Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
12-04-2012, 07:48 AM   #541
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 25,543
QuoteQuote:
I am sorry you didn't try to understand the context of my post.
I seem to do that quite often with you, I'm going to have to slow down and read really carefully.

12-04-2012, 08:04 AM   #542
Moderator
Site Supporter
Blue's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Florida Hill Country
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 17,211
QuoteOriginally posted by Samsungian Quote
The Canon 400mm f4 DO is $5999 brand new in the trunk from B&H, not "$7,000":

Canon Telephoto EF 400mm f/4.0 DO (Diffractive Optics) 7034A002

Canon 400mm 5.6L is $1,198:

Canon EF 400mm f/5.6L USM Autofocus Lens 2526A004 B&H Photo

Both have USM ring motors, no SDM sudden death motors in Canonland

Lets say you take the 400mm 5.6L & put it on Canon 7D 1.6x cropper = 640mm 5.6L.
Similar in spec to the mythical soon to be available $7,000 supertele Pentax for just $1,200.

Pentax 560mm 5.6 is priced at "$7,000" just $5800 more than 400mm 5.6L:

Pentax DA 560mm f/5.6 ED AW Lens 22180 B&H Photo Video
Given Pentax doesn't currently have a 400mm in production, the point is moot. The last 400 they had in production was the FA* 400/5.6 , but don't recall it being introduced at $^ to $8 K.
12-04-2012, 08:42 AM   #543
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 25,543
QuoteOriginally posted by Samsungian Quote
The Canon 400mm f4 DO is $5999 brand new in the trunk from B&H, not "$7,000":

Canon Telephoto EF 400mm f/4.0 DO (Diffractive Optics) 7034A002

Canon 400mm 5.6L is $1,198:

Canon EF 400mm f/5.6L USM Autofocus Lens 2526A004 B&H Photo

Both have USM ring motors, no SDM sudden death motors in Canonland

Lets say you take the 400mm 5.6L & put it on Canon 7D 1.6x cropper = 640mm 5.6L.
Similar in spec to the mythical soon to be available $7,000 supertele Pentax for just $1,200.

Pentax 560mm 5.6 is priced at "$7,000" just $5800 more than 400mm 5.6L:

Pentax DA 560mm f/5.6 ED AW Lens 22180 B&H Photo Video
CANON EF 400MM F4.0 DO IS USM SET 7034A002


Take this price, add 13% tax and then learn to be a little less fussy about your corrections. I never said what the B&H price was. In fact I didn't say where I found it. How does your plucking som eprice from a country I don't even live in add anything to the conversation? It doesn't. My point is if I want to fill the frame with an image on an FF and make full use of the MP I'm paying for, I need a lens that's between 3 and 4 times as expensive as the lens I need to fill the same frame on APS-c. Whether it's 3 or 4 times , does it matter? not at all twice as expensive might be barely acceptable, if the image was twice as large, which in the case of the D600 or 6D, it isn't.

YOu do realize that the 560 mm on APS-c is the rough equivalent of 800mmm on an FF camera?

price for an 800mm 5.6 lens for FF?

Search - Henry's best camera store in Canada

Read it and weep.


QuoteOriginally posted by Blue Quote
Given Pentax doesn't currently have a 400mm in production, the point is moot. The last 400 they had in production was the FA* 400/5.6 , but don't recall it being introduced at $^ to $8 K.
My DA* 60-250, is the rough equivalent of a 400mm FF lens. I was talking about what I have to buy to make use of the capacity of an FF lens and get the same functionality I have now.

QuoteQuote:
I have nothing against the 6D/D600, I have something against their price.
After looking at what I can get for $2000.
Nikon D600, no lens.
Canon 6D - no lens.
Pentax K-5 ($800) Sigma 8-16 (800) Tamron 17-50 2.8 (400).

The above cameras have comparable IQ, these lenses give me best in class IQ, and with my DA*60-250, a landscape kit extraordinaire, covering 8-250, for under 4k. What would the cheapest cost in FF be to cover say 12 to 400 in pro quality glass? I shudder to think, but if you want to say I'm the one who doesn't know what he's talking about, state your case, I'm all ears.
12-04-2012, 08:47 AM   #544
Pentaxian
gazonk's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Oslo area, Norway
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,512
QuoteOriginally posted by Blue Quote
Given Pentax doesn't currently have a 400mm in production, the point is moot.
Actually, they do - if you count the FA645 400mm 5.6.

