Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
01-14-2014, 01:56 AM   #106
Pentaxian
Clavius's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: De Klundert
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 4,115
QuoteOriginally posted by Uluru Quote
What exact benefit do such a product solve? Or is it a solution just waiting for a problem?
What exact problem does a Volkswagen Golf with a 1.8 liter engine have over a 1.6 liter solve? Some won't even notice the difference, others will love having the choice of the bigger engine. 2 liter diesel engine? Turbo-diesel? SDI? Apparently, the consumers love having all those choices.


QuoteOriginally posted by Uluru Quote
Are we come to the point in photography when we understand that we have gone far over the 99.9999% of our everyday needs, and are now theorising on the quantum level of light performance and ISO sensitivity that is suddenly a "climacteric factor" for the remaining 0.0001%?
I believe we are.
To you maybe. Everyday needs are covered by cellphones and point and shoots. Then why do DSLRs even exist then? Others want more. To others extra resolution and sensor size simply means lots of extra elbow-room during PP. Or more possibility for cropping in PP. Just a little bit extra in performance in dynamic range, a little extra light, little extra ISO performance. All are more then welcome to some. Personally I desired FF just for the extra wide-angle performance alone.


QuoteOriginally posted by Uluru Quote
And it is not art of photography anymore. It is the end of it. It's theoretical physics and science wrapped inside the lassitude of existence, that finds its way into photography concerns by the same who didn't know what is the art of photography in the first place.
And the everyday-use you just mentioned is art, you mean? Photography has always been intertwined with science and technology. Or do you think light infuencing the silveroxides is not science? (Admitted, having the picture appear on the paper in the dark room still does seem like magic.) And do you think no knowledge about physics is required to design our lenses? We even need to understand just a little more then average about physics to be able to use our equipment.

01-14-2014, 06:01 AM   #107
Site Supporter




Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,892
QuoteOriginally posted by Clavius Quote
Photography has always been intertwined with science and technology.
As a fun aside, the inventors of the CCD sensor won the Nobel prize.
01-14-2014, 07:57 AM   #108
Pentaxian
jsherman999's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,228
In the future...

QuoteOriginally posted by Uluru Quote
Performance in what exactly? I am not sure if there has ever been such a ludicrous race towards a certain technical format – and disregarding everything else. How about car manufacturers suddenly say "Hi there folks, the future of cars facilitates motors of 5 litres only. And that is what we'll do from now on. Small cars? Sorry, we don't do them anymore."

It is not only stupid, but is highly irrational, and downright rude. Many people are disgusted by this preposterous FF race and I am certainly one of them. I am not disgusted by the format itself, but the implications of the uneducated that all of a sudden the FF is the measure of photography. It is not — the way it is phrased it is solely a marketing message of the two companies who want to exterminate all innovation inside the photography business.

A DSLR design does not command any specific sensor size. It is the form tied to the operation of human eyes and hands, that may accept this or that sensor format — be it APS-C, APS-H, FF or a MF, or whatever else.

Insisting on FF as "the solution" is irrational.
What's irrational about the following?

1) Running the gamut from phone camera up to Medium Format, you'll have more choices than before

2) Smaller sensors will still be available in several body types and price tiers

3) Very small-sensored P&S's will disappear (phone cameras wipe them out.)

4) FF will be the domain of mid to upper end MILC and DSLR, and will be priced in a continuum at the same levels upper-end aps-c DSLR was before.

Getting more choice and more performance for the same amount of money - why the objection?

EDIT: I can see an objection if you feel Pentax should stick to aps-c DSLR only, because that's what you bought lenses for - but that's probably not going to sustain Pentax very long, more than a decade further. It may be non-viable in half that time.

.
01-14-2014, 08:06 AM   #109
Pentaxian
jsherman999's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,228
Bigger sensor = we become robots

QuoteOriginally posted by Uluru Quote
And it is not art of photography anymore. It is the end of it. It's theoretical physics and science wrapped inside the lassitude of existence, that finds its way into photography concerns by the same who didn't know what is the art of photography in the first place.

You realize that you're shooting on the back of theoretical physics (turned practical engineering) right now, right? Your aps-c DSLR is not a steam-powered clockwork device.





Moving up a sensor size doesn't kill your art, Uluru

.


