[eddie1960]

But the point is that those people constitute a so small part of the photographic comunity that percentages is not a useful measuring standard. Hence, the argument is moot as the vast majority struggles to get sufficient DOF.
What has become a fetish is impossibly thin DOF (in theory; in practise it has very little value).

I have never seen any image in any newspaper, book, or magazine or fine art prints ever that had so thin DOF that it couldn't have been shot with APS.
Most of those shown on the net would have improved upon stopping down
It is a non issue.

Have you been on Flickr and seen how many groups are dedicated to the idea, not to mention how many images show up in the interesting stream that are bokeh focused. It really has become a huge reason many people upgrade to FF (H*ll it's a huge reason people move up from P&S as well)
Yes you can acheive it without FF and in reality the ultra thin DOF of a 1.2 lens on FF is insanely hard to nail focus on even but for some it is a dream
But you can also get 85 1.4 bokeh on FF that would require a 55 0.95 on apsc and I don't see that lens ever existing. And an 85 1.4 has long been a dream portrait lens for people (even if you stop down to f2.0 it's still stellar for DOF plus has better sharpness performance than a 55 1.4 wide open.

You are looking at this way too much from a technical aspect People have passions and many believe FF will help them pursue that passion rightly or wrongly. You could be completely right that APSC is more than good enough it won't matter because even if you had a perfectly backed up reasoning with data that showed their is no reason to produce FF people will still want it and once the big 2 drop their pricing and start eliminating the upper end of their apsc line for FF models it will be too late for Pentax.

So please once again give me a good well reasoned argument on how Ricoh can achieve their goal and FF is irrelevant to that model

[jsherman999]

But the point is that those people constitute a so small part of the photographic comunity that percentages is not a useful measuring standard. Hence, the argument is moot as the vast majority struggles to get sufficient DOF.
What has become a fetish is impossibly thin DOF (in theory; in practise it has very little value).

As has been stated countless times: it's not just about 'razor thin DOF.' It's also about being able to get sharper on the plane of focus with perhaps less CA while being able to retain that smaller DOF. For example, 50mm f/2.8 on FF is bitingly sharp, sharper than my 35mm at f/1.8, but it gives the same DOF as the 35 wide-open - while retaining that f/2.8 sharpness. When the subject (say, a person) is a certain distance away, the DOF has perhaps expanded to hold them, to 'float' them from the background in a way that's a bit harder to do with aps-c with available lenses.

And sometimes it just brings a 'look' wide-open that you start to notice with many iterations:

Below taken by darrenleow, 50mm f/2 (equiv to about 35mm f/1.3 on aps-c)


Me, 180mm f/2.8 (equiv to about 120mm f/1.8 which afaik doesn't exist - my 77ltd wide-open gets close to this on aps-c, but it's just not as long.)





50mm f/1,8 (= 35mm f/1.2)

I have never seen any image in any newspaper, book, or magazine or fine art prints ever that had so thin DOF that it couldn't have been shot with APS.

I see it all the time. Perhaps you're just not attuned to it - I'm sure newspaper editors are. There was a beautiful, striking shot of a girl standing at a gravesight in the Mpls Satr Tribune last year - widish, very environmental-portrait-style, but the subject was isolated and the picture just worked. It was so wonderful that I emailed the photographer to ask - 35 f/1.4 shot wide-open on FF.

It is a non issue.

If it's a non-issue, then bothering to shoot with Limited lenses is a non-issue as well, because the difference between a Limited and an equivalent good FA, or a good M, K or Tak lens isn't as great as the difference the format change brings to your lenses.

For example, if I were to shoot a series of random shots with my M 85 f/2 and 77ltd, you wouldn't be able to tell the difference. Or if I shot some random shots with both my FA 50 1.7 and 77ltd, not matching FOV, you wouldn't be able to pick out the FA 50 shots with any regularity. After time, you'd probably grow to prefer the typical 77ltd shot - but the small-sample blind test would fail. In other words - this preference that comes with iteration is what we're talking about, what really matters. If you say it doesn't matter with FF, then it doesn't matter with anything, and we can throw away our Limiteds, free of this illusion!

