Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
05-06-2009, 06:58 PM   #151
Veteran Member
Gooshin's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Toronto, the one in Canada.
Posts: 5,611
QuoteOriginally posted by *isteve Quote
A small selection from the last page only....

"i really do wish people like you would just keep their mouths shut, you're worse than the people that start these threads".

"first of all, you're an idiot".

"my insults are for the idiots"

"again, if you think its "little", then you dont shoot these images enough, and consequently should have no say in the matter".

You see, its not your point I object to so much, as the way you put it across. Anyone and everyone who disagrees with you is either an idiot or does not understand.

Sometime you have something useful to say, but sometimes you say REALLY dumb stuff which is a total giveaway.

I wouldnt mind that, but your attitude sucks and therefore you attract less than sympathetic responses. Perhaps after 48 years of being alive, you may figure that out.
i still dont see you quoting me where i tell everyone to shup up.

and the one guy i did tell to "shut up" had nothing constructive to say to begin with.

my attitude sucks? sympathy? Get real.

Congratulations on being alive for 48 years, here is a medal, *gives *isteve a medal*.


Last edited by Gooshin; 05-06-2009 at 07:12 PM.
05-06-2009, 07:07 PM   #152
Veteran Member
Gooshin's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Toronto, the one in Canada.
Posts: 5,611
QuoteOriginally posted by jay Quote

So, my question -- how do you expect Pentax to release a full-frame body, plus an entire line of full-frame lenses, in addition to their APS-C system (which they're already sruggling to meet deadlines) AND their medium-format system?
title of thread: "whats with the FF Postings - Why"

i, and a few others, gave the "why"

this thread is not titled "why does pentax not make a FF camera", nor is it titled "when will pentax make a FF camera", or a more direct "i want a FF pentax camera"

you are picking a fight where none exists.

I outlined many pluses that i believe exist in having a larger recording medium, which are backed by others.

Others outlined the pluses of APS-C, and i acknowledged those.

Then you have people who believe that FF is useless and has no merits what so ever, that somehow we are all pipedream losers, dont know what we are talking about, and chasing after virtues that dont exist.

when you have more than enough people who have switched systems exactly for those "extra millimeters" (among other things), and hey, they havent come back yet.

guess there is a market out there for that sort of thing, isnt there?

I am not oblivious to pentax's finacial position, and more than once i have stated that chances are there wont be a FF camera

but you seem to be missing that, every single time, maybe i should put THAT in bold.

you want to keep going in circles, be my guest.
05-06-2009, 07:23 PM   #153
Veteran Member




Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Iowa
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,368
For a thread probably posted in the wrong forum, featuring combatants who at various times called each other idiots, I have to say that there actually was more useful information in this back and forth than in a lot of the K-7 rumors threads.

And actually, for my part, I agree with both sides. On the one hand, I think using my FA31 on a full frame camera would be amazing, rendering an already incredible lens even more incredible -- not just so much just in image quality, but in pure useability as a true, fast wide angle prime lens. On the other hand, the economic reality of Pentax introducing a whole new lens line along with a FF camera seems prohibitive, and realistically I don't expect to see a full frame camera any time soon.

Disappointing? Yes. But I don't think Pentax should get so much grief for it either.
05-06-2009, 07:41 PM   #154
Damn Brit
Guest




QuoteOriginally posted by Urkeldaedalus Quote
For a thread probably posted in the wrong forum, featuring combatants who at various times called each other idiots, I have to say that there actually was more useful information in this back and forth than in a lot of the K-7 rumors threads.

This is the best forum for it, the bars on the windows are thicker.

The funniest thing about this thread are the few people having a serious conversation in between all the mud slinging (sadly I skipped over those posts).

05-06-2009, 09:03 PM   #155
Veteran Member
*isteve's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: London, England
Posts: 1,187
QuoteOriginally posted by Gooshin Quote
i still dont see you quoting me where i tell everyone to shup up.
Correct. You didnt tell anyone to "shup up"

QuoteQuote:
and the one guy i did tell to "shut up" had nothing constructive to say to begin with.
Like all the "idiots" I presume?

QuoteQuote:

my attitude sucks? sympathy? Get real.

Congratulations on being alive for 48 years, here is a medal, *gives *isteve a medal*.
Thankyou for the medal - I will polish it every day until it shines as brightly as your perfect illustration of my point.
05-06-2009, 09:48 PM   #156
Site Supporter
zplus's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Kansas City, Missouri
Posts: 168


I'm with gooshin on this though.
Its not only about the depth of field, its about the perspective of the image.
It is impossible for an aps-c to recreate the same perspective as a full frame camera.


If someone says that all you would have to do is use a focal length on the aps-c thats 2/3 that of the focal length used on the ff camera, they clearly don't understand.
Perspective is not the same as FOV.

Gooshins drawing summed it up pretty much.