Last edited by jsherman999; 01-14-2014 at 08:39 AM.
01-14-2014, 09:16 AM   #110
Senior Member
Paul MaudDib's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Michigan
Posts: 292
QuoteOriginally posted by Uluru Quote
Performance in what exactly? I am not sure if there has ever been such a ludicrous race towards a certain technical format – and disregarding everything else. How about car manufacturers suddenly say "Hi there folks, the future of cars facilitates motors of 5 litres only. And that is what we'll do from now on. Small cars? Sorry, we don't do them anymore."

It is not only stupid, but is highly irrational, and downright rude. Many people are disgusted by this preposterous FF race and I am certainly one of them. I am not disgusted by the format itself, but the implications of the uneducated that all of a sudden the FF is the measure of photography. It is not — the way it is phrased it is solely a marketing message of the two companies who want to exterminate all innovation inside the photography business.

A DSLR design does not command any specific sensor size. It is the form tied to the operation of human eyes and hands, that may accept this or that sensor format — be it APS-C, APS-H, FF or a MF, or whatever else.

Insisting on FF as "the solution" is irrational.
This post as a whole is just hilariously persecuted. Yes, I've seen Canon/Nikon's evil to-do list, and I can confirm the following priorities of theirs: destroy art as we know it, extinguish all formats smaller than full frame, kill Uluru's dog.

Believe it or not there used to be a time when there was more than one common sensor size. In the film days you could get anything from subminiature on 8mm film all the way up to ultra-large format (bigger than 8x10). That is something we've lost on digital, and are only just barely beginning to get back as the variety of sensors available increases (1/x, M4/3, APS-C, FF, MF digital). FF will take a while to even make a serious dent in APS-C's market share, and even then APS-C not having its current dominant 90+% market share isn't going to "destroy art" or whatever other hysterics you're throwing.

Good lord.

Last edited by Paul MaudDib; 01-14-2014 at 09:26 AM.
01-14-2014, 09:41 AM   #111
Banned




Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Millstone,NJ
Posts: 6,491
QuoteOriginally posted by Uluru Quote
Performance in what exactly? I am not sure if there has ever been such a ludicrous race towards a certain technical format and disregarding everything else. How about car manufacturers suddenly say "Hi there folks, the future of cars facilitates motors of 5 litres only. And that is what we'll do from now on. Small cars? Sorry, we don't do them anymore."

It is not only stupid, but is highly irrational, and downright rude. Many people are disgusted by this preposterous FF race and I am certainly one of them. I am not disgusted by the format itself, but the implications of the uneducated that all of a sudden the FF is the measure of photography. It is not the way it is phrased it is solely a marketing message of the two companies who want to exterminate all innovation inside the photography business.

A DSLR design does not command any specific sensor size. It is the form tied to the operation of human eyes and hands, that may accept this or that sensor format be it APS-C, APS-H, FF or a MF, or whatever else.

Insisting on FF as "the solution" is irrational.
Why is it that FF is the devil but the 645D is a saint ?
01-14-2014, 09:42 AM   #112
Pentaxian
mecrox's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Oxford, UK
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,912
Hmmn, well here am I hesitating over trading my K5 for a K3 or trading in the whole shebang, Limiteds and all, for a D610 and some FF lenses. The K3 is clearly an excellent camera, but is it wise to lock myself into APS-C-only stuff for another 3-5 years ... Hmmn ... not sure about that one. It's unlikely I'm the only person who is having a few doubts about all this, so I guess FF is already impinging on high-end APS-C and depressing those sales figures. And it's likely that the pressure will only grow as others, like Sony, start to get their act together. Decisions ... Hmmn ... the imp of temptation, if any, is on your own shoulder, sir, and not in Tokyo ...
01-14-2014, 09:51 AM   #113
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Southern Indiana
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 14,957
QuoteOriginally posted by Paul MaudDib Quote
This post as a whole is just hilariously persecuted. Yes, I've seen Canon/Nikon's evil to-do list, and I can confirm the following priorities of theirs: destroy art as we know it, extinguish all formats smaller than full frame, kill Uluru's dog.

Believe it or not there used to be a time when there was more than one common sensor size. In the film days you could get anything from subminiature on 8mm film all the way up to ultra-large format (bigger than 8x10). That is something we've lost on digital, and are only just barely beginning to get back as the variety of sensors available increases (1/x, M4/3, APS-C, FF, MF digital). FF will take a while to even make a serious dent in APS-C's market share, and even then APS-C not having its current dominant 90+% market share isn't going to "destroy art" or whatever other hysterics you're throwing.

