Do you really need a FF ? Why ?

Enrique S Toso · 06-11-2014, 04:43 PM

True....still a lot of F number. Was thinking in MF multiplication.

traderdrew · 06-12-2014, 09:24 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by pericombobulation

Why would FF necessarily translate to better AF? Am I missing something? Maybe the D4 simply has a better AF system?

It does. People who buy expensive FF cameras expect to pay for performance. I think it is natural for Nikon and Canon to put better autofocus technology those cameras. The D4 also has a buffer from anywhere to the moon. I can stand next to some of these guys in nice morning and afternoon light and I can get some sharp shots but as soon as that light starts to drop, so does my autofocus performance. Again I am taking about photographing flying birds. I have tossed a lot of near misses. It may not be entirely a K-3 problem. I think the T stops of the Sigma 500mm F/4.5 and the 300mm F/2.8 aren't as good as similar lenses from Nikon and Canon. We all know the more light the lens and send to the camera the better an autofocus system will perform.

I have seen someone else take an EOS-1Dx (another expensive FF) and put a 400mm F/5.6 with a 2X converter on it and go for flight shots. I don't think much of this persons work but to put something like this on my K-3 and expect it to get flying birds is just crazy.

Here is much of the best of my work. I think you would agree I know something about what I am doing:

Andrew Richardson | 500px

normhead · 06-12-2014, 10:10 AM

Originally posted by Enrique S Toso

Why full frame?? Just because I dont want to buy a lens, thinking "it shall be F2.8 or NOTHING". Think about it...a 300mm F5.6, its actually a 450mm, but F11.2!! It like those cheap F9 lenses in amazon, no matter brand or IQ or whatever.

Maybe it is ok for enthusiast, but im becoming pro, and dont want to go Nikon. Other photographers say "if you were thinking in becoming pro, you should choose the gear wisely", but I fall in love with photography with Pentax, and I consider myself a Pentaxian. Why u dont take care of pro pentaxians?? why you take care just of enthusiasts, or just millonaire enthusiasts (P645Z), but no pro photographers.

We need a full frame body, and pentax need to make lenses for nikon AND canon AND sigma, just like sigma and tamron do.

If you'er becoming a pro, buy the gear you need, not what you love.... that being said, there are lots of pros using Pentax gear... and lots of pros have already ordered the 645Z, many of them wondering why Nikon and Canon aren't taking care of medium format pros. If you can't get what you want in one brand, buy the brand that has what you want. It's not an emotional decision, it's a technical one.

I'm trying to do you a valour here buddy. I've been shooting Pentax 48 years, but because of what I do, there may be a time I have to acquire other gear. If you're a pro, that kind of decision is what keeps you working. If you're stuck on a specific brand, you're not a pro. You're a dabbler.

Your math is a little off there. First of all there is no 300 5.6, there's a 300 2.8, a 300 4.5 and the one in production is a 300 ƒ4. And it's a 450 a ƒ5.6, not 11.3, even if you use wonky DoF math.

pericombobulation · 06-12-2014, 10:14 AM

Awesome pics Andrew!
I just asked the question because I wasn't sure if there was something about FF which would inherently make the camera's focusing system work better. Some cameras may have AF systems which are better than those of other cameras, but this doesn't have anything to do with the size of the sensor, right?

normhead · 06-12-2014, 10:32 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by pericombobulation

Awesome pics Andrew!
I just asked the question because I wasn't sure if there was something about FF which would inherently make the camera's focusing system work better. Some cameras may have AF systems which are better than those of other cameras, but this doesn't have anything to do with the size of the sensor, right?

Having handled a D600 with an 85 and my K-3 with a Tamron 90, I'd say no. But, if you're asking, are much more expensive and powerful AF systems available for purchase on FF , then the answer is yes.

The lens will have a lot to do with the AF as well.
My understanding is that nothing beats the Canon ring motors for speed of AF, but you have to buy a body that can use them.

When it comes to range of options available, FF offers everything from a $1600 D610 or 6D to a 7 thousand D4 of some incarnation. No other system offers that kind of range and upgradeability, letting you start small and cheap,and end up big and expensive without changing format. That's one of the strengths of FF.

