Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
06-29-2014, 06:44 AM   #1441
Site Supporter
Pewter's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Toa Payoh
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 127
I am proud owner of the APS-C K-30 and loving it but in my (near) future there is a full-frame camera. I have no APS-C complaints but I do understand now, why a lot more could be done if it were FF.

I want a FF for the low-light capabilities, DOF, wider angles and that it will have nice extras like its own battery grip, larger and brighter eyepiece, faster auto-focus and higher frame rates. It will be expensive but never mind I would enjoy working and saving up for it. I won't even mind there might be no modern Pentax lens for it -- plenty can be had from Sigma, Tamron, Samyang and so on.

The sad thing is I want to give Pentax my money but if there is no Pentax FF this year or next I will be giving my money perhaps to Nikon. I would not be the only one doing so. Nikon grows stronger in the marketplace and Pentax/Ricoh becomes weaker. Its really really not what I would wish but they're giving me no option. You do realize -- once I commit, there is likely no turning back.

06-30-2014, 05:55 PM   #1442
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 23,715
QuoteQuote:
The problem of been pro and the APS-C body, as many said, is the crop factor in the aperture. The most fast lens you can have with an aps-c body, is "just" F2.1. Ok, that should be enough light, but its full sharpness point will be around F6.5 (in REAL terms..the display will tell you it is F4.something). In this point, I prolly have to shoot with more external light (speedlights on softboxes, = more mess) or use high IS
An lens that is ƒ1.4 in an FF is ƒ1.4 on APS-c. In terms of the amount of light captured the FF captures twice as much, because the sensor is twice as big... but in terms of the amount of light needed to create the image, they are the same, because the APS-c sense is smaller. If you shoot side by side with an APS-c camera and FF camera, your Aperture , shutter speed and ISO will be the same. There may be differences in the amount of noise at a specific ISO, although older sensors tend to be not as good as modern ones so even then it depends a lot of on the cameras. The sharpness of an D600 Approx. 2600 lw/ph, measured ove at Imaging Resources tests is about 4% better than a K-3, at about 2500 lw/ph, so essentially if you can shoot at ƒ5.6 on a D600, you can shoot a ƒ5.6 on a K-3. IN my experience you'd be lucky to see a difference of 100 lw/ph if it came down to that. And at that difference, you'd be as likely to have more resolution on the K-3 a good percentage of the time , because of the many other factors that affect resolution.

You seem to have a pretty good handle on the general picture... from what I've seen the D800 doesn't compare well at all to the 645z at high ISO. The 645z is comparable to the Nikon D4s, if you think comparing a 51 Mp camera to a 16 Mp camera is any kind of a comparison.

---------- Post added 06-30-14 at 09:18 PM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by Pewter Quote
I am proud owner of the APS-C K-30 and loving it but in my (near) future there is a full-frame camera. I have no APS-C complaints but I do understand now, why a lot more could be done if it were FF.

I want a FF for the low-light capabilities, DOF, wider angles and that it will have nice extras like its own battery grip, larger and brighter eyepiece, faster auto-focus and higher frame rates. It will be expensive but never mind I would enjoy working and saving up for it. I won't even mind there might be no modern Pentax lens for it -- plenty can be had from Sigma, Tamron, Samyang and so on.

The sad thing is I want to give Pentax my money but if there is no Pentax FF this year or next I will be giving my money perhaps to Nikon. I would not be the only one doing so. Nikon grows stronger in the marketplace and Pentax/Ricoh becomes weaker. Its really really not what I would wish but they're giving me no option. You do realize -- once I commit, there is likely no turning back.
It sounds like you need a $7,000 dollar camera minimum, the low light capability difference between any Canon, a D800 and a Pentax k-3 is not worth paying for IMHO, you're talking about 1 or slightly more stops.. The difference between a K-3 a 645z or a Nikon D4s is at least 3 stops, that to me is a difference.

The D4s would be perfect of you, and honestly for FF glass, Pentax has nothing to offer like the Nikon holy trinity in FF. You're wasting your time. Plunk down your 15k and get your D4s, it has everything you want by the sounds of it.

APS-c is better for me... but if it's not better for you... don't blame your lack of action on Pentax. What you need exists...what is in the name on the front? You're looking for a performance spec.

Personally I'm keeping my APS-c K-3 for what it does best (telephoto and macro), and if I bought a Full Frame, I'd still want a 645 D or z, so what would be the point?

