Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
06-02-2014, 07:58 AM   #16
Veteran Member




Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,893
The d7100 and the k3 are the same price and very comparable. There's some minor (to me) differences but the biggest one is k vs. F.

A pentax a7r would be great. A pentax d600 would be great. A pentax d800 would be great.

06-02-2014, 08:35 AM - 2 Likes   #17
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Romania
Posts: 9,328
I don't believe in "lower price and higher quality"; and I'm sure Ricoh doesn't either.
06-02-2014, 08:59 AM   #18
Loyal Site Supporter
monochrome's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Kirkwood (St. Louis) MO
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 20,426
QuoteOriginally posted by Kunzite Quote
I don't believe in "lower price and higher quality"; and I'm sure Ricoh doesn't either.
If you aren't paying for global advertising, global on-the-ground personnel, marketing, professional support services and other SG&A expenses for a dizzying array of consumer-price-point market segmentation cameras then you can offer one higher quality camera at a somewhat better price than CaNikon.
06-02-2014, 09:12 AM   #19
Senior Member




Join Date: Sep 2013
Photos: Albums
Posts: 128
QuoteOriginally posted by DarCam Quote
If this is true, then the argument brought on is what's the sweet spot for sensor size.
Hmm, the 4/3 lens is just too small, in my opinion, for an all around camera. You sacrifice much too much in low light. The future is always less equipment, and smaller, yes, but traveling around with lights, or shooting only outdoors—that's what you're talking about 4/3. Maybe not APSC, that's true. But with cameras like the A7, it seems clear that the size issue can be resolved by making other components smaller. High resolution images, low light, 4k video. Where else is there to go? And it's much easier in full frame. I think it's quite possible that the full frame will become an enthusiast format, and medium format will be for pros (which is historically the case).

The smaller sensor sizes are sort of about size, but as the technology becomes more compact, it's increasingly a question of manufacturing cost. Cost vs competition. The competition, the A7s, the 6Ds, the A99, are bringing full frame to this category. If Pentax doesn't move up to ff, they're market (outside medium format), will be relegated to the beginner and semi-beginner market.

06-02-2014, 09:19 AM   #20
Pentaxian
mecrox's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Oxford, UK
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,115
QuoteOriginally posted by monochrome Quote
If you aren't paying for global advertising, global on-the-ground personnel, marketing, professional support services and other SG&A expenses for a dizzying array of consumer-price-point market segmentation cameras then you can offer one higher quality camera at a somewhat better price than CaNikon.
Maybe quite correct, but it is the lenses that count. They are not going to be cheap and they are unlikely to be cheaper than anything offered by the Big Two. So far as I can see, the FF problem is that no matter what the body, any maker is facing a real uphill struggle without a good catalogue of lenses. I don't know what the answer to this is or even whether there is an answer. In my case, would I buy a Pentax FF body? Nope, not if the only choice on lenses was half a dozen examples all more costly than Canikon's. Ricoh would really need both Tamron and Sigma to come onside with K-mounts easily available and not "we'll see after 6-12 months", and likely Zeiss back in the fold too since once one is in FF land, high-end lenses start to matter more and more. It's a very difficult issue, I think.
06-02-2014, 09:30 AM - 1 Like   #21
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 5,795
QuoteOriginally posted by DarCam Quote
If this is true, then the argument brought on is what's the sweet spot for sensor size.
For me that's not the real issue. The ideal focal length for portraits is 75mm-200mm with 85mm and 135mm being the most common. This has nothing to do with sensor size. Olympus introduced the 75mm F/1.8 for portraits, but you need a lot of room to work with that lens. Pentax has the 77mm and that is a decent working range. 85mm on a FF is really good, and the 80mm on my Contax 645 is excellent for the working range.
06-02-2014, 09:32 AM   #22
Pentaxian




Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: East Bay Area
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 786
In terms of lenses, they probably can rework existing FA lenses to fill the initial needs. Newer, higher quality lenses can come later. That way they can focus more on lenses for MILC FF camera first.

