Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

View Poll Results: Would you buy a FF Pentax or another brand or stick with APS-C?
Buy Pentax FF DSLR 18666.67%
Stick with APS-C or other format 8229.39%
Buy another brand FF DSLR 113.94%
Voters: 279. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
12-05-2009, 01:41 AM   #106
Pentaxian
thibs's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Belgium
Photos: Albums
Posts: 5,267
QuoteOriginally posted by 24X36NOW Quote
Do you prefer that Pentax remain married to mediocrity permanently instead, by shackling themselves forever to the APS-Compromise cropped format?
Well what are you doing here if APS-C means mediocrity to you?
I hope I won't be the only one to find such statement at least stupid, probably a lot condescendant. Go buy your FF and be happy.

12-05-2009, 02:26 AM   #107
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Romania
Posts: 9,343
QuoteOriginally posted by 24X36NOW Quote
92% of 100% of 42.25% is not far off, quite frankly, from 76% of 100% of 100% (excuse me, the FF viewfinder referenced is 1.96X the size - close enough for me).
Are you sure your numbers are correct? Isn't the K-7's viewfinder equivalent (in size) to a 0.61x, 100% 135mm camera viewfinder?
And fyi, the small format is just another compromise
L.E. Checking this myself - and it seems the K-7 viewfinder's size is about 63% from that on the 1DsMkIII.

Last edited by Kunzite; 12-05-2009 at 02:44 AM.
12-05-2009, 02:42 AM   #108
Forum Member




Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Sydney
Posts: 66
QuoteOriginally posted by monochrome Quote
and those who have excess cash laying around to buy trophy toys.
If I had the funds, I'd skip a 35mm Pentax and go straight for the 645D.
12-05-2009, 03:38 AM   #109
wll
Veteran Member




Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Mission Hills, CA
Posts: 773
For Me !

The two biggest advantages are the added depth of field a FF has, and the increased ISO and DR performance.

My Russian T&S lenses will also give me more perspective. I have plenty of wide lenses in APS-C so that is not an issue.

The extra MP doesn't effect me, can't see myself blowing up bigger than 16 x 20ish

I'm sure FF will come, but I'm not freaking out about it.


wll

12-05-2009, 05:59 AM   #110
Veteran Member
mattdm's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Boston, MA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,964
QuoteOriginally posted by wll Quote
The two biggest advantages are the added depth of field a FF has, and the increased ISO and DR performance.
Decreased minimum depth of field, wide open. Not increased.
12-07-2009, 08:18 AM   #111
Senior Member
Billgscott's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: York
Posts: 237
I will buy one if around the spec / price of canon 5DmkII / Sony 900.

There is 'something' about the depth of a FF pic that just seems 'right' to me.

I cann't explain it but I have been known to pick out FF pics from croped and be correct.
12-07-2009, 11:46 AM   #112
Forum Member




Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Texas
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 59
The quick answer is yes, if the price and features are right. I already have a good selection of FA lens which would work just fine. My only DA lens actually works ok with my film Pentax film camera.
I have studied the Sony A850 and A900 full frame bodies to see what other companies are doing. I love my Pentax K10 but an upgrade certainly is in my future, whether it be a FF or a K7 type camera.
GR
12-07-2009, 06:02 PM   #113
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: CT, USA
Posts: 499
QuoteOriginally posted by thibs Quote
Well what are you doing here if APS-C means mediocrity to you?
I hope I won't be the only one to find such statement at least stupid, probably a lot condescendant. Go buy your FF and be happy.
Waiting for Pentax to make a FF dSLR, for one. I also participate in discussions that have nothing to do with the latest/future/speculated products or even digital cameras, believe it or not. I have an extensive range of PK lenses, that's why I didn't long ago purchase somebody else's FF dSLR. My remark is based on the fact that APS-C was from the beginning a compromise, i.e., a smaller format sensor in a camera made to accommodate a larger one, necessitated by how expensive the sensors were when digital imaging technology was first hitting the market. The costs are now reasonable enough that the compromise is no longer necessary. If you're happy with it, stick with it. I'm not, nor will I ever be.
QuoteOriginally posted by Kunzite Quote
Are you sure your numbers are correct? Isn't the K-7's viewfinder equivalent (in size) to a 0.61x, 100% 135mm camera viewfinder?
And fyi, the small format is just another compromise
L.E. Checking this myself - and it seems the K-7 viewfinder's size is about 63% from that on the 1DsMkIII.
Yes, I'm sure that my numbers are correct. Where are you getting yours?
24 x 36 = 864 sq mm
23.4 x 15.6 = 365.04 sq mm
365.04/864 = 0.4225 (or 42.25%)
864 x 76% = 656.64 sq mm
365.04 x 92% = 335.8368 sq mm
656.64/335.8368 = 1.9552354 or ~ 1.96X the size
As for the "small" format being a compromise, yes - but a less-than-half-frame format is much more of a compromise.