And don't worry about Pentax not getting your money, it's looking like right now the 645z is taking a lot of money away from a lot of camera companies. The thing about the proliferation of FF cameras in the last year is, it's upped the bar for people who want to be taken seriously because of their gear. You're going to see the same sneer that wedding shooters get on their face when you shoot APS-c, for shooters using FF because the big gun wedding guys are all shooting 645z. It's already started happening, with the number of wedding guys on the 645z pre-order lists.

Last edited by normhead; 06-30-2014 at 06:33 PM.
06-30-2014, 07:15 PM   #1443
Site Supporter




Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,892
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
An lens that is ƒ1.4 in an FF is ƒ1.4 on APS-c. In terms of the amount of light captured the FF captures twice as much, because the sensor is twice as big... but in terms of the amount of light needed to create the image, they are the same, because the APS-c sense is smaller. If you shoot side by side with an APS-c camera and FF camera, your Aperture , shutter speed and ISO will be the same. There may be differences in the amount of noise at a specific ISO, although older sensors tend to be not as good as modern ones so even then it depends a lot of on the cameras. The sharpness of an D600 Approx. 2600 lw/ph, measured ove at Imaging Resources tests is about 4% better than a K-3, at about 2500 lw/ph, so essentially if you can shoot at ƒ5.6 on a D600, you can shoot a ƒ5.6 on a K-3. IN my experience you'd be lucky to see a difference of 100 lw/ph if it came down to that. And at that difference, you'd be as likely to have more resolution on the K-3 a good percentage of the time , because of the many other factors that affect resolution.
Imaging resources did not correctly interpret their own data.

---------- Post added 06-30-14 at 07:17 PM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
It sounds like you need a $7,000 dollar camera minimum, the low light capability difference between any Canon, a D800 and a Pentax k-3 is not worth paying for IMHO, you're talking about 1 or slightly more stops.. The difference between a K-3 a 645z or a Nikon D4s is at least 3 stops, that to me is a difference.
The D800 and the K-3 is about 1 stops. The 645z and the K-3 is about 1.3 stops, or it would be, if the 645z had lenses faster than the K-3, which it doesn't. Fast lens to fast lens the K-3 is a better low-light system.

A valid reason to purchase the 645z is that the resolution is better. The camera is bigger and more impressive to some people. Some of the lenses are very nice. But it's not better at low-light.
07-01-2014, 09:55 AM - 2 Likes   #1444
Site Supporter
Pewter's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Toa Payoh
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 127
QuoteOriginally posted by ElJamoquio Quote
Imaging resources did not correctly interpret their own data.

---------- Post added 06-30-14 at 07:17 PM ----------



The D800 and the K-3 is about 1 stops. The 645z and the K-3 is about 1.3 stops, or it would be, if the 645z had lenses faster than the K-3, which it doesn't. Fast lens to fast lens the K-3 is a better low-light system.

A valid reason to purchase the 645z is that the resolution is better. The camera is bigger and more impressive to some people. Some of the lenses are very nice. But it's not better at low-light.
I think a lot of anti-FF guys are just not getting it -- they go on and on about equivalence, same as blah blah, what they are happy with and why they dont want FF. Enough already! I see a sufficient need and importance for FF and am willing to put my wallet where my mouth is -- no matter what you think. If you dont feel the same way thats great too but dont criticize just because you dont understand.

In simple terms the market wants what the market wants -- not what you think or anyone else thinks the market should want. So if you're smart like Canikon and Sony you put out and sell FF as fast as possible until the market says enough. The reason I want FF in a Pentax/Ricoh label is because my experience of the K-30 shows me they pack greater capabilities and a nicer great interface than most competitors -- more bang for the buck, plus the handling/balance/weight is something I love.

And I dont think that will cost me $7000 either, I am sure Pentax/Ricoh can bring it in at three thousand or less (Nikon 810e is $3300). I would pay that kind of money for a new laptop, new dental crowns or a crappy used car so why not for a superb FF body that can give me a lifetime of fun, excitement and challenge?

07-01-2014, 10:00 AM   #1445
Site Supporter




Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,892
QuoteOriginally posted by Pewter Quote
I think a lot of anti-FF guys are just not getting it -- they go on and on about equivalence, same as blah blah, what they are happy with and why they dont want FF. Enough already! I see a sufficient need and importance for FF and am willing to put my wallet where my mouth is -- no matter what you think. If you dont feel the same way thats great too but dont criticize just because you dont understand.
I'm giving you valid data points. The K-3 has better SNR (and other metrics) with available lenses than the 645D (and soon, the 645Z). That's just the way it is.

