Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Closed Thread
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
01-08-2014, 08:30 PM   #136
Inactive Account




Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: New Orleans
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,053
QuoteOriginally posted by jsherman999 Quote
You don't have kids, I take it. Nothing I've shot in the past six years has been more noteworthy to me and my extended family. My kids are the reason I bought a DSLR in the first place, and those little buggers refuse to stay in perfect light and sit still.

This 'if the shooting conditions are less than ideal, don't bother shooting' argument is among the strangest I've ever seen on the fora, by the way. I can't see how it could really apply to anything but landscapes, if the light was just uninteresting. or pitch-dark venues where there was almost zero light.

???
You just have to give them some Benadryl, wait till they fall asleep, pose them, and focus stack the shots.



01-08-2014, 09:00 PM   #137
Veteran Member
jsherman999's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,228
QuoteOriginally posted by RGlasel Quote
... so lower prices for FF cameras relative to smaller sensor formats isn't going to happen.
I'm not sure if you're saying 'FF sensors will not be able to be manufactured at lower cost than smaller sensors.' here. If that's what you're saying... has anyone in this thread said otherwise?

If you're saying that 'the gap between the two will never shrink significantly,' I guess that would depend on what you mean by significantly. Right now what people like to call 'bare bones' FF cameras are selling new for less than high-end aps-c cameras sold for three years ago. (as an aside, 'bare bones' bugs me - the 6D and D610 are only bare bones compared to upper end FF - they hold up very well in features to any aps-c model.)

Also I don't think you're taking disruptive technologies into account and the way that's potentially changing the market. Right now huge numbers of folks are leaving their entry-level aps-c DSLRs and kit lenses they bought two years ago at home in favor of their phone camera and won;t be in the market in the same numbers as before when it's usually 'upgrade time', and a lot of the folks who bought mid-range aps-c DSLR are buying high-end m43 MILC, and a lot of folks who bought upper-end aps-c DSLR are looking at lower-end FF. These shifts are probably going to push things further along the rails.

.

QuoteQuote:
Please don't do that, it's a bet you will lose every time. Companies that already have the capability to build FF cameras can continue to produce them as long as they don't have to make large investments to sustain the product line, but to argue that FF will "win" out over smaller formats, that is a gap in logic I can't jump over.
I don't know if you read the point I was replying to. The implication was, "if FF cost as much as aps-c and the feature set was similar, most would still probably buy aps-c." I would bet my house that's not the case, because the majority of folks who named 'size' as being important enough to buy a smaller-sensored camera over a larger-sensored camera if hey were priced the same - if size were that important for them - they'd be shooting MILC or fixed-lens mirrorless anyway. The "I love small more than anything" crowd are going to be among the first to abandon DSLR.

.
QuoteQuote:
Find something else to convince yourself that you should spend your money on FF cameras, because economics have nothing to do with it.
This statement makes me think you're new to these arguments.

Part of what we're saying is that 'to get the same performance on aps-c, you probably need to buy the highest-end aps-c body and spend a lot on lenses.' When you add things up, you can actually get incredible performance (sometimes, depending on what you're doing) with FF that you can't get for the same $$ with aps-c.


.

Last edited by jsherman999; 01-08-2014 at 09:39 PM.
01-08-2014, 09:50 PM   #138
Site Supporter
mike7fa's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Niagara, Ontario
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 51
That's a very informative and useful table mikemike and was no doubt a mammoth task to research and prepare. As a Pentax and Nikon user APS-c & FF, may I use your table for reference purposes?
01-08-2014, 09:57 PM   #139
Site Supporter
RGlasel's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Saskatoon
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,332
If I walk into a London Drugs store (chain in Western Canada that sells everything from soup to nuts to Aspirin to microwave ovens and has a pretty decent camera department selling Canon, Nikon, Sony, Olympus, and even a few Pentax) with $1000 to spend, I might look first at the T3i with 18-55 kit lens for $500 and the salesperson could easily upgrade me to a T5i with 18-135 kit lens for $900. Let's say I consider myself a "serious" hobby photographer, I could pick up a 70D with 18-135 lens for $1400. London Drugs sells the K-3 body for $1300, but not K-mount lenses separately, so forget Pentax; but a really good salesperson might get me to consider moving closer to $2000 in total, if I can see some real benefits. The 6D with 24-105 lens at $2200 is on sale at $300 off, but still out of my range by $200, and I'm giving up significant telephoto reach and 3 fps compared to the 70D in return for paying an extra $800! If I really feel the need to push beyond ISO 25,600, the 6D can do something the 70D can't, but if I want to take advantage of the FF camera's narrower depth of field, I had better be prepared to spend a bunch more money for an additional lens.

