[Pentaxeros]

New Facebook, click on I like to ask a Pentax Pentax Full Frame

Pentax Full Frame | Facebook

[Spare Tire]

How about ricoh comes out with an FF M-mount module and use the same sensor in the FF pentax.

[Belnan]

I actually have know idea how many Facebook likes it might take to get Pentax's attention, maybe it doesn't matter how many. What is ironic is that so many of us want Pentax to be successful yet they could care less about the success of there photographers. WTF have they been doing the last two years some minor upgrades? I hope the Q is not all they have up their sleeves or they and us are screwed. How many more years before they develop an autofocus, and flash system that can compete, not to mention the SDM lenses. In addition to full frame I hope they tackle all of the issues in one clean swipe. This Year!!! 2012
Rant done. :ugh:

[Adam]

Make it happen Pricoh!

Adam
PentaxForums.com Webmaster (Site Usage Guide | Site Help | My Photography)



PentaxForums.com server and development costs are user-supported. You can help cover these costs by donating or purchasing one of our Pentax eBooks. Or, buy your photo gear from our affiliates, Adorama, B&H Photo, KEH, or Topaz Labs, and get FREE Marketplace access - click here to see how! Trusted Pentax retailers:

[Smeggypants]

I'd be most interested in a full frame camera for the low light capability. Not so much more megapixels. Not even so much that I can crop my photos or that the angle of view is more normal. No, I'd rather use one for the amazing performance. Seeing where Pentax stacks up on DXO as it is, I'd say unless they somehow drop the ball in an epic way, we should all be very excited for that aspect of full frame photography.

How is the angle of view more normal?

Normal to what? Angle of view of one's eyesight is nearly 180 deg?

[Chex]

Angle of view and field of view are two different things.. HERE is an article.. not sure if this is the original or not.. but what I could quickly dig up.

Regardless.. normal angle of view is defined by the lens.. so if you want a "more normal" angle of view.. get a different lens!

[Kryscendo]

How is the angle of view more normal?

Normal to what? Angle of view of one's eyesight is nearly 180 deg?

180 degrees? I think you need to learn more about our anatomy. Then brush up on your camera theory.

Focal lengths measure angle of view- but when you put a 50mm lens on a sensor smaller than a piece of 35mm film (aka full frame) then the sensor records a smaller selection from the image circle which makes it appear a bit more telephoto as some people say. Others say that there is a focal length multiplier. The most correct way to explain it is that it is a narrower angle of view. It does not change focal length. It just takes a slightly different angle of view than what the lens would typically produce.

Essentially, on a full frame camera, 50mm is regarded as normal. It is approximately the same angle of view as the human eyes and doesn't feature any noticeable distortion. Focal lengths less than 50mm feature wider angles and expand space. They can make objects appear further away from subjects (IE lamp post 5 ft from your subject may appear even further at wider angles). Focal lengths that are longer are labelled telephoto and take in a narrow angle of view.

[unfocused]

Essentially, on a full frame camera, 50mm is regarded as normal. It is approximately the same angle of view as the human eyes and doesn't feature any noticeable distortion. Focal lengths less than 50mm feature wider angles and expand space.

Over the years the camera industry has regarded anything from 42 to 58mm as standard or normal focal length. Semi-wides such as 38 and 40 were also adopted for 35mm compacts. Another school of thought says the diagonal of the full frame, i.e. 43mm, provides an 'ideal' or 'natural' perspective, hence Pentax's 43/f1.9. How 50mm was adopted as the standard when back in the Sixties Pentax and several others favoured 55 or 58, isn't clear.

What we're seriously lacking for APS-C is a decent, affordable 28mm/f2.8 to do the job of the excellent FF 43mm.

[eddie1960]

Leica is in a league on their own or are you saying that their camera's look like a 645 (d)slr?

Never used Maymia 7II, should i?
I've therefore no idea how they handle.
How many have they sold?
Alpa are making very small 4x5 cameras but they still aren't trully made to be handheld.

About the lenses, the DA40 is also very small but those aren't your average lenses. The size is determainted by the sensor size and not by the register distance.
Look at how small the lenses are for the Pentax Q thanks to the small sensor.

Specialty camera can be good but they aren't your average product sadly, i doubt much money can be made from that.

Thanks for explain APS-H for me.

For shooting Medium large neg film the mamiya 7 is pretty amazing (much more friendly than my antique Mamiya super 23 - but i can change backs and shoot sheet film with perspective control and shoot 6x9 as well) It's not small. but it is quiet without the huge mirror slap of trad medium format. the mamiya 6 is a lower price alternative on the used market.
I know a few people who shoot them for their fine art projects. they aren't really a studio camera more of a field camera
Not a massive market for sure (neither is the 645D market) given the price you sell these cameras at the market can be smaller.
Essentially they are Rangefinders on steroids. Still a Niche market (as is Leica for that matter, Hell Pentax borders on a Niche market as it sits)
As for should you try one that depends on your preferences. If you like shooting with a Rangefinder then yes you should try one. you may decide it's too heavy, or after seeing a large format print from one you may fall in love.

I know the Alpa. Beautiful pieces of machinery, pretty much hand built. They are as hand holdable as the old press cameras are. Really if i wanted a Large format though i would want all the control the big field cameras with bellows give. (If I'm going to do it maybe i should start stockpiling the film now they keep discontinuing sheet film)

You'd think there isn't much money in specialty cameras but now that leica is being managed properly not only is it profitable there is a waiting list for their best products
The 645D Has sold in enormous numbers for it's market segment, and I'm sure it's been profitable for Pentax
Tech the way it is currently i don't see 6x7 or digital large format anytime soon (though One guy has had a low res large format back custom fabricated for him - too save on polaroid costs he figured it paid for itself in a year if I remember - he shot a lot of 8x10 polaroid which is quite expensive now)

[falconeye]

What we're seriously lacking for APS-C is a decent, affordable 28mm/f2.8 to do the job of the excellent FF 43mm.

