Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
08-29-2012, 08:54 PM   #961
Veteran Member




Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Kaunas
Posts: 1,458
QuoteOriginally posted by jsherman999 Quote
This is an excellent reason to not jump ship. Pentax makes very good photography equipment, and truly excellent lenses, and they may yet deliver a FF body worthy of those lenses. And no camera makes you a better photographer.
Of course better camera doesn't make you better photographer. However better camera enables you to take better pictures.

You've just displayed excellent pictures of yours. Now try to make same quality (both pure image quality and aesthetic quality) pictures with your phone camera...


Last edited by Edvinas; 08-29-2012 at 09:56 PM.
08-29-2012, 09:46 PM   #962
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Melbourne
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,386
QuoteOriginally posted by Pål Jensen Quote
$1500 for an FF camera it is still out of reach of 90% of the DSLR buying public
Hi
You seem to make an authoritative statement, can you reveal the source of this statistic ?

If people pay $1500 (approx.) for a crop camera (as evidently a lot have) why would they not want to fork out this sort of amount for a FF cam ? It appears to me, we are talking here uniquely about Pentax orientated folk and Nikon/Canon punters think differently about this because they buy this sort of stuff otherwise NikCan would not bother to make them, would they.

Remember the MP race, mine is bigger than yours, and how sales staff was pushing this onto unsuspecting customers using this as a sales tool ? This has now run its course, so next will be:

Sir/Madam, you have to have FF, this is the latest advance in imaging and you would not like to be left behind, would you. (Or in so many words) Ah, and to add some value to the sale:
Sir/Madam you must have a UV filter to protect your valuable lens !

And as FF gains momentum (as did the MP race at one stage) you will find prices will come down. The camera makers who push this and are in it from the beginning (or have started this) will have the advantage. So in my view the technical aspects for or against FF to sales staff (and prospective buyers) is immaterial generally speaking. I bet the idea of FF is predominantly driven by camera makers sales and marketing departments. NkiCan must know that the fast majority of prospective buyers don't half understand the virtues of FF (or could not care less)
And the less people know about FF the better for the sales staff to sell one. Sales staff are trained knowledgeable photography experts, aren't they

Greetings
08-29-2012, 10:36 PM - 2 Likes   #963
Veteran Member
bossa's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Adelaide
Posts: 4,546
QuoteOriginally posted by 24X36NOW Quote
With a D800, you simply crop to APS-C size. You get nearly 16 megapixels in that size, which you would be hard-pressed to argue won't offer sufficient image quality for those occasions when the photographer is beyond the reach of his longest lens (the ONLY time when this is necessary). With a D800, your APS-C "reach" is built in, with no legitimate complaint to be made about the pixel density in instances where you need to crop. The arguments for APS-C are boiling down to the one (and only) real issue - cost. Since the D800 will outperform every APS-C camera for the next several generations, it will actually be cheaper than chasing the serial increments of "upgrades" in APS-C cameras.

Pentax needs FF. If they keep "preaching to the choir," the choir will soon be dead and the congregation long departed.
Sorry to disagree here but a new Pentax 24MP APS-C DSLR will have a higher resolution at the pixel level than a D800. For longer reach it could be a cheaper option than some huge honking telephoto on a D800. I have a 70-200 VR II on my D800E and it's great but a 300/2.8 VR is over 7 grand here and the 400/2.8 is over 10 grand. Personally, I'd rather keep my FA*300 F4.5 (or try to find a nice F2.8 version) and buy a Pentax K-3 (or whatever it's called) to get the reach at a higher resolution plus the SR. But it might not work out as cheap as I expect though as it would be approaching 5 grand for the camera plus the FA*300/2.8 anyway.
08-29-2012, 10:46 PM   #964
Veteran Member
JohnBee's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Newrfoundland
Photos: Albums
Posts: 4,667
QuoteOriginally posted by Schraubstock Quote
Sales staff are trained knowledgeable photography experts, aren't they
If they were, then that would likely be a terrible waist of a photographer

Oddly enough I don't think these are salesperson issues tbh. Taking into consideration that a) good photographers rarely(if ever) work in camera stores and b) that salespersons are subject to winning people over. That being said, the question as to who created what monster first does comes to mind.

Thinking way back in the day, I recall working at a tech. store during the days when PC's were becoming mainstream. And I got a first hand account of what type of environments sales persons were subject to. Which seemed to be more along the lines of "it wasn't who was most helpful and honest, but rather... who could be most convincing".