Good lord.
But 35mm film was dominant for a very long time. The question in my mind is in the long run, what sensor size will have the staying power of 35mm film -- cheap enough to be bought by the masses, good enough quality to print to 8 by 10 size. 35mm did not "win out" for the majority of people because it was the best. Far from it. Anyone who wanted real quality would gravitate to larger format films.

I honestly don't know what the future holds. Certainly the heads of Nikon/Canon/Ricoh have no idea either, they only know that they want to make money in whatever direction the market heads.

01-14-2014, 01:41 PM   #114
Senior Member
Paul MaudDib's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Michigan
Posts: 292
QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
But 35mm film was dominant for a very long time. The question in my mind is in the long run, what sensor size will have the staying power of 35mm film -- cheap enough to be bought by the masses, good enough quality to print to 8 by 10 size. 35mm did not "win out" for the majority of people because it was the best. Far from it. Anyone who wanted real quality would gravitate to larger format films.
I don't think the "dominant" position of 35mm film really existed to the extent you claim it did. There have always been a wide variety of formats in use. I'd phrase the situation like this: 35mm maintained a marginal position until the 50s and 60s, because that small a negative needed high-quality gear that still had not become mature (it existed in the high-end, Leicas and Contaxes, but not in consumer gear). Consumers either shot on 116, 120/620, or 127 type medium formats. Professionals had nicer MF cameras (Rolleis, Ikontas, etc) or shot large format. In the 50s and 60s 35mm made big inroads in consumer gear, but pros kept using MF/LF for most/many uses up until the digital age, and plenty of amateurs still used folders or TLRs or what have you. Yes, in travel or certain photojournalism niches, 35mm saw use, but it would be pretty abnormal for a photographer to show up to your wedding with a 35mm camera, or shoot landscapes for a magazine on it.

It depends on how you look at dominance. If we ignore 2/3s of the existence of photography, and only look at certain segments of the market yes, 35mm was dominant. But there were many more people using many, many, many more formats then we have today.

Also, one of the huge reasons for eventually standardizing on 35mm was availability, rather than pure cost/quality. 35mm film was movie film, and a still photographer could spend a year going through what a cinematographer shoots in one minute. Cine film has always been a huge force behind 35mm, and I believe it's still the majority of film stock produced.

It's a question of cost vs quality, sure, but people don't approach that decision with the cold rationality of a computer. If a small jump in cost grants you a big jump in quality or future expandability (I'm thinking of the Pentax Q here) a lot of people will make that jump even if they "don't need" the quality at the current minute. No one likes working with a piece of crap that barely meets their current needs let alone the future. If it comes down to the point where a high-quality APS-C is about the same price as an entry-level FF, people may bite the bullet and buy for the future.

Last edited by Paul MaudDib; 01-14-2014 at 01:53 PM.
01-14-2014, 02:39 PM   #115
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Southern Indiana
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 14,957
QuoteOriginally posted by Paul MaudDib Quote
I don't think the "dominant" position of 35mm film really existed to the extent you claim it did. There have always been a wide variety of formats in use. I'd phrase the situation like this: 35mm maintained a marginal position until the 50s and 60s, because that small a negative needed high-quality gear that still had not become mature (it existed in the high-end, Leicas and Contaxes, but not in consumer gear). Consumers either shot on 116, 120/620, or 127 type medium formats. Professionals had nicer MF cameras (Rolleis, Ikontas, etc) or shot large format. In the 50s and 60s 35mm made big inroads in consumer gear, but pros kept using MF/LF for most/many uses up until the digital age, and plenty of amateurs still used folders or TLRs or what have you. Yes, in travel or certain photojournalism niches, 35mm saw use, but it would be pretty abnormal for a photographer to show up to your wedding with a 35mm camera, or shoot landscapes for a magazine on it.

It depends on how you look at dominance. If we ignore 2/3s of the existence of photography, and only look at certain segments of the market yes, 35mm was dominant. But there were many more people using many, many, many more formats then we have today.

Also, one of the huge reasons for eventually standardizing on 35mm was availability, rather than pure cost/quality. 35mm film was movie film, and a still photographer could spend a year going through what a cinematographer shoots in one minute. Cine film has always been a huge force behind 35mm, and I believe it's still the majority of film stock produced.