If I haven't walked out by this point, the salesperson might as well show me a 5D Mk III kit for $3900 so I can pretend to be freelancing for National Geographic. Maybe there is a market for the 6D as a spare body for 5D owners, but there is no way an intelligent APS-C customer, even one willing to buy premium products, will be convinced to buy a 6D instead of the 70D. And the more money than brains crowd probably isn't in the market for a DSLR. When we discuss FF vs. APS-C in general, we are discussing two very different markets, and ~$2000 FF bodies have nothing on premium APS-C kits that is going to blur the lines between them. The APS-C customer has a fixed amount of money to spend and wants to buy a package. I'm sure there is a market for FF cameras, but I suspect it mainly consists of photographers who invested heavily in high end equipment several years ago and need to replace or upgrade bodies from time to time. New entrants to the interchangeable lens market, not a chance.
QuoteOriginally posted by Class A Quote
holy "high margin" barrier for FF cameras has started to erode.
I'm a marketing major from when the Boston Consulting Group was a bunch of young pups. The FF DLSR market is a classic example of a mature, stagnant market, what BCG refers to as a "cash cow." Nobody is going to invest major capital for these products, they will try to maintain their margins as long as possible. The only reason I can think of why Canon brought out the 6D at the $2000 price point is a) it's just repackaging components they already manufacture and b) they don't want Sony to erode their base of FF customers with the A7.

When I worked at Sears, they carried three tiers of lawnmower, entry level that was just as cheap as anyone else's entry level mower, mid-level with their own Craftsman brand and they carried a high end Toro mower for more money than what Toro dealers were selling it for. They didn't lose very many price-conscious customers, once in a blue moon they sold a Toro to someone who placed a very high value on convenience and couldn't be bothered to shop around and 80% of their sales were Craftsman mowers with better profit margins than the industry average. I'm not a very good photographer, so on a technical level the FF vs. APS-C debate bores me. What does get my blood pressure up is when good photographers put so much effort into business arguments that don't hold water.


Last edited by RGlasel; 01-09-2014 at 07:46 AM.
01-08-2014, 10:25 PM   #140
Site Supporter
RGlasel's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Saskatoon
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,332
QuoteOriginally posted by jsherman999 Quote
This statement makes me think you're new to these arguments. Part of what we're saying is that 'to get the same performance on aps-c, you probably need to buy the highest-end aps-c body and spend a lot on lenses.' When you add things up, you can actually get incredible performance (sometimes, depending on what you're doing) with FF that you can't get for the same $$ with aps-c.
If you mean that the point is to argue that black is white, you are probably right. Photographers who need the "incredible performance ... with FF that you can't get ... with aps-c" are such a select group, that they are out of their mind to be trying to do FF on the cheap. Surely there are real world performance differences between the 5D and the 6D that outweigh being able to better isolate a single angel dancing on the head of a pin in the dark compared to the 70D (or my $600 K-30 for that matter).

Yup, I'm definitely new to these arguments, if I had more experience, I wouldn't be drawn into this endless dance around the mulberry bush.
01-08-2014, 10:30 PM   #141
Inactive Account




Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: New Orleans
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,053
The MILC vs. DSLR is a whole different debate than the sensor size, especially now that you have choices of sensor sizes in MILC 1/1.7", 1", u43, APS-C, or FF while with DSLR you only have APS-C, FF, and MF.