All they need to show is a new, updated, prototype of FF DSLR while releasing MILC FF with K adapter to show that K mount isn't abandoned and continue to string Pentaxians along. Personally, all I need is a WR, MILC FF with a good quality, WR, normal focal length, zoom for my travel need. I will keep K3 around for telephoto needs.
06-02-2014, 09:41 AM   #23
Loyal Site Supporter
monochrome's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Kirkwood (St. Louis) MO
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 20,426
QuoteOriginally posted by mecrox Quote
Maybe quite correct, but it is the lenses that count. They are not going to be cheap and they are unlikely to be cheaper than anything offered by the Big Two. So far as I can see, the FF problem is that no matter what the body, any maker is facing a real uphill struggle without a good catalogue of lenses. I don't know what the answer to this is or even whether there is an answer. In my case, would I buy a Pentax FF body? Nope, not if the only choice on lenses was half a dozen examples all more costly than Canikon's. Ricoh would really need both Tamron and Sigma to come onside with K-mounts easily available and not "we'll see after 6-12 months", and likely Zeiss back in the fold too since once one is in FF land, high-end lenses start to matter more and more. It's a very difficult issue, I think.
Yes! On the MILC sales thread I just predicted the demise for the consumer-grade kitlens. Enthusiasts buy lenses. Bodies are a disposable afterthought.

It will be seen how many current DA lenses are truly FF and available to be reclassified / remarketed DA Pro.

06-02-2014, 11:01 AM   #24
Senior Member
Paul MaudDib's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Michigan
Posts: 292
QuoteOriginally posted by DarCam Quote
If this is true, then the argument brought on is what's the sweet spot for sensor size.
There is no universal "sweet spot" for sensor size that exists independent of desired output resolutions.

Current sensors do OK for current display sizes and output PPIs, but those have stagnated for a decade at this point, and in the abstract it's always desirable to have more. One of the glorious things about shooting 6x7 is you can crop down to a quarter of the original negative and still have a 35mm negative's worth of resolution. Currently FF and crop sensors can do that for our 1080p-and-below displays, but 4K is really starting to hit the market big time. You can pick up a 65" 4K screen for $1200, or a 36" for $400, or a 28.5" 60hz 4K display for $650. Price-wise it's a no-brainer right now, the marketing just hasn't gotten into gear yet. That's 4 times the resolution of 1080p, and smaller sensors run into the limits of physics much faster than larger sensors. In the near future, we will all essentially be "printing large" in terms of resolution needed to drive those displays.

It's not enough to just deliver smaller sensor sites ("more megapixels") to increase the resolution, you need a high-performance camera system that can deliver high levels of resolution before you hit the diffraction limit. What you eventually end up with is the Pentax Q, where the lenses need to achieve peak resolution wide open (f/2.8) and stopping down at all immediately puts you past the diffraction limit, whereupon the performance starts to drop out hard. As megapixel counts go up, smaller sensors tend to exhibit this behavior far quicker than larger sensors.

24mp sensors like the K-5 or the D5200 are diffraction limited at f/5.6 currently. You can't scale up the resolution with that constraint anywhere near as easily as a large sensor. A 36mp full frame sensor like the D800 isn't diffraction limited until f/11. Much more wiggle room for future performance improvements. It's much easier (and cheaper in the long run) to scale the sensor and lenses up and keep the pixel pitch constant than to deliver a range of lenses with >24mp performance at f/4 and below. Ask yourself whether it makes more sense to buy a bigger sensor and decent-but-affordable lenses, or a smaller sensor and every lens has to be a Zeiss Otus or a Sigma Art?

This is by the way totally ignoring the difference in depth of field that gives larger sensors a "performance advantage" at wide apertures, where a slower lens on FF produces the same DoF as a fast, expensive lens on crop. Even ignoring that, FF sensors have an advantage in terms of being able to utilize lenses more effectively at small apertures, which allows the lenses to be more modest in performance and cost.

If all you want is VGA-resolution snapshots for your Facebook, of course it doesn't matter. I had a 1.3mp digital camera that did that fine, and that would be sufficient for most people's "needs" (as determined by internet commentators).

