Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
10-26-2011, 08:09 PM   #616
Veteran Member
jsherman999's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,228
QuoteOriginally posted by Fl_Gulfer Quote
My Photography Teacher says the largest size sensor camera he uses is a 6mg and he prints super large landscape prints that hang in Hotels and Other places.
He says everything is done in post processing.
But he is only been shooting professionaly for 30 years.
I used to print my K100Ds images very large, and I often shoot the D700 in crop mode with aps-c-only lenses mounted on it, like the Sigma 50-150 2.8. I love the results:












A modern 36MP FF sensor may be overkill for some, but it's compelling in a way also. For one thing, you could crop it to the equivalent of a current 15MP aps-c camera.

.

10-26-2011, 10:51 PM - 1 Like   #617
Inactive Account




Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Michigan
Photos: Albums
Posts: 78
QuoteOriginally posted by northcoastgreg Quote
If two FF cameras were released which were identical in every way except one was "marginally" smaller than the other, which would sell more?

,,,weight (Will have)might have on the future FF market. ,,,35mm film cameras (and lenses) of the past. I wouldn't dismiss the idea altogether that a smaller FF system (both camera and lenses) ,,,have an appeal, even to the point of some sacrifice in features,,,,(no sacrifice on features,,,but more "enhancement") At a certain point size (and particularly weight) does begin to matter, and current FF cameras and lenses (have not, new innovation is in the works, with considerable less weight)

I'm inclined to think that Pentax won't attempt an FF camera any time soon ,,,They are going to need ,,,(will have),,,,something that gives their FF product a competitive advantage, a convincing reason for Nikon and Canon users to switch systems. Smaller size could be part of that, assuming that Pentax can pull it off,,,(Pentax "always" pulls the sheets off and "innovates"). And nor does it have to merely involve a significantly smaller camera. Marginal reductions in size might be all that is needed if the lenses can be made smaller. Pentax does know how to make small lenses (yes in fact they do). That might be a direction they could (will)go.

Every one in this forum said I was full of it about two years ago about the D645, and guess what D645 came about? Or was that a dream? Full Frame will turn the photographic world around in digital C and N "CAN NOT DO IT YET" P has it and it's "BIG" in a "SMALL" package.


Read between the lines, Pentax does "NOT" release their secrets until they release the product, but they need individuals to test them. And they have to get permission to make a forum post like this.
10-27-2011, 12:25 AM   #618
Pentaxian
RonHendriks1966's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2009
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,642
Here's a crazy idea!

QuoteOriginally posted by Aristophanes Quote
And we run into power issues as battery efficiency is developmentally not keeping up with power demand. More power means a larger battery. And you need a faster, better tracking AF, so you need more sensors, and that adds volume to the form factor as well. The moment we start talking about "dual" Prime II we are making a bigger, not smaller,camera body.

If you're going to put out a $3,000 FF DSLR you need these improvements or it will not sell. There are design trade-offs and physical limits. There are financial limits. Make choices. Quit trying to make Pentax into Apple. If photographic cameras were made by Apple (and they tried; I know, I had a QuickTake) then they'd have no tactile controls, you'd ask Siri to focus, and there would be a single touchscreen to control everything.
Well that new camera will be bigger than K-5 is, that I do believe. Partly why (next to the convenience of having some crop and thus not so large lenses needed) APS_H is appealing to me. It will drain battery's faster then K-5 does, so maybe instead of current D-Li90 a new battery, but just carrie a spare and you get along. AF is an important issue, since it does need a new approach to make AF-C workable. Maybe I'm sattisfied with single PRIME III that is just twice the speed that PRIME II delivers (that should be possible with new technoligy, since PRIME II design is from 2008/9).

So here's my crazy idea: MAKE TWO NEW CAMERA'S

So you design that new camerabody, with the big OVF, that new AF-module (also for al the other platforms APS-C and 645D), that new electronic design (faster processing and also for APS-C and 645D) and the new shutter (stil quiet please).

My preference is APS-H, but the idea is still the same for a Full Frame format sensor.

The base for this is an APS-H sensor of about 28-21mm with a surface of 588^2 mm and pixelsize of 7 microns or 4,75 microns.
  1. New Hi-iso performance (sports/action orientated) camera with big pixels and a resolution of 12 megapixel.
  2. New Hi-resolution performance (for those big prints) camera with pixels the size of current K-5 and a resolution of 26 megapixel.

Produce this camera in batches or like in car-industrie just as they come along in the productionfase. The only real difference between them fysical would be the sensormodule (and an extension on the name) that needs to be designed based on the same electronic lay-out and fysical size and connections.

