Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
02-19-2012, 05:23 AM   #316
Pentaxian
Pål Jensen's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Norway
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,064
QuoteOriginally posted by 24X36NOW Quote
It's also the very essence of why Pentax has been losing its "enthusiast" customers to Nikon and Canon. As I mentioned elsewhere in this thread, the "glory days" of Pentax were in the manual focus era. I know I found it impossible to focus manually with pitiful APS-C viewfinders, unless it was "infinity" (or close to it) type focusing in brightly lit conditions. Anything else, particularly with short focal lengths, was endless frustration. Cat's Eye screens didn't help either - I think they actually made it worse for me as opposed to better (I was never a fan of split-image focusing "aids," just give me a nice matte screen with at most a small microprism, ala the K1000, and I'm happy).!
I have no problem manual focusing the K-7 although I would have preferred a larger finder. An FF finder isn't that much larger. You are overstaing the problem.


Last edited by Pål Jensen; 02-19-2012 at 05:32 AM.
02-19-2012, 05:29 AM   #317
Pentaxian
Pål Jensen's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Norway
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,064
QuoteOriginally posted by 24X36NOW Quote
Any statements about FF market share are related to one thing - price. That is the only thing that has prevented a large expansion of FF market share, and now it's actually going to see expansion even without price reductions. There's plenty of people still shooting APS-C that haven't upgraded in a few generations that are talking about upgrading (e.g., from the D300) to the Nikon D800, which provides enough pixels (36.3) to include a "free" APS-C camera (15.3 megapixels in "crop" mode is all you need for APS-C). APS-C is reaching its limits of development in terms of resolution and low light performance, as in there isn't much incremental image quality to squeeze out of it, and between that and the introduction of FF cameras with enough pixel density to cover anything that an APS-C camera can do, FF is now becoming the "upgrade" path for both APS-C and existing FF shooters. .

The market for a $2000 - $3000 Pentax is questionable. Not to mention the lens cost for quality zoom lenses that holds water while pixelpeeping.
Unless we see a total revolution in sensor cost FF will never come out of the niche with less than 10% of the DSLR market. It is price that drives volume and the general consumer and most hobbyist do not have thousands of dollars to spend on camera equipment. Nor is the quality of APS anylonnger substandard.
Pentax best bet in FF is to target those who sit on the older glass but I don't believe for a minute it will be cheap or sell in large quantities end thereby help Pentax marketshare significantly.
02-19-2012, 05:32 AM   #318
Pentaxian
Pål Jensen's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Norway
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,064
QuoteOriginally posted by pz1fan Quote
m43 is also "good enough". If there's no advantage for a larger sensor, the 645D is pointless. You can't have it both ways..
There are advantages with larger sensors but also disadvantages; the most important - cost. Theres a a significant difference between APS and the 645D. The difference beween FF and the best APS is less so. And then theres the law of diminishing return.
02-19-2012, 06:32 AM - 1 Like   #319
Pentaxian
Asahiflex's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Netherlands
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,753
Pentax singlehandedly changed the whole digital medium format market with the 645D, despite lots of competition there.

Can someone please enlighten me why Pentax could not do the same on the FF market? I'll stress it again: the Canon 5D MkII (and the upcoming 5D MkIII) and the Nikon D800 are deliberately crippled to protect the even more expensive Canon 1Dx and Nikon D4. To me there are still a lot of opportunities here. And apparently Pentax thinks so too, they are only waiting for the right sensor to come available.

02-19-2012, 08:32 AM   #320
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: CT, USA
Posts: 499
The APS-C viewfinder size fiction

QuoteOriginally posted by Pål Jensen Quote
I have no problem manual focusing the K-7 although I would have preferred a larger finder. An FF finder isn't that much larger. You are overstaing the problem.
Actually, I'm not. A FF viewfinder is much larger. You are being lied to by the camera makers in order to conceal just how bad APS-C viewfinders really are. Camera websites fuel this with their own incorrect assertions regarding relative viewfinder size.

