Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
08-01-2012, 09:04 AM   #706
Loyal Site Supporter
eddie1960's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 12,270
QuoteOriginally posted by Fl_Gulfer Quote
I still don't understand the reason 10% of Pentax shooters want a FF DSLR. I know Pentax dosen't know either. And that's why they are in no hurry to build one, it just isn't worth there time and money.
What is the big advantage? Wider field of view? I just back up and get the same shot as my K1000 or I change lenses. What else is better?
Just back up and get the same perspective doesn't always work. in close quarters it can be impossible, and with landscapes just back up may mean moving a mile or more and other items become an issue.
DOF is another. effectively you cannot buy something that replicates even the most basic fast 50 F1.4 on FF (or for that matter an F2 50mm) at least in the pentax line

there is no fast portrait lens like an 85 1.4 (the 55 1.4 is close but still not the same DOF

There is no apsc with the VF of a FF either

there are loads of reasons for wanting one, and no really good reason for opposing one IMO It's not like they will drop apsc in favour of FF, it's an alernative that is needed if Ricoh wants to be a player, plain and simple. If they want to remain a niche brand then No FF a good start.

08-01-2012, 09:13 AM   #707
Pentaxian
gazonk's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Oslo area, Norway
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,512
Eddie, I basically agree with you, but the ff advantages are hyped out of proportions in these threads. When I actually used my LX with the M-50/1.7, I stopped down to at least 2.8 most of the time - because the crazy thin DoF is something you only rarely really want.

If I only had my K-5 with the DA35 ltd instead when the kids were small...
08-01-2012, 09:22 AM   #708
gtl
Veteran Member




Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 349
FA limiteds on FF. I snapped up all 3 at a decent price despite not knowing if and when a FF is coming. I know you can use film but film development and prices is not friendly in many countries...

Not to mention the larger OVF. The K5 's ovf is barely enough for MF...
08-01-2012, 09:25 AM - 1 Like   #709
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Bronx NY
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,611
QuoteOriginally posted by eddie1960 Quote

*snip*

and no really good reason for opposing one IMO It's not like they will drop apsc in favour of FF, it's an alernative that is needed if Ricoh wants to be a player, plain and simple. If they want to remain a niche brand then No FF a good start.
I can think of one really good reason for opposition: Allocation of resources. To be truthful I'd rather they put the R&D people to work developing a good WA prime with WR. If they developed a 28mm or 24mm WR prime (preferably 28mm) with a max f stop of f/2.0 or faster, I'd be all over it. Yeah there is the FA* 24mm f/2.0 but good copies are very rare (I know I've been searching for one for years...I've found 2 bad copies) hideously expensive and they aren't WR. Don't get me wrong, after shooting for a month with my FA 20mm f/2.8 I've decided that a FF body wouldn't be a waste of time, but I'd still much rather have the above mentioned lens and also improved SDM.

NaCl(and while I'm at it improved flash system too)H2O

08-01-2012, 09:52 AM   #710
Loyal Site Supporter
eddie1960's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 12,270
QuoteOriginally posted by gazonk Quote
Eddie, I basically agree with you, but the ff advantages are hyped out of proportions in these threads. When I actually used my LX with the M-50/1.7, I stopped down to at least 2.8 most of the time - because the crazy thin DoF is something you only rarely really want.

If I only had my K-5 with the DA35 ltd instead when the kids were small...
noise and dr then all things being equal in the sensor the FF will outperform the apsc by 1-2 stops (D800vs D7000/K5 is a very good example)

I agree DOF is over hyped, but it is one of the advantages.

It's not for everyone, neither is m4/3 or apsc. Ricoh wants to grow dramatically and challenge the big guys (their comments reflect this) to do so you have to compete with the big guys. FF looks like it will become an ever increasing part of that market.

for people who want apsc it will be there a while yet
08-01-2012, 11:49 AM   #711
Veteran Member




Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,893
QuoteOriginally posted by Fl_Gulfer Quote
I still don't understand the reason 10% of Pentax shooters want a FF DSLR. I know Pentax dosen't know either. And that's why they are in no hurry to build one, it just isn't worth there time and money.
What is the big advantage? Wider field of view? I just back up and get the same shot as my K1000 or I change lenses. What else is better?
Advantages:
~50% better linear resolution
Smaller, Cheaper lenses for equivalent DOF and SNR
Optically a bit easier to get larger viewfinders

Disadvantages:
Initial cost
Extra few grams because sensor is larger
08-01-2012, 11:54 AM   #712
Veteran Member
sb in ak's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Homer, AK
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 571
QuoteOriginally posted by eddie1960 Quote
noise and dr then all things being equal in the sensor the FF will outperform the apsc by 1-2 stops (D800vs D7000/K5 is a very good example)

I agree DOF is over hyped, but it is one of the advantages.

It's not for everyone, neither is m4/3 or apsc. Ricoh wants to grow dramatically and challenge the big guys (their comments reflect this) to do so you have to compete with the big guys. FF looks like it will become an ever increasing part of that market.

for people who want apsc it will be there a while yet
Personally, I see distinct advantages to both platforms at this point (APS-C and FF). However, if the rumors are true and we see some budget FF bodies coming in with smaller form factors and dollar amounts we could see the squeezing of APS-C. That being said, I still don't see any imminent death of APS-C. FF cameras will have a hard time coming in much lower than $1500 without compromising the body too much (at least for the next few years), while TOTL APS-C bodies at this level or around $1k would be much better in several ways (better body, more durable, etc.)

