Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
07-02-2014, 08:30 AM   #316
Senior Member




Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Hamburg
Posts: 287
QuoteOriginally posted by Kunzite Quote
normhead:
"Here's the thing I would really like from FF advocates, stop focussing on FF taking away APS-c users. "
I see "full frame" as an addition to the K-mount. Instead of taking away, it will offer APS-C users an upgrade path, and new lenses to buy (regardless if going FF or not).
Normhead, just as it is unlikely that Pentax are listening to my wishes for a classic dSLR (small d, big slr finder) so it is unlikely they will abandon the bread and butter aps-c segment as long as the public will buy it.

Kunzite, do you now see the wisdom of my modest manual focus proposal?

07-02-2014, 08:30 AM   #317
Pentaxian
ChristianRock's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Woodstock, GA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 4,532
QuoteOriginally posted by eyeswideshut Quote
Yes, the K3 gives 100% coverage with .95 magnification - but unfortunately the sensor's 'crop factor' applies to the viewfinder too. So compared to the finder on an old Pentax MX, effective size is only 0.63. Even a top of the line Canon 1d only gives an effective size of 0.76 of the MX. Pretty strange huh?

That would be the area where I would want Pentax to make it's mark.
But with the AF system stealing light from the viewfinder, it's pretty much impossible to match the old film viewfinders. Unless someone makes a technological breakthrough.

That's the one instance where the "stone age" FF camera that was suggested earlier with manual controls and no AF, would make sense... the viewfinder would be its main advantage, I think.
07-02-2014, 08:37 AM   #318
Senior Member




Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Hamburg
Posts: 287
QuoteOriginally posted by ChristianRock Quote
But with the AF system stealing light from the viewfinder, it's pretty much impossible to match the old film viewfinders. Unless someone makes a technological breakthrough.

That's the one instance where the "stone age" FF camera that was suggested earlier with manual controls and no AF, would make sense... the viewfinder would be its main advantage, I think.
Yes that was me with neolithic caveman-cam . Do remember though that my argument was predicated precisely on the question of pdaf and large finder. Assuming that they simply cannot be wedded together at reasonable cost, my decided preference would be for manual focus with a big finder rather than another autofocus camera with a 'crippled' finder. It would be unique, grab more than passing attention from CaNikon users and not even be a threat to the aps-c business as norm fears.
Perfectly Pentaxian solution.
07-02-2014, 08:37 AM   #319
Veteran Member
Andi Lo's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Halifax, Nova Scotia
Posts: 2,925
QuoteOriginally posted by ElJamoquio Quote
Friendly!

It's tough to know if you're even serious after you suggested the 6D wasn't a very good value.
In the context of his argument I think it's reasonable to say it's not good value relative to APSC. D600 / 6D is not as featured as K-3 is and they're more expensive

QuoteOriginally posted by ElJamoquio Quote
It's much, much more compelling, it's just more expensive.
These are all that I can find, let me know if there are others that I'm not aware of. I dont think Nikon even has one other than the not-so-super 24-120. I dont find them more attractive than any of the APSC counterparts, but I'm not really a superzoom user.

Canon U.S.A. : Consumer & Home Office : EF 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6L IS USM
Tamron 28-300mm F/3.5-6.3 Di VC Lens


Last edited by Andi Lo; 07-02-2014 at 08:47 AM.
07-02-2014, 08:48 AM   #320
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Romania
Posts: 9,345
QuoteOriginally posted by rawr Quote
Exactly. Ideally, I'd like a K-mount kit comprised of bodies for specific tasks that reflect their strengths: one FF body, for better low-light IQ - and AF - when shooting gigs and events; and another APS-C body for wildlife, general shooting, and as a backup. That sort of thing. All on the same mount, all with similar menus and ergonomics.

I understand that sort of setup is quite common in Canon and Nikon shooter land, and I can see the merits of it.
Let them have one first camera, before asking for a full range.

QuoteOriginally posted by eyeswideshut Quote
Kunzite, do you now see the wisdom of my modest manual focus proposal?
Nope, sorry - I'm convinced it would flop, badly (perhaps even burying the company attempting it).
07-02-2014, 08:49 AM   #321
Pentaxian




Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Eureka, CA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,980
QuoteOriginally posted by Andi Lo Quote
I dont think Nikon even has one other than the not-so-super 24-120.
Actually, Nikon has a 28-300 (which may be best FF superzoom ever made). Scott Kelby used to rave about it back in his Nikon days.
07-02-2014, 09:19 AM - 1 Like   #322
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: GMT +10
Photos: Albums
Posts: 10,852
QuoteOriginally posted by Kunzite Quote
Let them have one first camera, before asking for a full range.
That's all I ask. Give me one Pentax FF to sit alongside my K-3 on my straps when I go out for a serious shoot. No need for a multiple FF line-up straight away.
07-02-2014, 09:23 AM   #323
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Romania
Posts: 9,345
My apologies, I misread.