Basically, the camera makers knew when trying to sell APS-C as a product that the viewfinder was going to show up like a sore thumb in the spec sheets, so they engaged in a massive sleight of hand - they calculated "magnification" using the same focal length lens they used for 35mm format cameras. "Magnification" refers to the size of an object as it appears in the camera's viewfinder relative to the size of the same object viewed with the naked eye. The magnification should be calculated using a "normal" lens for the format, which approximates the magnification of the naked eye. In APS-C cameras, however that would mean viewfinder magnification should be calculated using a 33mm lens. In order to make it sound as if they had worked some kind of "magic" with APS-C viewfinders (as in they didn't lose as much size as the format did), the camera makers agreed to a fictitious "magnification" specification which is based on the same focal length lens used for 35mm format, which is effectively a telephoto lens on an APS-C camera.

Adjusting the fictitious APS-C "magnification" specs for the "crop factor," you will see the truth of the viewfinder size differential. The K7, for example, supposedly has a "magnification" of 95%, but with a telephoto lens on it. Adjust this magnification figure for the "crop factor" (i.e., divide it by 1.5), and the real magnification is more like 61.33%. Now it looks a great deal less impressive, doesn't it?

APS-C sensors (Pentax variant) are about 42.25% of the size of FF sensors, and the viewfinders are less than half the size, as well, attempts to conceal it from photographers notwithstanding. The fiction you're fed on internet sites that apply the "crop factor" to the fictitious "magnification" factors to determine relative viewfinder size is basically an assumption that APS-C sensors are two thirds the size of FF sensors, which is complete nonsense. It's the equivalent of comparing two FF viewfinders, and calculating the "magnification" for the cameras using a 50mm lens on the first and a 75mm lens on the second. Would you accept such a comparison? I don't think so.
02-19-2012, 09:54 AM   #321
Pentaxian
Clavius's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: De Klundert
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 4,115
QuoteOriginally posted by 24X36NOW Quote
My logic isn't faulty at all.
Of course it is. If you think ANY company is going to cater to the needs of "customers" that piss pure vinegar, like you did in this thread, then you are mistaking. Probably ANY kind of FF they're going to market is going to get pissed over by the likes of you.



QuoteOriginally posted by 24X36NOW Quote
The "more of the same is going to make it better" crowd have the same mindset as the frog put into a pot of water and heated slowly - they don't realize they're cooked until it's too late.
LOL, that's not even true. Frogs do jump out. You're believing a myth: snopes.com: Slow Boiled Frog

I'll bite though: During Hoya, sitting still -as you say- was the strategy that saved Pentax. With the limited resources and the huge amount of restrictions, Pentax did some magic. And currently, we don't on which or what they received the green light. So relax.

Don't get me wrong though. I would love Pentax to come out with a FF camera. I just don't try to force them by acting like a customer they'll miss like a bad toothache. If you know a little bit about the current market situation then you'll understand that it would be a miracle (literally almost) if Pentax would issue a FF right now. And then, it would be a miracle again, if any of the we-demand-a-FF-crowd actually buy those cameras. Because they'll probably find something else to piss about.

I wanted a APSC DSLR, I bought it from Pentax, and I'm 100% happy with it. Meantime, my piggybank is filling up for the 645D, or its replacement. Won't be more then a year any more. 35mm actually isn't really relevant...

Last edited by Clavius; 02-19-2012 at 10:40 AM.
02-19-2012, 12:53 PM   #322
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: CT, USA
Posts: 499
QuoteOriginally posted by Clavius Quote
Of course it is. If you think ANY company is going to cater to the needs of "customers" that piss pure vinegar, like you did in this thread, then you are mistaking. Probably ANY kind of FF they're going to market is going to get pissed over by the likes of you.

LOL, that's not even true. Frogs do jump out. You're believing a myth: snopes.com: Slow Boiled Frog

I'll bite though: During Hoya, sitting still -as you say- was the strategy that saved Pentax. With the limited resources and the huge amount of restrictions, Pentax did some magic. And currently, we don't on which or what they received the green light. So relax.