Last edited by Paul MaudDib; 06-02-2014 at 01:16 PM.
06-02-2014, 12:17 PM   #25
Veteran Member




Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,893
Sensors have about the same diffraction/DOF tradeoff. If you found a Q F/0.5 lens it would have about the same diffraction penalty as a FF lens at F/2.8, or F/2 and F/11, etc.

Negating that statement - the sharpness-starting-off is generally much much higher on FF, in practice usually 4x as much resolving power.
06-02-2014, 12:33 PM   #26
Senior Member




Join Date: Jun 2012
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 138
QuoteOriginally posted by DarCam Quote
[...] that there is a changing tide in the industry that might render the idea of Pentax FF obsolete. That tide is currently being pushed by Olympus, Samsung, Sony, Panasonic and Fuji; the mirrorless market is expanding and we all see a future where a flipping mirror might be archaic and unnecessary.


'nough said.
06-02-2014, 01:02 PM   #27
Senior Member




Join Date: Sep 2013
Photos: Albums
Posts: 128
QuoteOriginally posted by ruggiex Quote
In terms of lenses, they probably can rework existing FA lenses to fill the initial needs. Newer, higher quality lenses can come later. That way they can focus more on lenses for MILC FF camera first.

All they need to show is a new, updated, prototype of FF DSLR while releasing MILC FF with K adapter to show that K mount isn't abandoned and continue to string Pentaxians along. Personally, all I need is a WR, MILC FF with a good quality, WR, normal focal length, zoom for my travel need. I will keep K3 around for telephoto needs.
Ruggie is right on here. They don't have to release a top of the market FF. At a MILC level they only have Sony to worry about, at the moment. From there, they can start building up the lenses.
06-02-2014, 01:29 PM   #28
Senior Member
Paul MaudDib's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Michigan
Posts: 292
QuoteOriginally posted by Kunzite Quote
Ditching the K-mount is not an option; and I'm once again amazed how on a forum supposedly for K-mount users, this is considered desirable.
The main reason: lenses. With K-mount, newly introduced "FF" lenses would also be bought by the much larger APS-C user base. Going directly for a new mount, guess what:
- no user base to buy lenses (except those who'll buy into the new FF system)
- K-mount users upset and worried about K-mount's future, likely impact on the APS-C user base.

I'm not saying they won't/shouldn't launch a new, large sensor MILC system (i.e. with a new mount), sometime in the future. But that would have to be done starting with higher volume APS-C, building an user base and then, when that user base is large enough, a FF option would be viable.
MHO.
Exactly. It's highly desirable for there to be an upgrade path - you start with cheap bodies and cheap lenses, and as you grow you can trade up lenses and bodies for more capable versions. Were Pentax to decide to produce a FF, it makes exactly zero sense to make up a new, incompatible mount when they already have one. "If you're going to have to sell all your Pentax gear anyway, why not just get a Canikon/Sony FF while you're at it" is the obvious thought process that users would have.

Someone else mentioned Sony, that's a pretty good comparison. I disagree a bit that Sony has gone "multi-mount crazy". They currently have two mounts - one DSLR (now considered legacy), one mirrorless. All their DSLR lenses are full frame (A-mount), some of their mirrorless lenses cover APS-C only (E-mount) and some cover full frame (FE-mount), but both E- and FE-mount are still the same mount though, and it's the exact same thing Canikon do with the EF/EF-S and FX/DX labelling, or Pentax with the FA/DA, Sigma's DG/DC, etc. It's not confusing at all if you bother to learn what the terms mean.

Regardless though, Sony's not a bad example of how this could be done - and in fact, how the K-01 should have been done. You can use any of your A-mount lenses on your E-mount camera with an adapter (contrast-detect or with a PDAF pellicle mirror), boom, backwards compatibility. You can use any of the full-frame E-mount (FE) lenses on your APS-C NEX, boom, forwards compatibility/upgrade path. In comparison the K-01 is clearly a kludge, you get the disadvantages of the DSLR mount (size) and no possibility of things like phase-detect AF Adapters, short-register alt glass, etc. It's a nice camera within its limitations, but in comparison the selling point of the NEX is that it has very few built-in limitations.

