Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
01-25-2014, 09:33 AM   #16
Veteran Member
Parry's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 541
Why change what works?

Pentax is as successful as it is because of the handling and weather-proofing of the K-5/K-3 series.

Put the 24 or 36mp Sony sensor in it. Doesn't necessarily need in-body SR. The few real pro's I know well have all said they've never used optically stabilized anything, at least not because a lens is stabilized. I'm sure we could all cope without it. No film cameras ever had this. The Sony A7 doesn't have in-body SR, people on here seem to get good shots with it even using adapted non-stabilized lenses.

Longer lenses are better off with in lens stabilization anyway, or so I'm told.

I'd buy it sans SR. No problem.

01-25-2014, 09:38 AM   #17
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 25,836
QuoteOriginally posted by jogiba Quote
You may like it but Ricoh is not interested in making a camera were only three people on the planet are interested in getting.
I doubt Ricoh is interested in making one. I also doubt there are only two people on the planet who would buy one. It would be sad if people thought because you're stating the obvious in part one, you make any sense at all in your second assertion. So I guess on the rating scale of posts, we'll give you 50% on that one. A pass but just barely.
01-25-2014, 09:40 AM   #18
Site Supporter




Join Date: Jul 2011
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 960
Hey Ron, what ever happened to this I wonder?

Canon develops world's first 120 megapixel APS-H CMOS sensor: Digital Photography Review

Talk about eating up memory...

I do like this graphic for getting a feel for the size difference.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f0/Sensor_sizes_overlaid_inside.svg

I'm thinking it's FF or bust, personally, but what I sometimes wonder is how much of a 1 x 1 square image an APS-C, like 23.7 x 23.7, with our current APS-C lenses could cover... at least the ones without the rear rectangle masks in the lensmount. If you are going to get an oddball sensor size made, why not max out what potential we already have, lens wise. I'd bet a bunch of medium format users used to shooting 2 2.25x2.25 would find it appealing, especially for the cost. 10x10 prints and album sales for wedding photog's would go back up again too, heh.
01-25-2014, 09:42 AM   #19
Banned




Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Millstone,NJ
Posts: 6,491
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
I doubt Ricoh is interested in making one. I also doubt there are only two people on the planet who would buy one. It would be sad if people thought because you're stating the obvious in part one, you make any sense at all in your second assertion. So I guess on the rating scale of posts, we'll give you 50% on that one. A pass but just barely.
What are the chances Adam makes a Pentax APS-H section like this Pentax Full Frame section ? I say zero.

01-25-2014, 09:44 AM   #20
Pentaxian
RonHendriks1966's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2009
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,714
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by jogiba Quote
Larger volume means lower cost and full frame sensor volume is huge compared to low volume APS-H sensors. Were exactly is the demand for APS-H today ?
Well there is the same struggle for Ricoh on the question how many people would buy a Full Frame K-mount camera? If they had an answer to that question we all would have one to buy in stores today.

We can talk all ways about having demand or a market or not, but for real an APS-H sensored camera could be as succesfull as a Full Frame could be.

I stated it before, if Canon would make an aps-h sensor camera a lot off people who buy 1Dx or 7D would jump to it.

I think a top of the line camera from Pentax should have in body SR.
01-25-2014, 09:47 AM   #21
Veteran Member
gbeaton's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Montreal
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 342
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
So then, since you seem to know about these things, what would it cost to custom cut a wafer for a specific camera? Would it be feasible for 50,000 units? At what point in terms of overall sales would cutting a custom wafer size would be feasible?
Even if you had the exact same technology, a finished sensor (sans bayer filter and packaging) is finished at the wafer stage - i.e. A new APS-H size sensor requires a redesign of the wafer itself. As for economic feasibility of fabricating a new APS-H, I have no idea. Lets not talk about stuff that we know nothing about.
01-25-2014, 09:50 AM   #22
Veteran Member
gbeaton's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Montreal
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 342
QuoteOriginally posted by Kunzite Quote
Such a fine example of argumentum ad nauseam; sorry, Ron, you might repeat it as much as you wish but it won't start being a good idea. The disadvantages remain - that it will compete with "full frame" instead of being seen as a "better APS-C"; that the sensor must be custom made and thus expensive (and what a fine example you gave, the 25.000 euro PhaseOne).
And who (besides yourself) would rather have an APS-H camera instead of a "full frame" one? The solution to the imaginary problem of using the same sensor as the competition is to use an inferior one? Really?
You are so right!