Don't get me wrong though. I would love Pentax to come out with a FF camera. I just don't try to force them by acting like a customer they'll miss like a bad toothache. If you know a little bit about the current market situation then you'll understand that it would be a miracle (literally almost) if Pentax would issue a FF right now. And then, it would be a miracle again, if any of the we-demand-a-FF-crowd actually buy those cameras. Because they'll probably find something else to piss about.

I wanted a APSC DSLR, I bought it from Pentax, and I'm 100% happy with it. Meantime, my piggybank is filling up for the 645D, or its replacement. Won't be more then a year any more. 35mm actually isn't really relevant...
You seem to assume that Pentax would make a somehow substandard FF dSLR. I don't make such an assumption, and would be the last one to criticize them for making a FF dSLR.

Maybe the "frog" analogy is poor, who cares? Believing more of the same "APS-C only" behavior is going to bring about a different result is self-delusion.

Hoya's "strategy" didn't save Pentax, it cut Pentax's market share in half. Good save, Hoya! You have to understand that Hoya wasn't interested in the Pentax camera division, and kept it on bare bones life support until they could dump it. The fact that Pentax didn't go bankrupt isn't because Hoya kept them on a starvation diet. Hoya could have grown the brand if they gave a damn.

I'm not trying to "force" Pentax to do anything, just commenting on how they got where they are and how they reverse the trend. They won't reverse the trend with more of the same behavior that got them where they are now, that's for sure. 645D is far less relevant than 35mm to most photographers, given the price point, and given the limitations of cameras like the 645D as respects other things (frame rates, low light capability, etc.). In any event, that's not what this thread is about - it's about the introduction (or lack thereof) of 35mm FF format to the Pentax (i.e., K-mount) line, not their other products, which are irrelevant to this discussion.
02-19-2012, 01:26 PM   #323
Pentaxian
Clavius's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: De Klundert
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 4,115
QuoteOriginally posted by 24X36NOW Quote
Hoya's "strategy" didn't save Pentax, it cut Pentax's market share in half. Good save, Hoya! You have to understand that Hoya wasn't interested in the Pentax camera division, and kept it on bare bones life support until they could dump it. The fact that Pentax didn't go bankrupt isn't because Hoya kept them on a starvation diet. Hoya could have grown the brand if they gave a damn.
Read my post again... I was saying that Pentax actually did quite well, despite Hoya's lack of interest, lack of funding, lack of R&D, and lack of what not. So yes, I agree. Hoya was a disaster, but nevertheless, Pentax managed to produce very good products. Pentax saved itself by not moving.

02-19-2012, 05:34 PM   #324
Pentaxian
jsherman999's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,228
QuoteOriginally posted by Clavius Quote
Pentax saved itself by not moving.
Oh, lordy.
02-19-2012, 06:55 PM - 1 Like   #325
Veteran Member




Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Fowlmere, UK
Photos: Albums
Posts: 696
Pentax had no choice for a long time. But to offer FF is to offer APS-C buyers the illusion of upgrade paths. It's worth more than advertising—and that costs money, too.
Moreover, there is not just a tendency to smaller and smaller—there's also a tendency to higher IQ. I think Pentax will do brilliantly if they do not copy Canikon but have their won unique version of FF. And YES, designed by Marc Newsom
02-19-2012, 09:03 PM - 1 Like   #326
Senior Member
Eigengrau's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Colorado
Photos: Albums
Posts: 250
So, the viewfinder is a compelling argument for FF. I have a K1000, and it does have a nice viewfinder, but I think if we're honest that is an insubstantial argument for most. Not saying a viewfinder isn't valuable, but I don't think it is the thing that motivates big spending... if people have the option between a $1000 camera with an ok viewfinder and a $2000+ camera with a really nice one, which way is the vast majority going to go? Again, I am a big potential customer for full frame, but I just don't see a big market for it.

And honestly, resolution is already far in excess of what it needs to be for most cases - I was shooting weddings no problem with a 6MP K100 just a few years ago, and I can't say that the extra resolution on the more recent cameras has offered any real value to my customers - mostly it makes processing a hell of a lot slower. Sure, you can argue that more resolution means less noise, and cropping is nice in a handful of cases, but really, most shots are much more limited by focus, motion blur, or lens sharpness than resolution at this point. Full frame doesn't fix that.