If you don't like it that's fine. It's not a criticism, it's a relevant fact. And of course your claim that 'I don't understand' is fairly baseless.
07-01-2014, 10:32 AM   #1446
Site Supporter
Pewter's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Toa Payoh
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 127
QuoteOriginally posted by ElJamoquio Quote
I'm giving you valid data points. The K-3 has better SNR (and other metrics) with available lenses than the 645D (and soon, the 645Z). That's just the way it is.

If you don't like it that's fine. It's not a criticism, it's a relevant fact. And of course your claim that 'I don't understand' is fairly baseless.
I dont think you're understanding because you're going on still about camera and lens metrics as if metrics were where people decided they wanted to buy anything. The decision to buy is made deep down at an emotional level and the facts or the metrics are found afterwards to help justify the investment.

We think we would be happier if we had a FF in our hands. Exactly in the same way you think you are happier having a cropped sensor in your hands. There is no mutual exclusivity here whats your worry, you're not going to lose anything if I purchase a FF, in fact by investing more deeply in the Pentax/Ricoh line of products I may just ensure continued existence of your favourite cropped sensor Pentax products. So we can ALL be happy, owning the products we really want. BTW I promise to respect everyone's choice of APS-C (thats where I began) just as much as I think you should respect my choice for a FF.
07-01-2014, 10:38 AM   #1447
Site Supporter




Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,892
QuoteOriginally posted by Pewter Quote
I dont think you're understanding because you're going on still about camera and lens metrics as if metrics were where people decided they wanted to buy anything. The decision to buy is made deep down at an emotional level and the facts or the metrics are found afterwards to help justify the investment.
I don't think you're understanding. I can want or own product 'b' and still give you valid data points in favor of product 'a'. I can understand how an uneducated consumer's mind works and simultaneously grasp what an educated consumer would conclude. I can attempt to educate others, which is difficult because people become emotionally attached to their decisions and tools.

Somewhat separately, I also understand wants vs. needs.


QuoteOriginally posted by Pewter Quote
We think we would be happier if we had a FF in our hands. Exactly in the same way you think you are happier having a cropped sensor in your hands. There is no mutual exclusivity here whats your worry, you're not going to lose anything if I purchase a FF, in fact by investing more deeply in the Pentax/Ricoh line of products I may just ensure continued existence of your favourite cropped sensor Pentax products. So we can ALL be happy, owning the products we really want. BTW I promise to respect everyone's choice of APS-C (thats where I began) just as much as I think you should respect my choice for a FF.
You haven't been here very long, so I'll give you a pass.
07-01-2014, 12:01 PM   #1448
Senior Member
SkilakDeZoo's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2012
Photos: Albums
Posts: 137
QuoteOriginally posted by Pewter Quote
I think a lot of anti-FF guys are just not getting it -- they go on and on about equivalence, same as blah blah, what they are happy with and why they dont want FF. Enough already! I see a sufficient need and importance for FF and am willing to put my wallet where my mouth is -- no matter what you think. If you dont feel the same way thats great too but dont criticize just because you dont understand.

In simple terms the market wants what the market wants -- not what you think or anyone else thinks the market should want. So if you're smart like Canikon and Sony you put out and sell FF as fast as possible until the market says enough. The reason I want FF in a Pentax/Ricoh label is because my experience of the K-30 shows me they pack greater capabilities and a nicer great interface than most competitors -- more bang for the buck, plus the handling/balance/weight is something I love.

And I dont think that will cost me $7000 either, I am sure Pentax/Ricoh can bring it in at three thousand or less (Nikon 810e is $3300). I would pay that kind of money for a new laptop, new dental crowns or a crappy used car so why not for a superb FF body that can give me a lifetime of fun, excitement and challenge?
I like what you said. Simple, if we had FF Pentax, then we could make a full use of 31, 43 and 77 ltd lenses - is it not a sufficient reason to have FF? For me it is.