Anyway, the 'more DOF control' - and that's what it is, not simply 'less DOF', considering the available lenses - is only one aspect to consider. For me it's really only about the third most important attribute the format brings.




.

[dgaies]

Me, 180mm f/2.8 (equiv to about 120mm f/1.8 which afaik doesn't exist)

I suppose the A*135/1.8 would get you there, for about 2k

But I agree with all of your points above, even more so after spending some time with a 28-75/2.8 and 50/1.8D this weekend

[RonHendriks1966]

Me, 180mm f/2.8 (equiv to about 120mm f/1.8 which afaik doesn't exist - my 77ltd wide-open gets close to this on aps-c, but it's just not as long.)

I suppose the A*135/1.8 would get you there, for about 2k

No wonder that the DA*135mm/f2.0 is on my wishlist for Xmass.

[Jan67]

But the point is that those people constitute a so small part of the photographic comunity that percentages is not a useful measuring standard. Hence, the argument is moot as the vast majority struggles to get sufficient DOF. What has become a fetish is impossibly thin DOF (in theory; in practise it has very little value).

Pål, looking at your album on this forum I recognized, that you shoot mostly nature. I can then understand very well, that thinner DOF from shorter distances is mostly out of your interest. But you could also understand others, shooting people, portraits e.g., where thinner DOF helps to isolate the object from the background. Many people find it simply interesting and usefull.

[eddie1960]

Pål, looking at you album on this forum I recognized, that you shoot mostly nature. I can then understand very well, that thinner DOF from shorter distances is mostly out of your interest. But you could also understand others, shooting people, portraits e.g., where thinner DOF helps to isolate the object from the background. Many people find it simply interesting and usefull.

that's a good Point Jan - I never thought to look at pals album - APSC may well have the edge in some aspects over FF for landscapes (aside from the fact that FF is better for WA from a distortion standpoint)
Actually for landscapes i like shooting MF when i can. My favorite landscapes by others tend to make effective use of negative space and that really works well in really large prints so MF has an edge there (maybe less with the D800 release) - I'm not really a landscape shooter living in the core of a big city but when i get the chance I try and get that effective use of negative space and sweeping vista (a 40 mm on 645 is a great tool for this)

[Pål Jensen]

Pål, looking at your album on this forum I recognized, that you shoot mostly nature. I can then understand very well, that thinner DOF from shorter distances is mostly out of your interest. But you could also understand others, shooting people, portraits e.g., where thinner DOF helps to isolate the object from the background. Many people find it simply interesting and usefull.

You can get thin DOF from any DSLR systems currently available. The difference between APS and FF is one stop; in most cases not distinguishable without side by side comparison. And again, 99% of all photography do not rely on paper thin DOF. Hence, it is an odd argument for generalizations.

[Aristophanes]

.


Interesting commentary and speculation on FF, the upgrade path... and the beginning of the squeeze from above on aps-c, perhaps?

Ummm...

Thom Hogan is actually arguing the opposite.

He's arguing that the squeeze will come on FF due to the incremental costs for maintaining a large file size D800 file and processing structure. 75MB RAW files are a chunk to chew on. The PC upgrade cycle becomes an impediment to market reach.

Maintaining a FF DSLR infrastructure is expensive and complex. It's becoming all about PP. That narrows the market somewhat. Markets with high personal investment and overhead tend to experience consumer fatigue.

The APS-C format is versatile and can go into more functional form factors with less overhead. That seems to be Pentax's thinking with the K-01 and with Sony's NEX.

And now he's saying that the new price for the D700 will fall to US$2199 with no MAP agreement. They will fall below US$1,900 soon enough.

This is why Sony left the market and why Pentax cannot get in.

Another rumour is that Nikon has purchased ALL rights to the existing Sony FX D700 sensor supply. Nikon's buying power is superlative. Pentax/Ricoh is a non-player. FF will have to come from either enormous subsidies at a loss from other Ricoh divisions (fat chance of that) or from another sensor supplier offering equivalent quality to Sony's CMOS's. That's 3-5 years away, and the list of potential partners is limited, with Samsung being the only real contender.