They would run on different Firmware that makes one acting as a fast camera and the other slower (but that is also implied by the data read-out from the sensor, that is ofcourse slower with the sensor that carries more pixels.

The sports/action camera with up to 8 fps and the portrait camera maybe only up to 4 or 5 fps. This keeps the amount of datatstream to handle in the camera within reach of the possiblity's of a PRIME III processor.

How does that sound?
10-27-2011, 01:43 AM   #619
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Romania
Posts: 8,654
I'm not sure the market share is big enough to support two otherwise similar cameras. In fact I'm quite sure it isn't Otherwise the idea is not bad; Nikon did the same with the D3s and D3x.
But the main issue is the sensor. Not using a "mainstream" sensor is a huge risk; what if it doesn't perform as well as the competition? What if it's too costly? What if the sensor maker cannot keep up with technological improvements (this can have a big impact if the format is different)?
Otherwise, a "Limited" (exquisite mechanical quality) camera with APS-H sensor instead of a high-end APS-C model (if the price is in "FF" range it's no good) has it's appeal. If the viewfinder will be bigger.

10-27-2011, 01:55 AM   #620
ogl
Pentaxian
ogl's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Siberia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 7,114
QuoteOriginally posted by RonHendriks1966 Quote

My preference is APS-H, but the idea is still the same for a Full Frame format sensor.
No any sense. Strange focal ranges. No lenses for APS-H. No manufacturer of such sensor.
High price.

1 Dx killed APS-H sensors forever. IMO.
10-27-2011, 02:24 AM   #621
Site Supporter
Aristophanes's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Dartmouth, Nova Scotia
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,791
QuoteOriginally posted by ogl Quote
No any sense. Strange focal ranges. No lenses for APS-H. No manufacturer of such sensor.
High price.

1 Dx killed APS-H sensors forever. IMO.
I agree. APS-H was Canon's attempt to keep a full feature, ultra-durable "pro" camera for journalists whose employers buy the cameras in quantity, but were looking to save some money. The sensor just happened to be the most economical size both for production and IQ, at least for print journalism, and that's what led to its being.

I think Canon is killing it. Leica messed with it in the M8. Went nowhere.
10-27-2011, 02:44 AM   #622
Ash
Community Manager
Loyal Site Supporter
Ash's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Toowoomba, Queensland
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 22,681
I'd say start with one FF camera.
It's within Pentax's R&D budget - two might be ambitious at this stage, but two could be developed in a staggered format, to work on further improvements and enhancements on the first prototype.

Contend with the D700/D800 for a smaller, lighter yet just as capable body, and we'll have a serious head-turner on our hands.
10-27-2011, 04:29 AM   #623
Forum Member




Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Norfolk
Posts: 83
Kunzite, you and I are from opposite poles and will never agree. That's what Pentax are up against. So let's move on.


I can't help thinking Pentax are a bit of a basket case, and that's from someone who's been loyal (though not 100%) since the 1960s. No wonder they have less than 2% (thanks jsherman999 for that market share table - it makes startling reading).


They ignored the bridge camera market, entering too late to make an impression, and they seem to have poured massive resources into the compact market with nothing remarkable to offer.

In the dSLR sector they made some really bad mistakes. Having produced the smallest and sweetest-handling APS-C dSLR, complete with stainless steel chassis and feeling reassuringly similar in the hand to its 35mm forerunners, they proceeded to build subsequent models bigger, heavier and uglier. What was the point of those beautiful ultra-compact lenses when the bodies were anything but? They abandoned the small-is-good marketing formula and at that point I for one started looking elsewhere. They have now tried to recapture it but added significantly to weight and clutter in the process. Not good enough. The *istDS body weighs 505g, K-7 body 670g. Even the K-r is 544g with only a pentamirror. See how they've grown and put on weight...
ME Super 132x83x50 (445g)
MX 136x83x50 (495g)
*ist 122x84x63mm (pentamirror) - nice size but plasticky build so not worth quoting weight
*istDS 125x92x66 (505g) - the packaging yardstick, in my opinion; no bigger, no heavier than this please
K-20D 142x101x70 (715g)!!!
K-r 125x97x68 (pentamirror) (544g)
K-7 130x96x72 (670g)!!!
A typical well-spec'ed, last-of-the-film-era full-frame SLR body, such as my Contax Aria, weighs 460g and measures 137x92x54. Nice feel, comfortable weight and a pleasant companion all day long. Many people must be wondering: why, in simple language please, does FF digital (or even APS-C) need to be bigger and more burdensome than this?