07-02-2014, 09:26 AM   #324
Pentaxian




Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 2,652
QuoteOriginally posted by Kunzite Quote
kadajawi:
I don't like discussing such baseless "ifs". I'm a software engineer, and assumptions are the enemy I would rather discuss the conditions necessary to make it work; the approach is different because it also implies possible solutions. For example, if right now they don't have enough (R&D, production etc) capacity to expand the K-mount with "full frame" products, the obvious solution is to expand their capacity. For this fiscal year, Ricoh allocated about 42 million USD to "increase production of digital camera, etc".

Handing over the firmware it's not as trivial as it sounds. We're talking about intellectual property here, they can't just give up on all that. Making the firmware open source (or otherwise opening it for 3rd-parties) is a huge task, and the benefits are doubtful outside a small circle.

A rebadged D810 would be a "Pentax" labelled camera with a Nikon F mount. What's the purpose? To migrate Pentax users to the F-mount?
Sorry, but a K-mount can't just appear on the D810; if you try you'll find out the body is designed for a larger registration distance, the controls and everything are Nikon style... problems which are expensive to fix. For the registration distance they'll probably need to use a hammer
Why, when Pentax is very much capable of making their own "full frame" K-mount DSLR? What's the USP in having exactly the same product as the competition, except with a hacked K-mount on it, and more expensive (because they need to pay Nikon, too)?

normhead:
"Here's the thing I would really like from FF advocates, stop focussing on FF taking away APS-c users. "
I see "full frame" as an addition to the K-mount. Instead of taking away, it will offer APS-C users an upgrade path, and new lenses to buy (regardless if going FF or not).
By handing over the firmware I meant hire them. At least try. Good things can come out of it. Being associated with the developers of Magic Lantern means something and gives free press. It also takes them away from developing the Canon version, which is good cause it hurts Canon (and Canon might even thank Pentax cause Canon would much rather sell their C series of cameras anyway). And finally we'd get the option to turn our Pentaxes into cameras that take video serious. If these people could reverse engineer and hack the original firmware to expand the capabilities of the cameras that much, what can they do with more access and information? Perhaps Canon's processor is vastly superior to the Fujitsu processor that Pentax uses, and it just can't be done. But they can try at least, and perhaps influence the direction the next camera is going into.


In any way stills capabilities don't have to suffer for video capabilities, and the owner can be given the choice if he wants the old, limited controls or if he wants to unlock the full potential, even if it is a bit intimidating. Green mode vs M mode.


I could imagine Pentax starting from the 645z. Advertise the hell out of it. Build the brand. Pentax is back (nevermind it was never gone). Doesn't matter if most that see the ads, see photographers using them etc. will never be buying one. Then say they are moving downwards, towards high end Canon and Nikon, offering something more affordable. After all the 645 line exceeds what Canikon have to offer. The K-3 as a smaller 645z. Built for portability, speed, unobtrusiveness. Silent without a slow mode. Photos with pancake lenses. Are you tired of carrying heavy and bulky gear, but still want a tough as f*** professional camera?


Professional does not necessarily mean FF. I'd argue something like the GH4 is still a professional camera, despite the small sensor. Eventually they should offer a FF camera, but at what point, and in what form?


Big viewfinders... I think that will be the selling point for mirrorless. Not now. But it will be. You can put in a relatively big screen with perhaps 2-4K resolution. And don't forget that using a screen can have advantages too, cause you can see what you will get, you have histogram overlays, focus peaking, etc. Low light will be an issue perhaps, but that depends on the sensor. Sacrificing AF though for a bigger, brighter viewfinder... Can't see that happen. Too unique. People were ridiculing the Nikon Df for not doing video. Try removing AF then... I think the only area where the lack of AF is perfectly acceptable is video. Video AF only matters to consumers.