You can get more, the question is whether or not you will. Paying more for an FF system and not doing anymore than you would have done with an APS-c system doesn't make a lot of sense. Most of us don't want to pay for potential, we want to pay of actual usage.

APS-c offers everything from a $350 D3200 to a $1200 K-3, so lower both on the bottom end and top end. But once you're topped out your APS-c system, there may be things you want in your upgrade path that are not available on APS-c. Just as there will be things in your upgrade to FF where that system is not as functional as APS-c. It all depends on what you're going for.

traderdrew · 06-12-2014, 10:34 AM

Originally posted by pericombobulation

Awesome pics Andrew!
I just asked the question because I wasn't sure if there was something about FF which would inherently make the camera's focusing system work better. Some cameras may have AF systems which are better than those of other cameras, but this doesn't have anything to do with the size of the sensor, right?

I really don't know. FF cameras are more efficient with light absorption than APS-C are so I would think this may have some impact on autofocus accuracy. However, I compared photographs with a friend who downloaded photos from a rare wildlife event taken with photographers using APS-Cs and FF cameras. The conclusion was one of the FF users didn't have the right settings and his capture was a bit blurry and the other FF user did better but it just wasn't there. (His 600mm lens could have been to big creating a shallower depth of field at close range). The APS-C camera won when analyzing the photos close up. It's the user as well as the cameras. I don't expect an expensive FF camera to do all the work for me.

normhead · 06-12-2014, 10:40 AM

Originally posted by traderdrew

I really don't know. FF cameras are more efficient with light absorption than APS-C are so I would think this may have some impact on autofocus accuracy. However, I compared photographs with a friend who downloaded photos from a rare wildlife event taken with photographers using APS-Cs and FF cameras. The conclusion was one of the FF users didn't have the right settings and his capture was a bit blurry and the other FF user did better but it just wasn't there. (His 600mm lens could have been to big creating a shallower depth of field at close range). The APS-C camera won when analyzing the photos close up. It's the user as well as the cameras. I don't expect an expensive FF camera to do all the work for me.

I lost such a competition once to my buddy using a Canon point and shoot, compared to my K-5 and A-400 .The stars just aligned for the smaller format that day. His extra reach and superior CA correction, won the day.

lukulele · 06-12-2014, 11:03 AM

Originally posted by normhead

Having handled a D600 with an 85 and my K-3 with a Tamron 90, I'd say no. But, if you're asking, are much more expensive and powerful AF systems available for purchase on FF , then the answer is yes.

The lens will have a lot to do with the AF as well.
My understanding is that nothing beats the Canon ring motors for speed of AF, but you have to buy a body that can use them.

When it comes to range of options available, FF offers everything from a $1600 D610 or 6D to a 7 thousand D4 of some incarnation. No other system offers that kind of range and upgradeability, letting you start small and cheap,and end up big and expensive without changing format. That's one of the strengths of FF.

You can get more, the question is whether or not you will. Paying more for an FF system and not doing anymore than you would have done with an APS-c system doesn't make a lot of sense. Most of us don't want to pay for potential, we want to pay of actual usage.

APS-c offers everything from a $350 D3200 to a $1200 K-3, so lower both on the bottom end and top end. But once you're topped out your APS-c system, there may be things you want in your upgrade path that are not available on APS-c. Just as there will be things in your upgrade to FF where that system is not as functional as APS-c. It all depends on what you're going for.

Norm convinced me-K-3 in box waiting for other attachments. At my age it's all about the size, weight, durability, and practice, practice, practice. It's like waiting to retire, think about what you missed during the waiting. K-5 this week after two years of following this young lady and learning how to manual and AF sequentially with a consumer DA55-300

pericombobulation · 06-12-2014, 12:54 PM

Can't argue with results like that lukulele!
Osprey?

lukulele · 06-12-2014, 01:35 PM

Originally posted by pericombobulation

Can't argue with results like that lukulele!
Osprey?

Thanks and yes an Osprey female. Male out over the adjacent river hunting. He'll occasionally come by with a Bream to drop off, and head to a nearby transmission tower, pine grove, or back out to the river.

ElJamoquio · 06-12-2014, 01:50 PM

You know what makes a lot of sense? Paying less for FF.