The logic behind why intermediate sensor sizes, and especially the most popular and widely implemented one APS-C is going to persist and to generally be cheaper than FF is because it is "on the way" technologically speaking. Innovations happen and are implemented on the smallest size sensors because phones are the biggest market, they are always trying to punch above their weight because best in class camera a reliable marketing tool, and because the companies which specialize in developing sensors also specialize in designing the rest of the electronics that go into phones and selling those phones. As they scale those technologies up, compact cameras will also be able to access them and then intermediate formats like u43 and APS-C and eventually FF or MF.

Semiconductor manufacture is a photolithography process conceptually, very similar to what happens in a darkroom. Making the argument that 11x14 prints would be cheaper to manufacture than 8x10 prints makes about as much sense as saying that FF will be cheaper to manufacture than APS-C. At some points, somewhere, for some reasons you will get better deals on the 11x14 than on the 8x10 but in the long run, the smaller print is going to have a persistent cost advantage and will be cheaper to the manufacturer and the consumer.
01-08-2014, 10:52 PM   #142
Veteran Member
jsherman999's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,228
QuoteOriginally posted by RGlasel Quote
If I walk into a London Drugs store (chain in Western Canada that sells everything from soup to nuts to Aspirin to microwave ovens and has a pretty decent camera department selling Canon, Nikon, Sony, Olympus, and even a few Pentax) with $1000 to spend, I might look first at the T3i with 18-55 kit lens for $500 and the salesperson could easily upgrade me to a T5i with 18-135 kit lens for $900. Let's say I consider myself a "serious" hobby photographer, I could pick up a 70D with 18-135 lens for $1400. London Drugs sells the K-3 body for $1300, but not K-mount lenses separately, so forget Pentax; but a really good salesperson might get me to consider moving closer to $2000 in total, if I can see some real benefits. The 6D with 24-105 lens at $2200 is on sale at $300 off, but still out of my range by $200, and I'm giving up significant telephoto reach and 3 fps compared to the 70D in return for paying an extra $800! If I really feel the need to push beyond ISO 25,600, the 6D can do something the 70D can't, but if I want to take advantage of the FF camera's narrower depth of field, I had better be prepared to spend a bunch more money for an additional lens.

If I haven't walked out by this point, the salesperson might as well show me a 5D Mk III kit for $3900 so I can pretend to be freelancing for National Geographic. Maybe there is a market for the 6D as a spare body for 5D owners, but there is no way an intelligent APS-C customer, even one willing to buy premium products, will be convinced to buy a 6D instead of the 70D. And the more money than brains crowd probably isn't in the market for a DSLR. When we discuss FF vs. APS-C in general, we are discussing two very different markets, and ~$2000 FF bodies have nothing on premium APS-C kits that is going to blur the lines between them. The APS-C customer has a fixed amount of money to spend and wants to buy a package. I'm sure there is a market for FF cameras, but I suspect it mainly consists of photographers who invested heavily in high end equipment several years ago and need to replace or upgrade bodies from time to time. New entrants to the interchangeable lens market, not a chance. I'm a marketing major from when the Boston Consulting Group was a bunch of young pups. The FF DLSR market is a classic example of a mature, stagnant market, what BSG refers to as a "cash cow." Nobody is going to invest major capital for these products, they will try to maintain their margins as long as possible. The only reason I can think of why Canon brought out the 6D at the $2000 price point is a) it's just repackaging components they already manufacture and b) they don't want Sony to erode their base of FF customers with the A7.

When I worked at Sears, they carried three tiers of lawnmower, entry level that was just as cheap as anyone else's entry level mower, mid-level with their own Craftsman brand and they carried a high end Toro mower for more money than what Toro dealers were selling it for. They didn't lose very many price-conscious customers, once in a blue moon they sold a Toro to someone who placed a very high value on convenience and couldn't be bothered to shop around and 80% of their sales were Craftsman mowers with better profit margins than the industry average. I'm not a very good photographer, so on a technical level the FF vs. APS-C debate bores me. What does get my blood pressure up is when good photographers put so much effort into business arguments that don't hold water.
I think you're making the mistake of applying some inappropriate-to-subject lessons, here, and some of what you write above suggests you don't really know what makes up the FF market.

