[jsherman999]

Why are they doing 36 MP? I rarely get upset with this kind of stuff, but I was planning on upgrading probably Jan 2013 from the D700. However, I have absolutely no desire to work with 36 MP files. I wonder if they will come out with a model in a similar price point with 12-18 MP. I sure hope so.

A D700s would be nice - D700 with the D3s sensor. I don't see any indications (yet) that they plan to do that in addition to the D800, though.

36MP means big files, but I'd bet those images would look very good when downsampled to 12mp, and it would allow the DX (crop) mode to get 15MP in the frame, giving you a nice aps-c and Full-frame camera in one.



.

[jsherman999]

i'm just objecting to the idea that "all true pentaxians want full frame".

i hope you're right.

as otherwise, this year's cp+ where nikon launches the 36mp d800 and pentax remains tight-lipped on ff as always would make pentaxians an endangered species

<-- funny but sad -->


.

[stanleyk]

A D700s would be nice - D700 with the D3s sensor. I don't see any indications (yet) that they plan to do that in addition to the D800, though.

36MP means big files, but I'd bet those images would look very good when downsampled to 12mp, and it would allow the DX (crop) mode to get 15MP in the frame, giving you a nice aps-c and Full-frame camera in one.



.

I'm kind of technically stupid. Is that done in camera or do I have download those huge files? Basically I just like to print at no larger than 12 X 18. I actually usually print at 11.5 and 15.5 because Ikea makes these really great frames matted that size. I have the size pre-set in Lightroom and just crop that. I've kind of figured out how that size will look through the viewfinder so I try and compose with that in mind. I don't like to sit in front of the computer a lot. I have to do that at work. I think it's why I enjoy compact cameras so much. To be honest I'm using the X100 and Sigma DP's way more than I use the D700. Anyway, back to my question, I fundamentally just want to download the photos and convert them to B/W in Silver EFX or Alien Skin. That's about all the processing I do. It just seems like 36 megapixel files are going to require expensive cards and take forever to load (I use a 27 inch Imac I got last year- let me say in my stupidity- I have not idea about what's inside the darn thing. I just got the one that cost I think $2700 so it should one of the better ones). BTW- Thanks for your help on the exposure. I'm going out with the dogs shortly and we're going to give it a try.

[stanleyk]

<-- funny but sad -->


.

If they had made 28mm , 35mm, 50mm and 85mm F1.8 equivalents I would have stayed with the brand. I really liked the K5 alot. The lenses were just too strange for me. I don't get 40mm or 43mm or 77mm. I had those lenses and really tried to like them. The 31mm was fine and the 35mm is a really great lens just too slow at F2.8. I think this is where Fuji is being smart with the X-Pro 1. Those focal lengths just work. That's why they have been around so long. I don't like to spend a lot of time recomposing on the computer. But that's just me. Time to go hiking. Thanks again for your help!!!!!!!!!!

[gazonk]

Those focal lengths just work. That's why they have been around so long.

But they were very different lenses for most of that time. The classical focal lengths from moderate wide to moderate tele were 28, 35, 50, 85, 135. They correspond to 18, 23, 33, 56 and 88 on a K-5. There's a reason that Pentax chose to make their portrait prime a 55mm - they wanted it to be the equivalent of the classical 85 mm.

[stanleyk]

But they were very different lenses for most of that time. The classical focal lengths from moderate wide to moderate tele were 28, 35, 50, 85, 135. They correspond to 18, 23, 33, 56 and 88 on a K-5. There's a reason that Pentax chose to make their portrait prime a 55mm - they wanted it to be the equivalent of the classical 85 mm.

Agreed. At one point I got the Voigtlander 58mm but with my eyesight I found focusing it difficult. Personally I hate the bulk of the D700, but the lenses I'm happy with. And yes, it is easy to manual focus with the viewfinder something I really struggled with on the K5. I have my 28, 35, 50 and 85. The 35mm F1.4 is a really great lens but it's kind of big. I guess you just can't have everything. I'm hoping this new Fuji is a nice compromise.