**Rondec** · 06-12-2014, 01:55 PM

Originally posted by ElJamoquio

You know what makes a lot of sense? Paying less for FF.

You beat that drum a lot. It won't be the case with a Pentax full frame. In addition, your goal seems to be to match the performance of upper end APS-C cameras, not surpass them. Doing better requires faster and more expensive lenses.

redrockcoulee · 06-12-2014, 02:02 PM

Originally posted by Enrique S Toso

Why full frame?? Just because I dont want to buy a lens, thinking "it shall be F2.8 or NOTHING". Think about it...a 300mm F5.6, its actually a 450mm, but F11.2!! It like those cheap F9 lenses in amazon, no matter brand or IQ or whatever.

Maybe it is ok for enthusiast, but im becoming pro, and dont want to go Nikon. Other photographers say "if you were thinking in becoming pro, you should choose the gear wisely", but I fall in love with photography with Pentax, and I consider myself a Pentaxian. Why u dont take care of pro pentaxians?? why you take care just of enthusiasts, or just millonaire enthusiasts (P645Z), but no pro photographers.

We need a full frame body, and pentax need to make lenses for nikon AND canon AND sigma, just like sigma and tamron do.

No it is still a 300 5.6 lens. I do not ever try to think of my LF or Hasselblad lenses as being faster than they actually are just because the sensor (film) is larger than 35mm. An external light meter does not have on it anywhere to dial in the size of the format The 645Z is about 3 or 4 K more than the Nikon D4 so do not think that is the difference between pro photographers and millionairs, there are some 645D owners on this forum who more than likely spent more than the new version and it was cheaper than the first pro dlsr cameras.

It is OK to want a FF camera but please none of this false equivalence of lenses or of the cost of going MFD.

I do not need FF. I do have access to and have used a D3 and could if I wanted to borrow a D4 or a D800 but so far have not. I have even sort of talked myself out of upgrading to the K3 for the time being. A caveat is I shoot for myself and have no interest on shooting for others again. The time that Pentax starts making lenses for Nikon and Canon will be the end of them, why buy a Pentax camera if you can use their lenses on a different brand? The bigger question is does Pentax need to sell a FF and since I am not a marketing guru I have no answer to that. Otherwise much like many of the other FF threads this has turned into people dialling in numbers to support their position whatever that may be. But a 5.6 lens is 5.6 on APS-C or 8X10. My 120 remains a 120 on the 4X5 or the 5X7. Those numbers are basic physics, go out and measure them and unless you are wanting a certain shallow depth of field the comparion is meaningless if it was true

ElJamoquio · 06-12-2014, 03:07 PM

Originally posted by Rondec

It won't be the case with a Pentax full frame..

Pentax is smart enough to see where the market is headed.

---------- Post added 06-12-14 at 03:08 PM ----------

Originally posted by redrockcoulee

please none of this false equivalence

No problem. I only use true equivalence.

---------- Post added 06-12-14 at 03:09 PM ----------

Originally posted by redrockcoulee

unless you are wanting a certain shallow depth of field the comparion is meaningless if it was true

It is both true and applicable outside of comparisons of DOF.

philbaum · 06-13-2014, 12:12 AM

Originally posted by ElJamoquio

Pentax is smart enough to see where the market is headed.

---------- Post added 06-12-14 at 03:08 PM ----------

.

Actually, i think the mixing of Ricoh and Pentax staff may help in the decision making and forecasting.

Time will tell, but Canikon may be suffering from too much group think. Too much reliance on the big guns to save the day, IMO. Of course, what do i know, they are both still making a profit. Interesting times!

