Would you buy a Pentax Full Frame DSLR?

normhead · 05-16-2013, 08:44 AM

Originally posted by Ayefaye

I would sell my granny for a Pentax full frame camera.

I'm telling your granny on you. We'll see who gets sold for what.

Last edited by normhead; 05-16-2013 at 09:14 AM.

Ayefaye · 05-16-2013, 09:04 AM

Originally posted by normhead

I'm telling your granny one you. We'll see who gets sold for what.

Noooo! We want this to be a quite transaction. We won't need to tell her until I have the camera!

**carlwood** · 05-16-2013, 11:09 PM

I would certainly buy a Pentax FF (or 2), l but it would have to be a serious camera and not something gimmicky. Pentax have a long history of innovation with 35mm. stills cameras, and they have produced a long line of really good lenses in their day (a fact that many may not realise) and I see no reason why they can't do it again with a FF DSLR. But as I said, it has to be seriouly good because we've all waited a long, long time and if it's not good then I can just hear us all saying "is that it?" and off we go to Canon or Nikon or whatever - I'm sure many of us think about doing this from time to time. I have a heap of lenses just waiting for that FF. Please hurry Pentax, but make sure you get it right!!!

JoeMo · 05-17-2013, 12:12 AM

All things being equal to the current line and If money was no object, I would put down my deposit right now for the first one off the line. I don't care if they are giving the current number of pixels more wiggle-room or putting more pixels on that larger sensor. It just seems like a good idea.

badsykes · 05-17-2013, 03:11 AM

Ok... The review of the Nikon D5200 was a blast for me today...Take a look at high ISO samples..For me with this kind of performance the advantage of FF is erased.....ISO 8000, ISO 9000 and 10000 pics...Even the 25600 is usable with a little cleaning.... this 24mp APS-C + WR + "-3EV" low light AF + Pentax brand + 1200$ body price = sold me ... The only reason i had gone with FF was ISO capability ...Now i seriously consider the FF just a gimick or a very specialized tool..I am not paying 2000$+ on FF body..

Nikon D5200 Review Samples: dpreview review samples: Galleries: Digital Photography Review

Edvinas · 05-20-2013, 01:08 AM

Originally posted by badsykes

Ok... The review of the Nikon D5200 was a blast for me today...Take a look at high ISO samples..For me with this kind of performance the advantage of FF is erased.....

Compare those samples to D600 (24Mpix FF sensor) and you will see that D600 is one f-stop better.

normhead · 05-20-2013, 04:34 AM

hmmmm, you aroused my curiosity.... images from teh Imaging Review test charts..

The D5200 compared to the D600... both at their highest ISO, the 5200 doesn't stack up very well compared to theD600

IN fact, the D5200 doesn't stack up very well compared to the K5IIs

Now compare the K-5IIs to the D600. I'm not sure what you're getting with the D600 myself... there might be something there, but it isn't very much.

There in is why it's always better to examine images, as opposed to theoretical assumptions.

normhead · 05-20-2013, 04:36 AM

That should have been thier lowest ISO not highest.

jogiba · 05-20-2013, 04:54 AM

Originally posted by badsykes

Ok... The review of the Nikon D5200 was a blast for me today...Take a look at high ISO samples..For me with this kind of performance the advantage of FF is erased.....ISO 8000, ISO 9000 and 10000 pics...Even the 25600 is usable with a little cleaning.... this 24mp APS-C + WR + "-3EV" low light AF + Pentax brand + 1200$ body price = sold me ... The only reason i had gone with FF was ISO capability ...Now i seriously consider the FF just a gimick or a very specialized tool..I am not paying 2000$+ on FF body..

Nikon D5200 Review Samples: dpreview review samples: Galleries: Digital Photography Review

Right, larger sensors are just a gimmick.

rawr · 05-20-2013, 07:34 AM

Well if you look at the actual DxO charts that plot sensor performance - eg the DR or SNR charts - sometimes the lines of a D600 and a K-5 or D7000 bump along pretty close to each other. Eg at the critical ISO's like 3200 or 6400, APS-C SNR gets surprisingly close to FF territory. Only at low-ISO's is the gulf wider, which is where the K-5 has no problems anyhow.

ElJamoquio · 05-20-2013, 07:37 AM

Originally posted by normhead

I'm not sure what you're getting with the D600 myself... there might be something there, but it isn't very much.

You're zoomed out an extra 50% or so on your Pentax pic. Do the comparison at the same magnification at ISO 1600 or so and you'll see it.

