Pentax Confirms Full-Frame Plans at CP+ Inteview

Mistral75 · 03-24-2013, 02:04 PM

Indeed AF "points" will be smaller but they will also be much more centred, closer to what you see in 645D's viewfinder than in K-5's one.

Kunzite · 03-24-2013, 02:10 PM

Only if they'll reuse the AF system from an APS-C camera.

thibs · 03-24-2013, 02:11 PM

Originally posted by Kunzite

Only if they'll reuse the AF system from an APS-C camera.

Which they did in 645D (as for AF points placement).
Hope they indeed changed that.

**Pål Jensen** · 03-30-2013, 05:16 PM

Originally posted by ElJamoquio

A 24MP FF will have ~40-50% better resolving power on the same lens as the K-5.
The FF will have more control over DOF (unless you're shooting at F/22 on APS-C).
The noise will be better if you tolerate or want smaller DOF.
The viewfinder will almost certainly be bigger and brighter.
Tracking moving subjects will be easier while maintaining equal resolution.
The AF point will be smaller for the same AF-point-performance, meaning that AF will be more precise inherently.

Most if this is wrong;

The difference in resolution is ~15% (in many cases you won't see the difference)
You will not have more control over DOF with FF; just thinner DOF at the same numerical apperture. In fact, you have less control over DOF with FF with a lens giving the same magnification due to a smaller total DOF range on FF.
Tracking moving subject is in fact easier on smaller formats due to the fact that tighter tolerance is needed on larger formats at the same exposure.

ElJamoquio · 03-30-2013, 05:54 PM

Originally posted by Pål Jensen

Most if this is wrong;

The difference in resolution is ~15% (in many cases you won't see the difference)
You will not have more control over DOF with FF; just thinner DOF at the same numerical apperture. In fact, you have less control over DOF with FF with a lens giving the same magnification due to a smaller total DOF range on FF.
Tracking moving subject is in fact easier on smaller formats due to the fact that tighter tolerance is needed on larger formats at the same exposure.

Actually, I was correct on all points. All of the points Pål mentioned are either irrelevant or wrong. If anyone wants any clarification, just ask; if nobody does, I won't pollute this thread with another debacle.

Class A · 03-30-2013, 08:56 PM

Originally posted by ElJamoquio

Actually, I was correct on all points.

I don't think Pål disagreed with you as he prefaced all this wrong points with "Most if this is wrong".

Sorry, Pål, I hope you don't mind the humour, but you are off with all your points.

BTW, I get 83.7% as the theoretical resolution advantage of FF 24MP over APS-C 16MP.

jsherman999 · 03-30-2013, 09:11 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by Pål Jensen

Most if this is wrong;

The difference in resolution is ~15% (in many cases you won't see the difference)

Wrong.

Quote:

You will not have more control over DOF with FF; just thinner DOF at the same numerical apperture. In fact, you have less control over DOF with FF with a lens giving the same magnification due to a smaller total DOF range on FF.

Misleading, wrong.

Quote:

Tracking moving subject is in fact easier on smaller formats due to the fact that tighter tolerance is needed on larger formats at the same exposure.

??? Not sure what you mean here. But I can't see any way what you're tying to say could be accurate.

If the "Most of this is wrong" statement applied to Your post, then you were right!

EDIT. Class A beat me to the punch line *&*((*&0
.

sqjaw · 03-31-2013, 06:59 AM

If you got enough money for a Divorce then you got enough money for the Full Frame camera
Alimony will Kill you fast than buying a Full Frame Camera LOL

Originally posted by micktheflash

one word...DIVORCE

**Pål Jensen** · 03-31-2013, 07:11 AM

Originally posted by Class A

BTW, I get 83.7% as the theoretical resolution advantage of FF 24MP over APS-C 16MP.

Your math is wrong. To get 100% increase in resolution over 16mp you need 64Mp. This is a fact.

**Pål Jensen** · 03-31-2013, 07:28 AM

Originally posted by jsherman999

Wrong.

Misleading, wrong.

??? Not sure what you mean here. But I can't see any way what you're tying to say could be accurate.

If the "Most of this is wrong" statement applied to Your post, then you were right!

EDIT. Class A beat me to the punch line *&*((*&0
.

Sorry to pollute this thread with facts. The endless repeating of FF myths won't make them true. The advantage with larger formats is better image quality all else equal (and larger viewfinders). Thats about it...