That being said, when people here and read about products having "more" of anything... it inevitably becomes the driving force toward profitability. And there's no sense whatsoever in expecting people to latch-on to the MP fallacy given that as they simply won't believe it. Because trying to convince someone that more of something is somehow not better, is about equal to trying to tell someone that more HP is somehow not better. Except that in this case, there are no fuel costs associated with the more attribute. Well... technically there is an offset given that larger files equate larger bandwidth, but as privileged humans, we have the power to deny any-and-all that stand in the way of our personal quest for power.

08-30-2012, 02:57 AM   #965
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 376
QuoteOriginally posted by bossa Quote
Sorry to disagree here but a new Pentax 24MP APS-C DSLR will have a higher resolution at the pixel level than a D800. For longer reach it could be a cheaper option than some huge honking telephoto on a D800. I have a 70-200 VR II on my D800E and it's great but a 300/2.8 VR is over 7 grand here and the 400/2.8 is over 10 grand. Personally, I'd rather keep my FA*300 F4.5 (or try to find a nice F2.8 version) and buy a Pentax K-3 (or whatever it's called) to get the reach at a higher resolution plus the SR. But it might not work out as cheap as I expect though as it would be approaching 5 grand for the camera plus the FA*300/2.8 anyway.
Exactly. Even more so if Pentax offers a K3 without AA-filter.
08-30-2012, 03:42 AM   #966
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 27,601
QuoteOriginally posted by Schraubstock Quote
Hi
You seem to make an authoritative statement, can you reveal the source of this statistic ?

If people pay $1500 (approx.) for a crop camera (as evidently a lot have) why would they not want to fork out this sort of amount for a FF cam ? It appears to me, we are talking here uniquely about Pentax orientated folk and Nikon/Canon punters think differently about this because they buy this sort of stuff otherwise NikCan would not bother to make them, would they.

Remember the MP race, mine is bigger than yours, and how sales staff was pushing this onto unsuspecting customers using this as a sales tool ? This has now run its course, so next will be:

Sir/Madam, you have to have FF, this is the latest advance in imaging and you would not like to be left behind, would you. (Or in so many words) Ah, and to add some value to the sale:
Sir/Madam you must have a UV filter to protect your valuable lens !

And as FF gains momentum (as did the MP race at one stage) you will find prices will come down. The camera makers who push this and are in it from the beginning (or have started this) will have the advantage. So in my view the technical aspects for or against FF to sales staff (and prospective buyers) is immaterial generally speaking. I bet the idea of FF is predominantly driven by camera makers sales and marketing departments. NkiCan must know that the fast majority of prospective buyers don't half understand the virtues of FF (or could not care less)
And the less people know about FF the better for the sales staff to sell one. Sales staff are trained knowledgeable photography experts, aren't they

Greetings
I guess I live in too poor any area, but I don't see many people (even professionals) who use high end gear, that is to say, gear that costs more than a thousand dollars. Most folks I know, buy Rebels or Nikon d3200/5200 with a kit lens. If you tried to upsell them on a full frame camera that was only five hundred dollars more, they would laugh at you.

I really think Pentax should probably make a full frame camera, but I just don't think that most people live in the rarified world of the online photography forum, where there are always ten people with money burning a hole in their pocket to buy the next 50mm f.95 lens, or a D800. Most folks out there just want a camera that will take better photos than their camera phone and not cost an arm and a leg. Full frame will sure fit the bill on the first thing, but it still is pretty pricey.

As long as Ricoh is in it for the long-haul and willing to lose money in the short term in order to get a full camera line-up, I think a full frame camera could work, but otherwise, I do think it would be a big loser for them, at least in the beginning.
08-30-2012, 04:55 AM   #967
Senior Member




Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Sydney
Photos: Albums
Posts: 294
QuoteOriginally posted by 24X36NOW Quote
1 All the tech in the world will not eliminate the need for larger sensors. Whatever tech can be applied to smaller sensors can also be applied to larger sensors, with the larger sensors always winning the image quality competition. 2 Plus, you're ignoring that the big advantage to larger sensors is a matter of optics, as in (when comparing APS-C with FF) you're asking the lens to resolve the same details at about 42% of the size on an APS-C sensor to keep pace with a FF sensor. Larger sensors are much less demanding on lenses than smaller sensors, and will always provide better image quality for that reason.
1 At present maybe, but how do you know how good the new technology will be?

2 I am not ignoring anything, i was just pointing out a new technology and what may be a very different future in sensor design

If a larger sensor is always better why not campaign for a $3500 MF camera.