ElJamoquio · 05-20-2013, 07:39 AM

Originally posted by rawr

Well if you look at the actual DxO charts that plot sensor performance - eg the DR or SNR charts - sometimes the lines of a D600 and a K-5 or D7000 bump along pretty close to each other.

Those numbers look pretty far apart to me, unless you're considering the ISO ~25600 dot.

It's a logarithmic scale, so 6 dB is about 2x. Of course this means nothing because when you shoot for the same DOF the numbers will all be line-on-line, with the exception of the larger sensors having an even-better 'ISO 50' and/or 'ISO 25'.

normhead · 05-20-2013, 08:02 AM

Originally posted by ElJamoquio

You're zoomed out an extra 50% or so on your Pentax pic. Do the comparison at the same magnification at ISO 1600 or so and you'll see it.

Have you done this comparison? I'm always a bit peeved, when I do something and someone tells me to do something different. Because I do a bit or work for the cause, doesn't mean I'm volunteering to do what every one thinks I should have done. If you think it means something to do it that way, you should do it.

Shooting at anything other than your base ISO you are giving up dynamic range and increasing noise. For me, what you can do with the best image achievable is what is important. Which degraded image is better is less important to me. Looking at the charts at Imaging Resource, I'm guessing the K-5 IIs is tested at about 2600 lw/ph, while the D600 tests out at about 3000. That's about a 13% increase in resolution..the D600 should look better, I suspect that at values like 2600 lw/ph and 3000 lw/ph, the ability of the human eye to discern such fine differences is being taxed. The D600 may have slightly more detail, but you have to look really hard to see it, and depending on whether or not there is detail the right size to be defined, may be irreverent to your pictures.

This is in clear contrast to the D800, that absolutely shines next to every camera tested with the exception of the 645D.

rawr · 05-20-2013, 09:20 AM

Originally posted by ElJamoquio

It's a logarithmic scale, so 6 dB is about 2x.

??? Where do you see 6db of difference? - at any ISO. The largest I could see was about 5, but most of the time along the scale the difference is about 3-4db - eg at 3200, 6400 ISO etc.

Also one has to note the sometimes sizable discrepancies between measured ISO and claimed manufacturers ISO. The K-5's actual ISO tracks measured ISO pretty closely - eg 1600 manuf ISO equals 1417 measured ISO - a 10% variation. But the FF's in this chart both generally claim higher ISO's but are really running their sensors at much lower ISO's - eg the 6D says it is running 1600 but is really tuned to 1210 ISO, a variation of 25% from what it says on the dial. This makes it hard to assess what the 'real' SNR measurement spread between these FF bodies and the K-5 might be, since the FF's here are faking their ISO's.

badsykes · 05-20-2013, 09:36 AM

I don't think everyone saw the ultimate point of my Nikon post... You guys keep in mind that you compare an entry level DSLR with Semi pro and PRO bodies that hover in prices around 4 digits...Of course D600 is better but looking at the D5200 ISO 9000 and 1000 real world pictures i think that achievement is awesome..The D600 is 2100$ on B&H and D5200 is 800$ ... So only one stop for more than a half money ...Sorry but i am not buying it..Of course the D600 have other options and stuff but for my needs the performance of D5200 in low iso is more than sufficient..
So maybe we should bring the big dog in the show D7100 ... Same D5200 sensor but without filter..

Nikon D7100 In-Depth Review: Digital Photography Review

For some reason the K5 IIs at 6400 still performs better in my untrained eyes but from all 3 cameras the D5200 is the value winner...Of course i still want a Pentax body and WR...If i have to buy a DSRL now i will go with K5 IIS..In my country the D7100 and K5 IIs have the same prices...

View Poll Results: Would you buy a Pentax Full Frame DSLR?
Yes	152	77.95%
No	43	22.05%
Voters: 195. You may not vote on this poll

05-20-2013, 04:54 AM	#219
jogiba Banned Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Millstone,NJ Posts: 6,491	Originally posted by badsykes Ok... The review of the Nikon D5200 was a blast for me today...Take a look at high ISO samples..For me with this kind of performance the advantage of FF is erased.....ISO 8000, ISO 9000 and 10000 pics...Even the 25600 is usable with a little cleaning.... this 24mp APS-C + WR + "-3EV" low light AF + Pentax brand + 1200$ body price = sold me ... The only reason i had gone with FF was ISO capability ...Now i seriously consider the FF just a gimick or a very specialized tool..I am not paying 2000$+ on FF body.. Nikon D5200 Review Samples: dpreview review samples: Galleries: Digital Photography Review Right, larger sensors are just a gimmick. Last edited by jogiba; 05-20-2013 at 05:02 AM.

