[Alizarine]

So, are you saying that if Einstein were around today, he would be dreaming about a full frame Pentax?

Or probably creating a theorem on the possibility of its existence in the near future

[bossa]

Some important scientific 'realizations' have come to the scientist involved via a vision, dream and or just trying to visualize what is possible. The maths comes later to try and find some way of proof. The subconscious often finds strange ways to communicate to the conscious and I would never dismiss anybody for dreaming. Misguided understandings of existing 'facts' are another thing altogether though.
There's absolutely no proof of the Big Bang as it's just the way certain data is interpreted that allows people to build that model. I always find it funny when a scientist says that The Universe was originally 'the size of mars' and then it exploded etc... they generally go on to say "the 1st few microseconds after The Big Bang etc etc" The way they seem to be thinking about it is still from a Newtonian point of view and from our current reference point. ie. If The Universe is all that there is then it can have no size per se as to have size requires an external reference. Plus, If the mass of the Universe was compacted into an object the size of mars it would be the mother of all black holes for a start and time within it would not exist. The expansion of the universe may simply be a measure of it's decay and nothing more. Forgive me for dreaming though... back to sleep bye ;-)

[Clavius]

So, are you saying that if Einstein were around today, he would be dreaming about a full frame Pentax?


(Trying to get back on track.)

He would try to explain the big mystery why there is none.

[falconeye]

back to sleep bye ;-)

Moderators may hopefully excuse, I won't respond to this, except for minor clarifications which I hope don't trigger more discussion ...

1. By dreaming, I didn't mean the biological act. I meant the kind of meaning as in "he's a dreamer". Of course we're all dreaming and it has a huge impact on what we think. But this is a trivial statement and I try to avoid making trivial statements.

2. No theory or model can ever be proven and no physicist will ever claim it can.

3. You don't understand the current standard model, so comments like a mars-sized universe would become or be a black hole etc. have no background. The current standard model is much more sophisticated than you obviously imagine. But I really cannot and will not go into details here.

This will also be my last post about this off topic subject I started in this thread. My apologies. Also my apologies if this post sounds arrogant. Wasn't my intention. But I failed to prevent it without making the post much longer.

All I really only wanted to say was that not every imaginable sensor (like an almost noise-free one) becomes feasible if we only wait long enough. And then everything else became OT ...

---

Last edited by falconeye; 09-01-2012 at 02:35 AM.

[Pål Jensen]

If I was a pentax employee I would ask for a dollar each time someone asked me about FF (My get rich scheme ). With all respect he probably has no idea. Things like that are generally kept to a need to know basis even parts manufacturers are probably kept slightly in the dark about components they are making. The old "Those who know don't talk, and those who talk don't know." adage is very applicable. I would say Pentax is one of the better companies at keeping secrets, like the new X-5 only really leaked a couple of days before it was announced.

True, but I doubt a Pentax FF camera anytime soon. I suspect that soon after Ricoh takeover the decision was made that Pentax should stay with APS and use extra resources on MF Digital. There are several signs for this.
Apart from the above, Pentax have scheduled 14 lenses for release from now and out next year (with reservation of delays). Still, thats a hell of a release schedule and none of the lenses are FF. It could be that the roadmap is totally fake to confuse us and/or that Pentax will release a fleet of FF lenses in addition to the above, but I find that very unlikely. In fact, that roadmap show a clear direction in my opinion.
Time will tell....

[24X36NOW]

I think you should change the way you ask him questions, he will smile for a good reason then

LOL love the picture.

[bossa]

True, but I doubt a Pentax FF camera anytime soon. I suspect that soon after Ricoh takeover the decision was made that Pentax should stay with APS and use extra resources on MF Digital. There are several signs for this.
Apart from the above, Pentax have scheduled 14 lenses for release from now and out next year (with reservation of delays). Still, thats a hell of a release schedule and none of the lenses are FF. It could be that the roadmap is totally fake to confuse us and/or that Pentax will release a fleet of FF lenses in addition to the above, but I find that very unlikely. In fact, that roadmap show a clear direction in my opinion.
Time will tell....

I doubt Pentax would be dumb enough to list a FF lens roadmap and deny the development of a FF camera. It's more likely that they'll spring a limited edition FF (LXD LTD) on us with three matching Ltd edition primes and then add a lens road map later.

[24X36NOW]

Sorry to disagree here but a new Pentax 24MP APS-C DSLR will have a higher resolution at the pixel level than a D800.

"Higher reslution at the pixel level" doesn't mean anything unless you're cropping the D800 heavily. The Nikon D3 is usually a resolution match for the Nikon D7000 (similar to Pentax K5) at equivalent settings, despite a deficit of 4 megapixels, due to nothing more than the advantage of a sensor more than double the size, and the D3's image quality leaves the D7000 in the dust as the ISO get dialed up, even with the 4MP deficit and even though it is years older, again due to sensor size. If you think a 24MP APS-C will challenge the D800 for image quality, you're about to be underwhelmed. You can go look at Imaging Resource shots from the Nikon 24MP APS-C camera and see for yourself. 24MP APS-C is not even close to matching the resolution of the aged D3X 24MP FF, much less the latest generation 36MP FF D800/D800E. The D800/E is a game changer, as it provides a level of detail formerly seen only in medium format digital cameras, detail I doubt you'll ever extract from an APS-C camera. Cropping to the same size is the only area where pixel density/pitch is remotely an issue, and it's not as if the D800/E will disappoint at better than 15 megapixels cropped to APS-C size (unless, of course, you believe that the current 16MP APS-C cameras are all garbage in terms of image quality ). Further, you can always add a 1.4X teleconverter and get basically the same reach with both more pixel density and more image quality than with an APS-C with a similar focal length lens sporting 1/3 fewer pixels. Even a 36MP APS-C will not resolve as much as a 36MP FF, due to the disadvantage of the lenses needing to resolve the same detail at less than half the size.