[RonHendriks1966]

He's arguing that the squeeze will come on FF due to the incremental costs for maintaining a large file size D800 file and processing structure. 75MB RAW files are a chunk to chew on. The PC upgrade cycle becomes an impediment to market reach.

That amount of pixels is not handy to work with for any normal (hobby) photographer. That is good for pro's in studio environment, but not for anyone else.

That's 3-5 years away, and the list of potential partners is limited, with Samsung being the only real contender.

Well Samsung clearly made a choice to stop with APS-C with bringing out new lenses limited to this platform for NX-series.

So I still would want a FF from Pentax. Well actually I would like to have an APS-H camera. Hey, that is still available since no other manufactuar claims it at the time (I do expect that Canon 7D Mark II will have APS-H sensor). Stop at 16 megapixel and not to expensive.


Really no idea how to achieve this in real life for Pentax?

[jsherman999]

Ummm...

Thom Hogan is actually arguing the opposite.

He's arguing that the squeeze will come on FF due to the incremental costs for maintaining a large file size D800 file and processing structure. 75MB RAW files are a chunk to chew on. The PC upgrade cycle becomes an impediment to market reach.

Maintaining a FF DSLR infrastructure is expensive and complex. It's becoming all about PP. That narrows the market somewhat. Markets with high personal investment and overhead tend to experience consumer fatigue.

...

You're referencing the wrong entry (and interpreting it to your own ends, IMO, but that's another matter )

Unfortunately that link just goes to 'bythom.com', but when I originally posted it on 2/25 the last entry was titled "Almost on Cue," it had nothing to do with the MP/processing entry that came later.

I'll quote from the entry I referenced:

So today Nikon is actively soliciting Coolpix users to upgrade to CX (Nikon 1). CX users will be solicited to upgrade to DX. And DX users, well, it's only natural to upgrade them to FX. But if the entry FX body is 3x the price of the top DX body, that's a pretty big money leap. Entry FX can't be more than 2x the top DX price if it is to encourage upgrading. Indeed, it probably should be 1.5x (which would be about US$1800). That puts us right at the likely D400 pricing, which is one reason why I think the D400 could go either way (DX or FX).

Yes, a DX D400 at US$1900 and an FX D800 at US$3000 are almost 1.5x apart, too. So what's the advantage to making a D400 FX? Lenses. Indeed, the "where are the DX wide angles" question continues to be an interesting one. One might leap to say that this is more evidence that the DX line might stop at the D7000 point: someone who pays US$1600-2000 for a DX body is going to want lenses that don't exist. But those lenses do exist in FX.

I still think a D400 could go either way and is more likely to be DX, but given Nikon's recent aggressive push, I can't rule out an FX D400, thus what I wrote in the next article. The new US$2200 pricing on the D700 just throws another wrinkle into the mix.

Where this would leave us is with a sub-$2000 FF entry-level body, possibly $1800. That also leaves a shrinking incentive for someone to fork over $1400 for a new aps-c body. So, pinched from above a bit at the K-5/K-3 level, Pentax goes downmarket in aps-c DSLR - but wait, that segment is already getting pinched from below by mirrorless. The K-x replacement will probably never again sell like the original, and neither will the lenses that sold with it, unless the K-01 can be seen as 'better' than the K-x was relative to the other cameras in it's tier. I wouldn't bet on that happening.

Pinched from below, and now pinched from above - and K-mount is perhaps in real trouble, or at least losing health points at an alarming rate.

If they could sell bodies and lenses in the FF tier, with lower volume but much higher margins, they get a lot of relief from this pinch. If they can't, or won't... They start looking a lot like Kodak, who couldn't seem to make the big decisions because (to the myopic Kodak execs) those decisions didn't seem safe enough at the time.

We all know that string of 'safe' decisions just kept putting Kodak in increasing danger.

Nikon's buying power is superlative.

Almost as superlative as Ricoh's buying power!


.

.