(before anyone starts complaining that it's not current, look at the road map)

12-04-2012, 09:17 AM   #545
Moderator
Site Supporter
Blue's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Florida Hill Country
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 17,211
QuoteOriginally posted by gazonk Quote
Actually, they do - if you count the FA645 400mm 5.6.

(before anyone starts complaining that it's not current, look at the road map)
Given that we are talking about full frame (24x36) the 645 is not pertinent to the discussion and wouldn't be af with an adapter on K-mount. Nice try though. Now you go back and look at the the k-mount road map. The title of the thread is full frame under development, not cropped medium format. Stay on topic at least in the broad sense.
12-04-2012, 09:43 AM - 1 Like   #546
Banned




Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: NY/Germany
Posts: 1,183
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
After looking at what I can get for $2000. Nikon D600, no lens. Canon 6D - no lens. Pentax K-5 ($800) Sigma 8-16 (800) Tamron 17-50 2.8 (400).
To be fair, anyone can compare discontinued and/or blown out cams to current, in stock ones and show a savings.
12-04-2012, 02:05 PM   #547
Pentaxian
falconeye's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Munich, Alps, Germany
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,863
QuoteOriginally posted by thibs Quote
I have nothing against the 6D/D600, I have something against their price.
I think I can't believe what I read.

A full frame body with K-5 spec and at 1599.- Euro, i.e. at K-5 launch price and you still complain. I am stupefied. This 1/8000s detail is insignificant, after all, a FF shutter is larger and not everybody likes the detonation-sound of the D800/D4 shutters
12-04-2012, 02:36 PM   #548
Pentaxian
thibs's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Belgium
Photos: Albums
Posts: 5,245
QuoteOriginally posted by falconeye Quote
I think I can't believe what I read.

A full frame body with K-5 spec and at 1599.- Euro, i.e. at K-5 launch price and you still complain. I am stupefied. This 1/8000s detail is insignificant, after all, a FF shutter is larger and not everybody likes the detonation-sound of the D800/D4 shutters
Because we're not talking about the same thing. You're talking about the price of an FF cam no matter the rest (not really true, I know, the AF doesn't suck like it did years ago etc. I know). But you don't consider your very own argument, the actual cost for the cam makers. And in this case, they're still trying to rip us. Not that they don't usually do, mind you. But it doesn't change anything: the D600 is a D7000 with a tweaked body and a very nice FF sensor. Would I like Pentax to do the same? Heck yes. And they'd still rip us off. Pentax or Nikon. Doesn't change a thing. It still a mid range, overpriced, camera.

Nikon may very well have started a change of game though, although I doubted it very very much at D600 launch. And that's good. They still a ripping us off though.

12-04-2012, 02:39 PM   #549
Banned




Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: NY/Germany
Posts: 1,183
QuoteOriginally posted by thibs Quote
Because we're not talking about the same thing. You're talking about the price of an FF cam no matter the rest (not really true, I know, the AF doesn't suck like it did years ago etc. I know). But you don't consider your very own argument, the actual cost for the cam makers. And in this case, they're still trying to rip us. Not that they don't usually do, mind you. But it doesn't change anything: the D600 is a D7000 with a tweaked body and a very nice FF sensor. Would I like Pentax to do the same? Heck yes. And they'd still rip us off. Pentax or Nikon. Doesn't change a thing. It still a mid range, overpriced, camera.

Nikon may very well have started a change of game though, although I doubted it very very much at D600 launch. And that's good. They still a ripping us off though.
Your posts are not making sense, particularly the part I boldfaced.

I love it when people think all products, despite having different parts and designs, are the same thing and just adaptations of one another.
12-04-2012, 03:18 PM   #550
Veteran Member
bossa's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Adelaide
Posts: 4,545
I think those suggesting that we are being ripped off should shoot film for a year and add up the cost.

200 shots a day ought to bring some perspective into play.
12-04-2012, 04:15 PM - 1 Like   #551
Pentaxian
falconeye's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Munich, Alps, Germany
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,863
QuoteOriginally posted by thibs Quote
But you don't consider your very own argument, the actual cost for the cam makers. And in this case, they're still trying to rip us.
My very own argument was against selling FF sensors at 3000 $ and above while selling APSC at 1500 $.

