[normhead]

I think this is a well-reasoned post and you offer great advice.

That being said, if you have the money to spend and would rather spend it on a new camera than maxxing out your camera to the razor's edge, I don't have a problem with that either. If people didn't spend the money, there would be no incentive for any company to progress technically.

If people didn't spend the money, there would be no incentive for any company to progress technically.

A lot of people just feel comfortable knowing what they shoot with will give them the best possible chance to give them the best photo possible in a given situation. Nothing wrong with that either. For me it's a judgement call, I can't afford to get the functionality I have with my K-5 on an FF system. For me, it doesn't matter if there's a FF 400 mm F-4 lens out there(say like the CANON EF 400MM F4.0 DO IS USM SET for $7,000). My DA*60-250 F-4 is just going to have to do.

[Class A]

Current FF bodies aren't crippled anymore.

I'd say the new entry level FF bodies are still a bit crippled compared to their bigger brothers.

The D600, for instance, among other limitations, appears to be using the D7000 AF module resulting in less frame coverage, the maximum shutter speed is just 1/4000, and you cannot configure the "OK" button for playback. I find software restrictions like the latter particularly annoying.

Maybe it isn't fair to characterise the above as "crippling", and after all the D600 features a built-in AF motor, but the D600 vs D800 differences still look a bit like "artificially limited" vs "well featured" as opposed to "reasonably featured" vs "extraordinarily featured" to me (considering the price point of a D600).

[fikkser]

People on a Swedish Pentax forum are posting what "sources" has been saying at Fotomässan in Sweden.

Rumors about 7 new cameras, 5 new dslr/mirrorless next year.

K-300
K-3
New 645 with around 60 MP
One guy heard there's a FF coming next year, another guy wrote "Maybe a L-1 in the end of the year." Hard to interpret what he's meaning, but it seems he doubts what the source said, not that the source said maybe. Not clear if it's a Pentax rep or not. Because no one mentions who their source is it's impossible to know if they've talked to the same source.

And possibly a Q-2 WR (also this "maybe", hard to say if it's the source who said maybe or if it's the guys own opinion.).

Anyone else heard anything?

[Na Horuk]

Rumors about 7 new cameras, 5 new dslr/mirrorless next year. K-300 K-3 New 645 with around 60 MP

First thing I thought: "Wow, awesome!"
Second thing "Oh no, more rumours flooding the forums"

[Quicksand]

Rumors about 7 new cameras, 5 new dslr/mirrorless next year.

Why are you burying this here? Entire THOUSAND-POST threads have been started on far less.

[dosdan]

Having an ISO 6400 shot in the near future look like an ISO 400 shot of today's top-tier cameras is something I eagerly await.

Can't see this happening due to shot noise. ISO400-> ISO6400 is 16x (4 stops gain). So for equal output image brightness, Assuming no other sources of noise except the light itself, in the ISO6400 shot the sensor has collected 1/16th the number of photons as in the ISO400 shot. The photonic shot noise is related to the sq root of the sample size. So if a sensel (photo-electric element) outputted 16000 photo-electrons in the ISO400 shot, it would have a shot noise SNR of 16000/126.5 = 126.5:1. In the ISO1600, in the same situation, it would only output about 1000 photo-electrons, for a photonic SNR of 1000/31.6 = 31.6:1. So 1/16th the signal has 1/4x the SNR. Expressed as dB, 1/4x = -12 dB. For example compare the 18% SNR for these 3 Sony low read-noise cameras:

DxOMark - Compare cameras side by side

Manufacturers ISO
ISO400: 35.4 dB
ISO1600: 23.3 dB
Difference: -12.1 dB

Since 18% grey relative to saturation is a high level, the vast majority of the noise is photonic shot noise. At low levels, the predominate noise source is read noise, mainly ADC noise.

