Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
01-27-2009, 05:49 PM   #76
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Philippines
Posts: 1,399
QuoteOriginally posted by Asahiflex Quote
It's all about our perception of the price of certain goods. If you calculate the original price of the Spotmatic to today's prices then you'll be in for a big surprise. People had to work several months to be able to afford a new Asahi Pentax Spotmatic. Currently, you'll have to work as long or even less for a FF dSLR.
Yes, but isn't it that the Spotmatic is pretty much akin to FF DSLRs now? At least in product hierarchy, that seems to be the case. And really, I still would have to work months on end to afford an A900 (my personal choice if ever I go FF right now).

I guess it depends on personal salaries, that one. I can safely assume I earn much less than you or others looking for an FF DSLR right now, which is why I'm not so hot on the idea.

QuoteOriginally posted by Boris Quote
I understand you and share your view to some extent. It is of course valid view and as such has all the rights to exist.

Personally, I have 4 limited lenses (21, 31, 43, 77) and A 50/1.2 which covers all my photographic needs, or, say, 95% of them. I also have Tamron 28-75/2.8 which I may (or may not) replace with FA 24-90/3.5-4.5 which I am waiting for to arrive. I do like the way my limited lenses and that 50/1.2 render images. OTOH, I've absolutely no sentiments about Pentax bodies. I had *istD and now I have K10D. I don't find any of them to be particularly remarkable. They do their job and not fantastically so.

I would gladly buy Pentax FF DSLR as it seems now that the market is starting the price wars on "affordable" (i.e. less than USD 5,000) FF bodies. For consumers it would be quite right a time to want Pentax join the game. Pentax chooses not to.

Eventually (depending on each one's patience and other circumstances) many enough people will go Nikon, Canon or Sony and Pentax will really suffer the consequences.

Yes, I can make good photos with my gear, but ever since I had *istD I did not like the tightness of this crop factor. Call me names if you will, but that's my own personal idiosyncrasy.
No need to call names, good sir. I'm finding unevenness (if there's such a term) in my own photography, since I use both film and digital APS-C, but it's workable still, for me.

I would have to amend your previous statement, in that *well-heeled* consumers would find it a right time for Pentax to go FF. With the economy what it is now, only working photographers (hence the waiting list for the 5D Mk II) and hobbyists with quite some money in their coffers would even think of dropping upwards of $2500 for a DSLR.

QuoteOriginally posted by awo425 Quote
What I don't understand is what Pentax can possibly do to make $3000 FF body, when both Canon and Nikon can produce FF bodies that cost $1700(5D), $2500(5D2), and $2200(D700) respectively. I've herd this lame argument about $3000 Pentax FF bodies so many times over the last year, that I am just wondering where this number came from?
It comes from a rough estimate to take into consideration economies of scale, another term that's been bandied about in these FF discussions. With a much smaller Pentax user base, the cost for an FF body has to be higher to recoup initial R&D. Notice that the only players who can put out a sub-$3000 DSLR are those companies with massive user bases installed, and a lot of pro users who will definitely be the first ones in line to buy and almost-always sure buyers of those bodies. Pentax does not have that luxury.

I even think Sony's A900 could have been much higher in cost, really. Sony is probably taking a loss on each unit sold (much like PS3s) in order to secure market share.

QuoteOriginally posted by awo425 Quote
I remember times when Canon Digital Rebel was $1200 and Pentax surprised us all with istDS camera that cost just over $800 and was BETTER then Digital Rebel in many respects from the bigger sensor to a better viewfinder, better build quality, better kit lens, more functions, etc. I bought DS as soon as it hit shelves and never regret it, it was a clear winner indeed.

Now, why do you people think almost 6 years later Pentax FF camera should cost 20%-40% more then Canon or Nikon FF camera? Is there any logic in this $3000 number that a lot of people here are mumbling about? Where did you get this number? And please don't use Sony as an a example, the management of Sony is living in LaLa lend for many years now.
Those are times wherein no one has had the clear lead in digital just yet, and only pros were able to buy pre-entry-level DSLRs. With the myriads of people buying Nikon and Canon entry- and mid-level DSLRs, they have more money to offset possible losses on higher-end models.

QuoteOriginally posted by awo425 Quote
Is there are a waiting list for a $3000 (street price) A900?
This is why I think it is not a good example. 5DMK 2 have a waiting list of 2 month and people are raving about this camera, not on paper.
Again, installed user base and all. A lot of Minolta users migrated to Canon and Nikon when they thought their mounts were a digital dead-end back then.

Agreed about Sony prices though. Expensive.