The more control over DOF with FF is a myth with no basis in reality. Thinner DOF does not equal more control; just thinner DOF (and it only applies to wide open compared to APS). APS give more control over DOF as control over DOF defines the range of DOF you can possibly get from you camera/lens combination and APS give indeed a larger range due to two factors; the lenses (FF and APS) have the same minimum aperture (something they usually have in practice) and closer close focusing distance with APS with comparable lenses giving the same angle of view on their respective formats.
The reason for tilt/shift on large format is to get control over DOF. Thats right, the ultra large format have so little control over DOF due to its size that movements in relation to the film plane have to be introduced. Again thin DOF is not control.
FF willl give about one stop thinner DOF wide open but trade control over DOF for this "feature" and one stop slower shutter speed at the same DOF and ISO . As the number of images that display thinner DOF than is possible with APS is so small that is not practical to measure in percentages (not to mention the number of sucessful images), it is a feature for the particulary interested.

Regarding AF: What I mean is that it is sucessively more difficult to make accurate AF in larger formats. This is also a fact and also a function of DOF. It is much simpler to make precise (and fast) AF with eg. the Q than the 645D. In fact, Pentax had to tweak their APS AF system when implementing it in the 645D for this reason. Not only that, longer focal lenghts for the same angle of view on the larger formats means that the focus throw also is longer meaning more physical work in larger format to focus. It is faster to spin a helicoid short distance than a long one.
To take an extreme example if the format is small enougn "AF" can be instant, as fast as the speed of light. Ie. fixed focus.

Koattet · 03-31-2013, 08:34 AM

I hope that the FF has focus peaking and Pentax K mount, then it would be the perfect addition to my recent acquisition, a K5 IIs. I have old Takumar lenses, including angular, i would use them without the crop factor. If you need to change your whole park of FA lenses for the new HD coating optimized for the new sensors, there will be the real deal for Pentax, and if, they change the bayonet, I think Pentax would be betraying herself. If they change the bayonet and the entire system, I do not know if I will be interested to continue with the brand. Also we have to wait and see what makes Ricoh with his GXR system and his Leica M mount. Certainly, very interesting approach months .....

ElJamoquio · 03-31-2013, 08:59 AM

Originally posted by Pål Jensen

The more control over DOF with FF is a myth with no basis in reality

I don't mind having to change my aperture, I'm not sure why on earth you would be so hung up (for over a year?) on NOT being allowed to change yours.

zxaar · 03-31-2013, 09:00 AM

Originally posted by Pål Jensen

Thinner DOF does not equal more control; just thinner DOF.

Thinner DOF means more control, that is from the fact that if you can shoot with thinner dof then you can also shoot deeper DOF by stopping down the same lens. This is what is meant by DOF control.

**Pål Jensen** · 03-31-2013, 09:11 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by zxaar

Thinner DOF means more control, that is from the fact that if you can shoot with thinner dof then you can also shoot deeper DOF by stopping down the same lens. This is what is meant by DOF control.

The lenses giving the same image (angle of view) will have different focal lenghts and different close focusing distances so it is not just a question of stopping down. If you are one of those (I'm not) who insist that the smaller format lens must display the exact same DOF wide open in order to compare them, the smaller formats lens will also have more apertures to choose from (as most lenses in reality display the same minimum aperture), display more maximum DOF and obviously closer minimum focusing distances.
Control over DOF means being able to control DOF over a range (or getting the DOF you want). A larger range give you larger control; it has nothing to do with absolute values except from the fact that enough DOF is an absolute, ie the image is unsucessful if not properly in focus, and the degree of out of focus is a relative and dependent on aestetics and taste. It has nothing to do with absolute thinness. If it had, a 8X10 large format camera would have had great control over DOF; in fact, it hasn't without tilt/shift movement. In fact, every large format photographer will tell you that control over DOF for him (or her) means more of it (ie more DOF).

That some want thinner DOF than what can be achieved with APS is fine by me but having more DOF than can be achieved with FF (at the same angle of view), eg near/far relationships, is also control over DOF and very much so.

**Pål Jensen** · 03-31-2013, 09:26 AM

Originally posted by ElJamoquio

I don't mind having to change my aperture, I'm not sure why on earth you would be so hung up (for over a year?) on NOT being allowed to change yours.

And who says don't change aperture? I say exactly the opposite.
You will see lots of large format style imges (but not as static!) nowadays due to APS (or smaller sensors). Particularly in travel photography. Images impossible to shoot on FF at that angle of view.