[eddie1960]

Sony hasn't left the market though. they are still selling through the 900 and have said at current sale rate it will last until the replacement is ready. the rumour is also they will have 3 cameras in the Sony line (1 less than Nikon if Nikon is continuing with the D700) Canon is supposedly dropping the 5D3 price by $300 next week as well. and if they follow Nikon's lead it too will be sub $2000 pretty quickly. nex and K-01 are interesting in that they are less affected by FF DSLR, but certainly the high end apsc will struggle against even older FF at sub $2000 (Personally i hat Canon's form factor but if the K5 replacement is 24mp and $1500-1600 as is likely at launch and the 5D2 is there at 1999 the canon starts to look damn compelling (and I have a vested interest in sticking with Pentax because i have the lenses - but most of my MF lenses will be fine adapted to 5D2 so really it's the AF lens cost that holds me back at that point, but selling off my Pentax gear solves most of that issue (certainly my lenses and bodies would get me some start out lenses touse alongside my MF lenses adapted. The D700 is almost as compelling and I like the form factor there - not to mention both in the used market will likely be available for the same or less than a K5 replacement if the new bodies are sub $2g
So reality is Pentax can't afford not to get in to the market, because if this is the picture of the next 12 months then 24-36 months from now it will be even worse
If in fact Nikon has locked down the Sony sensor supply (something I doubt, at best they could lock down their iteration of it not the ability to market and sell another similar sensor) then Pentax better already be in development mode with another vendor (Samsung is not the only vendor but they probably are the only vendor, there is Dalsa as well (and they are a potential 645 vendor as well)
Ricoh currently is in the position of being pretty cash rich and at the top of their main industry. they are also looking at their main industry going into serious decline over the next 5-7 years so need to reinvent themselves somewhat. So it is altogether possible that they will fund a project

[Aristophanes]

Where would leave us is with a sub-$2000 FF entry-level body, maybe $1800. That also leaves a shrinking incentive for someone to fork over $1400 for a new aps-c body. So, pinched from above a bit at the K-5/K-3 level, Pentax goes downmarket in aps-c DSLR - but wait, that segment is already getting pinched from below by mirrorless. The new K-x will probably never again sell like the original, and neither will the lenses that sold with it.

Pinched from below, and now pinched from above - and K-mount is perhaps in real trouble, or at least losing health points at an alarming rate.

If they could sell bodies and lenses in the FF tier, with lower volume but much higher margins, they get a lot of relief from this pinch. If they can't, or won't... They start looking a lot like Kodak, who couldn't seem to make the big decisions because those decisions didn't seem safe enough at the time.

Almost as superlative as Ricoh's buying power!

Ricoh's buying power is nil unless it cross-subsidizes in what even Thom Hogan says is a maturing market. If the pond is going to get incrementally bigger, then a Pentax FF to survive has to take market share away from Canon and Nikon. They can do it on features, price, and/or the whole system approach.

The sweet spot for DSLR's has been US$1,000 but below $2,000, which explains the phenomenal success of the Nikon D90. Due to amortization, those price points all shift lower in any case.

APS-C is not aligned with DSLR. APS-C can be mirrorless, or did you miss Pentax's latest announcement

I would not worry too much about a lower price FF D700 versus the K-5 price point because it's not just the body, but the lenses as well. The whole package for FF is still MUCH costlier than any APS-C set-up. It's also substantially larger in size. A great number of prosumers are like the pros and invest in more than one body.

Pentax has made it very clear that the action for commercial relevance is at the mid and lower end. They botched the Q (sensor sizerice wonkiness) and the K-01 looks.....tepid. But a play for FF is a financial death wish.

[Aristophanes]

So reality is Pentax can't afford not to get in to the market, because if this is the picture of the next 12 months then 24-36 months from now it will be even worse
If in fact Nikon has locked down the Sony sensor supply (something I doubt, at best they could lock down their iteration of it not the ability to market and sell another similar sensor) then Pentax better already be in development mode with another vendor (Samsung is not the only vendor but they probably are the only vendor, there is Dalsa as well (and they are a potential 645 vendor as well)

The size of the FF market cannot handle 5 suppliers if Sony gets back in. Pentax is the odd man out with Leica in its own zone. Pentax knew this years ago and went with the 645D instead.

There is no FF Sony sensor available in the immediate future (at least 24 months) as Nikon and Sony absorb everything that can be manufactured. It's a closed shop.

Another sensor that is equivalent will cost as much or more (Sony volumes are where the $$ are made) and will take years to design and source.