10-27-2011, 04:46 AM   #624
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Var, South of France
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,071
QuoteOriginally posted by unfocused Quote
The *istDS body weighs 505g, K-7 body 670g. Even the K-r is 544g with only a pentamirror. See how they've grown and put on weight...
Well, they've added SR and boosted the AF since the *istDS, so 39g for SR in the Kr is not a bad figure IMO!

Yeah, I know, you have to account for the lost pentamirror, also... But the added weight is not bad for such a gap in features...
10-27-2011, 04:53 AM   #625
Forum Member
Jan-61's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Amsterdam
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 67
QuoteOriginally posted by Aristophanes Quote
Why?

The history and current sales demonstrate that such cameras actually have not sold all that well relative to the competition. Features utterly trump marginal compactness.

And none of this will make a difference to the real size issue: lenses. Many FF zooms are much larger than the camera body itself.

Furthermore, a lot of design input is likely beyond Pentax/Ricoh's control, particularly with regards to costs. Circuits and chips and batteries are sourced from common stock bins for affordability. Power and processing are the major additions to digital camera interior dimensions with no known substitutes that can come from optical companies primarily.

The designed volume difference between FF and APS-C is maybe 15% of which you *might* be able to shave a tiny bit off and still keep it an OVF DSLR.

You have to think about what to lose to get much smaller: SR, video, higher FPS, OVF, dual control dials, WR, tripod socket, top LCD. Or what not to include, like the oft-requested tilt/swivel rear LCD.

At the most we'd get marginal compact differences between brands at the loss of usable features to the broader market.

It is unlikely people will abandon Pentax if they bring out a D700 clone. It is guaranteed people will walk from the brand if a marginal decrease in size comes at the expense of a weak feature set at the same price point as the competition.

Realistically, to get smaller with any system one needs to reduce the lens mount size, flange distance, etc., so again we bounce back to mirrorless as that is where most of the design elasticity lies. That means bye-bye k-mount except via a kludge adapter. Pentax's on-detailed response to Adam gave no hint of any intention either way. (etc,etc,etc....)
Plain to see that FF will turn out to be bigger then a APS-C. One could sum up all the features that will make/determine the difference in size.

However, summing up will not necessarily end up in a the SUM of all components.
There is a design-assignment: how to integrate features in a smart way into a valid (new) concept.
The comparison with Apple is quite adequate. They always care about the look/feel-issue. In this way they distinguishe from the no-nonsense-approach that is common to most companies.

And this look/feel attention has been either way a strong point for Pentax (one can discuss about the first generation AF-SLRs of Pentax). Be it that Pentax was not always the most compact 'player' (Olympus OM,...; before they were indeed with Spotmatic line-up).

QuoteQuote:
Contend with the D700/D800 for a smaller, lighter yet just as capable body, and we'll have a serious head-turner on our hands.
This is the point. Pentax has a user-base that also appreciate the the brand as it is, with its specific charisma, to which its relatively compactness paired to solidness really do count.

So, please not another plump D700/5D-clone. Otherwise there would be few left to distinguish... as being Pentax.


Jan.
10-27-2011, 05:02 AM   #626
Forum Member
Jan-61's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Amsterdam
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 67
BTW, Pentax does dispose of a very compact FF lens line-up: most of the limiteds are.
Another argument to go for a relative compact FF!

Jan.
10-27-2011, 06:58 AM   #627
Veteran Member
jsherman999's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,228
QuoteOriginally posted by unfocused Quote
[FONT=Arial][SIZE=2]
I can't help thinking Pentax are a bit of a basket case, and that's from someone who's been loyal (though not 100%) since the 1960s. No wonder they have less than 2% (thanks jsherman999 for that market share table - it makes startling reading).

Keep in mind those stats are for all cameras, including P&S. In DSLR, Pentax is at about 5% or 6%.

That's much better, but there's still a huge disparity between the relative quality of the product and it's market share. The CaNikon bodies are not 94% better than the Pentax bodies. In direct-tier matchups, they are within 10% of each other in features and performance, or tied, and in fact Pentax has won several matchups (K100ds wins vs Nikon D40, K-5 wins vs Canon 60D.)

You have to look for reasons why we arrived at this market share disparity, because it's obviously not about product quality. Roughly:

1) Visibility (CaNikon are on the sidelines, in the big box stores, in TV commercials)
2) Lens selection (especially Canon)
3) Upgrade path (FF cameras make the line seem more established, complete, legitimate, and creates the sideline/pro visibility in #1)
4) AF speed, flash (flash matters to many folks, and AF lock differences can be detected at the counter and gets talked about by reviewers and online)
5) Momentum (enjoy advantages #1, 2, 3 and 4 for years, and you just can fight from on top of the momentum mountain)

A FF investment by Ricoh would directly address #3 and would encompass #2 and #4 as well as part of the investment . While that's happening, eyes are on the brand, and #1 is helped. We'd presume it would include an advert initiative as well. I don't know how they get into big boxes with their lower tiers, perhaps hat's actually even tougher than a FF introduction!


