Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

View Poll Results: Do you think FF will be announced at Photokina?
Yes 21632.58%
No 44767.42%
Voters: 663. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
07-14-2014, 12:31 PM   #376
Pentaxian
cali92rs's Avatar

Join Date: May 2011
Location: Long Beach, CA
Posts: 3,346
QuoteOriginally posted by theraven871 Quote
I'd rather spend my money on quality lenses.
People like to say that quite often...but it's really a too simplistic way of looking at things.
For example, if you have a K100D versus a K-3 or hypothetical Pentax FF, the body is going to make a much bigger difference in image quality than any lens would.

That type of thinking is a holdover from the film camera days. Nowadays, all modern lenses are really pretty decent, but 2 generations difference in body makes a big difference.

07-14-2014, 12:34 PM   #377
Veteran Member




Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,893
QuoteOriginally posted by cali92rs Quote
People like to say that quite often...but it's really a too simplistic way of looking at things.
For example, if you have a K100D versus a K-3 or hypothetical Pentax FF, the body is going to make a much bigger difference in image quality than any lens would.
I don't know about *any* lens, but I agree with your sentiment. Both camera and lens can improve IQ.
07-14-2014, 01:21 PM   #378
Forum Member




Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 86
QuoteOriginally posted by cali92rs Quote
People like to say that quite often...but it's really a too simplistic way of looking at things.
For example, if you have a K100D versus a K-3 or hypothetical Pentax FF, the body is going to make a much bigger difference in image quality than any lens would.

That type of thinking is a holdover from the film camera days. Nowadays, all modern lenses are really pretty decent, but 2 generations difference in body makes a big difference.
Perhaps you may view it as simple.
But considering I keep lenses longer than I keep camera bodies, it makes much more sense to invest into quality lenses as the priority.
07-15-2014, 09:07 AM   #379
Veteran Member
jsherman999's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,228
QuoteOriginally posted by theraven871 Quote
Perhaps you may view it as simple.
But considering I keep lenses longer than I keep camera bodies, it makes much more sense to invest into quality lenses as the priority.
I think the point was that the performance difference range between 'pedestrian' lenses, 'good' lenses and 'great' lenses is less than it was in the film days of the 60s, 70s, 80s and most of the 90s, especially with zoom lenses. In those days, film was film and your camera was mostly a light-tight box, and the large variance in lens quality meant everything. Now, you can invest in a 16MP body + a $2000 zeiss lens and it may get you less lp/ph resolution and perceived acutance than a $1500 24MP FF camera and a $100 lens.

It's still a good idea to invest in good lenses (and 'good' != expensive, necessarily) but it makes less sense than it did in the film days to buy 'great' lenses - nearly every new 'good' lens is sharp enough, and the MTF combo scores with high-res sensors gives you more than enough detail for most applications.

It really does make sense to pare down the money spent on lenses and shift it to newer/better sensors in some cases. Better, cheaper returns for you.

Then there's the ever-present fear of investing in expensive, great lenses for a mount that may be going away because of a MILC <--> FF squeeze...

.

07-22-2014, 02:47 AM   #380
Senior Member
akanarya's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Çankırı, Turkey
Posts: 210
is there any update on photokina 2014 and ff rumors?
07-22-2014, 04:56 AM   #381
Pentaxian
RonHendriks1966's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2009
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,714
QuoteOriginally posted by akanarya Quote
is there any update on photokina 2014 and ff rumors?
No not yet.....
07-22-2014, 05:38 AM   #382
Pentaxian
RobA_Oz's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Tasmania, Australia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 4,333
QuoteOriginally posted by jsherman999 Quote
I think the point was that the performance difference range between 'pedestrian' lenses, 'good' lenses and 'great' lenses is less than it was in the film days of the 60s, 70s, 80s and most of the 90s, especially with zoom lenses. In those days, film was film and your camera was mostly a light-tight box, and the large variance in lens quality meant everything. Now, you can invest in a 16MP body + a $2000 zeiss lens and it may get you less lp/ph resolution and perceived acutance than a $1500 24MP FF camera and a $100 lens.