01-27-2009, 07:19 PM   #77
Veteran Member
awo425's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: NYC, USA
Posts: 481
QuoteOriginally posted by Asahiflex Quote
Steve, I have a lot of M42 primes I want to use on the format they were intended for. And I also want a bigger, brighter viewfinder for better manual focusing.

Two simple reasons why I want FF.

You do know that APS-C is just an intermediate step to FF? APS-C does exist only because it is cheaper than FF, but for me APS-C is more and more uninteresting when the cheapest FF cameras have reached the price level of the first APS-C cameras.
Technically if I wanted FF only for my M42 lenses I would of got 5D. 5D can do center weighted metering with m42 lenses using m42 to EOS adaptor. There's a seller on EBAY that sell m42 to EOS adapters that will allow for focusing confirmation in 5D viewfinder, it comes with a chip inside that can be coded to include lens specific information in image EXIF.
01-27-2009, 08:24 PM   #78
Veteran Member
*isteve's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: London, England
Posts: 1,187
QuoteOriginally posted by thePiRaTE!! Quote
I wish I was as satisfied with the crop format, it would save me a lot of thinking lately, lol.

Ok, using our logics, an example then. We have a sparrow on a branch. Lets say on the K20, it would frame up nicely with a DA*200. In order to frame it as nicely with a FF, we're going to require a 300 is what you're saying if I have understood you correctly and thats larger, more expensive... and true. My argument was that you could work closer to the subject with a FF (which you would need to do to fill the frame) so as you close in to the bird with the same 200mm lens, you fill the frame with more detail while your DoF continues to get shallower. But its a bird, lets say in our example a fixed working distance required.

The FF shooter is now using the 300 as you suggest. Its higher magnification power is captured entirely on the larger sensor (assuming for the sake of argument that pixel density is roughly equal) so you still get a much 'larger' sparrow (more detail captured) similar to having used the 200 from closer in and because you are working closer to the MFD of the 300 than of the 200 at equal working distance - you get shallower DoF.

No matter how you slice it, if framing is equal, you're always going to have a shallower DoF with the larger sensor either by virture of working closer to your subject or by using a longer focal length lens closer to its MFD.

On the size/weight side of things, to be fair we must consider the opposite side of the focal range. I wouldn't need to buy a 14/2.8 for example, I could buy 21/2.8 instead. Instead of the 31, I buy the 43, etc, etc.

Further, if you wanted to keep the smaller lenses and your current working distance just as with APS-C, I'd suggest either the A900 or 5dII. Given our above scenario, you could use the 200 just as with the crop format from an equal working distance and end up with a lot of moose pasture around the side of your bird. With the extra MP, you could manually crop what was not required of the final image. Granted in doing so you lose the advantage of having started with 20+ MP, you end up with something approaching what you started with in the same crop area as we're working with on the K20. Not ideal of course, but if one really wanted, I think one could have all the same size/weight/cost savings of APS-C. This isn't meant to be practical, but its possible, though I don't think any person alive would buy the FF to neuter it in such a way.

But having said all of this, I must state that my logic was only ever meant to explain my current frame of mind regarding the FF market. The logic only applied to my choice, given my preference for shooting and wasn't meant as a general recommendation. Each will spend what they want in this regard - I know where I'll be spending next, but I hope its on a Pentax.
My point was if you pay roughly the same and buy a lens of roughly equal weight, you would end up with (for the same field of view) a 200 F2.8 or a 300F4. Both would have more or less the SAME DOF. And if I am using a 24MP FF camera I cant raise the ISO either, so I am also getting more speed from the APS solution (handy for sport).

So, to get LESS DOF on your very expensive and heavier FF camera you also have to buy very expensive and heavier lenses or a low resolution (eg. 12MP FF camera) on which you can raise the ISO to compensate for the lower speed, but I cant see Pentax making one of those, can you?
01-27-2009, 11:05 PM   #79
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Israel
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 933
QuoteOriginally posted by thibs Quote
Sure but will any bigger sensor render those guys better photographs?
This 'I have a bigger sensor than you' is smoke and mirrors thingie.

I agree however, that on a marketing PoV, FF would help Pentax. Maybe.
I think we discussed this thing in person in some length last summer. I should say that a sensor or a lens will not make a person who uses it a better photographer. That much is clear. However, a bigger sensor when used with the same (old, FF-compatible) lens will render a different picture than a smaller sensor. Which of the two to prefer is a question of personal taste. I for one, very much liked what my 31 ltd did on Fuji NPC 160 some years ago. And I'd be sure looking to repeat that performance on FF sensor.