.

Last edited by jsherman999; 10-27-2011 at 07:10 AM.
10-27-2011, 07:03 AM   #628
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Southern Indiana
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 15,300
Just a comment on SR. It isn't worth the size difference to get rid of it. Pentax has no lenses with SR in them and no history of such lenses, so it would take them a longer time to ramp up production of such lenses. The K100 was also sold as the K110 without SR and the K100 sold a whole lot better than the 110, even though it was more expensive and a little bigger body.
10-27-2011, 07:04 AM   #629
Site Supporter
Aristophanes's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Dartmouth, Nova Scotia
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,791
QuoteOriginally posted by unfocused Quote
A typical well-spec'ed, last-of-the-film-era full-frame SLR body, such as my Contax Aria, weighs 460g and measures 137x92x54. Nice feel, comfortable weight and a pleasant companion all day long. Many people must be wondering: why, in simple language please, does FF digital (or even APS-C) need to be bigger and more burdensome than this?
Simply put: electronics.

Rear and top LCD's, control wheels, and individual, tactile switches all demand additional physical space.

SR takes up a lot of space internally as does all the electronics supporting the sensor. You have a small computer tied to the sensor. This computing circuitry takes up much more space than a roll of film spooled at both ends did.

Also, the sensor is a very delicate instrument requiring substantial bracing and damping integrated into the body of the camera. Film needed a pressure plate and did not require isolation from static electricity like a sensor does.

Larger sensors and/or more megapixels, and high frame rates, not to mention video demand larger, faster autofocus systems, both the added sensors and the motors. the data dumps add size and more channels to the

There are SD cards and HDMI and USB and IR and soon WiFi. There's a flash.

Above all is the requirement for power. bigger, faster sensors and their data dumps and processing require a lot of battery juice, and that takes up considerable space.

Once you have the lens mount, mirror, prism, finder, and shutter you pretty much have an SLR. The form factor cannot get much smaller than an ME Super. If you want/need to add any/all of the above, especially autofocus systems and all the feedback apparatus like LCD's, you're locked into a much larger body. The electronics can only be miniaturized so far before heat becomes a problem, or it is far too costly in materials and other compromises to get there.

If you want to do without autofocus and want small lenses there is Leica's M9 and all its rangefinder compromises, not the least being price.

If you want smaller bodies you need to start with a smaller sensor. Canon S100, Pentax Q, Panasonic LX5, Nikon V/J1 are your choices. Some bridge cameras may do as well. NEX-7 speaks volumes.

If you are looking for all those electronics to get shimmed into a *ist package alongside a larger sensor you will do without features in a larger, comparable Nikon or Canon, for the same price.

So far, the history of camera sales, recent and past, does not favour compactness at the expense of features. People will unhesitatingly buy a larger camera to get features. They will also buy a second camera with IQ compromises to get their portability. Camera makers love that idea: one customer, 2 cameras.
10-27-2011, 07:18 AM   #630
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 5,550
Pentax has room for a single FF that is targeted towards wedding/fashion/portrait photographers. That it the largest market and the easiest to enter. Pentax does not have a 1D or D3 line to protect, so they don't need to cripple the camera to protect sales. I think the Sony A900 is about as close to perfect (for the technology level) as you can get for someone who does not need HD Video. Use the A900 for a day and then go back to an APS-C and you feel like you are looking through the peep hole on your door.

While keeping size down is important, I don't want to sacrifice a big VF, 2 card slots, a quality SR, and really accurate AF. I don't need 51-point AF. 21 points would be fine, but I need them to be small and accurate. The golf ball sized center AF point on my K-7 and the SR that is slower than the AF are more annoying to me than the high ISO.
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, bodies, body, dslr, full-frame, lenses, lineup, pentax, system, users
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
Pentax A 50/1.2 on Full Frame aegisphan Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 23 10-28-2010 04:16 PM
News Regarding Advertising on PentaxForums.com: An Official Statement Adam Site Suggestions and Help 5 03-24-2010 07:37 PM
Official: New DSLR Body is Coming; Full Frame Model is Under Planning! RiceHigh Pentax News and Rumors 78 08-04-2008 06:18 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:50 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