03-31-2013, 07:28 AM	#730
Pål Jensen Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Norway Photos: Albums Posts: 4,371	Originally posted by jsherman999 Wrong. Misleading, wrong. ??? Not sure what you mean here. But I can't see any way what you're tying to say could be accurate. If the "Most of this is wrong" statement applied to Your post, then you were right! EDIT. Class A beat me to the punch line &((&0 . Sorry to pollute this thread with facts. The endless repeating of FF myths won't make them true. The advantage with larger formats is better image quality all else equal (and larger viewfinders). Thats about it... The more control over DOF with FF is a myth with no basis in reality. Thinner DOF does not equal more control; just thinner DOF (and it only applies to wide open compared to APS). APS give more control over DOF as control over DOF defines the range of DOF you can possibly get from you camera/lens combination and APS give indeed a larger range due to two factors; the lenses (FF and APS) have the same minimum aperture (something they usually have in practice) and closer close focusing distance with APS with comparable lenses giving the same angle of view on their respective formats. The reason for tilt/shift on large format is to get control over DOF. Thats right, the ultra large format have so little control over DOF due to its size that movements in relation to the film plane have to be introduced. Again thin DOF is not control. FF willl give about one stop thinner DOF wide open but trade control over DOF for this "feature" and one stop slower shutter speed at the same DOF and ISO . As the number of images that display thinner DOF than is possible with APS is so small that is not practical to measure in percentages (not to mention the number of sucessful images), it is a feature for the particulary interested. Regarding AF: What I mean is that it is sucessively more difficult to make accurate AF in larger formats. This is also a fact and also a function of DOF. It is much simpler to make precise (and fast) AF with eg. the Q than the 645D. In fact, Pentax had to tweak their APS AF system when implementing it in the 645D for this reason. Not only that, longer focal lenghts for the same angle of view on the larger formats means that the focus throw also is longer meaning more physical work in larger format to focus. It is faster to spin a helicoid short distance than a long one. To take an extreme example if the format is small enougn "AF" can be instant, as fast as the speed of light. Ie. fixed focus. Last edited by Pål Jensen; 03-31-2013 at 07:45 AM.*

03-31-2013, 09:11 AM - 1 Like	#734
Pål Jensen Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Norway Photos: Albums Posts: 4,371	Originally posted by zxaar Thinner DOF means more control, that is from the fact that if you can shoot with thinner dof then you can also shoot deeper DOF by stopping down the same lens. This is what is meant by DOF control. The lenses giving the same image (angle of view) will have different focal lenghts and different close focusing distances so it is not just a question of stopping down. If you are one of those (I'm not) who insist that the smaller format lens must display the exact same DOF wide open in order to compare them, the smaller formats lens will also have more apertures to choose from (as most lenses in reality display the same minimum aperture), display more maximum DOF and obviously closer minimum focusing distances. Control over DOF means being able to control DOF over a range (or getting the DOF you want). A larger range give you larger control; it has nothing to do with absolute values except from the fact that enough DOF is an absolute, ie the image is unsucessful if not properly in focus, and the degree of out of focus is a relative and dependent on aestetics and taste. It has nothing to do with absolute thinness. If it had, a 8X10 large format camera would have had great control over DOF; in fact, it hasn't without tilt/shift movement. In fact, every large format photographer will tell you that control over DOF for him (or her) means more of it (ie more DOF). That some want thinner DOF than what can be achieved with APS is fine by me but having more DOF than can be achieved with FF (at the same angle of view), eg near/far relationships, is also control over DOF and very much so. Last edited by Pål Jensen; 03-31-2013 at 09:38 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Pentax Full Frame	dand33	Welcomes and Introductions	5	10-16-2012 07:50 AM
K30, K5n, K3 and maybe full-frame at Photokina...	frankfanrui	Pentax News and Rumors	638	09-06-2012 07:08 AM
Pentax To Announce the K-3 Full Frame DSLR At Photokina	Danny Delcambre	Pentax News and Rumors	662	09-04-2012 05:05 PM
Tokina plans 16-28mm F2.8 for full-frame. Is that a singht?	i83N	Pentax News and Rumors	20	03-03-2010 02:19 AM
Any plans for full frame soon?	FrancisK7	Photographic Technique	2	09-22-2008 07:15 PM

03-24-2013, 02:04 PM	#721
Mistral75 Pentaxian Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Paris, France Posts: 7,527	Indeed AF "points" will be smaller but they will also be much more centred, closer to what you see in 645D's viewfinder than in K-5's one.

03-24-2013, 02:10 PM	#722
Kunzite Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Romania Posts: 15,132	Only if they'll reuse the AF system from an APS-C camera.

03-24-2013, 02:11 PM	#723
thibs Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Belgium Photos: Albums Posts: 7,001	Originally posted by Kunzite Only if they'll reuse the AF system from an APS-C camera. Which they did in 645D (as for AF points placement). Hope they indeed changed that.

03-30-2013, 05:16 PM	#724
Pål Jensen Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Norway Photos: Albums Posts: 4,371	Originally posted by ElJamoquio A 24MP FF will have ~40-50% better resolving power on the same lens as the K-5. The FF will have more control over DOF (unless you're shooting at F/22 on APS-C). The noise will be better if you tolerate or want smaller DOF. The viewfinder will almost certainly be bigger and brighter. Tracking moving subjects will be easier while maintaining equal resolution. The AF point will be smaller for the same AF-point-performance, meaning that AF will be more precise inherently. Most if this is wrong; The difference in resolution is ~15% (in many cases you won't see the difference) You will not have more control over DOF with FF; just thinner DOF at the same numerical apperture. In fact, you have less control over DOF with FF with a lens giving the same magnification due to a smaller total DOF range on FF. Tracking moving subject is in fact easier on smaller formats due to the fact that tighter tolerance is needed on larger formats at the same exposure.