Pentax cannot afford to hang on to every legacy customer.

[eddie1960]

Ricoh's buying power is nil unless it cross-subsidizes in what even Thom Hogan says is a maturing market. If the pond is going to get incrementally bigger, then a Pentax FF to survive has to take market share away from Canon and Nikon. They can do it on features, price, and/or the whole system approach.

The sweet spot for DSLR's has been US$1,000 but below $2,000, which explains the phenomenal success of the Nikon D90. Due to amortization, those price points all shift lower in any case.

APS-C is not aligned with DSLR. APS-C can be mirrorless, or did you miss Pentax's latest announcement

I would not worry too much about a lower price FF D700 versus the K-5 price point because it's not just the body, but the lenses as well. The whole package for FF is still MUCH costlier than any APS-C set-up. It's also substantially larger in size. A great number of prosumers are like the pros and invest in more than one body.

Pentax has made it very clear that the action for commercial relevance is at the mid and lower end. They botched the Q (sensor sizerice wonkiness) and the K-01 looks.....tepid. But a play for FF is a financial death wish.

the Q was the #1 selling mirrorless in Japan on numbers is saw posted here aq while back - if that is botching it i'd like to see your definitionof success - it was after all designed for the asian market and apparently sell quite well there.

the commercial part of the market is always mid low. the high end is higher margin and provides a halo effect to make the mid low more commercially viable
mercedes sells more a/b/c models by a huge order of magnitude than they do E or S models. But the brand halo comes from E and S models and creates the desire. people's pocketbooks limit them to a/b/c models (When I bought my Mercedes - a C which I got a steal of a price on - it impressed the hell out of my dad who of course was thinking S - reality was I had a certain amount of money to spend and it was the best car i found for that money - it wasn't even what i was looking for the offer was just too good to pass up)

Right now (and it is changing) Pentax is barely in the business. 2 DSLR does not constitute a line. Ricoh has even addressed this saying there needs to be 4 in the DSLR line in one interview
4 DSLR
kr replacement
K5 (or WR Kr)
K5 replacement (24MP)
FF (this could even be a lower MP model, but there is a rumoured 24mp Sony sensor on the horizon - and like I said there are others like Dalsa out there)
you could do 4 apsc but that will likely have less growth potential than 3 +1FF

It's rapidly becoming not so much a Pentax can't afford todo FF thing and becoming a Pentax can't afford not to do FF. Leaving it to long is like having a wish for a long slow death

Certainly the K-01 starts to address a more world wide mirrorless segment (and Q qill continue to do well in asia and just OK elsewhee - they are expanding the lens line so it's not leaving)
the next mirrorless which will probably include an EVF will put inplace a 3 mirrorless body lineup then - enough to compete and unique compared to the competition
kr replacement is a couple of months off, the rest will likely happen at photokina, and if ff comes so too will an enhanced lens roadmap (heck I think the lens roadmap will change come September anyway adding more pancakes for the K-01

If Ricoh bought Pentax to be a niche player then I doubt we will see much different.
But I don't think anyone believes that to be the case FF won't come out this fall, i don't think (it should but the timing s too short) but I think there may be a 99% done prototype leaked with a spring 2013 target for release

meantime we can all speculate and spout off unsupported facts on both sides of the equation (Few people here have a direct enough connection to know anything and those that do have the connection will probably be constrained in what they can say

[fikkser]

No, Aristophanes - the current market can not handle 5 suppliers, THEREFORE IT HAS TO GROW which you told us is impossible like ten times per post. OMG. And how do you know facts about the Sony sensor supplies or other manufacturers ability to produce sensors? Everything about FF is impossible to you, why have you decided it's impossible? Did a FF camera do something EVIL to you as a child?

Generally to people in this thread, you are like a bunch of 10 year olds arguing about who's father is the strongest. Speculating about something that probably no one on this forum fully comprehends, and trying to make his own point the truth time and time again is pointless and to me very annoying. http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_05VaN1rgby0/SlSSgPfGpVI/AAAAAAAABfU/TVDGW_yPbHA/s4..._internet.ashx You know who you are.

Please stop repeating your "truth", bring something new.