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.

A cheaper option, now you're talking about the only real issue.

As for FF lenses, there are less pricey alternatives, like the 120-300 f2.8 Sigma, at a mere $3,200, and infinitely more flexible than a prime lens too! Add a 1.4X converter and you can essentially match the reach of the 24MP APS-C + 300mm lens combination with more pixels and image quality. It'll also lighten your load compared to carrying a separate APS-C body and lens just for "reach" as a substitute for a lens you can just use on your D800.

[bossa]

"Higher reslution at the pixel level" doesn't mean anything unless you're cropping the D800 heavily. The Nikon D3 is usually a resolution match for the Nikon D7000 (similar to Pentax K5) at equivalent settings, despite a deficit of 4 megapixels, due to nothing more than the advantage of a sensor more than double the size, and the D3's image quality leaves the D7000 in the dust as the ISO get dialed up, even with the 4MP deficit and even though it is years older, again due to sensor size. If you think a 24MP APS-C will challenge the D800 for image quality, you're about to be underwhelmed. You can go look at Imaging Resource shots from the Nikon 24MP APS-C camera and see for yourself. 24MP APS-C is not even close to matching the resolution of the aged D3X 24MP FF, much less the latest generation 36MP FF D800/D800E. The D800/E is a game changer, as it provides a level of detail formerly seen only in medium format digital cameras, detail I doubt you'll ever extract from an APS-C camera. Cropping to the same size is the only area where pixel density/pitch is remotely an issue, and it's not as if the D800/E will disappoint at better than 15 megapixels cropped to APS-C size (unless, of course, you believe that the current 16MP APS-C cameras are all garbage in terms of image quality ). Further, you can always add a 1.4X teleconverter and get basically the same reach with both more pixel density and more image quality than with an APS-C with a similar focal length lens sporting 1/3 fewer pixels. Even a 36MP APS-C will not resolve as much as a 36MP FF, due to the disadvantage of the lenses needing to resolve the same detail at less than half the size.

You might want to look at my signature as I already own a D800E

A cheaper option, now you're talking about the only real issue.

As for FF lenses, there are less pricey alternatives, like the 120-300 f2.8 Sigma, at a mere $3,200, and infinitely more flexible than a prime lens too! Add a 1.4X converter and you can essentially match the reach of the 24MP APS-C + 300mm lens combination with more pixels and image quality. It'll also lighten your load compared to carrying a separate APS-C body and lens just for "reach" as a substitute for a lens you can just use on your D800.

Until I get to see what comes out of Photokina I am reserving the right to keep my Pentax gear (albeit not much of it and for a limited time) until I can buy another Nikon body and a telephoto with VR. The Pentax K-5 and FA*300 offer SR at the moment and that helps, although I would prefer a 400 on my Nikon.

That Sigma Zoom is not all that good from what I've seen of it. The D800E would certainly test it around the edges, not to mention it overlaps with my 70-200 F2.8 VR II. I am already considering a 300 and/or a 1.4x TC for the Nikon though.

[mee]

He would try to explain the big mystery why there is none.

Except he would have to divide by zero to calculate Pentax USA's reasoning in the past year.

[Frogfish]

That Sigma Zoom is not all that good from what I've seen of it. The D800E would certainly test it around the edges, not to mention it overlaps with my 70-200 F2.8 VR II. I am already considering a 300 and/or a 1.4x TC for the Nikon though.

Not as good as good primes, that is certainly the opinion on Nikon forums and lens reviews. I suspect it performs superbly on APS-C but, as you said, the D800/E are a step too much for it. Talking about reach, I tried out my new D800 and SIgma 500 yesterday - wow ! And hand holdable (on a Black Rapid) for a whole day's birding !

[Chaos_Realm]

I doubt a Pentax FF camera anytime soon

It is my feeling too but, one (or many in this case) can hope for everything

[bossa]

Not as good as good primes, that is certainly the opinion on Nikon forums and lens reviews. I suspect it performs superbly on APS-C but, as you said, the D800/E are a step too much for it. Talking about reach, I tried out my new D800 and SIgma 500 yesterday - wow ! And hand holdable (on a Black Rapid) for a whole day's birding !

Hand held 500mm.. that's an acheivement! BR straps are pretty good and save the neck from certain destruction for sure.

[Frogfish]

Hand held 500mm.. that's an acheivement! BR straps are pretty good and save the neck from certain destruction for sure.

Yesterday that strap saved US$8,000 worth of camera & lens from certain destruction up on a ver stony hill ! I always attach the BR to the camera and slip it on when I have any camera/lens on the Wimberley copy on a monopod as insurance - yesterday the monopod top sheared off with the extra weight (it's used to a K5/DA*300/copy Wimberley combo) and the BR saved the day

I didn't miss SR at all (thought I would) due to being able to shoot at 1/1000 - 1/1600 and at higher ISOs than usual.

[bossa]

Yesterday that strap saved US$8,000 worth of camera & lens from certain destruction up on a ver stony hill ! I always attach the BR to the camera and slip it on when I have any camera/lens on the Wimberley copy on a monopod as insurance - yesterday the monopod top sheared off with the extra weight (it's used to a K5/DA*300/copy Wimberley combo) and the BR saved the day

I didn't miss SR at all (thought I would) due to being able to shoot at 1/1000 - 1/1600 and at higher ISOs than usual.

Yes EEK is definitely the word. I have been leaving my strap at home of late but I now see the error of my ways.