Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
08-08-2010, 09:35 AM   #121
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Romania
Posts: 9,345
No, it's "abandoned" because it could not compete with APS-C, and because the m4/3 sells so much better. No way they would give up because of some uncertain event in the distant future... that's ridiculous.
How about the abysmal market share the "FF" has, in Japan? (and - I bet - in the rest of the world). You may wish for a "FF" camera, even for a Pentax one - but the "FF" domination is pure fantasy. Let's postpone such discussions for the moment when your "FF" would get at least 50% of the market.

08-08-2010, 02:17 PM   #122
Veteran Member




Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: West Coast , Sweden
Posts: 467
Maybe time to remind ourselves about Moore's law?

QuoteQuote:
Let's postpone such discussions for the moment when your "FF" would get at least 50% of the market.
Let's pretend it's year 2000 and this new thing called "digital photography" is around the corner. Substitute "FF" above with "digital" and you see why Pentax lagged in the digital era.
Some will never learn from history, but I hope the Hoya management has.
08-08-2010, 03:30 PM   #123
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Romania
Posts: 9,345
Is there such a thing as a "Moore's law"?
And even if there were, you couldn't use it as an argument. The Moore's "law" is talking about miniaturization - more transistors on the same area. If anything, it would describe how one could inexpensively make new, smaller sensors with more megapixels

Let's pretend... what? We're in 2010, digital took over but the dominant format is, by far, the APS-C. What else is to see?
08-08-2010, 03:53 PM   #124
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
monochrome's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Kirkwood (St. Louis) MO
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 20,455
QuoteOriginally posted by Kunzite Quote
Is there such a thing as a "Moore's law"?
And even if there were, you couldn't use it as an argument. The Moore's "law" is talking about miniaturization - more transistors on the same area. If anything, it would describe how one could inexpensively make new, smaller sensors with more megapixels

Let's pretend... what? We're in 2010, digital took over but the dominant format is, by far, the APS-C. What else is to see?
Google is your friend. Wikipedia is your best friend. (my emphasis - INEXPENSIVELY)
Moore's law describes a long-term trend in the history of computing hardware. The number of transistors that can be placed inexpensively on an integrated circuit has doubled approximately every two years.[1] The trend has continued for more than half a century and is not expected to stop until 2015 or later.[2]

Wikipedia link, which discusses the history of Moore's Law from the 50's onward, as well as its extensions to other areas of computing power. The original Moore's Law (yes, it does exist as a published statement in an electronics magazine) is driven by advances in photolithograohy technology.

The article includes Barry Hendley's (of Kodak Australia) extension of the principle to "pixels per dollar" when predicting the digital camera price, LCD and LED screens and resolution.

The resolving power (number of pixels) of APS-c and FF sensors will BOTH double every two years at a price point. Dropping the price of FF into APS-c territory will be a marketing decision, not a technology outcome.

08-08-2010, 08:08 PM   #125
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Aristophanes's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Dartmouth, Nova Scotia
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,922
QuoteOriginally posted by mattdm Quote
DA★ 28/2 SDM!

It's the 30mm from the roadmap back to life? I can see this lens kicking the DA 40mm Limited off my camera and staying glued on. (At least until I have to send it in to get the SDM repaired. )
Likely at 2x the price.
08-08-2010, 08:55 PM   #126
Veteran Member




Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Boulder, CO
Posts: 886
f/2 isn't very fast. At least not compared to f/1.4... I wish they would have spent the extra r&d money and made at least one of these lenses f/1.4. A 28/1.4 and 20/1.8 would be nice. f/2 is only a slight advantage of just leaving my 16-50 on and shooting at f/2.8.
08-08-2010, 09:17 PM   #127
Veteran Member
yeatzee's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Temecula
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,675
IMO the 28mm would have to be F/1.7 for me to consider it. F/2 just isn't fast enough.

Last edited by yeatzee; 08-09-2010 at 05:24 PM.
08-08-2010, 10:58 PM   #128
Veteran Member




Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,299
QuoteOriginally posted by Kunzite Quote
You may wish for a "FF" camera, even for a Pentax one - but the "FF" domination is pure fantasy. Let's postpone such discussions for the moment when your "FF" would get at least 50% of the market.
+1
It's just ridiculous to suggest the switch from 4/3 to m4/3 has anything to do with FF.

QuoteOriginally posted by Supernaut Quote
Let's pretend it's year 2000 and this new thing called "digital photography" is around the corner. Substitute "FF" above with "digital" and you see why Pentax lagged in the digital era.
Some will never learn from history, but I hope the Hoya management has.
Yeah, Hoya can learn valuable lessons from history - FF has dropped in price and market share remains minuscule. It has always been in a niche market, and would likely remain so in the foreseeable future. And I can't see how the history of digital taking over film has any similarity to FF vs APS-C.

08-09-2010, 12:38 AM   #129
Veteran Member
mickey's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Japan
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,074
QuoteOriginally posted by Supernaut Quote

Let's pretend it's year 2000 and this new thing called "digital photography" is around the corner. Substitute "FF" above with "digital" and you see why Pentax lagged in the digital era.

It could be added that digital photography was also influenced by the age of the internet and software editing, and so on.
Everything just fell in place.