Theres no sense in arguing it, some people want full frame and others dont.
/thread
05-06-2009, 10:08 PM   #157
Veteran Member
*isteve's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: London, England
Posts: 1,187
QuoteOriginally posted by zplus Quote


I'm with gooshin on this though.
Its not only about the depth of field, its about the perspective of the image.
It is impossible for an aps-c to recreate the same perspective as a full frame camera.
WRONG....................

Can I go to bed now?
05-07-2009, 01:06 AM   #158
Veteran Member
Sean Nelson's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Vancouver BC Canada
Posts: 353
QuoteOriginally posted by Sean Nelson Quote
But if you really do want it, WHY are you clinging to a camera manufacturer that has repeatedly said it's not in that business? Sell your camera and lenses and move to a brand that has it. Duh!
QuoteOriginally posted by Gooshin Quote
what will you say if pentax unveils a 645D sometime this year?
Well they've said they're going to, so I'm certainly going to be surprised when they do. That's what we're all expecting, right?

But that's a different market than FF. It's more expensive ($~9-10000 vs. $2-3000) with an incompatible line of lenses (you can use 645 lenses on APS-C/FF, but not vice versa, i.e. the FA31 is a non-starter on the 645D). So that's a completely different discussion from what's going on in this thread.

It's certainly true that someone who wants a larger format could stay with Pentax by moving to the 645D when it comes out. But I have the strong impression that's not what the FF-wishers are looking for. If it was, they'd be excitedly trading 645D rumours instead of whining about the lack of a FF camera.

05-07-2009, 01:48 AM   #159
Veteran Member
lol101's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Garennes sur Eure France
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 900
QuoteOriginally posted by GaryM Quote
That's strange, I've shot portraits at 1/30, and sometimes slower, with a (mostly) stationary subject without a problem. Your wife must really be moving around for you to get that much motion blur. If you have to stay at 1/125 and above, then clearly IS/Anti-shake is going to be mostly useless for you except at long focal lengths.
Well, she was having a conversation with someone and laughing from time to time. Not really moving around but not posing either.

This is usually the case when I am trying to take pictures of people going about their every day life.
05-07-2009, 01:54 AM   #160
Senior Member
MMVIII's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: EU
Posts: 232
QuoteOriginally posted by zplus Quote
Its not only about the depth of field, its about the perspective of the image.
It is impossible for an aps-c to recreate the same perspective as a full frame camera.
If someone says that all you would have to do is use a focal length on the aps-c thats 2/3 that of the focal length used on the ff camera, they clearly don't understand.
Perspective is not the same as FOV.
Come on, it seems you presume it is a necessity to "recreate" the perspective of every single image ever taken with the old film-format. What is photography about?

Choose an "interesting" perspective, show me things in ways i haven't looked at them, draw my attention to an image by composing it in your mind and choosing the right combination of different parameters to achieve your goal.
Claiming the correlation to a specific sensor format is a limiting factor for you sounds weird, at best this can be explained by long-year routine.

There may be sweet spots for different senzor sizes, true.
But if taking the DOF as an example, the potential shallowness should not be a problem with lenses like 1,4 85 and longer, right? And quite a useful amount can be achieved by 1,2, 1,4 or 1,8 lenses down to 20 mm. They exist or can be built for this purpose, if someone wants to spare the money on having this potential.

It's harder with wider angles, to be honest, you might get limited here if this was your preferred way of shooting, but for most people, as me, more DOF in WA was a plus. As the additional f-stop is, you get shorter times with the same DOF, i find it very useful for AL, landscape and architecture, general snapshots.

And it's true, perspective does change, but is there a "true" one, which is the only valid and possible for good composed images?

It's cheap to say: this shot wouldn't have been possible with another sensor size. It's like saying, my creativity and my ability to compose are related to the old film-size alone

Best regards, dan

Last edited by MMVIII; 05-07-2009 at 03:31 AM. Reason: exchanged FOV with DOF, which was meant
05-07-2009, 03:33 AM   #161
Inactive Account




Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 29
Hey all,

I found this whitepaper from Canon about FF relevant, though it is propaganda heavy:

http://media.the-digital-picture.com/Information/Canon-Full-Frame-CMOS-White-Paper.pdf

What's refreshing is the amount of detail Canon gives on their process, technology and roughly, cost. I think the biggest take away (which I stated earlier) is the higher SNR from the larger sensor and of course the lack of "crop" + DOF. It also sheds light on why there are so few FF -- the cost/yield of the sensor for a given wafer.

Yield & testing are huge costs in large semiconductor manufacturing. Though I would love a FF camera from Pentax, based on the economics of it, I'm not sure we'll see one soon.

- slrl0ver
05-07-2009, 03:47 AM   #162
Veteran Member
ManuH's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Montreal
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,209
QuoteOriginally posted by MMVIII Quote
Come on, it seems you presume it is a necessity to "recreate" the perspective of every single image ever taken with the old film-format. What is photography about?
The thing is while FF can do everything APS-C can do, the reverse is not true. Thus FF gives more options. It's just better. The only thing FF cannot do right now is replicating the highest APS-C resolutions. But with a 24MP FF you can already crop your picture to 10MP.