Now that uncrippled FF bodies are sold at 1599.- € I am satisfied. Now, the market will sort it all out for us, now that the artificial barrier was removed.

I always said an FF sensor adds maybe 200$ to production and 500$ to market price, which at 799,- € for the D7000 should be 1299.- Euro. But the extra 300 € is well deserved money for Nikon, esp. as he D600 is new and the D7000 is old.

To sell a camera in higher demand at a higher margin is no rip off.

That's the entire driving force behind any attempt to make a product attractive actually ...

You don't understand pricing in the market. A price isn't production cost. Production cost only sets the lower limit for a price. Price is determined by demand. And Nikon eventually understood how to offer a reasonably attractive SLR again. They deserve the extra margin. That's no rip off.

Like the price for an iPhone 5 is no rip off. Apple may have a high margin on them. But without them, we still would use crappy Windows CE or Blackberry or Symbian smartphones. No Androids and no iPhones. Well deserved by Apple and certainly no rip off.
12-04-2012, 08:52 PM   #552
Senior Member




Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Arlington, MA
Posts: 135
The FF sensor adds far more to the manufactured cost of the camera than $200. The yield for full frame sensors is dramatically lower, and there's half as many on a "wafer", so you have to make a lot of wafers to make a few sensors. They are also larger than any semiconductor stepper/photolithography system can expose at once, they can only expose an APS-C area at once. So there have to be two masks (left side and right side), and the exposures of the two masks for each layer of the sensor has to be perfect.

A good starting guess is that FF sensors should cost four times as much as APS-C sensors. It's probably worse than that.
12-04-2012, 09:53 PM   #553
Pentaxian
LFLee's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Western MA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,263
QuoteOriginally posted by falconeye Quote
I always said an FF sensor adds maybe 200$ to production and 500$ to market price, which at 799,- € for the D7000 should be 1299.- Euro. But the extra 300 € is well deserved money for Nikon, esp. as he D600 is new and the D7000 is old.
That extra 300 is to pay Ashton Kutcher.
12-05-2012, 12:08 AM   #554
Senior Member




Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Slovenija
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 145
QuoteQuote:
[
After looking at what I can get for $2000.
Nikon D600, no lens.
Canon 6D - no lens.
Pentax K-5 ($800) Sigma 8-16 (800) Tamron 17-50 2.8 (400).

The above cameras have comparable IQ, these lenses give me best in class IQ, and with my DA*60-250, a landscape kit extraordinaire, covering 8-250, for under 4k. What would the cheapest cost in FF be to cover say 12 to 400 in pro quality glass? I shudder to think, but if you want to say I'm the one who doesn't know what he's talking about, state your case, I'm all ears.

Canon Eos 5d mkII and Sigma 12-24, Tamron 28.75 f2,8 and Canon 100-400 is not far from that with big improvment in IQ and DOF. I bought Eos5dmkII last year over Pentax just because that. I use 28mm, 35mm, 50mm and 100mm with Canon and they are dirty cheap.
12-05-2012, 01:55 AM   #555
Pentaxian
thibs's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Belgium
Photos: Albums
Posts: 5,245
QuoteOriginally posted by bossa Quote
I think those suggesting that we are being ripped off should shoot film for a year and add up the cost.

200 shots a day ought to bring some perspective into play.
Oh, those bodies which don't require battery, which still runs although they were made in 1975?
Yeah, right, film is a rip off. Only for those who can't see.
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!
d800, ff, full-frame, pentax, pentaxian, reps, seminar, tokyo, week
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
ready to go! first development coming soon dj_saunter Film Processing, Scanning, and Darkroom 17 05-15-2011 09:14 PM
Development: Rwanda style. ihasa General Talk 16 04-07-2011 11:37 PM
two bath development icywarm Film Processing, Scanning, and Darkroom 22 01-08-2011 12:27 AM
UN Human Development Report mikemike General Talk 5 11-05-2010 05:55 AM
Any Arrested Development (TV) fans here? RolloR General Talk 8 10-21-2010 08:25 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:05 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