[ihasa]

I'm kind of technically stupid. Is that done in camera or do I have download those huge files? Basically I just like to print at no larger than 12 X 18. I actually usually print at 11.5 and 15.5 because Ikea makes these really great frames matted that size. I have the size pre-set in Lightroom and just crop that. I've kind of figured out how that size will look through the viewfinder so I try and compose with that in mind. I don't like to sit in front of the computer a lot. I have to do that at work. I think it's why I enjoy compact cameras so much. To be honest I'm using the X100 and Sigma DP's way more than I use the D700. Anyway, back to my question, I fundamentally just want to download the photos and convert them to B/W in Silver EFX or Alien Skin. That's about all the processing I do. It just seems like 36 megapixel files are going to require expensive cards and take forever to load (I use a 27 inch Imac I got last year- let me say in my stupidity- I have not idea about what's inside the darn thing. I just got the one that cost I think $2700 so it should one of the better ones). BTW- Thanks for your help on the exposure. I'm going out with the dogs shortly and we're going to give it a try.

You can set the resolution in-camera, but why would you buy a 36mp camera to print such 'small' sizes? Why choose a FF DSLR at all, unless you're a DOF craver!

[stanleyk]

You can set the resolution in-camera, but why would you buy a 36mp camera to print such 'small' sizes? Why choose a FF DSLR at all, unless you're a DOF craver!

I probably wouldn't buy a 36mp camera because of the file size. If there is a way to knock it down to say 16mp with losing any resolution then OK, I might be interested next year. I was skeptical at first on the D700 but have grown to like it despite it's size. It's a brick that's for sure. It's a good camera and the Nikon lenses are very good. To be honest, I'm just sort of speculating. The only thing I'm really interested in right now is the new Fuji. Based on these I may not need the D700:

3 days & 2 nights with the Fujifilm X-Pro1 Photo Gallery by hugo poon at pbase.com

The Fuji lenses are fast enough. But you are right the Nikon is very good for shallow DOF. It helps that the auto focus system on the camera is really accurate. But it should be at that price. The only camera I've used that's as accurate is the X100.

I've been a Pentax user for a long time and am really pulling for them, but they just don't have the camera I want right now. The K01 might be interesting but I'm going to guess that Fuji has a better sensor and they have the specific lenses I want (except 35mm but are releasing a 23mm F2.0 early next year). The focal lengths on the lenses are a big deal to me. I only want 4 but it has to be that four: 28, 35, 50, and 85 or at least very close. But that's just me.

That said I bet Pentax comes up with a really great new camera. I'm kind of sad I won't be getting it.

[Adam]

Looks like the Page is up to 2,550 likes- that means we're almost halfway there!

While we're at it, I think getting up to 10,000 on the PF page wouldn't be a bad goal either!

[pz1fan]

While I can see how FF may not interest some, I wonder why anyone would want to vocally campaign against it. A FF initiative by Ricoh would enrich all of K-mount, not just folks who buy FF bodies.

I can't understand it either. But I did notice the most adamant posters against FF are either a 645D owner or only own DA lenses.

[stanleyk]

I can't understand it either. But I did notice the most adamant posters against FF are either a 645D owner or only own DA lenses.

Exactly. Besides they already have one of the absolute best APS-C bodies with the K5.

[mattdm]

I'm kind of technically stupid. Is that done in camera or do I have download those huge files? Basically I just like to print at no larger than 12 X 18. I

This is where Canon's mRAW and sRAW come in. Much of the advantages of RAW in a reduced-resolution file. Pretty awesome.

[mattdm]

I can't understand it either. But I did notice the most adamant posters against FF are either a 645D owner or only own DA lenses.

Exactly. Besides they already have one of the absolute best APS-C bodies with the K5.

Errr, yes, that's the point. It seems unrealistic to expect Pentax (even with Ricoh) to continue making APS-C bodies that awesome if they have a full frame model. So, I see a vote for full frame as a vote against future development of what Pentax is doing so well now.

Now, maybe I'm wrong and the rosy scenario of awesomeness for everyone will come true. Stranger things have happened.

[stanleyk]

This is where Canon's mRAW and sRAW come in. Much of the advantages of RAW in a reduced-resolution file. Pretty awesome.

Great I don't suppose the Nikon will do that....just my luck. I almost went with the Canon too. I have a friend who is a Nikon user so I was a bit more familiar with the brand. Oh well. To be honest, I pretty happy with it overall. I just wish it was smaller. A lot smaller.

[stanleyk]

Now, maybe I'm wrong and the rosy scenario of awesomeness for everyone will come true. Stranger things have happened.

HA!!!!!!!!! Probably now that I'm switching brands.

I do see your point. Personally I think the whole Full Frame thing is a bit overrated to be honest.