The sensor output level gets smaller as ISO goes up (at base ISO the sensor should be able to reach FWC, but with pre-ADC gain, the ADC will clip instead earlier and earlier at lower sensor output levels at higher & higher ISOs). So, the max. amount of signal is seen as 1/16th lower if 16x pre-ADC gain is applied. Since this a direct relationship rather than a sq-root one, the DR between ISO1400 & ISO6400 should fall (assuming no high-ISO raw NR) to 1/16th or -4 stops.

Using the NEX-6 DR figures from the same link above:

ISO400: 11.75 stops
ISO6400: 8.03 stops
Difference: -3.72 stops.

The droop in the expected DR at low ISO is due to the presence of ADC read noise. The lower the read noise is, the more consistent the DR improvement at low ISO. Look at the DR curve for the K-5.

So, I can't see the 18% SNR figure (shot-noise determined) improving dramatically enough to make the SNR of a ISO1600 shot look like an ISO400 shot. It is possible for the read noise to drop further, so some DR improvement is possible, but this will probably only be for high-ISO DR, since lens flare/glare is probably more significant for the real-world DR and will place a limit on the max. DR possible.

You could, of course, take a burst of 16 ISO6400 shots and combine them, either in-camera or in PP, to achieve a similar effect to taking 1 ISO400 shot. For the same light-level and f-number, the ISO400 shot would have a 16x longer shutter speed. It's possible that non-consistent motion that occurred during the much faster 16 ISO64000 shots could be easier to align when combining the stack.

Dan.

[falconeye]

think you might be caught up in that "impressive gadget" school of photography

I am sorry you didn't try to understand the context of my post.

I replied to a remark that the D600 body is (technically) "deceiving" which it obviously isn't.

BTW, the extra money goes to a FF sensor which enables better IQ with the right lenses. Something I can confirm based on my D800 experience so far.

This post isn't anti Pentax. The K-5 is a great body and I love it. But it isn't in one league with the D600 or D800.

[Samsungian]

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:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?is=USA&Q=&A=details&...list&sku=12129

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:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/891523-USA/Pentax_DA_560mm_f_5_6_ED.html

A lot of people just feel comfortable knowing what they shoot with will give them the best possible chance to give them the best photo possible in a given situation. Nothing wrong with that either. For me it's a judgement call, I can't afford to get the functionality I have with my K-5 on an FF system. For me, it doesn't matter if there's a FF 400 mm F-4 lens out there(say like the CANON EF 400MM F4.0 DO IS USM SET for $7,000). My DA*60-250 F-4 is just going to have to do.

[Kunzite]

Indeed, the 12 years-old Canon 400mm f/4 lens has a street price $1000 less than the Pentax launch price. It doesn't have any "Sudden Death Motor", whatever that means, but neither does the Pentax.
I would also mention the Canon 500mm f/4: $1500 MSRP, launched last year.

I don't understand the "Canon 7D 1.6x cropper" thing - wouldn't the HD 560mm also "benefit" from the 1.5x crop, on any Pentax DSLR?

[fikkser]

Why are you burying this here? Entire THOUSAND-POST threads have been started on far less.

lol, true. Feel free to start a thread about it.

If there's a L-1 FF introduced next year you all owe me a cookie tho.

[Rondec]

I'm not saying a wedding photographer won't think that way. Almost every photographer of any stripe will justify their camera purchase. I'm just saying... others get the job done with way less. I have noticed however with wedding photographers, hainvg gear that looks impressive sell them to future clients. My cousin's Hasselblads said to his clients "I'm worth the 5k it's going to take to get me out the door in the morning." There are other things involved besides the actual images produced when you discuss wedding photography. So I'll agree, if you are a wedding photographer, you want the showiest most expensive equipment you can afford and that probably isn't a D600. (Or a K-5).

You want everyone of those bridesmaids walking out of there drooling over your set up.