It's still a good idea to invest in good lenses (and 'good' != expensive, necessarily) but it makes less sense than it did in the film days to buy 'great' lenses - nearly every new 'good' lens is sharp enough, and the MTF combo scores with high-res sensors gives you more than enough detail for most applications.

It really does make sense to pare down the money spent on lenses and shift it to newer/better sensors in some cases. Better, cheaper returns for you.

Then there's the ever-present fear of investing in expensive, great lenses for a mount that may be going away because of a MILC <--> FF squeeze...
Well, you might be right on all this, but the critical point in it is what constitutes the differences between "good" and "great" lenses. Perhaps we might just be seeing things a different way, but, for instance, to my mind, a "great" lens is one that delivers consistently high performance across the image and through the range of apertures, and there aren't too many of those and they are generally mightily expensive. Usually but not always they carry the names Zeiss and Leica. "Good" lenses can deliver similar performance, but across a lesser range of apertures, and perhaps less so often across the full image.

I've been reading with interest the various arguments on these and other pages about the superiority of so-called Full Frame cameras, and I have to agree there are some situations where they do better than APS-C. Really, though, unless you're into fine DoF photos in a big way, or perhaps extreme low-light situations, the IQ performance-price trade-off is something for the individual to determine as relevant or not. For me, it's more the latter than the former, except when it comes to fast wide-angle lenses and to ease of composition through a big, bright optical viewfinder, which is where 35FF scores its greatest advantages over APS-C, for me.

As for your final point, I don't think the K-mount is in danger of going away any time soon.
07-22-2014, 06:54 AM   #383
Veteran Member




Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,893
QuoteOriginally posted by RobA_Oz Quote
the IQ performance-price trade-off is something for the individual to determine as relevant or not.
For sure! For me it was cheaper AND better, so really no decision required. YMMV.

07-22-2014, 07:53 AM   #384
Moderator PEG Judges
Kerrowdown's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Highlands of Scotland.
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 32,742
QuoteOriginally posted by akanarya Quote
is there any update on photokina 2014 and ff rumors?
No... OK lets start some new rumours then...
07-22-2014, 10:53 AM   #385
Pentaxian




Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Eureka, CA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,977
QuoteOriginally posted by jsherman999 Quote
It's still a good idea to invest in good lenses (and 'good' != expensive, necessarily) but it makes less sense than it did in the film days to buy 'great' lenses - nearly every new 'good' lens is sharp enough, and the MTF combo scores with high-res sensors gives you more than enough detail for most applications.
No, digital makes lenses more important, not less. Back in the days of film, most photographers, even many serious photographers, didn't print big (particularly if they were shooting 35mm SLR). It was just too difficult and expensive. Nor was there much in the way of pixel peeping. Moreover, standards were much lower in those days. There was no Hi-Def TV. Many people shot 110 film with horrible cameras. Even at 4 by 6 inches the results were awful compared to what we are accustomed to today. But in those days few seemed to mind, because that's what they were used to. Film was hugely challenging, particularly color 35mm print film. When I started shooting digital for the first time, I was shocked how much cleaner and sharper my digital images taken with a 6 MP APS-C camera were compared to scans from 35mm color film.

One of the curious evolutions during the film days is that consumer grade lenses got worse between the seventies and the nineties. In the seventies, almost everyone was shooting prime lenses, most of which were pretty good. By the nineties, cheap zoom lenses had become ubiquitous. Why were SLR photographers content with worse glass? Because in the days of film, it didn't matter so much. Back in those days photographers weren't doing much in the way of pixel peeping or printing big. Showing slides had fallen out of fashion. In many cases, their technique, coupled with the low quality of the film they were using, wouldn't have allowed them to take advantage of better glass, even if they had wanted to.