BIGGER IS NOT ALWAYS BETTER

08-30-2012, 05:27 AM   #968
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 376
QuoteOriginally posted by Ivor K Ecks Quote
1 At present maybe, but how do you know how good the new technology will be?

2 I am not ignoring anything, i was just pointing out a new technology and what may be a very different future in sensor design

If a larger sensor is always better why not campaign for a $3500 MF camera.

BIGGER IS NOT ALWAYS BETTER
a) the laws of physics
b) what can be done to small sensors can be done to large sensors, too. So they'll always have advantages.
08-30-2012, 05:28 AM   #969
Veteran Member
Clavius's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: De Klundert
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 4,150
QuoteOriginally posted by Ivor K Ecks Quote
1 At present maybe, but how do you know how good the new technology will be?
True, technology can do a LOT, but it can't just deny or change the laws of physics.
08-30-2012, 06:00 AM   #970
Senior Member
stormcloud's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 232
well with current technology yes larger sensor is better generally - but if sensor technology changes where noise simply isn't an issue - say with some room temp super conducting sensor - then dof is likely the only gain - and then if you start down that lytro or whatever it was called camera - the light field one where you could do focus and dof after the image has been taken, then maybe small sensors will be superior - so yes the laws of physics wont change but the advantages of large sensors at the moment is only how those laws apply to current ccd and cmos sensor technology
08-30-2012, 06:04 AM   #971
Veteran Member
Clavius's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: De Klundert
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 4,150
QuoteOriginally posted by stormcloud Quote
well with current technology yes larger sensor is better generally - but if sensor technology changes where noise simply isn't an issue - say with some room temp super conducting sensor - then dof is likely the only gain - and then if you start down that lytro or whatever it was called camera - the light field one where you could do focus and dof after the image has been taken, then maybe small sensors will be superior - so yes the laws of physics wont change but the advantages of large sensors at the moment is only how those laws apply to current ccd and cmos sensor technology
You're forgetting about the diffraction limit.
08-30-2012, 06:18 AM - 1 Like   #972
Pentaxian




Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: North
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 4,704
QuoteOriginally posted by LamyTax Quote
b) what can be done to small sensors can be done to large sensors, too. So they'll always have advantages.

True to a point only.
We are fortunate at this point of time/tech to be able to choose the right tool for the right job.
A small sensor camera can do some things easier and cheaper.

I shot this with a "laughable" small sensor camera attached to a F*300+AFA1.7x.


Too far?

How about something a bit closer
Shot with just a F100/2.8 macro



In both cases, an APS-C or FF camera would have needed some seriously expensive lenses, jury rigging (multiple teleconverters, extension tubes; reversed lenses) or just major pain to work with (heavy setup; very close focusing distances, less DOF)


Or maybe someone wants to use FF with a 200mm and a bucket of bananas to to ask this guy for a 1 to 1 portrait
08-30-2012, 06:22 AM   #973
Veteran Member
Frogfish's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 4,490
QuoteOriginally posted by bossa Quote
Sorry to disagree here but a new Pentax 24MP APS-C DSLR will have a higher resolution at the pixel level than a D800.
However you do have to take into consideration the size and density of those photosites - too close together and they influence (degrade) the site next to them, more on the same amount of sensor space and they need to be smaller and therefore have less efficient light gathering capability. Which will in turn affect IQ, detail and noise levels. I'm not sure a 24MP APS-C could out perform a 36MP FF sensor.
08-30-2012, 06:57 AM - 1 Like   #974
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
maxfield_photo's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Posts: 1,216
QuoteOriginally posted by pinholecam Quote
We are fortunate at this point of time/tech to be able to choose the right tool for the right job.
*Unless you have the misfortune to shoot Pentax and want a full frame.
08-30-2012, 07:23 AM   #975
Banned




Join Date: Jan 2009
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 9,675
QuoteOriginally posted by pinholecam Quote
True to a point only.
We are fortunate at this point of time/tech to be able to choose the right tool for the right job.
A small sensor camera can do some things easier and cheaper.

I shot this with a "laughable" small sensor camera attached to a F*300+AFA1.7x.


Too far?

How about something a bit closer
Shot with just a F100/2.8 macro



In both cases, an APS-C or FF camera would have needed some seriously expensive lenses, jury rigging (multiple teleconverters, extension tubes; reversed lenses) or just major pain to work with (heavy setup; very close focusing distances, less DOF)


Or maybe someone wants to use FF with a 200mm and a bucket of bananas to to ask this guy for a 1 to 1 portrait
You are better with Q then I was!
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 01:43 AM. | 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