It's very rare that a newbie walking in to a shop to peruse get's talked into buying a FF camera, no matter how much money they have - or to put it another way, it's very rare that someone who doesn't care enough to do a little research on what they might actually need would have a ton of money to spend in the first place. It's been my experience that folks with 'more money than brains' are actually pretty rare - it's a fun myth/meme, but not based on reality. Usually some amount of intelligence is involved in the acquisition of money at the very least with regard to value and budgeting if nothing else. But neither of us should spend much time generalizing about that, as it's not entirely pertinent.

By the way, you write:

QuoteQuote:
... If I really feel the need to push beyond ISO 25,600, the 6D can do something the 70D can't,
No. The 6D outperforms the 70D starting at base ISO, in both SNR (noise) and DR by a significant margin, in real ways you can see easily on your screen or in even small prints, and especially in crops. You seem to think that the upper-end of the advertised ISO range (ie this one goes to 25,600!) has any real meaning here.

QuoteQuote:
.... but if I want to take advantage of the FF camera's narrower depth of field, I had better be prepared to spend a bunch more money for an additional lens.
No. Any lens that you can shoot on both cameras will favor the 6D with regard to DOF control, down to the $100 50 1.8. Any shared FL + aperture range between the two favors FF there.

Given the choice between the two, I wouldn't even consider the 70D. In fact I think it's sort of a rip-off for what you get, especially when you take a look at the performance of the sensor - it's not much better than the 2008 Nikon D90 in some significant ways. The 6D, on the other hand, looks like a fantastic camera and a pretty good value. (and I think your K30 is a better camera than that 70D in all the ways that matter to me.)

I see you don't fully understand things like sensor technology or equivalence, and that's no sin, but what you shouldn't do is assume that someone in the market for a FF camera doesn't understand those things either.


.

Last edited by jsherman999; 01-08-2014 at 11:10 PM.
01-08-2014, 11:07 PM   #143
Veteran Member
jsherman999's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,228
QuoteOriginally posted by RGlasel Quote
If you mean that the point is to argue that black is white, you are probably right. Photographers who need the "incredible performance ... with FF that you can't get ... with aps-c" are such a select group, that they are out of their mind to be trying to do FF on the cheap.
Why do you say that?

.

01-09-2014, 01:43 AM   #144
Pentaxian
mecrox's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Oxford, UK
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,078
QuoteOriginally posted by RGlasel Quote
If I walk into a London Drugs store (chain in Western Canada that sells everything from soup to nuts to Aspirin to microwave ovens and has a pretty decent camera department selling Canon, Nikon, Sony, Olympus, and even a few Pentax) with $1000 to spend, I might look first at the T3i with 18-55 kit lens for $500 and the salesperson could easily upgrade me to a T5i with 18-135 kit lens for $900. Let's say I consider myself a "serious" hobby photographer, I could pick up a 70D with 18-135 lens for $1400. London Drugs sells the K-3 body for $1300, but not K-mount lenses separately, so forget Pentax; but a really good salesperson might get me to consider moving closer to $2000 in total, if I can see some real benefits. The 6D with 24-105 lens at $2200 is on sale at $300 off, but still out of my range by $200, and I'm giving up significant telephoto reach and 3 fps compared to the 70D in return for paying an extra $800! If I really feel the need to push beyond ISO 25,600, the 6D can do something the 70D can't, but if I want to take advantage of the FF camera's narrower depth of field, I had better be prepared to spend a bunch more money for an additional lens.