Digital makes it a lot easier not only to pixel peep and make minute judgments about lens performance, but to improve one's technique as well. Photographers shoot a great deal more nowadays, and enjoy instant feedback on the camera, along with intense pixel peeping feedback at home on the computer. Although people print far less today than back in the film days, when they do print, they're more likely to print big. So while it is true that most lenses are "good enough" (at least in terms of resolution), that's because photographers are more demanding and discerning about that sort of thing and standards are higher. However, just because most lenses are sharp enough does not mean that sensor size suddenly trumps lens quality. What differentiates "great" from merely "decent" lenses is not so much resolution, but microcontrast, rendering, color rendition, etc. And these qualitative aspects can often trump the advantages provided by larger sensor size (as long as we are not comparing huge differences in sensor size, such as compact to FF). An image shot with the Olympus SHG 14-35 f2 lens on a four-thirds sensor will tend to look better than an image shot with the Nikkor 24-85 on an FF sensor, regardless of whatever resolution advantages that FF image might have (which will be small in any case, given how sharp the Olympus zoom lens is). The image from the Olympus lens will have more bite and "pop" and richer, more aesthetically satisfying colors, than the image derived from the Nikon consumer grade zoom lens. And I suspect we'd find something along the same lines if comparing the DA limiteds to non-L Canon primes or some of the less stellar Nikon primes. The immeasurable qualities of high end glass can have a bigger impact on image quality than sensor size, and for many types of photography, you may be better off shooting high end glass on an APS-C (or even four-thirds) sensor than mid-range or consumer grade glass on an FF sensor.
07-22-2014, 11:00 AM   #386
Veteran Member




Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,893
QuoteOriginally posted by northcoastgreg Quote
No, digital makes lenses more important, not less.
I think you missed some nuance in his post.

Back in the day, a great lens was, say, a '7' and a good lens was a '4'.
Now a great lens is a 9 and a good lens is an 8.

Lenses are important, sure, but the delta between a great and a good lens isn't nearly as much as it was previously.

---------- Post added 07-22-14 at 11:01 AM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by northcoastgreg Quote
An image shot with the Olympus SHG 14-35 f2 lens on a four-thirds sensor will tend to look better than an image shot with the Nikkor 24-85 on an FF sensor, regardless of whatever resolution advantages that FF image might have (which will be small in any case, given how sharp the Olympus zoom lens is).
Completely disagree. Have any comparison shots?
07-22-2014, 11:10 AM   #387
Junior Member




Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 30
What about all that old glass in photoland?

QuoteOriginally posted by DSims Quote
Yes.

Others may have inside information, which I don't have. But looking at it logically, they've had enough time to develop the camera. The only thing holding them back should be the lenses.

Pentax recently put a ~70-200 * lens on the roadmap. Tokina just showed a 24-70/2.8 they said they'll announce at Photokina: New Tokina AT-X PRO 24-70mm f/2.8 SD (IF) FX lens spotted at CP+ | Photo Rumors

So if Pentax has the 70-200, plus someone's 24-70 in the Pentax mount, they'll be ready to release the camera. They already have 3 FA Ltds, a few DFA lenses, and at least 3 FF ready DA lenses I can think of off of the top of my head (DA*55, DA*200, DA*300). The only thing missing is a wide angle lens or wide zoom, which may already be on the roadmap (in any case, all they need is something like Tokina's current 16-28/2.8 FX lens to fill this role). And if they're smart, they have a whole stable of quality FA glass they can pull from and bring a few of them back - whether in revised form or just as they were.

Add to that the fact that there is a significant number of FA and F lens out there to work right from the box and even the very old Pentax lens from M42 days are said to be legendary in performance, they might have a head start and not realize it. Sure there is some catch up to be done to get the absolute best quality but, I've seen a few shots with old glass and you wouldn't know if no one told you.
07-22-2014, 12:47 PM   #388
Senior Member
akanarya's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Çankırı, Turkey
Posts: 210
QuoteOriginally posted by RonHendriks1966 Quote
No not yet.....
thanks Ron,

I think that if it will be showed at PK then there should be some smell at these days because there isnt so much time to exhibition.