Given a chance (which I haven't had yet, but eventually I will) to hold and may be even use Canon EOS 5D (or 5DMkII), I may finally spend the time, money and effort to give my Pentax lenses a different back end, so to say.

01-27-2009, 11:11 PM   #80
Inactive Account




Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Calgary, AB
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 942
QuoteOriginally posted by *isteve Quote
My point was if you pay roughly the same and buy a lens of roughly equal weight, you would end up with (for the same field of view) a 200 F2.8 or a 300F4. Both would have more or less the SAME DOF. And if I am using a 24MP FF camera I cant raise the ISO either, so I am also getting more speed from the APS solution (handy for sport).

So, to get LESS DOF on your very expensive and heavier FF camera you also have to buy very expensive and heavier lenses or a low resolution (eg. 12MP FF camera) on which you can raise the ISO to compensate for the lower speed, but I cant see Pentax making one of those, can you?
We agree. With FF, I can use my 85 in place of my 58 (or just get closer with the 58) and get less dof.

It's simply gravy for what I'm doing though I doubt I'm alone. While I already have an array of FF glass from 25 - 180 (25, 50, 55, 55, 58, 75, 80, 85, 90, 100, 125, 180) the larger sensor would also be of great interest to users of the FA limited primes still in the Pentax line-up as well. It has a lot to do with perspective obviously. If you're shooting sports, you're going to have larger more expensive lenses, I'm just excited to be getting more out of my existing normals and short teles.

For me, there is not a shadow of a doubt that full frame is advantageous to what I do. I really hope - and expect eventually - that Pentax will offer a full frame camera as part of a complete line up of outdoor weather proof bodies. For the time being, the K20 still is the most complete package. I'm quite sure the market share of FF bodies will continue to grow. I'll choose my body wisely when I can have FF, inbody SR, live view, pop flash (though this is not a deal breaker, sweet penta-prism would be ok ) and access to the new Zeiss/Voigts.

K.
01-27-2009, 11:41 PM   #81
Veteran Member
lol101's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Garennes sur Eure France
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 900
QuoteQuote:
My point was if you pay roughly the same and buy a lens of roughly equal weight, you would end up with (for the same field of view) a 200 F2.8 or a 300F4. Both would have more or less the SAME DOF. And if I am using a 24MP FF camera I cant raise the ISO either, so I am also getting more speed from the APS solution (handy for sport).
Why can't you raise the ISO? At a given print size, the latest batch of high resolution FF cameras has almost 2 stops better ISO performance than the K20 so I wouldn't hesitate to raise the ISO one stop to compensate for the smaller max aperture.



QuoteQuote:
So, to get LESS DOF on your very expensive and heavier FF camera you also have to buy very expensive and heavier lenses or a low resolution (eg. 12MP FF camera) on which you can raise the ISO to compensate for the lower speed, but I cant see Pentax making one of those, can you?
Ditto on that, they would probably choose a 24-28MP sensor with Samsung.

We all know that now is not the time for Pentax to release a FF but it's not because of any technical merit one format would have over the other, it's purely economical : Pentax might consider bringing a FF to the market once FF prices have reached Pentax territories (ie sub 1500€) so at soonest around 2011-2012.

Pentax K20D SNR ratio compared to 5DII/D3X from DxOMark: K20D (orange), 5DII (red), D3X(yellow).
ISO 800 on K20D rougly equal to ISO 3200 on the other guys. They have lower per pixel noise AND more resolution...
Attached Images
 
01-27-2009, 11:57 PM   #82
Veteran Member
Asahiflex's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Netherlands
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,754
QuoteOriginally posted by *isteve Quote
Both formats have pros and cons. Whether you find this uninteresting is not very, er, interesting. Why not just buy an M42 adapter and a Nikon D700 and be happy?
Because a Nikon is not very interesting for M42 shooters: to be able to take pictures at infinity one would need an adapter with a built-in corrective element. Canon is the way to go because of the short registration distance of the EF mount (although one would often run into problems with the back element of the lens hitting the mirror - but that's another matter).

Having said that: I understand why most would prefer APS-C; I still like my K10D and K20D a lot. But my shooting style and lenses have changed... To a point where Pentax does not satisfy my needs (at this moment!), unfortunately.
01-28-2009, 08:12 AM   #83
Veteran Member
*isteve's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: London, England
Posts: 1,187
QuoteOriginally posted by lol101 Quote
Why can't you raise the ISO? At a given print size, the latest batch of high resolution FF cameras has almost 2 stops better ISO performance than the K20 so I wouldn't hesitate to raise the ISO one stop to compensate for the smaller max aperture.
So tell me one technical reason why the K30D cannot have 2 stops better noise as it has more or less the same pixel pitch?