You are a very modest person, as the equivalent to the FA 43/1.9 is a DA 28/1.2 with sharp corners wide open.

For the price of one, I'd rather buy an FF body. That's one example which illustrates that APS-C can be too expensive.

Nevertheless, my FA 31/1.8 is a good enough replacement on APS-C. But being another FA, it makes me wish for a DA 20/1.2 with sharp corners wide open ...

[RonHendriks1966]

You are a very modest person, as the equivalent to the FA 43/1.9 is a DA 28/1.2 with sharp corners wide open.

For the price of one, I'd rather buy an FF body. That's one example which illustrates that APS-C can be too expensive.

Nevertheless, my FA 31/1.8 is a good enough replacement on APS-C. But being another FA, it makes me wish for a DA 20/1.2 with sharp corners wide open ...

Well for (ultra) wide angle it is absolutely so that a camera with bigger sensor and more pixels (for detail) would be the perfect solution. (or even better a 645D for landscaping, but expensive)

For the telework it works against you since you need longer lenses. To have a better image quality and save those tele-options without lagging around 600mm lenses I still am in favor for an APS-H sensor.

So from me still a vote for making one camera with the option of wich sensor to order for us users between Full Frame and APS-H.

I stumbled across this new photo site (other forum):
The 45 Most Powerful Images Of 2011
The demands for news- and sportsimages are at a very high standard on the Image Quality side. So if Pentax wants to go forward and have a place in the professional section for news- and (not directly professional) sportsimaging (wich also done a lot by local journalists with a lower budget) the there is a need for a next step to top the already very good IQ from K-5. That is a step beyond APS-C.

[eddie1960]

You are a very modest person, as the equivalent to the FA 43/1.9 is a DA 28/1.2 with sharp corners wide open.

For the price of one, I'd rather buy an FF body. That's one example which illustrates that APS-C can be too expensive.

Nevertheless, my FA 31/1.8 is a good enough replacement on APS-C. But being another FA, it makes me wish for a DA 20/1.2 with sharp corners wide open ...

this is the real reason for FF. you can't replicate the reasonably fast lenses at anywhere near a sane price in apsc. or the fast wides. I'd love a 24 f 2 equivalent in apsc (a 16 f1.4 say) Given the size of my already big 14 2.8 (21 f4. ??ff) i can't see it being smaller than a large beercan though, where the 24 while large is still reasonable to use

For long lenses I can live with the apsc lengths though many would like the long fast glass from the past. i just have little use for it. Good fast wides and normals though i can use. (FF 50 1.4 would need a 35 0.95 - I can imagine what that would cost. the Leica 50 0.95 sells for over 10,000 and sells used for close to 14,000 due to the long wait list. We won't even talk about what the equivalent for the a*50 1.2 would be - a 35 0.8)

Any one of these if made would make a FF alternative look cheap

[Winder]

Well for (ultra) wide angle it is absolutely so that a camera with bigger sensor and more pixels (for detail) would be the perfect solution. (or even better a 645D for landscaping, but expensive)

For the telework it works against you since you need longer lenses. To have a better image quality and save those tele-options without lagging around 600mm lenses I still am in favor for an APS-H sensor.

I stumbled across this new photo site (other forum):
The 45 Most Powerful Images Of 2011
The demands for news- and sportsimages are at a very high standard on the Image Quality side. So if Pentax wants to go forward and have a place in the professional section for news- and (not directly professional) sportsimaging (wich also done a lot by local journalists with a lower budget) the there is a need for a next step to top the already very good IQ from K-5. That is a step beyond APS-C.

I think a K-5 Super with improved AF, SR, & 2 SD slots would go a long way. The ability to back-up images to a second card to protect against possible memory card failure is pretty big to people who make a living with their images. I have never had the luxury, and every time I read of a wedding photog who finished a wedding to find one of his cards was corrupt I cringe.

The K-5 sensor is still pretty strong and file size is not too big. Most PJs will shoot JPEG and want to keep file size to a min because they deal with so many files. Pentax is very close to having a very competitive system for working professionals.

I am hoping that competition from the EVF markets will force Pentax to improve their OVF and give use a bigger brighter VF.

[Anvh]

You are a very modest person, as the equivalent to the FA 43/1.9 is a DA 28/1.2 with sharp corners wide open.

For the price of one, I'd rather buy an FF body. That's one example which illustrates that APS-C can be too expensive.

Nevertheless, my FA 31/1.8 is a good enough replacement on APS-C. But being another FA, it makes me wish for a DA 20/1.2 with sharp corners wide open ...

Sigma is doing a 30mm f/1.4 for a reasonable price, if only pentax did that as well.
Their was a DA*30 on the roadmap together with a SDM 1.4x TC, but they both disappeared.

[Anvh]

So if Pentax wants to go forward and have a place in the professional section for news- and (not directly professional) sportsimaging (wich also done a lot by local journalists with a lower budget) the there is a need for a next step to top the already very good IQ from K-5. That is a step beyond APS-C.

Pentax did somewhat promote some of their camera's as adventure cameras, maybe that's the way to go?
It might do good in warzones and on hiking trips because Pentax did a good job in offering lighter and smaller lenses then the competition.