If I haven't walked out by this point, the salesperson might as well show me a 5D Mk III kit for $3900 so I can pretend to be freelancing for National Geographic. Maybe there is a market for the 6D as a spare body for 5D owners, but there is no way an intelligent APS-C customer, even one willing to buy premium products, will be convinced to buy a 6D instead of the 70D. And the more money than brains crowd probably isn't in the market for a DSLR. When we discuss FF vs. APS-C in general, we are discussing two very different markets, and ~$2000 FF bodies have nothing on premium APS-C kits that is going to blur the lines between them. The APS-C customer has a fixed amount of money to spend and wants to buy a package. I'm sure there is a market for FF cameras, but I suspect it mainly consists of photographers who invested heavily in high end equipment several years ago and need to replace or upgrade bodies from time to time. New entrants to the interchangeable lens market, not a chance. I'm a marketing major from when the Boston Consulting Group was a bunch of young pups. The FF DLSR market is a classic example of a mature, stagnant market, what BSG refers to as a "cash cow." Nobody is going to invest major capital for these products, they will try to maintain their margins as long as possible. The only reason I can think of why Canon brought out the 6D at the $2000 price point is a) it's just repackaging components they already manufacture and b) they don't want Sony to erode their base of FF customers with the A7.

When I worked at Sears, they carried three tiers of lawnmower, entry level that was just as cheap as anyone else's entry level mower, mid-level with their own Craftsman brand and they carried a high end Toro mower for more money than what Toro dealers were selling it for. They didn't lose very many price-conscious customers, once in a blue moon they sold a Toro to someone who placed a very high value on convenience and couldn't be bothered to shop around and 80% of their sales were Craftsman mowers with better profit margins than the industry average. I'm not a very good photographer, so on a technical level the FF vs. APS-C debate bores me. What does get my blood pressure up is when good photographers put so much effort into business arguments that don't hold water.
I'd have thought one could characterize the entirety of the DSLR market as a cash cow, not just a part of it.

Where I live, prices for FF and APS-C on DSLR are roughly level-pegging now if you shop around. So it becomes a matter of what features you want. The Pentax kit below will offer build quality and body features like a high burst rate only obtainable in much more expensive, premium FF equipment. That's a feature. Against that, the Canon and Nikon outfits offer less capable bodies but with a larger sensor and the opportunities which come with that (and in the case of the Canon anyway an arguably better lens package). Those are features too.

FF: Canon 6D + Canon 24-70mm f/4 + Canon 70-200mm f/4 + Speedlight 430EX = 3498 pounds sterling

FF: Nikon D610 + AF-S NIKKOR 24-85mm + Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 70-200mm f/4G ED VR + Nikon SB-700 Speedlight = 3127 pounds sterling

APS-C : Pentax K3 + Pentax 16-50mm f/2.8 + Pentax 50-135mm f/2.8 + Pentax AF360 FGZ II AW = 3336 pounds sterling

Prime lenses for any of these systems are likely to be roughly the same cost though maybe a little less expensive on FF depending on what you buy, of course. And the Pentax package drops quite a bit in price if you swap the 16-50mm f2.8 (which many think is overpriced) for a lens from Sigma or another Pentax lens like the 18-135mm, and use a third-party flash.

Perhaps Canon and Nikon are dangling FF because they see more profit in the lenses and accessories for the larger format? On the other hand, if you want the very best lenses then you probably do have to choose an FF camera. Those lenses will cost a small fortune but there has never been a shortage of takers for them for half a century or more (Leica, Zeiss, long, fast Canon/Nikon telephotos, et al). If you want the kind of build quality and features only obtainable on FF bodies costing twice as much or more, however, Pentax on APS-C is your man. No one would go wrong with any of these packages, I think, but they are not all the same: each one offers something the others do not though of course you have to do a bit more than walk into a shop and say "I'll take that one".

I guess the moment someone moves beyond a smartphone or simple compact camera, the more money than brains argument comes into play. They are no longer buying something just because they want to take a photograph; they now want to take a particular kind of photograph in a particular way. And why not. None of use would be here if that weren't the case.

