[Parry]

Can I have all that too?

Yup.

I have people for lifting and trucks. Don't worry about all that.

[Shanti]

BIF is easier in my experience... it's far easier to track with 'extra' space around the bird.

so if I use my DA300 on a Sony A7r with MF it will be easier to track then? I wonder how the Da300 does with 36MP,can the lens resolve them?

[ElJamoquio]

so if I use my DA300 on a Sony A7r with MF it will be easier to track then? I wonder how the Da300 does with 36MP,can the lens resolve them?

It will be easier to put them in the frame. With the combo you specify it'll be tough to manage AF, I think.

The pixel density is the same on the A7R and the K-5. The K-5 outresolved the lens slightly but not very much. You should be able to get ~3600 lp/ph, which is quite good.

[Paul MaudDib]

I am sorry to say, but I fear Hubble doesn't have that good of a high iso performance. I heard they are using incredibly long exposure times and an amazingly wide aperture diameter to cope with that.

Before I go to my drawing board to make your dream camera, please assure you can hand-hold a 1 ton camera for, say, 2 hours steadily without the smallest shake

It would be really really interesting to rebuild the sensor array with modern high-ISO sensors. And it would have definite spinoff benefits for larger format sensor chips. Assuming, of course, that they could survive the radiation.

If you want to make steady long-exposure while moving, you can get a gyro unit - same thing the Hubble uses. Or you can track moving stars with a tracking unit, which will need to be guided at that length.

---

Last edited by Paul MaudDib; 11-18-2013 at 11:35 PM.

[ElJamoquio]

I think the range of wavelengths for the Hubble is quite large... and the operating temperature, I'm guessing, is quite low (a benefit).

They replaced at least one of the sensors in ~2009 or so. I imagine they'll replace them again in the future... but quantum efficiency being what it is now, I'm not sure that it'll be all that much of an improvement. Maybe at some oddball wavelengths.

The sensor they replaced is about 60mm x 30mm, fun fact.

[patarok]

finally i would like to answer the question.
A full frame pentax is a holy grail, because a holy grail is a holy grail.

[gaweidert]

I think the range of wavelengths for the Hubble is quite large... and the operating temperature, I'm guessing, is quite low (a benefit).

They replaced at least one of the sensors in ~2009 or so. I imagine they'll replace them again in the future... but quantum efficiency being what it is now, I'm not sure that it'll be all that much of an improvement. Maybe at some oddball wavelengths.

The sensor they replaced is about 60mm x 30mm, fun fact.

The last mission to Hubble was in 2009. We no longer have the capability to service the unit since the Space Shuttle is now a defunct program. In fact, at the moment we do not even have a ship capable of putting people in orbit. A newer telescope is in the works. It is the James Webb Telescope. It will have a 6 meter segmented mirror. It is currently scheduled for launch in 2018.

[KeesM]

Well, you could spend a lot of time reading through all the threads and posts here and elsewhere, but, seeing you've asked, the answers are, in no particular order:

1. Nostalgia for the 35mm film frame size (or era);
2. Desire for better low light noise performance;
3. Desire to keep up with the Big Two;
4. Need for a bigger and brighter optical viewfinder; and
5. Desire to use all the available image circle from their collection of FA and earlier Pentax-mount lenses.

There are probably others, but my principal reasons for wanting one are mainly 4 and 5.

PS: I don't complain about the lack of a "full frame" Pentax, but I'm content to wait for one to appear, as many of us think will be inevitable. In the meantime, I'll be quite happy to consider their next APS-C DSLR, post the K-5II/s.

Yes, those are all good reasons especially the last point on being able to use the old lenses. Also, the larger sensor size should have greater noise immunity compared to the smaller apsc format, which is a plus in low light. Have a friend with a Nikon FF and the quality is impressive. He can't go back to the smaller format.

[ElJamoquio]

The last mission to Hubble was in 2009. We no longer have the capability to service the unit since the Space Shuttle is now a defunct program. In fact, at the moment we do not even have a ship capable of putting people in orbit. A newer telescope is in the works. It is the James Webb Telescope. It will have a 6 meter segmented mirror. It is currently scheduled for launch in 2018.

