Pentax full frame rumour

ElJamoquio · 07-02-2012, 04:52 PM

Originally posted by Pål Jensen

This article treat (among other things) cameras as DOF measuring devices (only wide open).

No, it doesn't. It assumes you want the DOF you want, and don't care what aperture you have to set the camera to in order to get that DOF.

Originally posted by Pål Jensen

high quality lenses for FF are often beyond what the general consumer is willing to pay

I'd rather pay $350 (40mm f/2.8) than $1200-2000 (hypothetical 26mm f/1.8).

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-dslr-discussion/183054-why-full-fr...ml#post2009710

**Pål Jensen** · 07-02-2012, 05:15 PM

It assumes that lenses from different formats must have the same DOF wide open to be equal; nothing else. And you won't neccesarily get the DOF you want with this faulty logic either as only wide DOF open is used as comparative device. This is treated as a advantage for larger format but this is not true in 99% of the time because you get longer exposure time a certain DOF compared to the smaller format. But we have been through this before...

cmohr · 07-02-2012, 05:21 PM

Originally posted by ElJamoquio

I'd rather pay $350 (40mm f/2.8) than $1200-2000 (hypothetical 26mm f/1.8).

Umm, you can get a Sigma 28mm F1.8 for $430.00

ElJamoquio · 07-02-2012, 05:25 PM

Originally posted by cmohr

Umm, you can get a Sigma 28mm F1.8 for $430.00

But you pay $1000 for a 31mm F/1.8. Conundrum wrapped in a riddle.

ElJamoquio · 07-02-2012, 05:31 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by Pål Jensen

1. It assumes that lenses from different formats must have the same DOF wide open to be equal; nothing else.
2. And you won't neccesarily get the DOF you want with this faulty logic either as only wide DOF open is used as comparative device.
3. This is treated as a advantage for larger format
4. but this is not true in 99% of the time because you get longer exposure time a certain DOF compared to the smaller format.
5. But we have been through this before...

1. I disagree.
2. I'm confused by this statement, as the same arguments could be made between any two aperture values, it doesn't matter what they are, which is the beauty of the aperture numbering system.
3. It certainly isn't a disadvantage...
4. ...because I disagree here. You're comparing at the same ISO again, our same old argument. Your statement is only true if you have two sensors that are the same AND you keep ISO the same. Why do you care about ISO value? Personally I care about SNR, I don't label my pictures with ISO numbers. Did you see my D800/D7000 analysis post?
5. Indeed. We don't have to go through it again, but every time I see you post something that I think is wrong (and I have the time to refute it) I will. Feel free to do the same when you feel the same, of course.

Williunck · 07-02-2012, 05:39 PM

I thought i was in the FF rumors thread, but this seems to be a DOF thread, over and over and over again. Weird

Quicksand · 07-02-2012, 06:49 PM

Originally posted by Williunck

I thought i was in the FF rumors thread, but this seems to be a DOF thread, over and over and over again. Weird

Heh, welcome to PentaxForums.com

**monochrome** · 07-02-2012, 09:23 PM

Monochromes extension was wrong about the singularity. It isn't when every thread starts as a FF thread. It is when all the threads, which have then started as FF threads, devolve to the same DoF argument by the same three posters.

Pentax will make a FF camera, which they can do right now if they choose, when and if they either: A) believe they can make money doing it, or B) believe they can't make money if they don't do it.

RXrenesis8 · 07-02-2012, 09:31 PM

Originally posted by monochrome

A) believe they can make money doing it, or B) believe they can't make money if they don't do it.

Can I add a third option? I don't know what the execs of Ricoh are thinking but several of the statements about Ricohs acquisition of Pentax mentioned rivalry between Ricoh and Canon. I think a third option might be:

C) Believe they can make a better 135 format camera than Canon

Given the apparent animosity between the two companies I don't think a pissing match is out of the question.

eastman · 07-02-2012, 09:44 PM

Originally posted by RXrenesis8

Can I add a third option? I don't know what the execs of Ricoh are thinking but several of the statements about Ricohs acquisition of Pentax mentioned rivalry between Ricoh and Canon. I think a third option might be:

C) Believe they can make a better 135 format camera than Canon

Given the apparent animosity between the two companies I don't think a pissing match is out of the question.

That could be a really good thing for us. I would be all in favor of a weather sealed FF Pentax designed to compete with the 5DIII.

Alizarine · 07-02-2012, 09:50 PM

Originally posted by eastman

I would be all in favor of a weather sealed FF Pentax designed to compete with the 5DIII.

I would like to see it not compete with the 5D MkIII

...but rather, trample it.

but I don't think that's going to be easy...

ElJamoquio · 07-02-2012, 10:02 PM

From my perspective, I'd guess there's a 95+% certainty that the Pentax FF would have better IQ (DR, SNR) and would be smaller + lighter.