03-30-2013, 05:54 PM	#725
ElJamoquio Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 4,873	Originally posted by Pål Jensen Most if this is wrong; The difference in resolution is ~15% (in many cases you won't see the difference) You will not have more control over DOF with FF; just thinner DOF at the same numerical apperture. In fact, you have less control over DOF with FF with a lens giving the same magnification due to a smaller total DOF range on FF. Tracking moving subject is in fact easier on smaller formats due to the fact that tighter tolerance is needed on larger formats at the same exposure. Actually, I was correct on all points. All of the points Pål mentioned are either irrelevant or wrong. If anyone wants any clarification, just ask; if nobody does, I won't pollute this thread with another debacle.

03-30-2013, 08:56 PM	#726
Class A Pentaxian Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Wellington, New Zealand Posts: 11,251	Originally posted by ElJamoquio Actually, I was correct on all points. I don't think Pål disagreed with you as he prefaced all this wrong points with "Most if this is wrong". Sorry, Pål, I hope you don't mind the humour, but you are off with all your points. BTW, I get 83.7% as the theoretical resolution advantage of FF 24MP over APS-C 16MP.

03-30-2013, 09:11 PM - 1 Like	#727
jsherman999 Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Photos: Gallery Posts: 8,237	Originally posted by Pål Jensen Most if this is wrong; The difference in resolution is ~15% (in many cases you won't see the difference) Wrong. Quote: You will not have more control over DOF with FF; just thinner DOF at the same numerical apperture. In fact, you have less control over DOF with FF with a lens giving the same magnification due to a smaller total DOF range on FF. Misleading, wrong. Quote: Tracking moving subject is in fact easier on smaller formats due to the fact that tighter tolerance is needed on larger formats at the same exposure. ??? Not sure what you mean here. But I can't see any way what you're tying to say could be accurate. If the "Most of this is wrong" statement applied to Your post, then you were right! EDIT. Class A beat me to the punch line &((*&0 .

03-31-2013, 06:59 AM	#728
sqjaw Inactive Account Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: Quincy,Ma. Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 224	If you got enough money for a Divorce then you got enough money for the Full Frame camera Alimony will Kill you fast than buying a Full Frame Camera LOL Originally posted by micktheflash one word...DIVORCE

03-31-2013, 07:11 AM	#729
Pål Jensen Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Norway Photos: Albums Posts: 4,371	Originally posted by Class A BTW, I get 83.7% as the theoretical resolution advantage of FF 24MP over APS-C 16MP. Your math is wrong. To get 100% increase in resolution over 16mp you need 64Mp. This is a fact.

03-31-2013, 08:34 AM	#731
Koattet Inactive Account Join Date: Mar 2013 Location: Catalonia - Barcelona Photos: Albums Posts: 2	I hope that the FF has focus peaking and Pentax K mount, then it would be the perfect addition to my recent acquisition, a K5 IIs. I have old Takumar lenses, including angular, i would use them without the crop factor. If you need to change your whole park of FA lenses for the new HD coating optimized for the new sensors, there will be the real deal for Pentax, and if, they change the bayonet, I think Pentax would be betraying herself. If they change the bayonet and the entire system, I do not know if I will be interested to continue with the brand. Also we have to wait and see what makes Ricoh with his GXR system and his Leica M mount. Certainly, very interesting approach months .....

03-31-2013, 08:59 AM	#732
ElJamoquio Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 4,873	Originally posted by Pål Jensen The more control over DOF with FF is a myth with no basis in reality I don't mind having to change my aperture, I'm not sure why on earth you would be so hung up (for over a year?) on NOT being allowed to change yours.

03-31-2013, 09:00 AM	#733
zxaar Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: kobe/japan Posts: 510	Originally posted by Pål Jensen Thinner DOF does not equal more control; just thinner DOF. Thinner DOF means more control, that is from the fact that if you can shoot with thinner dof then you can also shoot deeper DOF by stopping down the same lens. This is what is meant by DOF control.

03-31-2013, 09:26 AM	#735
Pål Jensen Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Norway Photos: Albums Posts: 4,371	Originally posted by ElJamoquio I don't mind having to change my aperture, I'm not sure why on earth you would be so hung up (for over a year?) on NOT being allowed to change yours. And who says don't change aperture? I say exactly the opposite. You will see lots of large format style imges (but not as static!) nowadays due to APS (or smaller sensors). Particularly in travel photography. Images impossible to shoot on FF at that angle of view.