Last edited by mecrox; 01-09-2014 at 05:53 AM.
01-09-2014, 04:24 AM - 1 Like   #145
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 15,744
The problem with all these price comparisons is that they assume (a) that people are buying f2.8 zooms (they aren't) and (b) that they are buying primes (they aren't). Yes, MikeMike's graph is useful for someone who sits on the Pentax forum, plotting what the next prime they would like to buy is, but the average guy who is interested in an APS-C camera buys a kit lens and just maybe a telephoto down the road. When you can get a K30 with an 18-55 for 560 dollars and 55-300 for another 300, that is plenty of kit for 90 percent of the folks out there, even the ones who think that they need a full frame camera. As long as there are more of those people than forumites, I would expect smaller sensor cameras to sell better.

I keep coming back to the "good enough" argument. Average people don't want to print 30 inches on a side (most don't print at all). They don't want files that are amenable to photoshopping (they don't photo shop). They don't even want crazy high iso. They just want a camera that is more responsive than their point and shoot and allows them to shoot Johnny and Susie at their soccer games and at Christmas parties, or whatever. A little noise doesn't bother them. As like as not, they will drop some crazy instagram filter on their photo and destroy it before they up load it facebook. But hey, they will be happy with four thirds or APS-C and unlikely to be happy with full frame, because it costs too much and is perceived as too big to carry around.
01-09-2014, 05:20 AM   #146
Veteran Member




Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,893
QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
The problem with all these price comparisons is that they assume (a) that people are buying f2.8 zooms (they aren't) and (b) that they are buying primes (they aren't).
"People" and "forum members" are different audiences, and everybody realizes that. The average person isn't going to go into a shop looking for a DSLR with a f/2.8.

The average person is going to use a cell phone. Or god forbid, walk directly in front of me with a frickin tablet and ruin my shot (I have the pics to prove it).
01-09-2014, 06:17 AM   #147
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 15,744
QuoteOriginally posted by ElJamoquio Quote
"People" and "forum members" are different audiences, and everybody realizes that. The average person isn't going to go into a shop looking for a DSLR with a f/2.8.

The average person is going to use a cell phone. Or god forbid, walk directly in front of me with a frickin tablet and ruin my shot (I have the pics to prove it).
I think there are a lot of people in between. My brother shot for eight years with a Nikon D50 and a kit lens on green mode. Now, he upgraded to a D7000 with a kit lens. His photos are a lot better than camera phone photos and he is satisfied, but he isn't looking for high end glass either.
01-09-2014, 06:43 AM   #148
Veteran Member




Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,893
QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
I think there are a lot of people in between.
Absolutely. Of course, by and large, those people aren't buying Pentax.
01-09-2014, 07:02 AM   #149
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 15,744
QuoteOriginally posted by ElJamoquio Quote
Absolutely. Of course, by and large, those people aren't buying Pentax.
True. But they are buying low end to mid end APS-C cameras.
01-09-2014, 07:14 AM   #150
Veteran Member




Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,893
QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
True. But they are buying low end to mid end APS-C cameras.
So ten years ago or whenever, there were really no 36x24mm sensors sold in the marketplace.

Now there's hundreds of thousands? millions?

Now there's hundreds of millions of <10mm sensors sold? Billions?

I guess I'm not sure what the point of our conversation is. Personally, I'm hoping that Pentax will be viable for the next 20 years. Is FF going to be that move? Almost certainly not. Will a FF help them sell APS-C? Yup.

The biggest knock on Pentax, in my mind, when I bought my K-5 was that the 'system' had no FF.
Closed Thread

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!
aps-c, camera, cost, curve, dslr, ff, ff sensors, film, photography, price, prices, scale, sensors
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Suggestion Stop the FF infection ... of the other threads - read on. jpzk Site Suggestions and Help 59 03-18-2015 11:30 AM
K-5II or K-5IIs - which one will you choose if the price is the same? frank Pentax K-5 54 06-20-2013 03:45 PM
This Foron Will Never Be The Same jeffkpotter General Talk 10 06-12-2009 04:14 PM
This Forum Will Never Be The Same jeffkpotter General Talk 45 06-09-2009 06:44 PM
Rumors confirmed! The new Pentax will be FF! B051LjKo Pentax News and Rumors 7 01-11-2008 04:10 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:02 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.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