It's a question of cost vs quality, sure, but people don't approach that decision with the cold rationality of a computer. If a small jump in cost grants you a big jump in quality or future expandability (I'm thinking of the Pentax Q here) a lot of people will make that jump even if they "don't need" the quality at the current minute. No one likes working with a piece of crap that barely meets their current needs let alone the future. If it comes down to the point where a high-quality APS-C is about the same price as an entry-level FF, people may bite the bullet and buy for the future.
I respectfully disagree. You, of course, are speaking from a "professional" stand point. And in that respect, there were many different formats used. But I would guess that 95 percent of the cameras and film sold in the 1970s and 1980s was 35mm film. Of course, that was purchased by average people who wouldn't have dreamed of carting a large format camera around. But even smaller formats like APS-C and 110 just never caught on.

I was born in the 70s, so I don't remember the 50s and 60s. But, I never saw anything except for 35mm film cameras, except for wedding photographers shooting medium format, before the advent of digital. Now, granted, I lived in the midwest where people are behind the times, but still...
01-14-2014, 04:44 PM   #116
Banned




Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Millstone,NJ
Posts: 6,491
8x10 and 4x5 view cameras were replaced by medium format digital backs , medium format film cameras were replaced by full frame DSLRs etc and 35mm film cameras were replaced by APS-C , m4/3rd and 1" sensor size cameras.

Pentax 67 MF vs FF :
Shootout
01-14-2014, 06:53 PM - 1 Like   #117
Ash
Community Manager
Loyal Site Supporter
Ash's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Toowoomba, Queensland
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 22,679
The quality from smaller formats are now making it more practical and economical to get excellent results from smaller cameras. The discussion back in the *ist D days was that 6Mp is not enough to rival 35mm film quality. Now, there are few entry level APS-C cameras that don't have enough resolution to produce 35mm film-quality prints. The better the APS-C sensors get, the less relevant the format arguments become, except for the DoF issue that will always be pertinent. Nevertheless the APS-C format is becoming more and more capable and with the smaller camera doing more, there are fewer good arguments for larger format digital cameras.

Last edited by Ash; 01-14-2014 at 08:40 PM.
01-14-2014, 07:11 PM   #118
Pentaxian
Uluru's Avatar

Join Date: May 2010
Location: Back to my Walkabout Creek
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,400
QuoteOriginally posted by jsherman999 Quote
You realize that you're shooting on the back of theoretical physics (turned practical engineering) right now, right? Your aps-c DSLR is not a steam-powered clockwork device.
Moving up a sensor size doesn't kill your art, Uluru
.
Nor does the shrinking of the canvas size / sensor size kill the quality of art. However, on a smaller size it can be more convenient to do. That's all. That was the issue here.
01-14-2014, 07:40 PM   #119
Site Supporter




Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,892
QuoteOriginally posted by Ash Quote
Nevertheless the APS-C format is becoming more and more capable and with the smaller camera doing more, there are fewer good arguments for larger format digit cameras.
If cost was no object, but you could only have one aperture per focal length, what would your 'curve' of aperture vs. focal length look like?

How (if at all) would it change if cost is considered to be a factor?
01-14-2014, 08:44 PM   #120
Ash
Community Manager
Loyal Site Supporter
Ash's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Toowoomba, Queensland
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 22,679
QuoteOriginally posted by ElJamoquio Quote
If cost was no object, but you could only have one aperture per focal length, what would your 'curve' of aperture vs. focal length look like?
Not sure where this hypothetical is headed, but one aperture per focal length would have a near linear relationship (with a levelling off at the wider angles) in order to maximise acceptable DoF and sharpness. 28mm f/2.8, 40mm f/4, 70mm f/5.6, etc. but why limit FLs to a single aperture anyway? How does it relate to the debate here? If it's about the extra stop of DoF the larger format offers, then that's all good. Not everyone needs this whilst it adds to the bulk of the gear.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
24x36mm, activity, aps, cameras, dslrs, ff, full-frame, mike, pentax, photographer, professionals
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Pentax K-5 will never die PedroCosta Pentax K-5 5 11-06-2013 04:06 PM
K01 on The Online Photographer isaacc7 Pentax K-01 26 06-22-2012 06:23 PM
Who will be the FIRST K 01 user on this forum ... except Adam! jpzk Pentax K-01 24 02-09-2012 08:39 PM
will my Pentax die?? qrsau Photographic Industry and Professionals 22 12-18-2011 05:41 PM
A Photographer Could Die Here jeffkpotter Post Your Photos! 22 10-14-2008 11:37 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:11 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top