QuoteQuote:
Ditto on that, they would probably choose a 24-28MP sensor with Samsung.

We all know that now is not the time for Pentax to release a FF but it's not because of any technical merit one format would have over the other, it's purely economical : Pentax might consider bringing a FF to the market once FF prices have reached Pentax territories (ie sub 1500€) so at soonest around 2011-2012.
I agree entirely with you on that one assuming the silicon cost can EVER get that low. APSC prices are no longer coming down and are rumoured to be around $50 each. That indicates the plateau cost for an FF sensor will be around $400+. The cheapest full featured camera you could make (K20 class body) would therefore be around $700 factory cost which would wholesale at zero margin for about $1400 and retail for about $1800. I dont think its realistic to expect it much cheaper than that. An APS camera with the same class body would retail at $800 which is exactly where they are now.

Given the very poor relative exchange rates between eastern and western currencies right now, I dont see any downward pressure on prices.
QuoteQuote:
Pentax K20D SNR ratio compared to 5DII/D3X from DxOMark: K20D (orange), 5DII (red), D3X(yellow).
ISO 800 on K20D rougly equal to ISO 3200 on the other guys. They have lower per pixel noise AND more resolution...
Like I said, if that is possible with a 24MP FF sensor, why is it not possible with a 12-14MP APS sensor? Answer - no reason at all. Its just another year of development. In fact, its a good indicator of what to expect in the next generation of APSC sensors.


Last edited by *isteve; 01-28-2009 at 08:52 AM.
01-28-2009, 08:21 AM   #84
Veteran Member
*isteve's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: London, England
Posts: 1,187
QuoteOriginally posted by thePiRaTE!! Quote
We agree. With FF, I can use my 85 in place of my 58 (or just get closer with the 58) and get less dof.
I could get closer with APSC as well. Whats the point?
QuoteQuote:
It's simply gravy for what I'm doing though I doubt I'm alone. While I already have an array of FF glass from 25 - 180 (25, 50, 55, 55, 58, 75, 80, 85, 90, 100, 125, 180)
You may not be alone but there are not enough people like you for Pentax to launch a FF camera. You may decide you want one badly, but I think you will also find that a lot of those lovely lenses are pretty cr*p on a full frame camera. Sorry.

QuoteQuote:
the larger sensor would also be of great interest to users of the FA limited primes still in the Pentax line-up as well. It has a lot to do with perspective obviously. If you're shooting sports, you're going to have larger more expensive lenses, I'm just excited to be getting more out of my existing normals and short teles.
I have them all and I like the fact I can use them as portrait lenses. I have no particular desire to use them on a FF camera.
QuoteQuote:

For me, there is not a shadow of a doubt that full frame is advantageous to what I do. I really hope - and expect eventually - that Pentax will offer a full frame camera as part of a complete line up of outdoor weather proof bodies. For the time being, the K20 still is the most complete package. I'm quite sure the market share of FF bodies will continue to grow. I'll choose my body wisely when I can have FF, inbody SR, live view, pop flash (though this is not a deal breaker, sweet penta-prism would be ok ) and access to the new Zeiss/Voigts.

K.
I'm quite sure you will have a few years to wait. 2 maybe 3 assuming Pentax makes it through the recession .
01-28-2009, 08:39 AM   #85
New Member




Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 10
Boris - as I understand it the operation on K-mount is only reversible for Canon APS cameras such as the 40D and 50D, so the only benefit over the K10D and the K20D would be 6 frames/sec. In the full frame cameras the mirror is said to get in the way. You can still use K-mount on the full frames, but that is a permanent conversion.

There are a few exceptions like the 500/4 (and I think 400/4). I use several M42s on Canon full frame with an adapter and also the 500/4 K-mount with a different adapter. All work perfectly. The adapter shown in the first image on your link appears to be the one I use with the 500/4.
01-28-2009, 09:26 AM   #86
Inactive Account




Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Calgary, AB
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 942
QuoteOriginally posted by *isteve Quote
...
I'm quite sure you will have a few years to wait. 2 maybe 3 assuming Pentax makes it through the recession .

We'll agree its in the mail. Given the context of your responses, I'll accept this as having debated the point of a larger sensor successfully, heh.


K.
01-28-2009, 10:10 AM   #87
Veteran Member
lol101's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Garennes sur Eure France
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 900
QuoteQuote:
So tell me one technical reason why the K30D cannot have 2 stops better noise as it has more or less the same pixel pitch?
Well, it seemed to me that a FF with the same pixel pitch as the K20D would be around 32MP no? plus, even with the same pixel pitch, the additional resolution on the FF make a difference if you consider a given size print (finer, less visible grain).

