Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
06-19-2012, 10:08 AM   #226
Loyal Site Supporter
eddie1960's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 12,168
QuoteOriginally posted by monochrome Quote
What I should have written.
Meh I knew what you were getting at, just thought I'd clarify for you

06-19-2012, 11:33 AM   #227
Veteran Member
RioRico's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Limbo, California
Posts: 11,264
QuoteOriginally posted by fast50 Quote
QuoteOriginally posted by Williunck:
OK just to be devils advocate - who needs a 36 MP image size?
Manufacturers of RAM and hard discs
And workstations and screens and all the processing infrastructure.

Funny thing: I can wander around with an old film camera and handheld light meter and shoot photos, no power needed. I can process B&W film (135 or 120 usually) almost anywhere with a dark-bag, no power needed. Especially if I used a 6x9cm folder, I can make contact prints with the most minimal gear (power not necessarily needed); or make fairly large prints with only slightly more imposing gear (power is now required). With the right film, resolution will be rather greater than a FF image file. I can scan negatives in my US$40 MFP. And then I need to spend a couple thousand bucks on workstation and peripherals to digitally process the images. Hmmm...

Of course, 36mpx ain't enough. We can never have enough megapickles, just as we can never have too many terabytes. As Moore's Law continues to drive electronic evolution, this will all seem painless. But getting there will hurt, financially.
06-19-2012, 11:38 AM   #228
Pentaxian
builttospill's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Utah, Idaho
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,642
QuoteOriginally posted by wll Quote
I very much hope it has an articulating LCD and tethering, two features that have been lacking and two features that make shooting much easier for sure.

We will see what happens, exciting times.

wll
Tethering will be nice, but I couldn't care less about an articulating LCD; especially if Pentax builds a FF with a real optical viewfinder.
06-19-2012, 07:12 PM   #229
Emperor and Senpai
VoiceOfReason's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Nashville, IN
Posts: 5,134
I have a 3.3ghz 6 core processor, 16gb ram, and 4tb hard drive space. Bring it on.

06-21-2012, 05:34 PM   #230
Veteran Member




Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Denver
Photos: Albums
Posts: 570
QuoteOriginally posted by Cannikin Quote
FF is ~1.5x the linear dimensions of APS-C. That is 1.5 x Height and 1.5 x Width. Area = 1.5 x 1.5 = 2.25x APS-C 2.25 x 16 = 36
Thanks Cannikin! Silly me for not realizing something this simple.
06-24-2012, 07:09 AM   #231
Senior Member




Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Nottingham
Posts: 172
QuoteOriginally posted by Williunck Quote
Yeah, but who has time to crop every photo
I'd expect a modern FF to have an APS-C mode, selected by default for lenses with the smaller image circle, and available for FF lenses too. The cropping would happen early in the pipeline, so processing the images would be faster, more images would fit in buffers etc.
06-25-2012, 03:33 PM   #232
Inactive Account




Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 58
QuoteOriginally posted by Brangdon Quote
I'd expect a modern FF to have an APS-C mode, selected by default for lenses with the smaller image circle, and available for FF lenses too. The cropping would happen early in the pipeline, so processing the images would be faster, more images would fit in buffers etc.
Well that would be nice, hopefully that will be included in the package. I also hope Pentax puts out a pro grade 1.4 or 2.0x teleconverter really soon.
06-25-2012, 07:12 PM   #233
New Member




Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Portland Oregon USA
Posts: 7
I have it on good authoprity that there is a new technology out there that is FF AND provides a renewable sensor so that every shot has a fresh surface on which to image (this technology has been trialled in daily use and dispose contact lenses)

It will have enhanced dynamic range, and will work via light transmission technology. No costly computers will be required, just a strong light and something called a screen.. People in 100 years will have no file type read problems, no costly recreations of those pesky DVD drives or whatever...

Oh hang on

that's color reversal film.. ooops :-)

06-25-2012, 07:44 PM   #234
Site Supporter
Aristophanes's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Dartmouth, Nova Scotia
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,790
QuoteOriginally posted by Williunck Quote
Well that would be nice, hopefully that will be included in the package. I also hope Pentax puts out a pro grade 1.4 or 2.0x teleconverter really soon.
You likely won't see a TC until FF. Not worth it in APS-C land. Same price to buy a longer lens with better IQ.
06-25-2012, 08:36 PM   #235
Veteran Member




Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Denver
Photos: Albums
Posts: 570
QuoteOriginally posted by Aristophanes Quote
QuoteOriginally posted by Williunck Quote
Well that would be nice, hopefully that will be included in the package. I also hope Pentax puts out a pro grade 1.4 or 2.0x teleconverter really soon.
You likely won't see a TC until FF. Not worth it in APS-C land. Same price to buy a longer lens with better IQ.
There is the 1.4x TC on the roadmap for 2013 but that probably doesn't count as "really soon". If we should expect a FF before then, that's good news.
06-25-2012, 08:47 PM   #236
Inactive Account




Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 58
QuoteOriginally posted by Aristophanes Quote
You likely won't see a TC until FF. Not worth it in APS-C land. Same price to buy a longer lens with better IQ.
Well as far as i can see, the biggest lens pentax is currently producing is the DA* 300 f4, that paired with a 1.4 and an aps-c is TOTALLY worth it in my opinon. That is all you need to get shots like the eagles in my album.