Wimp out on a full frame camera with a half assed APS-H effort which is neither here nor there?

All this pining over FF cameras is so tedious. Pentax makes great APS-C cameras with all the professional features anyone could ask for. I saw the review of the Cannon D6 and wondered why would anyone buy a lame FF camera like the D6 when they could buy a better, more performant APS-C camera like the K5 or K3.
01-25-2014, 10:00 AM   #23
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 25,836
QuoteOriginally posted by gbeaton Quote
You are so right!

Wimp out on a full frame camera with a half assed APS-H effort which is neither here nor there?

All this pining over FF cameras is so tedious. Pentax makes great APS-C cameras with all the professional features anyone could ask for. I saw the review of the Cannon D6 and wondered why would anyone buy a lame FF camera like the D6 when they could buy a better, more performant APS-C camera like the K5 or K3.
I love SR for candid etc, but any time I have a shot I think might turn into a saleable print, I find a way to set up the tripod and use a 2 second delay to minimize vibration. As I've gotten older the steadiness of my hands has deteriorated, and they were never all that good, so I wouldn't buy a camera without SR in APS-c format. If I bought an A7r type camera for landscape, I wouldn't care. Being able to see my viewfinder on my iPad will in the end be more important than SR.

01-25-2014, 10:05 AM   #24
Veteran Member
Parry's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 541
Nikon D4 stabilized? No.

Nikon D800 stabilized? No.

Canon 1DX stabilized? No.

Sony A7 stabilized? No.

Canon 5DMkIII stabilized? No.


There's a pattern emerging here . . .


Nikon D610 stabilized? No.

Nikon Df stabilized? No.

Canon 6D stabilized? I don't believe so . . . .
01-25-2014, 10:07 AM   #25
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 25,836
QuoteOriginally posted by gbeaton Quote
You are so right!

Wimp out on a full frame camera with a half assed APS-H effort which is neither here nor there?

All this pining over FF cameras is so tedious. Pentax makes great APS-C cameras with all the professional features anyone could ask for. I saw the review of the Cannon D6 and wondered why would anyone buy a lame FF camera like the D6 when they could buy a better, more performant APS-C camera like the K5 or K3.
Maybe we should reframe the question... if Pentax decide they can't support an FF camera, would you go for APS-H as an alternative as an upgrade to the K-* line? Given the choice, A7r type camera from another brand or 24-30 APS-h from Pentax, I'd look at the APS-h as my next upgrade. But really, I'm still looking for that $3500 645D.
01-25-2014, 10:10 AM   #26
Pentaxian
RonHendriks1966's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2009
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,714
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Parry Quote
Nikon D4 stabilized? No.

Nikon D800 stabilized? No.

Canon 1DX stabilized? No.

Sony A7 stabilized? No.

Canon 5DMkIII stabilized? No.


There's a pattern emerging here . . .


Nikon D610 stabilized? No.

Nikon Df stabilized? No.

Canon 6D stabilized? I don't believe so . . . .
I have a different list for you to look at:

Canon:
Canon objectieven bij CameraNU.nl

or Nikon:
Nikkor objectieven bij CameraNU.nl

I selected them on price starting at most expensive and the y seem to have a lot off stabilized lenses for those non-stabilized camera's

Offcourse this is a non-issue in the Full Frame - APS-H - APS-C debat.
01-25-2014, 10:13 AM   #27
Veteran Member
Parry's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 541
QuoteOriginally posted by RonHendriks1966 Quote
I have a different list for you to look at:

Canon:
Canon objectieven bij CameraNU.nl

or Nikon:
Nikkor objectieven bij CameraNU.nl

I selected them on price starting at most expensive and the y seem to have a lot off stabilized lenses for those non-stabilized camera's

Offcourse this is a non-issue in the Full Frame - APS-H - APS-C debat.