There's also a 95+% certainty that the AF system on the 5DIII would spank the Pentax. Probably the flash system, too, but I'm not a good judge of flash.

**Rondec** · 07-03-2012, 02:59 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by ElJamoquio

But you pay $1000 for a 31mm F/1.8. Conundrum wrapped in a riddle.

The FA limiteds are obviously a special case. They are priced high precisely because they are the FA limiteds and about as good as Pentax gets. Still, Sigma does sell the 30mm f1.4 and the 28mm f1.8 in the 450 to 500 dollar range.

I still think that the focus on depth of field as the "ultimate goal of photography" is just silly. My wife is a professional photographer and uses k5s for her shoots (portraits and weddings) and people are very pleased with the results. I have never, ever heard one of her clients say, "You know, I really like that photo, but if you had just shot it with a little less of depth of field, it would have been stellar."

Photography is about composition more than anything else. If that is lacking, then narrow depth of field is not going to suddenly produce an awesome photo. Particularly not when the differences are so small that most of the "public" can't tell the difference.

Alizarine · 07-03-2012, 03:03 AM

Originally posted by Rondec

Photography is about composition more than anything else. If that is lacking, then narrow depth of field is not going to suddenly produce an awesome photo. Particularly not when the differences are so small that most of the "public" can't tell the difference.

In other words, "creative skill" not "technical hardware superiority"? I agree with your point. Though a lot would also say, a more capable tool can produce more impressive results.

So, any new FF rumors?

**Rondec** · 07-03-2012, 04:03 AM

Originally posted by Alizarine

In other words, "creative skill" not "technical hardware superiority"? I agree with your point. Though a lot would also say, a more capable tool can produce more impressive results.

Of course. To me, the biggest things that full frame cameras have traditionally brought to the table are not things inherent to full frame, but that just come with higher specified cameras -- faster auto focus, more auto focus points, better tracking, faster frame rate, and huge buffers. You could easily put these on APS-C cameras, but most camera companies reserve the best for their flagship models.

But, these are the reasons that sports shooters will choose a D4 or a 1D series camera. It's not about depth of field, it is about getting sharp photos in difficult situations with regard to lighting, etc.

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

07-02-2012, 04:52 PM	#406
ElJamoquio Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 4,873	Originally posted by Pål Jensen This article treat (among other things) cameras as DOF measuring devices (only wide open). No, it doesn't. It assumes you want the DOF you want, and don't care what aperture you have to set the camera to in order to get that DOF. Originally posted by Pål Jensen high quality lenses for FF are often beyond what the general consumer is willing to pay I'd rather pay $350 (40mm f/2.8) than $1200-2000 (hypothetical 26mm f/1.8). https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-dslr-discussion/183054-why-full-fr...ml#post2009710

07-02-2012, 05:15 PM	#407
Pål Jensen Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Norway Photos: Albums Posts: 4,371	It assumes that lenses from different formats must have the same DOF wide open to be equal; nothing else. And you won't neccesarily get the DOF you want with this faulty logic either as only wide DOF open is used as comparative device. This is treated as a advantage for larger format but this is not true in 99% of the time because you get longer exposure time a certain DOF compared to the smaller format. But we have been through this before...

07-02-2012, 05:21 PM	#408
cmohr Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2011 Location: Brisbane. Australia Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,824	Originally posted by ElJamoquio I'd rather pay $350 (40mm f/2.8) than $1200-2000 (hypothetical 26mm f/1.8). Umm, you can get a Sigma 28mm F1.8 for $430.00

07-02-2012, 05:25 PM	#409
ElJamoquio Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 4,873	Originally posted by cmohr Umm, you can get a Sigma 28mm F1.8 for $430.00 But you pay $1000 for a 31mm F/1.8. Conundrum wrapped in a riddle.

07-02-2012, 05:31 PM - 1 Like	#410
ElJamoquio Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 4,873	Originally posted by Pål Jensen 1. It assumes that lenses from different formats must have the same DOF wide open to be equal; nothing else. 2. And you won't neccesarily get the DOF you want with this faulty logic either as only wide DOF open is used as comparative device. 3. This is treated as a advantage for larger format 4. but this is not true in 99% of the time because you get longer exposure time a certain DOF compared to the smaller format. 5. But we have been through this before... 1. I disagree. 2. I'm confused by this statement, as the same arguments could be made between any two aperture values, it doesn't matter what they are, which is the beauty of the aperture numbering system. 3. It certainly isn't a disadvantage... 4. ...because I disagree here. You're comparing at the same ISO again, our same old argument. Your statement is only true if you have two sensors that are the same AND you keep ISO the same. Why do you care about ISO value? Personally I care about SNR, I don't label my pictures with ISO numbers. Did you see my D800/D7000 analysis post? 5. Indeed. We don't have to go through it again, but every time I see you post something that I think is wrong (and I have the time to refute it) I will. Feel free to do the same when you feel the same, of course.