There is certainly potential for Pentax to do big things if they brought out an inexpensive, compact full frame, but outside of that I'm not sure what direction they could go to compete with Canon and Nikon. And, they've been getting sensors from Sony, right, so who do they get a full frame sensor from since Sony's have been unconvincing so far? Also, how much of a camera's cost is attributed to the sensor? Are there massive profit margins on those cameras, so that it's conceivable for Pentax to undercut people price-wise? Pumping out an also-ran FF camera would be worse than nothing, and I really think Sony's attempt was exactly what you get if you have FF for the sake of FF. Pentax shouldn't put one out unless they have something that will really stand out like the K-5 has.

As to their performance with Hoya - I don't watch market share really, but it seems to me that Pentax did a fantastic job shaking up the market and generating press with the K-7 and K-5. It seems to me that they've got disproportionately large share of buzz for their size (and their nonexistent advertising budget!) and the K-5 is the most compelling camera that they've put out since... I don't know when. It's hard to complain about a strategy that produced class leading IQ.

Last edited by Eigengrau; 02-19-2012 at 09:09 PM.
02-19-2012, 09:27 PM   #327
Site Supporter




Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,892
QuoteOriginally posted by Eigengrau Quote
And honestly, resolution is already far in excess of what it needs to be for most cases - I was shooting weddings no problem with a 6MP K100 just a few years ago, and I can't say that the extra resolution on the more recent cameras has offered any real value to my customers - mostly it makes processing a hell of a lot slower. Sure, you can argue that more resolution means less noise, and cropping is nice in a handful of cases, but really, most shots are much more limited by focus, motion blur, or lens sharpness than resolution at this point.
Better high iso = faster shutter speed = less motion blur.

More sensor area used = more lens area used = better equivalent lens sharpness for a given field of view.

Better viewfinder = better focus (admittedly only sometimes).

Larger aperture for a given field of view = better focus (remember that you could always crop back to get better apertures at longer focal lengths).
02-19-2012, 09:36 PM   #328
Pentaxian
aleonx3's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Brampton, Ontario
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,873
QuoteOriginally posted by Eigengrau Quote
So, the viewfinder is a compelling argument for FF. I have a K1000, and it does have a nice viewfinder, but I think if we're honest that is an insubstantial argument for most. Not saying a viewfinder isn't valuable, but I don't think it is the thing that motivates big spending... if people have the option between a $1000 camera with an ok viewfinder and a $2000+ camera with a really nice one, which way is the vast majority going to go? Again, I am a big potential customer for full frame, but I just don't see a big market for it.

And honestly, resolution is already far in excess of what it needs to be for most cases - I was shooting weddings no problem with a 6MP K100 just a few years ago, and I can't say that the extra resolution on the more recent cameras has offered any real value to my customers - mostly it makes processing a hell of a lot slower. Sure, you can argue that more resolution means less noise, and cropping is nice in a handful of cases, but really, most shots are much more limited by focus, motion blur, or lens sharpness than resolution at this point. Full frame doesn't fix that.

There is certainly potential for Pentax to do big things if they brought out an inexpensive, compact full frame, but outside of that I'm not sure what direction they could go to compete with Canon and Nikon. And, they've been getting sensors from Sony, right, so who do they get a full frame sensor from since Sony's have been unconvincing so far? Also, how much of a camera's cost is attributed to the sensor? Are there massive profit margins on those cameras, so that it's conceivable for Pentax to undercut people price-wise? Pumping out an also-ran FF camera would be worse than nothing, and I really think Sony's attempt was exactly what you get if you have FF for the sake of FF. Pentax shouldn't put one out unless they have something that will really stand out like the K-5 has.