12-08-2009, 02:42 AM   #114
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Romania
Posts: 9,343
You're computing the area, then multiply by the magnification factor - which is wrong.
If we're talking about (sensor) areas, you have to multiply with the square of the magnification factor. That's because (afaik) the magnification factor is linear, similar with the "crop factor".
12-08-2009, 07:19 PM   #115
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: CT, USA
Posts: 499
QuoteOriginally posted by Kunzite Quote
You're computing the area, then multiply by the magnification factor - which is wrong.
If we're talking about (sensor) areas, you have to multiply with the square of the magnification factor. That's because (afaik) the magnification factor is linear, similar with the "crop factor".
I don't think that's right. By your way of thinking, the viewfinder of a Nikon D3X (.7X magnification) would be less than half the size of a 35mm frame. I've looked through one, and believe me, its not that small. Let's go the other way with your logic - if the magnification factor was 2X, does that mean that it would be 4X the size (assuming 100% coverage) of a 35mm frame, i.e., 2X2?? If it were that size, why wouldn't the "magnification factor" simply be 4X?

Are you still (incorrectly) holding the belief that APS-C is "2/3 the size" of 35mm, based on "linear" thinking?
12-09-2009, 12:54 AM   #116
Pentaxian
thibs's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Belgium
Photos: Albums
Posts: 5,267
QuoteOriginally posted by 24X36NOW Quote
Are you still (incorrectly) holding the belief that APS-C is "2/3 the size" of 35mm, based on "linear" thinking?
Well, you may want to check definitions of 'size' and 'surface' in your dictionary.
You're the first to use the wrong words.
12-09-2009, 09:33 AM   #117
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Romania
Posts: 9,343
If the magnification was 2x, yes, the area would be 4x of the frame. As the both horizontal and vertical dimensions would be 2x the linear size.
It's also possible to use a 2D (area) magnification factor; but afaik this isn't the case.
I never ever said the APS-C is "2/3 the size", don't make things up. It's less than half the area, and about 2/3 in any linear direction.
Such differences are very clear in my mind.
12-09-2009, 11:44 AM   #118
Veteran Member
PentaxPoke's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 1,411
I like the APS-C format and don't consider it too much of a compromise. If Pentax did go to FF, what lenses would we use? Pentax doesn't have in production too many modern lenses that would allow for a complete FF suite. Even Ned discussed the challenges of going to FF, and the primary one was FF lenses. Even older FF lenses would have to be upgraded optically to really get the resolution benefit out of FF.

I think FF to Pentax is medium format. (645) From there they drop to APS-C. That is what Pentax and Hoya keep saying, and I have no reason not to believe them. I think it is a sound strategy. I'm sure being a small company they have their R&D plate full right now competing in the APS-C world in both bodies and lenses.
12-09-2009, 08:03 PM   #119
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: CT, USA
Posts: 499
QuoteOriginally posted by thibs Quote
Well, you may want to check definitions of 'size' and 'surface' in your dictionary.
You're the first to use the wrong words.
QuoteOriginally posted by Kunzite Quote
If the magnification was 2x, yes, the area would be 4x of the frame. As the both horizontal and vertical dimensions would be 2x the linear size.
It's also possible to use a 2D (area) magnification factor; but afaik this isn't the case.
I never ever said the APS-C is "2/3 the size", don't make things up. It's less than half the area, and about 2/3 in any linear direction.
Such differences are very clear in my mind.
OK, as long as we’re being pedantic (Adjective: overly concerned with formal rules and trivial points of learning):

Size (n) – how big something is; the physical dimensions, proportions, magnitude, or extent of an object; how large or small something or someone is; the physical extent or dimensions of anything; the spatial dimensions, proportions, magnitude, or bulk of anything; the physical magnitude of something (how big it is);

Extent (n) - the area covered by something

Magnification (n) - The ratio of the size of an image to the size of an object

I have not misused any words, thank you.

Although camera makers play games with coverage percentages (i.e., sometimes they use linear coverage percentage, sometimes they use area percentage), since both have 100% coverage, we’ve eliminated that consideration. Magnification, however, is a ratio of image size vs. object size, and it is most certainly not applied as its square. Something “magnified” .76 times is .76 times the size of the object, not .5776 times the size of the object. Something magnified 2 times is 2 times the size of the object, not 4 times the size of the object.

In any event, it's close enough to "twice the size" for me. More to the point, as I mentioned and in particular since Pentax has such good backward compatibility with manual focus lenses, there's nothing stopping them from making a FF dSLR with more viewfinder magnification, thus outclassing the competition rather than not.

Interesting to see that the new 100mm macro is a DFA, made to cover FF...
12-12-2009, 05:29 AM   #120
Junior Member
seliscan's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 31
I'm considering the the possibility of buying a FF from Pentax if they release a decent one, with very good Hi-ISO, focus and acceptable price...
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!
pentax, pentax news, pentax rumors
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Pentax SMC FA 50mm/F1,4 to buy or not to buy? Eugene-S Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 22 12-05-2010 02:04 PM
Should I be a good Pentax choirboy and buy a DA 15 Limited or buy the Sigma 10-20mm? tokyoso Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 42 03-14-2010 04:54 PM
SIGMA 70-200mm f/2.8 II EX DG APO Macro HSM Lens for PENTAX:To buy or not to buy? thelittlecar Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 21 12-31-2009 06:01 AM
LBA help! buy 17-70 or sell the 70-300 and buy 18-250 cardikat Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 11 12-30-2009 03:55 AM
To Buy Or Not To Buy Pentax F 50mm 1.7 Slice Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 13 03-21-2009 06:39 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:41 PM. | 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