07-02-2012, 05:39 PM	#411
Williunck Inactive Account Join Date: Jun 2012 Posts: 58	I thought i was in the FF rumors thread, but this seems to be a DOF thread, over and over and over again. Weird

07-02-2012, 06:49 PM	#412
Quicksand Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: Central Ohio (formerly SF Bay Area) Posts: 1,519	Originally posted by Williunck I thought i was in the FF rumors thread, but this seems to be a DOF thread, over and over and over again. Weird Heh, welcome to PentaxForums.com

07-02-2012, 09:23 PM	#413
monochrome Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Working From Home Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 26,276	Monochromes extension was wrong about the singularity. It isn't when every thread starts as a FF thread. It is when all the threads, which have then started as FF threads, devolve to the same DoF argument by the same three posters. Pentax will make a FF camera, which they can do right now if they choose, when and if they either: A) believe they can make money doing it, or B) believe they can't make money if they don't do it.

07-02-2012, 09:31 PM	#414
RXrenesis8 Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: Orlando, FL (USA) Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 523	Originally posted by monochrome A) believe they can make money doing it, or B) believe they can't make money if they don't do it. Can I add a third option? I don't know what the execs of Ricoh are thinking but several of the statements about Ricohs acquisition of Pentax mentioned rivalry between Ricoh and Canon. I think a third option might be: C) Believe they can make a better 135 format camera than Canon Given the apparent animosity between the two companies I don't think a pissing match is out of the question.

07-02-2012, 09:44 PM	#415
eastman Forum Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Chicagoland Photos: Gallery Posts: 83	Originally posted by RXrenesis8 Can I add a third option? I don't know what the execs of Ricoh are thinking but several of the statements about Ricohs acquisition of Pentax mentioned rivalry between Ricoh and Canon. I think a third option might be: C) Believe they can make a better 135 format camera than Canon Given the apparent animosity between the two companies I don't think a pissing match is out of the question. That could be a really good thing for us. I would be all in favor of a weather sealed FF Pentax designed to compete with the 5DIII.

07-02-2012, 09:50 PM	#416
Alizarine Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2010 Location: Manila Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,185	Originally posted by eastman I would be all in favor of a weather sealed FF Pentax designed to compete with the 5DIII. I would like to see it not compete with the 5D MkIII ...but rather, trample it. but I don't think that's going to be easy...

07-02-2012, 10:02 PM	#417
ElJamoquio Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 4,873	From my perspective, I'd guess there's a 95+% certainty that the Pentax FF would have better IQ (DR, SNR) and would be smaller + lighter. There's also a 95+% certainty that the AF system on the 5DIII would spank the Pentax. Probably the flash system, too, but I'm not a good judge of flash.

07-03-2012, 02:59 AM - 1 Like	#418
Rondec Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Gladys, Virginia Photos: Gallery Posts: 27,653	Originally posted by ElJamoquio But you pay $1000 for a 31mm F/1.8. Conundrum wrapped in a riddle. The FA limiteds are obviously a special case. They are priced high precisely because they are the FA limiteds and about as good as Pentax gets. Still, Sigma does sell the 30mm f1.4 and the 28mm f1.8 in the 450 to 500 dollar range. I still think that the focus on depth of field as the "ultimate goal of photography" is just silly. My wife is a professional photographer and uses k5s for her shoots (portraits and weddings) and people are very pleased with the results. I have never, ever heard one of her clients say, "You know, I really like that photo, but if you had just shot it with a little less of depth of field, it would have been stellar." Photography is about composition more than anything else. If that is lacking, then narrow depth of field is not going to suddenly produce an awesome photo. Particularly not when the differences are so small that most of the "public" can't tell the difference.

07-03-2012, 03:03 AM	#419
Alizarine Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2010 Location: Manila Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,185	Originally posted by Rondec Photography is about composition more than anything else. If that is lacking, then narrow depth of field is not going to suddenly produce an awesome photo. Particularly not when the differences are so small that most of the "public" can't tell the difference. In other words, "creative skill" not "technical hardware superiority"? I agree with your point. Though a lot would also say, a more capable tool can produce more impressive results. So, any new FF rumors?

07-03-2012, 04:03 AM	#420
Rondec Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Gladys, Virginia Photos: Gallery Posts: 27,653	Originally posted by Alizarine In other words, "creative skill" not "technical hardware superiority"? I agree with your point. Though a lot would also say, a more capable tool can produce more impressive results. Of course. To me, the biggest things that full frame cameras have traditionally brought to the table are not things inherent to full frame, but that just come with higher specified cameras -- faster auto focus, more auto focus points, better tracking, faster frame rate, and huge buffers. You could easily put these on APS-C cameras, but most camera companies reserve the best for their flagship models. But, these are the reasons that sports shooters will choose a D4 or a 1D series camera. It's not about depth of field, it is about getting sharp photos in difficult situations with regard to lighting, etc.