... anyway, let's hope for the best for the K30D then!

QuoteQuote:
I agree entirely with you on that one assuming the silicon cost can EVER get that low. APSC prices are no longer coming down and are rumoured to be around $50 each. That indicates the plateau cost for an FF sensor will be around $400+. The cheapest full featured camera you could make (K20 class body) would therefore be around $700 factory cost which would wholesale at zero margin for about $1400 and retail for about $1800. I dont think its realistic to expect it much cheaper than that. An APS camera with the same class body would retail at $800 which is exactly where they are now.

Given the very poor relative exchange rates between eastern and western currencies right now, I dont see any downward pressure on prices.
Actually, I agree with you that FF prices will probably come down toward the 1800€ barrier and then stay there for a while (so it might never be an option for Pentax if they consider that they have no place in this price range). That's still the promise for sub-1500€ FF cameras if you wait a year or so after the release... 1 year old FF will compete with the newest APS-C cams.

QuoteQuote:
Like I said, if that is possible with a 24MP FF sensor, why is it not possible with a 12-14MP APS sensor? Answer - no reason at all. Its just another year of development. In fact, its a good indicator of what to expect in the next generation of APSC sensors.
Like I said, I think pixel pitch is still in favor of FF , no matter how you turn it (same number but bigger pixels or same size but more MP) when the noise/resolution compromise is considered.

I would be surprised (but happy) if the gap was reduced at less than a stop for similar generations FF/APS-C. After all, the current APS-C generation is still struggling to match the older than Mathusalem 5D on this topic...
01-28-2009, 11:17 AM   #88
Pentaxian
Ratmagiclady's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: GA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 13,476
Can't really say it matters much to me: for me to go full-frame, I'd have to buy a whole *other* set of lenses, some of which are not cheap, (I can conceivably afford a really nice fast 55 or 58, ... a fast 85 would be an additional grand, at least, old or new) ...and whatever a full-frame body would cost, well. Film. You've got to make a *whole* lot of exposures for the cost of FF to compare to what you could do with film.
01-28-2009, 12:06 PM   #89
Veteran Member
*isteve's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: London, England
Posts: 1,187
QuoteOriginally posted by lol101 Quote
Well, it seemed to me that a FF with the same pixel pitch as the K20D would be around 32MP no? plus, even with the same pixel pitch, the additional resolution on the FF make a difference if you consider a given size print (finer, less visible grain).
24 and 32 are not that far apart. And noone is saying FF is not "better" only that its a lot more expensive (and always will be) and that most people dont print big enough to care.

QuoteQuote:
Actually, I agree with you that FF prices will probably come down toward the 1800 barrier and then stay there for a while (so it might never be an option for Pentax if they consider that they have no place in this price range). That's still the promise for sub-1500 FF cameras if you wait a year or so after the release... 1 year old FF will compete with the newest APS-C cams.
Given the likely sales volume (5000 units?) Pentax will have to pay more for sensors and other components. To cover the investment cost Pentax would also have to charge more per unit. Its no win for them.

QuoteQuote:
Like I said, I think pixel pitch is still in favor of FF , no matter how you turn it (same number but bigger pixels or same size but more MP) when the noise/resolution compromise is considered.

I would be surprised (but happy) if the gap was reduced at less than a stop for similar generations FF/APS-C. After all, the current APS-C generation is still struggling to match the older than Mathusalem 5D on this topic...
The 5D is 12MP not 24, and besides I disagree. The D300 more or less matches it.....as I would expect.
01-28-2009, 12:17 PM   #90
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Romania
Posts: 9,336
QuoteOriginally posted by lol101 Quote
Actually, I agree with you that FF prices will probably come down toward the 1800 barrier and then stay there for a while (so it might never be an option for Pentax if they consider that they have no place in this price range). That's still the promise for sub-1500 FF cameras if you wait a year or so after the release... 1 year old FF will compete with the newest APS-C cams.
When would that happen?
Right now, the 3.5 years old 5D is 2000$.
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!
ff, pentax news, pentax rumors
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Rumours MJB DIGITAL Pentax News and Rumors 5 05-03-2008 01:28 PM
Any rumours for next generation camera yet? spe Pentax News and Rumors 20 03-26-2008 02:55 AM
any new 645D rumours? torge Pentax News and Rumors 1 01-22-2008 10:38 PM
K20d rumours - Infrared ruemiser Pentax DSLR Discussion 15 12-25-2007 03:51 PM
K1D rumours? Harald Pentax DSLR Discussion 3 02-02-2007 03:03 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:47 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