05-20-2013, 07:34 AM	#220
rawr Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 11,913	Well if you look at the actual DxO charts that plot sensor performance - eg the DR or SNR charts - sometimes the lines of a D600 and a K-5 or D7000 bump along pretty close to each other. Eg at the critical ISO's like 3200 or 6400, APS-C SNR gets surprisingly close to FF territory. Only at low-ISO's is the gulf wider, which is where the K-5 has no problems anyhow. Attached Images

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Would you buy a Pentax phone?	junyo	Pentax News and Rumors	68	06-03-2013 10:46 AM
Pentax full frame fisheye for the 645D...would you buy one?	slackercruster	Pentax Medium Format	7	06-19-2012 07:01 AM
Would you buy a Pentax Fisheye P&S?	andy_g	Pentax Compact Cameras	18	11-30-2011 12:44 PM
What would you buy? A Full Frame Pentax or an EVIL Pentax?	johnmflores	Pentax DSLR Discussion	104	07-29-2010 07:55 PM
Would you buy a FF Pentax?	bymy141	Pentax DSLR Discussion	52	04-14-2008 09:50 PM

05-16-2013, 08:44 AM	#211
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451	Originally posted by Ayefaye I would sell my granny for a Pentax full frame camera. I'm telling your granny on you. We'll see who gets sold for what. Last edited by normhead; 05-16-2013 at 09:14 AM.

05-16-2013, 09:04 AM	#212
Ayefaye Inactive Account Join Date: Oct 2012 Location: Northumberland, England Photos: Albums Posts: 8	Originally posted by normhead I'm telling your granny one you. We'll see who gets sold for what. Noooo! We want this to be a quite transaction. We won't need to tell her until I have the camera!

05-16-2013, 11:09 PM	#213
carlwood Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2011 Location: Blue Mountains, Australia Posts: 121	I would certainly buy a Pentax FF (or 2), l but it would have to be a serious camera and not something gimmicky. Pentax have a long history of innovation with 35mm. stills cameras, and they have produced a long line of really good lenses in their day (a fact that many may not realise) and I see no reason why they can't do it again with a FF DSLR. But as I said, it has to be seriouly good because we've all waited a long, long time and if it's not good then I can just hear us all saying "is that it?" and off we go to Canon or Nikon or whatever - I'm sure many of us think about doing this from time to time. I have a heap of lenses just waiting for that FF. Please hurry Pentax, but make sure you get it right!!!

05-17-2013, 12:12 AM	#214
JoeMo New Member Join Date: Feb 2013 Location: Missouri Posts: 17	All things being equal to the current line and If money was no object, I would put down my deposit right now for the first one off the line. I don't care if they are giving the current number of pixels more wiggle-room or putting more pixels on that larger sensor. It just seems like a good idea.

05-17-2013, 03:11 AM	#215
badsykes Forum Member Join Date: Mar 2013 Photos: Albums Posts: 61	Ok... The review of the Nikon D5200 was a blast for me today...Take a look at high ISO samples..For me with this kind of performance the advantage of FF is erased.....ISO 8000, ISO 9000 and 10000 pics...Even the 25600 is usable with a little cleaning.... this 24mp APS-C + WR + "-3EV" low light AF + Pentax brand + 1200$ body price = sold me ... The only reason i had gone with FF was ISO capability ...Now i seriously consider the FF just a gimick or a very specialized tool..I am not paying 2000$+ on FF body.. Nikon D5200 Review Samples: dpreview review samples: Galleries: Digital Photography Review

05-20-2013, 01:08 AM	#216
Edvinas Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Kaunas Posts: 1,458	Originally posted by badsykes Ok... The review of the Nikon D5200 was a blast for me today...Take a look at high ISO samples..For me with this kind of performance the advantage of FF is erased..... Compare those samples to D600 (24Mpix FF sensor) and you will see that D600 is one f-stop better.

05-20-2013, 04:34 AM	#217
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451	hmmmm, you aroused my curiosity.... images from teh Imaging Review test charts.. The D5200 compared to the D600... both at their highest ISO, the 5200 doesn't stack up very well compared to theD600 IN fact, the D5200 doesn't stack up very well compared to the K5IIs Now compare the K-5IIs to the D600. I'm not sure what you're getting with the D600 myself... there might be something there, but it isn't very much. There in is why it's always better to examine images, as opposed to theoretical assumptions.