Looking at Pentax's current lineup, they seem to be catering to the prosumer crowd. If FF bodies come into this price range, Pentax/Ricoh would have to introduce a FF body to continue catering to this crowd, IMO, or get left in the dust. A FF sensor in a body the same size as the K-5 (or even slightly larger) would be a hit.

Last edited by sb in ak; 08-01-2012 at 12:03 PM.
08-01-2012, 12:23 PM - 1 Like   #713
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 16,243
APS-C is decent. It reminds a little of the arguments back in the day between 35mm shooters and medium format shooters. Yes, there is improvement from one format to the other, but for many photographers, it won't make a huge difference. APS-C is just really good and even if full frame comes down to 1800 dollars cost, APS-C will still have a niche for a long time to come.

08-01-2012, 01:14 PM   #714
Site Supporter
Fl_Gulfer's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Florida Gulfer
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,051
Thanks I just found a sight that said this. (Mark David's)

Full frame cameras

PROS
take full advantage of wide-angle lenses
allows the photographer to move in closer to the subject and so reduce the depth of field
the larger sensor has manufacturing advantages that can result in less noise in your images
great for landscape photography and often preferred for street photography


CONS
more expensive than APS-C
more difficult to fill the frame with distant, easily-spooked subjects like birds


APS-C cameras

PROS
less expensive
telephoto lenses behave like something even more telephoto
great for wildlife photos and macro


CONS
wide angle lenses lose some of their wide-angle effect
backgrounds can be slightly more in focus and therefore slightly more distracting
08-01-2012, 01:40 PM - 2 Likes   #715
Veteran Member
jsherman999's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,228
Allocation to a new mount?

QuoteOriginally posted by NaClH2O Quote
I can think of one really good reason for opposition: Allocation of resources. To be truthful I'd rather they put the R&D people to work developing a good WA prime with WR. If they developed a 28mm or 24mm WR prime (preferably 28mm) with a max f stop of f/2.0 or faster, I'd be all over it.

Allocation of resources is one of the most important reasons Pentax-Ricoh should offer a FF body; or rather, an allocation of resources that favors K-mount and assures it's survival.

If low-end DSLR is encroached by very good MILC or even very good fixed-lens compacts with largish sensors, and upper-end DSLR is encroached by $1600 FF bodies, Pentax-Ricoh may not even want to continue with K-mount if they have no FF body. Many folks who would buy a lot of the lenses would have left for low-end FF or upper-end MILC.

A FF body would mean more K-mount sales for Ricoh, which would mean that K--mount continues to get investment. Even if you have no intention of buying a FF Pentax body, and you plan to stick with aps-c K-mount, you should hope Ricoh brings a FF body out.

Pentax FF == an investment in K-mount. No FF Pentax == shrinking K-mount sales, and a possible phase-out at some point.


.
08-01-2012, 03:25 PM   #716
Veteran Member




Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: West Coast , Sweden
Posts: 467
QuoteOriginally posted by jsherman999 Quote
A FF body would mean more K-mount sales for Ricoh, which would mean that K--mount continues to get investment. Even if you have no intention of buying a FF Pentax body, and you plan to stick with aps-c K-mount, you should hope Ricoh brings a FF body out.

Pentax FF == an investment in K-mount. No FF Pentax == shrinking K-mount sales, and a possible phase-out at some point.
+1

We have never been so close to a FF or the death of K-mount as we currently are. Luckily Ricoh bought Pentax for the K.
08-01-2012, 03:47 PM   #717
Veteran Member




Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,893
QuoteOriginally posted by Fl_Gulfer Quote
Thanks I just found a sight that said this. (Mark David's)

Full frame cameras

PROS
take full advantage of wide-angle lenses
allows the photographer to move in closer to the subject and so reduce the depth of field
the larger sensor has manufacturing advantages that can result in less noise in your images
great for landscape photography and often preferred for street photography


CONS
more expensive than APS-C
more difficult to fill the frame with distant, easily-spooked subjects like birds


APS-C cameras

PROS
less expensive
telephoto lenses behave like something even more telephoto
great for wildlife photos and macro


CONS
wide angle lenses lose some of their wide-angle effect
backgrounds can be slightly more in focus and therefore slightly more distracting

'fill the frame'. Some of those benefits are true only if you assume cropping a photo is too onerous to consider. With the advent of common pixel pitch sensors there isn't a 'telephoto' or 'macro' benefit to APS-C, save the two seconds to crop the picture. On top of that it is far, far, far easier to track wildlife or sports with FF than APS-C.

There's really no wide angle benefit either with the advent of APS-C specific wide angles in the 8-16 or 12-24 range, etc.
08-01-2012, 04:04 PM   #718
Veteran Member
sb in ak's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Homer, AK
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 571
I keep seeing that argument and it works if you can afford the high pixel pitch FF. $3k camera gear is out of the question for most people, not to mention the lenses. Which brings us back to APS-C, which was developed as a lower cost alternative in the first place. I'm not saying APS-C will be around en force ten years from now or the superiority of the D800, but in the moment, it still has a place.

Last edited by sb in ak; 08-01-2012 at 04:10 PM.
08-01-2012, 04:12 PM   #719
Senior Member
stormcloud's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 235
correct me if i'm wrong but if you get the same pixels from cropping ff as you do aps-c then your talking effectively the same sensor pixel density therefor you lose any manufacturing gains that will give you better dynamic range and noise performance - so if filling the frame isn't a advantage for aps-c then dynamic range and noise isn't an advantage for ff??
08-01-2012, 04:17 PM   #720
Site Supporter
Sandy Hancock's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Adelaide Hills, South Australia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,722
I'm pretty sure this has been discussed before :roll:
You either get it or you don't, or think it is important or not.
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 07:10 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.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