07-01-2014, 12:07 PM   #1449
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 23,715
QuoteOriginally posted by SkilakDeZoo Quote
I like what you said. Simple, if we had FF Pentax, then we could make a full use of 31, 43 and 77 ltd lenses - is it not a sufficient reason to have FF? For me it is.
Or anyone else who has a 31, 43 and 77. Those who paid for their whole lens collection less than what those three cost...
But you're right, if Pentax is going to charge the big bucks for the FF lenses, they need to make an FF camera. Unfortunately right now I suspect Pentax would rather pull those lenses from their lens line-up than do the right thing.
07-01-2014, 12:32 PM   #1450
Senior Member
SkilakDeZoo's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2012
Photos: Albums
Posts: 137
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
Or anyone else who has a 31, 43 and 77. Those who paid for their whole lens collection less than what those three cost...
But you're right, if Pentax is going to charge the big bucks for the FF lenses, they need to make an FF camera. Unfortunately right now I suspect Pentax would rather pull those lenses from their lens line-up than do the right thing.
To be hones, whatever they do, I am going to enjoy my K5 and ltd lenses for long time. I love it for what it is and what it does but for those who already have some FF lenses a FF camera would be an obvious choice. For a while I thought that the new converter would be a transition for current lens line into FF, it would be a masterpiece, wouldn't it?
07-12-2014, 04:21 AM   #1451
Pentaxian
thibs's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Belgium
Photos: Albums
Posts: 5,159
QuoteOriginally posted by Enrique S Toso Quote
Im getting pro (Weddings). And im kind of depressed cause I want to sell all my gear more and more often and get a D610 . Dont wanna leave Pentax. Dont have the money for a 645Z (plus, its a tripod camera)..
A tripod camera? No way. The 645 (film, D or Z) is easily hand holdable with a proper lens (maybe not with a 400/5.6 of course).

A 4x5 Wista RF can (not easilty I concede) be hand holded, so a 645, really, is almost a toy
07-20-2014, 07:49 AM   #1452
Veteran Member
Big Dave's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: San Antonio, Texas
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 547
QuoteOriginally posted by SkilakDeZoo Quote
I like what you said. Simple, if we had FF Pentax, then we could make a full use of 31, 43 and 77 ltd lenses - is it not a sufficient reason to have FF? For me it is.
You have got it right. I use my A7 FF with my FF glass. My K5 II is great with my DA lenses, but my Pentax wide FF lenses don't work well on half frame cameras. They aren't wide anymore. Also how did a 645Z medium format get into a FF forum. The comments do prove the point that bigger is better though. The same people who say that asp-c is as good as FF, also say that 645Z is better then FF. You can't have it both ways. I bigger better or not? My answer is yes for performance and not so much for portability.
07-22-2014, 03:39 PM   #1453
Senior Member
SkilakDeZoo's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2012
Photos: Albums
Posts: 137
Perhaps, if Pentax does not want to bring FF then I cannot see why Ricoh would not the wolf would be happy and the sheep alive but there is one thing which bothers me, namely the converter. I read somewhere that it does not change the minimum distance from the lens, so I assume that the focal length somehow remains the same and the picture is enlarged only (and it is). Therefore, having e.g. DA ltd lenses + converter would work on a FF camera or even the FF camera would have a cropped mode as same as D7100 (I have got no clue why they brought that idea into the camera, the a la zoom effect is simple bollocks).
On Sunday I went to a shop and came across with a 35mm film, Fuji C200, I bought it, I borrowed Minolta 7000 from my friend and WOW, the view finder size killed me Last time I shot with 35mm camera, it was over 10 year ago, I think. So, stating that there is not much difference between (except the price) "FF" (i hate this nomenclature) and APS-C is simple wrong, wrong and wrong. APS-S view finder is like the spy hole in a door, "FF" like a french window and Mid Format, perhaps, a curtain walling. I think we all lost something over the Digital Era; dig out your old stuff and look through and see the difference.
07-26-2014, 05:07 PM   #1454
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: GMT +10
Photos: Albums
Posts: 10,574
QuoteOriginally posted by SkilakDeZoo Quote
I think we all lost something over the Digital Era; dig out your old stuff and look through and see the difference.
I think everyone agrees with you, and it's certainly one of the charms of most digital FF.
What's not to like about a big bright viewfinder, optical or otherwise?
07-28-2014, 05:02 AM - 1 Like   #1455
Senior Member
SkilakDeZoo's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2012
Photos: Albums
Posts: 137
I think the solution for it is very simple for Pentax, namely, there is a need for a FF camera with a APS-C mode as analogy to Nikon D7100 which has got a crop mode (now we could to it with pp cropping). If I am correct, 36mp FF matrix could give 24mp APSC therefore we could enjoy all lenses with one BODY
All the best
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 06:07 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