05-20-2013, 04:36 AM	#218
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451	That should have been thier lowest ISO not highest.

05-20-2013, 07:37 AM	#221
ElJamoquio Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 4,873	Originally posted by normhead I'm not sure what you're getting with the D600 myself... there might be something there, but it isn't very much. You're zoomed out an extra 50% or so on your Pentax pic. Do the comparison at the same magnification at ISO 1600 or so and you'll see it.

05-20-2013, 07:39 AM	#222
ElJamoquio Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 4,873	Originally posted by rawr Well if you look at the actual DxO charts that plot sensor performance - eg the DR or SNR charts - sometimes the lines of a D600 and a K-5 or D7000 bump along pretty close to each other. Those numbers look pretty far apart to me, unless you're considering the ISO ~25600 dot. It's a logarithmic scale, so 6 dB is about 2x. Of course this means nothing because when you shoot for the same DOF the numbers will all be line-on-line, with the exception of the larger sensors having an even-better 'ISO 50' and/or 'ISO 25'.

05-20-2013, 08:02 AM	#223
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451	Originally posted by ElJamoquio You're zoomed out an extra 50% or so on your Pentax pic. Do the comparison at the same magnification at ISO 1600 or so and you'll see it. Have you done this comparison? I'm always a bit peeved, when I do something and someone tells me to do something different. Because I do a bit or work for the cause, doesn't mean I'm volunteering to do what every one thinks I should have done. If you think it means something to do it that way, you should do it. Shooting at anything other than your base ISO you are giving up dynamic range and increasing noise. For me, what you can do with the best image achievable is what is important. Which degraded image is better is less important to me. Looking at the charts at Imaging Resource, I'm guessing the K-5 IIs is tested at about 2600 lw/ph, while the D600 tests out at about 3000. That's about a 13% increase in resolution..the D600 should look better, I suspect that at values like 2600 lw/ph and 3000 lw/ph, the ability of the human eye to discern such fine differences is being taxed. The D600 may have slightly more detail, but you have to look really hard to see it, and depending on whether or not there is detail the right size to be defined, may be irreverent to your pictures. This is in clear contrast to the D800, that absolutely shines next to every camera tested with the exception of the 645D.

05-20-2013, 09:20 AM	#224
rawr Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 11,913	Originally posted by ElJamoquio It's a logarithmic scale, so 6 dB is about 2x. ??? Where do you see 6db of difference? - at any ISO. The largest I could see was about 5, but most of the time along the scale the difference is about 3-4db - eg at 3200, 6400 ISO etc. Also one has to note the sometimes sizable discrepancies between measured ISO and claimed manufacturers ISO. The K-5's actual ISO tracks measured ISO pretty closely - eg 1600 manuf ISO equals 1417 measured ISO - a 10% variation. But the FF's in this chart both generally claim higher ISO's but are really running their sensors at much lower ISO's - eg the 6D says it is running 1600 but is really tuned to 1210 ISO, a variation of 25% from what it says on the dial. This makes it hard to assess what the 'real' SNR measurement spread between these FF bodies and the K-5 might be, since the FF's here are faking their ISO's.

05-20-2013, 09:36 AM	#225
badsykes Forum Member Join Date: Mar 2013 Photos: Albums Posts: 61	I don't think everyone saw the ultimate point of my Nikon post... You guys keep in mind that you compare an entry level DSLR with Semi pro and PRO bodies that hover in prices around 4 digits...Of course D600 is better but looking at the D5200 ISO 9000 and 1000 real world pictures i think that achievement is awesome..The D600 is 2100$ on B&H and D5200 is 800$ ... So only one stop for more than a half money ...Sorry but i am not buying it..Of course the D600 have other options and stuff but for my needs the performance of D5200 in low iso is more than sufficient.. So maybe we should bring the big dog in the show D7100 ... Same D5200 sensor but without filter.. Nikon D7100 In-Depth Review: Digital Photography Review For some reason the K5 IIs at 6400 still performs better in my untrained eyes but from all 3 cameras the D5200 is the value winner...Of course i still want a Pentax body and WR...If i have to buy a DSRL now i will go with K5 IIS..In my country the D7100 and K5 IIs have the same prices...