Of course that FF advantage may not justify to pay 3-4 times the price for a body...
05-07-2009, 04:15 AM   #163
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Southern Indiana
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 14,957
I hesitate to weigh in on such a heated argument. I would just say that financially it would be suicide for Pentax to make a full frame camera. Like it or not, only 2.5 percent of DSLR users will purchase a full frame camera. With Pentax's base the size that it is, that means that R and D costs and other development costs would have to spread over a few thousand cameras, meaning that their camera would likely come in at a higher cost than equivalent Canon and Nikon offerings.

In addition, if they come out with a high end camera, they will need to have a high end auto focus system, larger range of lenses, with some long glass easily available. Otherwise, there is no reason for new users to come and start on a full frame system that seems deficient in many of the reasons that people go full frame in the beginning.

I think that Pentax has the right idea. Go after the entry level users and after you have built up your base, look to expand into higher end cameras.
05-07-2009, 04:18 AM   #164
Senior Member
MMVIII's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: EU
Posts: 232
QuoteOriginally posted by ManuH Quote
The thing is while FF can do everything APS-C can do, the reverse is not true. Thus FF gives more options. It's just better. The only thing FF cannot do right now is replicating the highest APS-C resolutions. But with a 24MP FF you can already crop your picture to 10MP.

Of course that FF advantage may not justify to pay 3-4 times the price for a body...
No, it also can not. You need a longer exposure time for the same DOF, or you rise the iso up for one stop. For the same FOV you need longer focal lengths, or you crop. In both cases you give away possible advantages, like cleaner high-iso, or higher resolution.

And I still haven't counted in the need for good glass covering the whole frame, because loosing up to one stop in the corners - because of vignetting - is the same as photographing them with higher/noisier iso.

For mee it seems to be a matter of perspective, seeing the glass half full or empty.

And, exactly, at the moment I don't want to afford some advantages for 3-4times the price and giving up some others. But if I need exactly this advantages I will have to pay it, considering that all disadvantages of APS-C remain true also for FF in relation to MF...

Nevertheless i would enjoy a Pentax FF if it can be competetively priced, as a tool for special purposes, say AL, if there is a significant advantage in this parameter and I would trade it in for almost every other gimmick a D3x, Alpha 900, or Eos 1D... can have. A basic photographic tool with big low noise sensor and a basic but sensitive and precise double cross type central AF-sensor, just one, for AL, that's how Pentax could get my money. But not a whole parallel line of high-speed robo-cameras...

So I understand the wish for such a tool, but assume that a lot of arguing here is out of other reasons than artistic imagecomposing ones. Just that was my 2€c-point.

Last edited by MMVIII; 05-07-2009 at 04:56 AM.
05-07-2009, 04:47 AM   #165
Senior Member




Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 278
QuoteOriginally posted by MMVIII Quote
No, it also can not. You need a longer exposure time for the same DOF, or you rise the iso up for one stop. For the same FOV you need longer focal lengths, or you crop. In both cases you give away possible advantages, like cleaner high-iso, or higher resolution.
Eh, how about, just use the center portion of the FF sensor to act as an APS sensor, that will do all of the APS things you mentioned here.


QuoteQuote:
And I still haven't counted in the need for good glass covering the whole frame, because loosing up to one stop in the corners - because of vignetting - is the same as photographing them with higher/noisier iso.
You can use APS lens on FF cameras, to act as APS lens. Sometimes APS lens has a large image circle and also can act as a FF lens. Only Canon APS lens can't use on their FF body.

QuoteQuote:
For mee it seems to be a matter of perspective, seeing the glass half full or empty.

And, exactly, at the moment I don't want to afford some advantages for 3-4times the price and giving up some others. But if I need exactly this advantages I will have to pay it, considering that all disadvantages of APS-C remain true also for FF in relation to MF...
Campare a FF body with equally featured APS body, its barely one times more expensive.

MF body can't use the FF lens. But FF body can use APS lens. This is ultimately the point of the argument. APS system is using a FF mount and FF flange distance. Eventually you will get higher performance to cost ratio with a FF sensor, when the technology is mature enough.

A properly designed APS system should be as small as the Olympus Pen F or Pentax 110 cameras. Not the 4/3 cameras with the crazy long flange distance. This is the reason eventually the prosumer class of cameras (50D/D300/A700/K20D) will all move onto FF. It's a matter of who will do it first. I predict Sony will get to sub $1500 first.

QuoteQuote:
snip...
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!
aps-c, images, matter, mf, pentax, pentax news, pentax rumors, quality, sensors, size, system
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
View Previous postings - Help mickeyobe Site Suggestions and Help 2 11-26-2008 12:25 PM
Photo Postings and CR on this forum and Photographic Technique 3 07-03-2007 04:44 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:37 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