06-12-2014, 10:32 AM - 1 Like	#230
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451	Originally posted by pericombobulation Awesome pics Andrew! I just asked the question because I wasn't sure if there was something about FF which would inherently make the camera's focusing system work better. Some cameras may have AF systems which are better than those of other cameras, but this doesn't have anything to do with the size of the sensor, right? Having handled a D600 with an 85 and my K-3 with a Tamron 90, I'd say no. But, if you're asking, are much more expensive and powerful AF systems available for purchase on FF , then the answer is yes. The lens will have a lot to do with the AF as well. My understanding is that nothing beats the Canon ring motors for speed of AF, but you have to buy a body that can use them. When it comes to range of options available, FF offers everything from a $1600 D610 or 6D to a 7 thousand D4 of some incarnation. No other system offers that kind of range and upgradeability, letting you start small and cheap,and end up big and expensive without changing format. That's one of the strengths of FF. You can get more, the question is whether or not you will. Paying more for an FF system and not doing anymore than you would have done with an APS-c system doesn't make a lot of sense. Most of us don't want to pay for potential, we want to pay of actual usage. APS-c offers everything from a $350 D3200 to a $1200 K-3, so lower both on the bottom end and top end. But once you're topped out your APS-c system, there may be things you want in your upgrade path that are not available on APS-c. Just as there will be things in your upgrade to FF where that system is not as functional as APS-c. It all depends on what you're going for. Last edited by normhead; 06-12-2014 at 10:38 AM.

06-12-2014, 11:03 AM	#233
lukulele Pentaxian Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Blue Ridge Escarpment, North Carolina, US Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,850	Originally posted by normhead Having handled a D600 with an 85 and my K-3 with a Tamron 90, I'd say no. But, if you're asking, are much more expensive and powerful AF systems available for purchase on FF , then the answer is yes. The lens will have a lot to do with the AF as well. My understanding is that nothing beats the Canon ring motors for speed of AF, but you have to buy a body that can use them. When it comes to range of options available, FF offers everything from a $1600 D610 or 6D to a 7 thousand D4 of some incarnation. No other system offers that kind of range and upgradeability, letting you start small and cheap,and end up big and expensive without changing format. That's one of the strengths of FF. You can get more, the question is whether or not you will. Paying more for an FF system and not doing anymore than you would have done with an APS-c system doesn't make a lot of sense. Most of us don't want to pay for potential, we want to pay of actual usage. APS-c offers everything from a $350 D3200 to a $1200 K-3, so lower both on the bottom end and top end. But once you're topped out your APS-c system, there may be things you want in your upgrade path that are not available on APS-c. Just as there will be things in your upgrade to FF where that system is not as functional as APS-c. It all depends on what you're going for. Norm convinced me-K-3 in box waiting for other attachments. At my age it's all about the size, weight, durability, and practice, practice, practice. It's like waiting to retire, think about what you missed during the waiting. K-5 this week after two years of following this young lady and learning how to manual and AF sequentially with a consumer DA55-300 Last edited by lukulele; 07-08-2015 at 01:20 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Pentax ff and why do I need that.	soled	Welcomes and Introductions	6	02-20-2015 03:50 AM
Filters, do you really need them?	peterjcb	Pentax DSLR Discussion	17	01-16-2014 06:10 PM
Do i really need a FF DSLR	simple mick	Pentax DSLR Discussion	21	12-26-2012 07:02 PM
Do you really want a FF???	i83N	Photographic Industry and Professionals	48	10-09-2012 01:52 PM
Why Do You Want FF?	tkj365	Photographic Industry and Professionals	193	09-26-2012 11:09 PM

06-11-2014, 04:43 PM	#226
Enrique S Toso Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2014 Location: Mendoza - Argentina Posts: 141	True....still a lot of F number. Was thinking in MF multiplication.

06-12-2014, 09:24 AM - 1 Like	#227
traderdrew Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Florida Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 639	Originally posted by pericombobulation Why would FF necessarily translate to better AF? Am I missing something? Maybe the D4 simply has a better AF system? It does. People who buy expensive FF cameras expect to pay for performance. I think it is natural for Nikon and Canon to put better autofocus technology those cameras. The D4 also has a buffer from anywhere to the moon. I can stand next to some of these guys in nice morning and afternoon light and I can get some sharp shots but as soon as that light starts to drop, so does my autofocus performance. Again I am taking about photographing flying birds. I have tossed a lot of near misses. It may not be entirely a K-3 problem. I think the T stops of the Sigma 500mm F/4.5 and the 300mm F/2.8 aren't as good as similar lenses from Nikon and Canon. We all know the more light the lens and send to the camera the better an autofocus system will perform. I have seen someone else take an EOS-1Dx (another expensive FF) and put a 400mm F/5.6 with a 2X converter on it and go for flight shots. I don't think much of this persons work but to put something like this on my K-3 and expect it to get flying birds is just crazy. Here is much of the best of my work. I think you would agree I know something about what I am doing: Andrew Richardson \| 500px