As to their performance with Hoya - I don't watch market share really, but it seems to me that Pentax did a fantastic job shaking up the market and generating press with the K-7 and K-5. It seems to me that they've got disproportionately large share of buzz for their size (and their nonexistent advertising budget!) and the K-5 is the most compelling camera that they've put out since... I don't know when. It's hard to complain about a strategy that produced class leading IQ.
You brought up two good points, one being Sony's attempt to compete with Canikon on FF did not do well which should be a lesson for Pentax not to follow with the "me-too" strategy; and secondly, Pentax's dependence on FF sensor supply by Sony can also prevent them from getting a FF model out unless Sony also follows with the A900 and A850 upgrade. Regardless, k-5 is already a success among other aps-c DSLR models, a k-5 replacement loaded with improvements and unique features will eventually compete handily into the Canikon mid-tier aps-c DSLR ranges.
02-19-2012, 10:00 PM   #329
Senior Member
Eigengrau's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Colorado
Photos: Albums
Posts: 250
QuoteOriginally posted by ElJamoquio Quote
Better high iso = faster shutter speed = less motion blur.

More sensor area used = more lens area used = better equivalent lens sharpness for a given field of view.

Better viewfinder = better focus (admittedly only sometimes).

Larger aperture for a given field of view = better focus (remember that you could always crop back to get better apertures at longer focal lengths).
The better high ISO performance is academic at this point. K-5 is in the same ballpark as the full frames.

More sensor area/lens area... sort of. Don't forget that APS-C has the advantage of sitting in the "sweet spot" - a lot of these full frame lenses are going to show their weaknesses more if we have to push it out to the corners, so I don't think that's a complete win.

Not sure what you mean for the last point... are you saying that a wide aperture has higher depth of field on fullframe? Because that isn't accurate. Consider the 50/1.4: the 1.4 is already thin enough DoF to be problematic in many situations. On full frame, you are going to have to be closer for an equivalent field of view (which makes it even thinner), so you're going to have to crank up the aperture to compensate, so you have to crank up the ISO or lose shutter speed or something... in many cases, the smaller sensor has an advantage. The only place a small sensor bites you is if it is so small that you can't get the DoF you need - that isn't an issue for most of us on APS-C.
02-19-2012, 11:47 PM   #330
Site Supporter




Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,892
QuoteOriginally posted by Eigengrau Quote
The better high ISO performance is academic at this point. K-5 is in the same ballpark as the full frames.
The k-5's awesome, don't get me wrong. It's certainly in the same ballpark as full frame cameras going on 4 years old, like the 5D mk ii. But if everything else is even-close-to-reasonable to compare, the 2.2 or so times the area with full frame will mean that the high ISO will be improved dramatically.

QuoteOriginally posted by Eigengrau Quote
Not sure what you mean for the last point... are you saying that a wide aperture has higher depth of field on fullframe?
Full frame has smaller DOF, for equivalent field of view, is what I'm saying.

QuoteOriginally posted by Eigengrau Quote
On full frame, you are going to have to be closer for an equivalent field of view
Moving will give you a different perspective. In my mind 'an equivalent lens' for DOF comparison is, say, a 31mm F/1.8 vs. a completely hypothetical DA Limited 20mm f/1.2. Of course the minimum exposure will be much less on the f/1.2. The 20mm f/1.2 is probably very expensive, very large, and very heavy, too. So sure, it's a tradeoff.

Personally I like better control of DOF that the full frame can give me with wide angle lenses. Right now the closest I have to a 20mm f/1.2 is a 15mm f/4 and/or a 35mm f/2.8. I also like the much larger viewfinder and the much lower noise at high iso. I'm willing to spend more to get it; but I realize not everyone is willing to do so. But I'm waiting patiently, the k-5 can take better pictures than I can compose, so in one sense I don't need it, but in another sense a full-frame will expand the possibilities of photography for me.

Last edited by ElJamoquio; 02-19-2012 at 11:52 PM.
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!
24x36mm, aps-c, camera, capacity, company, d4s, dont, ff, followers, frame, full-frame, idea, im, iso, k-3, lens, lenses, letter, light, lw/ph, nikon, page, pentax, release, time, traffic
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The full frame Pentax that never was dj_saunter Pentax DSLR Discussion 23 05-06-2011 04:06 AM
Pentax and Full Frame oppositz Pentax DSLR Discussion 58 03-18-2011 09:39 AM
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



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:01 AM. | 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