Last edited by Williunck; 06-26-2012 at 09:52 AM.
06-26-2012, 02:03 AM   #237
Pentaxian
RonHendriks1966's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2009
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,557
QuoteOriginally posted by Williunck Quote
Well as far as i can see, the biggiest lens pentax is currently producing is the DA* 300 f4, that paired with a 1.4 and an aps-c is TOTALLY worth it in my opinon. That is all you need to get shots like the eagles in my album.
Absolutely true:

Pentax DA*300/f4 + 1.4xTC on APS-C = 420mm/f5.6 for 1400 euro (overghere I guess).
Sigma 500mm/f4.5 for 4200 euro.
06-26-2012, 11:08 AM   #238
Pentaxian
redrockcoulee's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Medicine Hat
Posts: 2,098
QuoteOriginally posted by RioRico Quote
And workstations and screens and all the processing infrastructure.

Funny thing: I can wander around with an old film camera and handheld light meter and shoot photos, no power needed. I can process B&W film (135 or 120 usually) almost anywhere with a dark-bag, no power needed. Especially if I used a 6x9cm folder, I can make contact prints with the most minimal gear (power not necessarily needed); or make fairly large prints with only slightly more imposing gear (power is now required). With the right film, resolution will be rather greater than a FF image file. I can scan negatives in my US$40 MFP. And then I need to spend a couple thousand bucks on workstation and peripherals to digitally process the images. Hmmm...

Of course, 36mpx ain't enough. We can never have enough megapickles, just as we can never have too many terabytes. As Moore's Law continues to drive electronic evolution, this will all seem painless. But getting there will hurt, financially.
If your contact prints are too small you need to use a larger camera

What is the ultimate size of sensor or megapixels? Always more and more.

Is this the shallow depth of field that "everyone" seems to require?

Shunt_Around_Brain

The biggest question I have after reading all the need for a full frame sensor (what a terrible name as it is meaningless out of content, medium format photographers do not have full frame yet if full frame means the size of a film format) is when did shallow depth focus become the driving force in photography? it seems that this to some is the most important aspect of a format or system and I do not know when that came into being. I do understand why it is desirable for many images or types of images.
06-26-2012, 12:03 PM   #239
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 23,781
QuoteQuote:
when did shallow depth focus become the driving force in photography? it seems that this to some is the most important aspect of a format or system and I do not know when that came into being. I do understand why it is desirable for many images or types of images.
I been asking the same question for over a year now.

Some people just spout the same thing over and over again.

"You have more control over depth of field with an FF:
They ignore the corollary.. you have more control at the shallow end, traditionally the least desirable area. So you have more control over what you don't want.
They also ignore that old maxim... out of focus areas in the foreground of an image tend to confuse the viewer and make the image less desirable. Every rule is made to be broken, and every rule has a few outstanding images that break it. But still...
Most of the old film images that the FF guys hold up as example.. the photographer maximized his depth of field with the film he had in the camera and the light he had available. There are very few film images where the photographer actually shot with less depth of field than he had available.
When I shoot macros and images where I want a good out of focus background area, shooting APS-c, it is very rare I actually shoot with the lens wide open. I often shoot the full range, wide open to in some cases 57. Often the picture taken at F 5.6 is the best image. Almost never the one shot at 1.7,2.4 or 2.8. This means FF wouldn't help me. I don't even use the narrow DoF capability that I have.

As far as I can tell the whole FF thing is an attempt to say.. I am so much more advanced than you I am not surprised that you can't figure out what I'm doing. You don't understand my love of extremely narrow depth of field because you're a dolt with no sense of style or composition, and if you aren't dying for full frame it's simply because you don't understand."

Trust me, going through the FF thread seeing so many images that are unappealing, or could have been taken with an APS-c camera isn't going to help you understand this fascination. The concept of possibly having sharp 24 or 36 Mp images at some point down the line is of minor interest. Whether it's APS-c FF or MF, I'll deal with that when I need it.

Where is the format size on the list of priorities?

IQ comes first.
Availability of the cost of appropriate lenses comes second. If I can't afford a the system I need, that becomes the first priority.
The number of mega pixels comes 3rd, although if I had a client willing to pay for large MP images and could pay for the system that produces the images he wants, that would put it first.
The last thing I'm interested in is the size of the sensor. Really, what kind of person thinks about that?

It's crazy to talk about these things without demonstrating a need for an imagined characteristic. By that I mean like you tried with your APS-c and couldn't get it done, then were able to accomplish the objective with an FF camera. TO my knowledge, we don't have a single post in all the FF threads, that would fall into that category.

IN fact I haven't even seen a post from an FF user where he posts images taken at various F stops, showing that the widest one is the right one. That would be a really easy way to demonstrate the value of FF. Yet, no one has done it. It should be simple. Put your camera on your tripod, shoot from wide open to F-22 without missing a stop. Show us a sequence where you think the wide open shot is the best image. Because if you can't do that you can't prove you need FF.

Or if you're an APS-c shooter that thinks they need FF, why not show us an image where you think the APS-c image isn't narrow enough, where then loss of 1 stop of DoF made your picture less desirable, realizing that others looking at your sequence may not agree.

If FF is really demonstrably better for these shots, that should be easy to do...
And if you can't then FF isn't demonstrably better, although it may be better in your own mind. One can never argue what opinions people might have.

The only FF thing that appeals to me at the moment would be the possibility that I might be able to focus better with an FF viewfinder. Given the state of my eyes, that is not very likely.

Last edited by normhead; 06-26-2012 at 12:09 PM.
06-26-2012, 12:08 PM   #240
Site Supporter
Aristophanes's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Dartmouth, Nova Scotia
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,790
Format size and editing are made easier through greater resolution. I routinely crop in PP to square or 5x7 or even 6x9. More MP's preserves rex while doing so. Native resolution has more importance for video for the application of PP shake reduction.
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!
cameras, dslr, frame, full-frame, pentax, pentax full frame, rumor, rumors, sensor, sony
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The full frame Pentax? slackercruster Pentax DSLR Discussion 18 02-13-2012 10:09 AM
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
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 12:56 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