QuoteOriginally posted by Kerrowdown Quote
No... OK lets start some new rumours then...
well ff rumours has an age that matches to humanity'.
07-22-2014, 12:49 PM   #389
Moderator PEG Judges
Kerrowdown's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Highlands of Scotland.
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 32,742
QuoteOriginally posted by akanarya Quote
well ff rumours has an age that matches to humanity
Wow that's a pretty profound.
07-22-2014, 01:00 PM   #390
Veteran Member
jsherman999's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,228
QuoteOriginally posted by northcoastgreg Quote
No, digital makes lenses more important, not less. Back in the days of film, most photographers, even many serious photographers, didn't print big (particularly if they were shooting 35mm SLR). It was just too difficult and expensive. Nor was there much in the way of pixel peeping. Moreover, standards were much lower in those days. There was no Hi-Def TV. Many people shot 110 film with horrible cameras. Even at 4 by 6 inches the results were awful compared to what we are accustomed to today. But in those days few seemed to mind, because that's what they were used to. Film was hugely challenging, particularly color 35mm print film. When I started shooting digital for the first time, I was shocked how much cleaner and sharper my digital images taken with a 6 MP APS-C camera were compared to scans from 35mm color film. ..
You didn't quite follow my point I think, and it's in two parts:

1) The advice to "invest in lenses, body doesn't matter" came from the film era, when it was almost completely true - you couldn't improve your image quality or resolution by shooting a different body, they were just light-tight boxes with varying features and controls which could hold the same types of film.. You needed to invest in better lenses to improve your resolution/IQ. Now it's different - you can shoot the same lens on two different sensors and get radically different results, and you can often shoot a lesser-resolving lens on more MP (and/or larger sensor) and get better resolution than a higher-resolving lens on less MP.

2) The delta between lenses is less now - The worst zooms 20 years ago were incredibly bad, with cheap designs and sub-par coatings, or coatings on only one element, etc. They were soft, flared like a supernova and had low contrast and tons of PF and aberrations. Now even 18-55 kit lenses are pretty sharp and well controlled, and most new primes are exceptional. If you had one of the first 28-90 variable-aperture zooms or poorly-coated, cheap 28mms, you really wanted to listen to the 'upgrade your lens' advice - because of the quality delta and because of #1, it was really the only way to improve your IQ.

.

QuoteQuote:
The immeasurable qualities of high end glass can have a bigger impact on image quality than sensor size, and for many types of photography, you may be better off shooting high end glass on an APS-C (or even four-thirds) sensor than mid-range or consumer grade glass on an FF sensor.
With regard to resolution, that's actually not true in many cases - the MTF scores are telling a different story, that you improve your resolution more by going with a higher-MP sensor, especially a high-MP larger sensor if lp/ph is important. (It's also not necessarily a FF-vs-smaller question, it's more of a sensor quality and MP question - But it can be FF vs aps-c as well for some combos.)

You mention 'immeasurable qualities', by which I assume you mean bokeh, 'drawing/rendering', etc, and you have a point - the best lenses will have these qualities - but they had the in the film era too, and all things added up, the influence of the body/sensor on your images is much, much higher than it was in the past, and that you can improve your output much more now by upgrading your sensor, even more in most cases than upgrading your lenses from 'good' to 'great'. The "invest in lenses, body doesn't matter" advice is much less true now because of that fact.

For the quants among us, it's kinda like:

1980: (Body quality & features * 2) + (lens quality * 12) = image IQ (leaving film out because the same film can be used across multiple bodies) == "body doesn't matter invest in lenses"
2014: (body features * 2) + (Sensor quality * 6) + (lens quality * 6) = image IQ == "body/sensor does matter as much as lenses."

With the reduced delta in lens quality contributing to the lesser lens weighting, and sensor deltas contributing to increased body factor weighting.

.

Last edited by jsherman999; 07-22-2014 at 01:20 PM.
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, 35mm, a7, angle, banners, body, camera, canon, da, da lenses, dslr, fa, ff, full-frame, jump, lens, lenses, market, nikon, option, pentax, ricoh, roadmap, rumors, signature, time, tokina
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Weekly Challenge POTW 2February 2014 to 16 February 2014 bucfan1234 Weekly Photo Challenges 23 02-18-2014 05:28 PM
Weekly Challenge POTW 26th January 2014 to 9th February 2014 bucfan1234 Weekly Photo Challenges 19 02-09-2014 06:01 PM
CES 2014 and CP+ 2014 Uluru Pentax News and Rumors 134 01-25-2014 09:11 AM
Photokina 2010 is history, and there was no FF announcement. What now? ilya80 General Talk 25 10-09-2010 08:34 AM
I think the Pentax FF will be announced at Photokina 2010 whatever7 Pentax News and Rumors 106 02-04-2010 12:45 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:29 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