06-12-2014, 10:10 AM	#228
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451	Originally posted by Enrique S Toso Why full frame?? Just because I dont want to buy a lens, thinking "it shall be F2.8 or NOTHING". Think about it...a 300mm F5.6, its actually a 450mm, but F11.2!! It like those cheap F9 lenses in amazon, no matter brand or IQ or whatever. Maybe it is ok for enthusiast, but im becoming pro, and dont want to go Nikon. Other photographers say "if you were thinking in becoming pro, you should choose the gear wisely", but I fall in love with photography with Pentax, and I consider myself a Pentaxian. Why u dont take care of pro pentaxians?? why you take care just of enthusiasts, or just millonaire enthusiasts (P645Z), but no pro photographers. We need a full frame body, and pentax need to make lenses for nikon AND canon AND sigma, just like sigma and tamron do. If you'er becoming a pro, buy the gear you need, not what you love.... that being said, there are lots of pros using Pentax gear... and lots of pros have already ordered the 645Z, many of them wondering why Nikon and Canon aren't taking care of medium format pros. If you can't get what you want in one brand, buy the brand that has what you want. It's not an emotional decision, it's a technical one. I'm trying to do you a valour here buddy. I've been shooting Pentax 48 years, but because of what I do, there may be a time I have to acquire other gear. If you're a pro, that kind of decision is what keeps you working. If you're stuck on a specific brand, you're not a pro. You're a dabbler. Your math is a little off there. First of all there is no 300 5.6, there's a 300 2.8, a 300 4.5 and the one in production is a 300 ƒ4. And it's a 450 a ƒ5.6, not 11.3, even if you use wonky DoF math.

06-12-2014, 10:14 AM	#229
pericombobulation Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2012 Posts: 103	Awesome pics Andrew! I just asked the question because I wasn't sure if there was something about FF which would inherently make the camera's focusing system work better. Some cameras may have AF systems which are better than those of other cameras, but this doesn't have anything to do with the size of the sensor, right?

06-12-2014, 10:34 AM	#231
traderdrew Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Florida Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 639	Originally posted by pericombobulation Awesome pics Andrew! I just asked the question because I wasn't sure if there was something about FF which would inherently make the camera's focusing system work better. Some cameras may have AF systems which are better than those of other cameras, but this doesn't have anything to do with the size of the sensor, right? I really don't know. FF cameras are more efficient with light absorption than APS-C are so I would think this may have some impact on autofocus accuracy. However, I compared photographs with a friend who downloaded photos from a rare wildlife event taken with photographers using APS-Cs and FF cameras. The conclusion was one of the FF users didn't have the right settings and his capture was a bit blurry and the other FF user did better but it just wasn't there. (His 600mm lens could have been to big creating a shallower depth of field at close range). The APS-C camera won when analyzing the photos close up. It's the user as well as the cameras. I don't expect an expensive FF camera to do all the work for me.

06-12-2014, 10:40 AM	#232
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451	Originally posted by traderdrew I really don't know. FF cameras are more efficient with light absorption than APS-C are so I would think this may have some impact on autofocus accuracy. However, I compared photographs with a friend who downloaded photos from a rare wildlife event taken with photographers using APS-Cs and FF cameras. The conclusion was one of the FF users didn't have the right settings and his capture was a bit blurry and the other FF user did better but it just wasn't there. (His 600mm lens could have been to big creating a shallower depth of field at close range). The APS-C camera won when analyzing the photos close up. It's the user as well as the cameras. I don't expect an expensive FF camera to do all the work for me. I lost such a competition once to my buddy using a Canon point and shoot, compared to my K-5 and A-400 .The stars just aligned for the smaller format that day. His extra reach and superior CA correction, won the day.

06-12-2014, 12:54 PM	#234
pericombobulation Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2012 Posts: 103	Can't argue with results like that lukulele! Osprey?