I liked the 'overwhelmingly large telescope' name better myself.

[HoustonBob]

APSC - at the same pixel count - requires lenses that are higher resolution than full frame; the smaller sensor requires more lines per mm out of a lens to get the same resolution in the final image. Another way of looking at this is that a full frame takes advantage of lines of resolution from full frame lenses that are being thrown away by APSC. The bottom line: a full frame sensor has the potential of producing higher resolution images with film era lenses than APSC can achieve. While I am happy with the images my K3 is producing with my film era lenses I am going to be even happier with what the K2(?) will produce with them. Besides, I am going to love being able to put my 12-24mm Full Frame Sigma on a digital camera and getting that full 12mm wide angle view.

[plooksta]

I think it's all a bit anachronistic now. 10 years ago a Pentax FF would have been very exciting. I'm sure it will be a superb camera, but honestly, is it going to produce images noticeably better than the K-3 ii? Noise is so well controlled now. It also seems like the market is going towards mirror less and smaller now with big flippy screens and EVFs. I see that FF will have two major advantages: bigger optical finder and better wide angle options.
Pentax' greatest strength is the 645s IMO. If you want ultimate iQ, that's where to go, not FF.

[Class A]

I think it's all a bit anachronistic now.... Noise is so well controlled now.

Please have a look at the "The true reasons for a full frame camera" article and you'll see that FF still makes sense.

If you want ultimate iQ, that's [645] where to go, not FF.

The sensor size difference between APS-C and FF is bigger than that between FF and digital MF (645). Also, digital MF is in an entirely different price league.

Most importantly, though, what if one wants the ultimate IQ with the lenses one already has?

[plooksta]

Please have a look at the "The true reasons for a full frame camera" article and you'll see that FF still makes sense.


The sensor size difference between APS-C and FF is bigger than that between FF and digital MF (645). Also, digital MF is in an entirely different price league.

Most importantly, though, what if one wants the ultimate IQ with the lenses one already has?

My point is mainly that the FF advantage has been significantly squeezed over the last ten years, to the point where, in ordinary use, you aren't going to see a major difference between equivalent 24MP APS-C sensors' and 24MP FF sensors' images. The 645 sensor is 1.7X the FF size and FF is 2.3X the APS-C size. The 645 sensor is however 3.8X the APS-C sensor size. That is a significant difference, one I'd def get excited about (especially when I see the gorgeosity coming out of the 645Ds and Zs). It is currently out of my budget though, but I do see masses of old manual 645 lenses on the market for relatively peanuts. We will see what price the FF camera comes in at, but I'd wager you could pay as much for it, with some high quality lenses as you would for a 645 and some used manual lenses.

Something to get even more excited about would be a full size 645 sensor. I don't know if Pentax will do that eventually. I guess one day it will come.

[Class A]

My point is mainly that the FF advantage has been significantly squeezed over the last ten years, to the point where, in ordinary use, you aren't going to see a major difference between equivalent 24MP APS-C sensors' and 24MP FF sensors' images.

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".

[Clavius]

Biggest advantage of FF for me was the fov. I have my own modest studio. Modest in size. It was built in the 35mm film era. APS-C made it to small. APS-C often dictates the use of 35mm because of it. Needless to say, being able to use 50mm and even 85mm for portraits was quite an improvement. And, even though I am currently using the A7R & Zeiss lenses, still a much cheaper solution then rebuilding my studio.

Frankly, to do my work, all I needed was the bigger sensor for the least cost as possible. All the other fancy modern features like blazing AF, ever increasing ISO performance, WR, etc, can be stolen for all I care. I only upgraded from 5D to A7r because my 5D was falling apart and the refurbished A7r was a total steal. (5D had ~475000 actuations!) So, for my professional work it certainly doesn't need "pitching it as a high-end model to professionals at a higher price point than what Pentaxians are used to". I do this work to make a buck, not to get rid of it as quickly as possible.