[Kunzite]

All right, they're not lying, they're just using an "arbitrarily"-chosen EI so that it will put them in a better light, making a direct comparison with the competition misleading. In other words, they're lying

[ElJamoquio]

Fuji isn't lying about anything. Don't be a drama queen. There is nothing wrong with their image quality.

I disagree completely. They lied about their ISO so that less informed customers would think they had better performance than Pentax when really they had much worse performance.

Fuji's probably better than Enron, sure.

The personal attack is a nice touch.

[Ian Stuart Forsyth]

If you read the article, you'd realise that your point doesn't stand.

But it's OK, I don't want to start a debate.

Regarding 645, many people don't need that kind of performance, but would appreciate to use the FF lenses they have to their full potential. So it is definitely not a case of "either go all the way or don't at all".

The benefit of the 24mp aspc sensor that its evolutionary point right now it’s at the Goldilocks resolution, just enough resolution that for the most part does not need the use of a AA filter. This is due the resolution is so demanding on the lens that the lower lp/ph acts as a AA filters. FF has reached this goldilocks also somewhere between 36-50 mp that we can do without the AA filter. When we see the first 36mp apsc it will not have the lp/ph to compete with FF camera without some very expensive lenses.

[Winder]

I disagree completely. They lied about their ISO so that less informed customers would think they had better performance than Pentax when really they had much worse performance.

Fuji's probably better than Enron, sure.

The personal attack is a nice touch.

Its not a personal attack. I'm just saying you are over reacting. Having friends who shot with Fuji (one is a former Pentax user), they have very comparable IQ. There are quite a few Fuji shooters who were using Pentax, and they will all tell you that the IQ is excellent.

---------- Post added 07-17-15 at 08:12 AM ----------

The benefit of the 24mp aspc sensor that its evolutionary point right now it’s at the Goldilocks resolution, just enough resolution that for the most part does not need the use of a AA filter. This is due the resolution is so demanding on the lens that the lower lp/ph acts as a AA filters. FF has reached this goldilocks also somewhere between 36-50 mp that we can do without the AA filter. When we see the first 36mp apsc it will not have the lp/ph to compete with FF camera without some very expensive lenses.

I would like to see better color depth out of the 24MP APS-C sensor. I don't think the K-3 generation of APS-C sensor is at the "Goldilocks" stage.

[jsherman999]

i have just been very impressed by the 67 shots i have seen in the medium format section of the forum. .

+1



.

[Ian Stuart Forsyth]

Its not a personal attack. I'm just saying you are over reacting. Having friends who shot with Fuji (one is a former Pentax user), they have very comparable IQ. There are quite a few Fuji shooters who were using Pentax, and they will all tell you that the IQ is excellent.

---------- Post added 07-17-15 at 08:12 AM ----------



I would like to see better color depth out of the 24MP APS-C sensor. I don't think the K-3 generation of APS-C sensor is at the "Goldilocks" stage.

With regard to resolution ( with any sensors until we can record all photons with no read noise then it would hit the goldilocks)

[gullwing]

Okay. Haven't read anything beyond the first few posts here, but here I go.

I have a K3. It's an amazing camera. Everything Pentax has made before this one (I've owned a K100, K20, K7, K5, and now the K3) had minor things that needed to be improved in order to make me think, yes, this is an amazing camera.

The K3 is compact (for a DSLR), has superb features and ergonomics, and has incredible image quality (dependent partly on lens quality and shooter skill, of course..).

I have recently been printing quite a lot of my recent photos to 24'x18' size, and they look excellent. Still super sharp and detailed at that size. However, I did get a couple of shots from my K20 printed to the same size, and they weren't sharp or detailed. That might be partly the lenses used and my skill level at the time, but still, the camera had a part to play.

So basically what I am saying is that the K3 can make beautiful prints up to the size I mentioned. Seriously, what more to most people need or want? If you want more than that, you're verging on medium or large format territory (in which Pentax has been a player, I might add).

When the FF Pentax comes out, I will be reading all reviews obsessively and perhaps, possibly, after a year I might consider getting one once the price has dropped considerably. But even then, I think the K3 is a camera that Pentax is going to have to work hard to beat. It's near enough perfect.

This attitude of mine might also stem from the fact that I absolutely love my Q7. Quite often I find myself using that rather than my K3, because for many things, pure image quality is not what photography is all about.

Perhaps that's what the full frame obsessives (of all brand affiliations) need to remember: pixel peeping is, in many cases, not what it's all about.. (Especially when, as has been pointed out, pretty much all digital cameras now are of excellent quality.)

[Fenwoodian]

I print large and sell my large prints. Printed at the same size, I'll sell more large prints taken with a full frame than I would if that same image were taken with a DX crop frame camera. Same goes for medium format digital. Big files enable printing at higher DPI with less (if any) digital enlarging using software that distorts the image.

I also have a website with over 600 of my images on it. The largest size that I post on my website is 515 pixels in the horizontal dimension. For such small image files full frame is overkill. However, I want full frame so that my better images can be both posted on the website and printed large for sale.