My wife does wedding photography with out two K5s and she would love to move to full frame at some point. Not so much for the gadgety-type things like dual slots and faster frame rate, but more for the better high iso and ability to get more narrow depth of field combined with wider angles. She has never had a client who complained because she was shooting Pentax or, because she was shooting APS-C. They just don't know the difference. She shot recently with a second shooter who uses a 5D Mk II and there really isn't that much difference in the photos. Particularly, since the second shooter had used up most of her budget getting her 5D and so she was shooting with consumer variable aperture zooms.

I disagree that the death knell of APS-C has sounded yet. For a large percentage of photos, there just isn't that much difference between the formats. Unless you are someone who needs the latest and greatest, mid level APS-C to enthusiast level APS-C is a nice price point with nice features. If Pentax is working on their auto focus module (I assume they are), a K3 could be a very nice camera, indeed, matching up well against the lower end full frame cameras.

[Rondec]

I'd say the new entry level FF bodies are still a bit crippled compared to their bigger brothers.

The D600, for instance, among other limitations, appears to be using the D7000 AF module resulting in less frame coverage, the maximum shutter speed is just 1/4000, and you cannot configure the "OK" button for playback. I find software restrictions like the latter particularly annoying.

Maybe it isn't fair to characterise the above as "crippling", and after all the D600 features a built-in AF motor, but the D600 vs D800 differences still look a bit like "artificially limited" vs "well featured" as opposed to "reasonably featured" vs "extraordinarily featured" to me (considering the price point of a D600).

The 1/4000 second shutter speed is a big deal. Part of the appeal of full frame is the ability to use wide apertures. Unfortunately, Nikon specifically made it difficult to use these in decent light. I do hit 1/8000 second on the K5 a decent amount, particularly if I am bracketing exposures. I really think the D800 (or D700) is the lowest Nikon full frame I could be satisfied with.

[snake]

I use 1/8000 often, as it's more convenient than losing the moment while screwing on an ND filter.

I'm waiting to see if any hacks come down the road, revealing the shutter box is perfectly capable, but electronically crippled. This is the case, claimed by Pentax, with the K-30, having the same shutterbox as the K-5. So then why the slower max shutter speed?

[thibs]

I assume you didn't really try to understand what you're talking about.

Generally, Pentax bodies feel a tad more refined, even if you compare a D4 vs. a K-5. But thats's the first impression (partly because they are smaller), I am sure the Nikons are great when weared down.

Otherwise, the D600 body is above a K-5 body, on par on most things and beaten by a few (#card slots, uncompressed hdmi out, better AF.C, 39 point AF with 3D tracking, viewfinder, rgb metering sensor, tethering, sensor size). The K-5 wins for its silent mirror.

But if you talk about a deceiving body then you extrapolate the past. Current FF bodies aren't crippled anymore. Which is why they'll extinct APS-C dSLRs. IMHO. At 1599,- Euro in Germany, the D600 does already occupy the niche the K-5 populated at launch.

No, actually I can't unsderstand you actually support this: the D600 is nothing but a souped up D7000 and sells for thousand more Euros. This is a steal and nothing else. There's no reason but marketing for such a difference.
Cameras once in the D300-type were APS but had better designed bodies (not software features, body itself and mechanical specs).
Instead, you get the same slow shutter, same slow flash sync, but shiny new overpriced sensor.

You're the first to say the difference in price is not justified by manufacturing constraints, yet you talk about justified price for the D600.
As the 5D was when it was introduce, they recycle mid-end bodies and sell them for upper mid, low pro prices.

I have nothing against the 6D/D600, I have something against their price.

[snake]

I don't believe there is any death knell for APS-c.

One thing everyone on photo forums try to get in on is calling the next "death knell" and trend so they can say "see! I told you guys!".

APS will be around for years to come, particularly for mirrorless. People were calling the death knell for the SLR, but seems like FF is making them relevant again (not to mention still better performance).

The sensor types used on the Sony Nex5/6 series, D7000, and Pentax K-5/K-01/K-30 are already a couple years into production, yet still very, very current and competitive with FF. The concession I will give is to see if Sony continues to push this sensor's performance in future generations. That will likely determine where APS-c is going.