In fact basically no one I know who shoots a NEX actually shoots real E-mount glass on them very often. Everyone is adapting rangefinder glass, good Canon FD-mount stuff, Konica, etc. Sony really flopped on the glass and their sales are more or less based on pure body sales. Their camera director appears to be seriously ADHD, he's stated that he latches on to a new direction every 6 months or so and it really shows in the trail of half-finished camera lineups they've left in their wake. Pentax can clearly do better than that - the Limiteds are a very cohesive lineup of a caliber that Sony never had.

Last edited by Paul MaudDib; 06-02-2014 at 01:53 PM.
06-03-2014, 02:23 AM   #29
Pentaxian
Clavius's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: De Klundert
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 4,122
QuoteOriginally posted by monochrome Quote
Pentax (or Ricoh-branded) would need to offer something Sony doesn't - and do it at a somewhat lower price and higher quality - but yes, that's the path forward, I think.
You are right. But, Pentax can and does offer something that Sony doesn't. What do I miss the most on my tiny A7r? Nice pancakes (or at least, smaller lenses) to pair it with!

I don't know about lower price though. Getting more should equal paying more. Otherwise people will think something smells fishy.

As to all the emotion about K-mount "dumping". I didn't see anybody mentioning dumping the K-mount. Only adding a new mount for mirrorless. And as to this forum being about "K-mount", rubbish! THen it would be called Kmountforums. It's about Pentax, and Pentax is about Q-, K- and 645 mount, but also about the legacy mounts that everybody is still happily using. Having K for the DSLRs and something else for the mirrorless, like Sony, doesn't seem all that strange. Especially not if there's a very good AF adapter. (A prettier one then the Sony one!!!)

And back to my first paragraph about the pancakes... Who's going to miss K-mount anyway if you can have an FF body with pancake in your left jacket pocket. And two additional primes the other. Carrying a nice walkaround kit without even needing a bag.
06-03-2014, 03:43 AM   #30
Senior Member




Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Hamburg
Posts: 287
QuoteOriginally posted by Clavius Quote
You are right. But, Pentax can and does offer something that Sony doesn't. What do I miss the most on my tiny A7r? Nice pancakes (or at least, smaller lenses) to pair it with!

I don't know about lower price though. Getting more should equal paying more. Otherwise people will think something smells fishy.

As to all the emotion about K-mount "dumping". I didn't see anybody mentioning dumping the K-mount. Only adding a new mount for mirrorless. And as to this forum being about "K-mount", rubbish! THen it would be called Kmountforums. It's about Pentax, and Pentax is about Q-, K- and 645 mount, but also about the legacy mounts that everybody is still happily using. Having K for the DSLRs and something else for the mirrorless, like Sony, doesn't seem all that strange. Especially not if there's a very good AF adapter. (A prettier one then the Sony one!!!)

And back to my first paragraph about the pancakes... Who's going to miss K-mount anyway if you can have an FF body with pancake in your left jacket pocket. And two additional primes the other. Carrying a nice walkaround kit without even needing a bag.
Now if only that ff camera had a gorgeous optical view finder!
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, adapter, af, aps-c, bodies, body, cameras, ergonomics, film, frame, full frame camera, full-frame, k-01, lcd, lenses, market, micro four thirds, mirroless camera, mirrorless, pentax, people, ricoh, sensor, shutter, size, struggle, time
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The Full Frame NEX is going to be announced in October ! jogiba Non-Pentax Cameras: Canon, Nikon, etc. 30 09-15-2013 03:23 PM
Pentax does not care about Full Frame Watson Pentax Full Frame 88 08-19-2013 04:53 AM
Are Any of The 17-50 (or in that range) Lenses Full Frame? reivax Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 12 02-04-2013 07:38 PM
Do you think in the long run, DA lenses are a bad buy? Size of CCDs in the future Capslock118 Pentax DSLR Discussion 28 11-07-2010 06:46 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:49 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