06-12-2014, 01:35 PM	#235
lukulele Pentaxian Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Blue Ridge Escarpment, North Carolina, US Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,850	Originally posted by pericombobulation Can't argue with results like that lukulele! Osprey? Thanks and yes an Osprey female. Male out over the adjacent river hunting. He'll occasionally come by with a Bream to drop off, and head to a nearby transmission tower, pine grove, or back out to the river.

06-12-2014, 01:50 PM	#236
ElJamoquio Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 4,873	You know what makes a lot of sense? Paying less for FF.

06-12-2014, 01:55 PM	#237
Rondec Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Gladys, Virginia Photos: Gallery Posts: 27,652	Originally posted by ElJamoquio You know what makes a lot of sense? Paying less for FF. You beat that drum a lot. It won't be the case with a Pentax full frame. In addition, your goal seems to be to match the performance of upper end APS-C cameras, not surpass them. Doing better requires faster and more expensive lenses.

06-12-2014, 02:02 PM	#238
redrockcoulee Pentaxian Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Medicine Hat Posts: 2,306	Originally posted by Enrique S Toso Why full frame?? Just because I dont want to buy a lens, thinking "it shall be F2.8 or NOTHING". Think about it...a 300mm F5.6, its actually a 450mm, but F11.2!! It like those cheap F9 lenses in amazon, no matter brand or IQ or whatever. Maybe it is ok for enthusiast, but im becoming pro, and dont want to go Nikon. Other photographers say "if you were thinking in becoming pro, you should choose the gear wisely", but I fall in love with photography with Pentax, and I consider myself a Pentaxian. Why u dont take care of pro pentaxians?? why you take care just of enthusiasts, or just millonaire enthusiasts (P645Z), but no pro photographers. We need a full frame body, and pentax need to make lenses for nikon AND canon AND sigma, just like sigma and tamron do. No it is still a 300 5.6 lens. I do not ever try to think of my LF or Hasselblad lenses as being faster than they actually are just because the sensor (film) is larger than 35mm. An external light meter does not have on it anywhere to dial in the size of the format The 645Z is about 3 or 4 K more than the Nikon D4 so do not think that is the difference between pro photographers and millionairs, there are some 645D owners on this forum who more than likely spent more than the new version and it was cheaper than the first pro dlsr cameras. It is OK to want a FF camera but please none of this false equivalence of lenses or of the cost of going MFD. I do not need FF. I do have access to and have used a D3 and could if I wanted to borrow a D4 or a D800 but so far have not. I have even sort of talked myself out of upgrading to the K3 for the time being. A caveat is I shoot for myself and have no interest on shooting for others again. The time that Pentax starts making lenses for Nikon and Canon will be the end of them, why buy a Pentax camera if you can use their lenses on a different brand? The bigger question is does Pentax need to sell a FF and since I am not a marketing guru I have no answer to that. Otherwise much like many of the other FF threads this has turned into people dialling in numbers to support their position whatever that may be. But a 5.6 lens is 5.6 on APS-C or 8X10. My 120 remains a 120 on the 4X5 or the 5X7. Those numbers are basic physics, go out and measure them and unless you are wanting a certain shallow depth of field the comparion is meaningless if it was true

06-12-2014, 03:07 PM	#239
ElJamoquio Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 4,873	Originally posted by Rondec It won't be the case with a Pentax full frame.. Pentax is smart enough to see where the market is headed. ---------- Post added 06-12-14 at 03:08 PM ---------- Originally posted by redrockcoulee please none of this false equivalence No problem. I only use true equivalence. ---------- Post added 06-12-14 at 03:09 PM ---------- Originally posted by redrockcoulee unless you are wanting a certain shallow depth of field the comparion is meaningless if it was true It is both true and applicable outside of comparisons of DOF.

06-13-2014, 12:12 AM	#240
philbaum Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Port Townsend, Washington State, USA Posts: 3,659	Originally posted by ElJamoquio Pentax is smart enough to see where the market is headed. ---------- Post added 06-12-14 at 03:08 PM ---------- . Actually, i think the mixing of Ricoh and Pentax staff may help in the decision making and forecasting. Time will tell, but Canikon may be suffering from too much group think. Too much reliance on the big guns to save the day, IMO. Of course, what do i know, they are both still making a profit. Interesting times!