C needs 100MP or even more to get almost everything an excellent lens can offer.”





That is funny, you haven't told then that crop is dead, and FF is the wave of the future :-?


1) Bjørn Rørslett has no credibility in my book. He was one of the first digital zealots who claimed that 2mp was better than 35mm film and approaching medium format. This was and is clearly nonsense. It is noteworthy that Pentax says the 14,6mp is as good as 35mm film which is probably closer to the truth.
2) Thom Hogans predictions is usually wrong. Even 35mm film cameras show difference between good or bad lenses. It is not overkill how these cameras resolves bacuse it is not resolution digital excels, but in edge definition, and hence apparent sharpness and lack of noise. Film outresolves them. An it is not true that the differences are only visible at large prints. It is only true if your judgement of quality is not seing noise and that the image still appear sharp. If you look at texture, which is where resolution really hit in, then the difference is obvious in even the smallest print.
3) John Sheehy is right as usual. You need 100mp for APS in order to "outresolve" the lenses. That should put Thom Hogans 12mp outresolving lenses and all the resolution you want in the correct perspective!
10-02-2008, 11:32 PM   #103
Pentaxian
thibs's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Belgium
Photos: Albums
Posts: 5,260
I dunno how much your claims are true or not, I guess it remains to be seen and checked in the future but those other guys predictions 1) et 2) are obvious BS.

It is clear that 35mm FF (whether we like it or not this is not the point) demands more from the lenses, corner sharpness being indeed a major issue. I still think that this problem is more easily visible on digital FF than on film probably in part because on digital it is far easier to zoom at pixel size.

I agree with roughly all what you said, Pål.
10-03-2008, 04:34 PM   #104
Site Supporter
Aristophanes's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Dartmouth, Nova Scotia
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,922
QuoteOriginally posted by stevebrot Quote
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
Ummm...no. You still only get x number of sensors per wafer. Amortize all you want, you're still using more material and energy at source production. Price at market is a function of sales volume, not cost of production, which due to inputs can only go so low (energy, raw materials, etc.). There's a bottom to the cost structure that will baseline the fixed costs, and sensors are expensive. A larger sensor is always more expensive. Somewhere, the consumer pays for that.
10-04-2008, 01:38 AM   #105
Veteran Member




Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Copenhagen
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,845
QuoteOriginally posted by Pål Jensen Quote
It wasn't me who said that. It was Pentax.
It was said 2-3 years years back before the Hoya takeover. I believe 12% share was said. An engineer said 20%(!) in another interview. Torigoe said that 10% was the sustainable volume and that Pentax aimed for a million units a year. I'm pretty sure their tragets have changed since then...
At K10 and K100, they had the market share they could wish for; at around 8-10 %. And they were above both Olympus and Sony, so sat as third player in the DSLR market.

12-15 % market share was not a model for sustainability, it was a set up bar, which would make big money.


QuoteOriginally posted by Pål Jensen Quote
1) Bjørn Rørslett has no credibility in my book. He was one of the first digital zealots who claimed that 2mp was better than 35mm film and approaching medium format. This was and is clearly nonsense. It is noteworthy that Pentax says the 14,6mp is as good as 35mm film which is probably closer to the truth.
2) Thom Hogans predictions is usually wrong. Even 35mm film cameras show difference between good or bad lenses. It is not overkill how these cameras resolves bacuse it is not resolution digital excels, but in edge definition, and hence apparent sharpness and lack of noise. Film outresolves them. An it is not true that the differences are only visible at large prints. It is only true if your judgement of quality is not seing noise and that the image still appear sharp. If you look at texture, which is where resolution really hit in, then the difference is obvious in even the smallest print.
3) John Sheehy is right as usual. You need 100mp for APS in order to "outresolve" the lenses. That should put Thom Hogans 12mp outresolving lenses and all the resolution you want in the correct perspective!

Hi Pål,
Thanks for your input. I always read your posts with great interest. I noted that you on DPr, also were in the discussion regarding John Sheehy; I haven’t read through the entire thread, so good to get additional comments now.
(I hadn’t run across John before, generally stay more in the Pentax SLR forum)

I know that many users are not that fond of Bjørn Rørslett, (though other Pro reviewers still respect him). I do think that some of his findings have been useful for me in understanding different formats. Maybe not his conclusions, but his evaluations of differences.


I follow you in the Thom Hogan points, though I would not have been able to formulate them myself.
Just to clarify, you write : “Film outresolves them.”
Is this that film still outresolve digital ?
And :
“If you look at texture, which is where resolution really hit in, then the difference is obvious in even the smallest print.”
Is this that film still does better, when it comes to texture ?
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 12:26 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.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