Nikkor Holy Trinity . . . so loved by professionals and wedding crashers . . .

Which one is stabilized? Only the long one, 70-200/2.8 VR2.

Noisy little sensors need stabilization because it's tricky to pump that ISO up too much.
01-25-2014, 10:17 AM   #28
Site Supporter
jimr-pdx's Avatar

Join Date: May 2010
Location: 1hr north of PDX
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,550
QuoteOriginally posted by Erictator Quote
...
I'm thinking it's FF or bust, personally, but what I sometimes wonder is how much of a 1 x 1 square image an APS-C, like 23.7 x 23.7, with our current APS-C lenses could cover... at least the ones without the rear rectangle masks in the lensmount. If you are going to get an oddball sensor size made, why not max out what potential we already have, lens wise...
Sorry Ron, I'd vote for the square over aps-h myself if starting from scratch sensor-wise. Imagine never rotating your camera for a 'portrait' shot ever again; I'd be OK with that! I'd like to think it could be 28-30mm on a side but I haven't done any math on it, just dreaming
01-25-2014, 10:23 AM   #29
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 25,836
QuoteOriginally posted by Parry Quote
Nikkor Holy Trinity . . . so loved by professionals and wedding crashers . . .

Which one is stabilized? Only the long one, 70-200/2.8 VR2.

Noisy little sensors need stabilization because it's tricky to pump that ISO up too much.
SO, you're saying, because these cameras don't have in body image stabilization, they wouldn't benefit from it? Every D610 kit I've seen comes with a VR lens. That's just the wrong way to look at it.

I priced the Nikkor Trinity, and basic kit to go with them. D800 + the Trinity and necessary accessories = $12,000 plus. You can pay a lot for no VR.
NIKON D610 D-SLR W/24-85MM 3.5-4.5 VR 30736
I rest my case.
01-25-2014, 10:31 AM   #30
Veteran Member
Parry's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 541
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
SO, you're saying, because these camera don't have in body image stabilization, they wouldn't benefit from it? Every D610 kit I've seen comes with an VR lens. That's just the wrong way to look at it.

I priced the Nikkor Trinity, and basic kit to go with them. D800 + the Trinity and necessary accessories = $12,000 plus. You can pay a lot for no VR.
NIKON D610 D-SLR W/24-85MM 3.5-4.5 VR 30736
I rest my case.
Regardless of the cost, people still buy 'em. Works for them.

. . . and with Pentax you pay a bit less for no VR. It'll work the same, fast f/1.8 FF non-VR lenses, hell I have two of them already.

Then there's Nikkor's sharpest. 85/1.4G. Or even Carl Zeiss, they don't even have autofocus let alone stabilization. Or how about the Siggy 35/1.4 Art? Yet people get incredible results, handheld and in low light with them.

VR, SR, OS is not compulsory.
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, aps-h, camera, frame, full-frame, k-3, k-mount, lenses, megapixel, pentax, sensor, system
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
How about APS-H ? Livanz Pentax DSLR Discussion 62 09-29-2014 12:54 AM
Canon 120mp APS-H CMOS sensor ! jogiba Non-Pentax Cameras: Canon, Nikon, etc. 16 08-22-2013 10:48 PM
Thoughts: K30D, APS-H, Ultrawide lenses jfsavage Pentax News and Rumors 59 02-16-2009 10:51 AM
Could "K20D" actually be APS-H (1.27x) sized? bjsmith Pentax News and Rumors 87 12-31-2007 03:08 AM
APS-H - Future? sft Pentax DSLR Discussion 0 02-26-2007 10:51 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:21 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