FF will have nowhere near an impact on photography the way digital had on film.
08-09-2010, 01:17 AM   #130
Pentaxian
Digitalis's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Adelaide.
Posts: 8,798
QuoteOriginally posted by yeatzee Quote
IMO the 28mm would have to be F/1.8 for me to consider it. F/2 just isn't fast enough.

the difference between f/2 and f/1.8 is trivial at best, in terms of light transmission.The difference is small enough that the in body IS of Pentax cameras can cover it, The difference between f/1.4 and f/1.2 is far greater.
08-09-2010, 02:36 AM   #131
Veteran Member
ghelary's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Paris, France
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 617
QuoteOriginally posted by Digitalis Quote
the difference between f/2 and f/1.8 is trivial at best, in terms of light transmission.The difference is small enough that the in body IS of Pentax cameras can cover it, The difference between f/1.4 and f/1.2 is far greater.
Both are half a stop difference. Canon 85/1.2 is commonly compared with Zeiss 85/1.4.

The "special thing", with 1.2 is that it's so rare compared to the more common 1.4. The 1.2 lenses are specially studied for bokeh, not for DOF (focal length makes more difference) or low light performance (half a stop is not that much)
08-09-2010, 03:07 AM   #132
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Romania
Posts: 9,345
QuoteOriginally posted by monochrome Quote
Google is your friend. Wikipedia is your best friend. (my emphasis - INEXPENSIVELY)[INDENT]Moore's law describes a long-term trend in the history of computing hardware. The number of transistors that can be placed inexpensively on an integrated circuit has doubled approximately every two years.[1] The trend has continued for more than half a century and is not expected to stop until 2015 or later.[2]
Thanks, but I'm familiar with the so-called "Moore's law". First, it's not a law but an empirical observation; this (and because it's failing) is what I'm saying there is no such thing. Second, afaik the things slowed down in the recent past. Third, inexpensively placing more transistors on the same IC was mostly done by miniaturization (i.e. new, smaller fab processes) - which is also what you're saying.
My point: there is absolutely no correlation between the so-called "Moore's law" and increasing the IC's size at the same cost. If it were, the FF sensors would cost the same as the APS-C ones 1.5 years ago. Even the "pixels per dollar" is referring - am I right? - to smaller pixels, not to bigger IC size.

Btw, even if we're talking exclusively about pixel count, we can see how the "Moore's law" is failing. E.g. the 10MP Sony sensor appeared when, in 2005? And just now, in 2010, can we expect a 16MP one... while Canon (8.2MP in 2004) also wasn't able to break over 20MP. Talking about FF, we had the 11.4MP EOS 1Ds and 14MP Kodak ones back in 2002, now the highest "FF" resolution is 24MP.
Things are progressing, but not as fast as one may think.

P.S. If you want to talk about absolute laws, well, there are Murphy's...
08-09-2010, 03:12 AM   #133
Pentaxian
gazonk's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Oslo area, Norway
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,512
QuoteOriginally posted by ghelary Quote
Both are half a stop difference.
Wrong. 1.2 is close to half a stop from 1.4, but 1.8 is only a little more than a quarter stop fro 2.0.

The half-stop between 2.0 and 1.4 is 1.7.
08-09-2010, 03:37 AM   #134
Veteran Member
Zebooka's Avatar

Join Date: May 2008
Location: Russia, Siberia, Novosibirsk
Posts: 323
1.8 to 2.0 is 1/3 stop
1.2 to 1.4 is 1/2 stop.
08-09-2010, 03:57 AM   #135
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Aristophanes's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Dartmouth, Nova Scotia
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,922
QuoteOriginally posted by Zebooka Quote
1.8 to 2.0 is 1/3 stop
1.2 to 1.4 is 1/2 stop.
The problem with faster lenses very shallow DOF (1.2) is it works against AF systems and leads to centre point framing to stay within the very small circle of sharpness. They reduce creative opportunities, especially with off-centre focus selection. Asking for really fast glass goes against expectations of sharpness, especially across the frame. This is a major reason why they are not being produced as they used to be. They reached their zenith in the "soft focus"look days when people wanted softness in their images. Maybe that aesthetic will come back

It also reduces contrast, and with today's digital sensors, the loss of colour vibrancy is visibly apparent where not so much with film. This is the other reason why faster glass has become difficult to justify manufacturing. That and higher ISO capabilities in the cameras themselves have reduced the need.

Last edited by Aristophanes; 08-09-2010 at 05:19 AM.
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!
645d, lenses, pentax news, pentax rumors, sdm, usd
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
DA 17-70mm SDM vs DA* 16-50mm SDM? shang Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 4 07-02-2010 06:09 AM
New 55mm SDM 645D lens means no SDM II? alehel Pentax News and Rumors 11 03-14-2010 09:43 AM
Those who has SDM lenses. LeDave Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 25 03-03-2010 04:44 PM
New SDM rear TC, SDM only or SDM + screw drive? morfic Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 1 10-01-2008 08:23 AM
Lens offer from Amazon: DA* 50-135 SDM & DA* 16-50 SDM f8 Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 4 03-25-2008 04:45 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:40 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