There is one problem I see with using the same mount, the same lenses for FF and APS-C: You won't get the benefit of APS-C. Small, light and cheap lenses. Otherwise it makes sense. Heck, I'd extend it even further. One mount, APS-C, FF, mirrorless APS-C and FF. But not like the K-01. There'll be lenses meant for mirrorless, mostly ones that are meant to be small. The lens mount stays K mount on all cameras, but to use regular K mount lenses an adapter that mechanically extends out the mount has to be used. It would be very cool if you could actually pull out the lens mount so you can use lenses meant for SLRs, to get the flange distance. When using mirrorless lenses in mirror mode you basically have a macro extension tube built into the body. I guess the main problem with having something that can extend and retract is that the precision needed would be lost. But if they can find a solution for that...


A multiple FF line-up might not be that hard, after all. That's what the A7 has shown.
07-02-2014, 09:44 AM   #325
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Romania
Posts: 9,345
Hire who? Magic Lantern is not a software development company, nor a closed source project. Do you seriously think that Magic Lantern developers would give up on developing for Canon for Pentax? Exclusivity over a GPL project?

Most mirrorless sold don't have a viewfinder. You're thinking too much about video, and see everything from the videographer's perspective.

Using the same mount actually means that APS-C users have the choice of using "full frame" lenses on their camera, beside the APS-C one. Why is that a problem? Besides, only for some (shorter) focal lengths an APS-C lens would be significantly smaller/cheaper.

Yeah, Sony - the company who thinks every problem can be solved by throwing money at it (and they bought Konica-Minolta's camera division some 8 years ago, that's quite a head start) . This and video everywhere, why do I keep having this strong impression that you being with Pentax was a big mistake?
07-02-2014, 11:36 AM   #326
Veteran Member




Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,893
QuoteOriginally posted by Andi Lo Quote
D600 / 6D is not as featured as K-3 is and they're more expensive
As a camera, it's more expensive.

As a photographic system, for me, and I suspect for many from semi-pro on up, it's cheaper. I want at least F/2.8 on APS-C, and most of the time, that's cheaper on FF.

Features? No FF has the Pentax UI, second best in the business. The D600 doesn't have 1/8000, but it has a better viewfinder, no moire, and tons of other benefits too. I wouldn't claim the D600 is 'not as featured' as the K-3.

---------- Post added 07-02-14 at 11:42 AM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by Andi Lo Quote
In the context of his argument I think it's reasonable to say it's not good value relative to APSC. D600 / 6D is not as featured as K-3 is and they're more expensive



These are all that I can find, let me know if there are others that I'm not aware of. I dont think Nikon even has one other than the not-so-super 24-120. I dont find them more attractive than any of the APSC counterparts, but I'm not really a superzoom user.

Canon U.S.A. : Consumer & Home Office : EF 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6L IS USM
Tamron 28-300mm F/3.5-6.3 Di VC Lens
Nikon's 28-300 f/3.5-6.3. Just for reference, that would be about the same performance as if the K-3 had a ~36MP sensor and a 18-200 F/2.3-4.0.

How much would you expect that combo to cost?
07-02-2014, 11:46 AM   #327
Veteran Member
Andi Lo's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Halifax, Nova Scotia
Posts: 2,925
QuoteOriginally posted by ElJamoquio Quote
As a camera, it's more expensive.

As a photographic system, for me, and I suspect for many from semi-pro on up, it's cheaper. I want at least F/2.8 on APS-C, and most of the time, that's cheaper on FF.

Features? No FF has the Pentax UI, second best in the business. The D600 doesn't have 1/8000, but it has a better viewfinder, no moire, and tons of other benefits too. I wouldn't claim the D600 is 'not as featured' as the K-3.
Not going to list features one by one, the biggest feature D600 is missing is that its processor is slower than K-3, and the af points does not fully cover the viewfinder as much. Might be a big deal for some.

I actually shoot D600, and for my purposes the d600 wins against the K-3 because it's full frame (dof control), and to a lesser degree: tethering and sync speed.

You are right in that the system is cheaper, in fact in the past I made this same exact argument. I compared equivalent lenses in both systems in costs and came out pretty even, but with more options and "one stop" more DOF control on the FF side. So for a whole system you'd be right, FF is a better deal. *edit: found my original post: https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/169-pentax-full-frame/233762-pentax-does-...ml#post2480257

However in context of what norm is saying, most people who buy into the apsc system for superzoom will find my math above irrelevant. They will likely never graduate from their first or second lens, making the system argument kind of moot. From my observation, I only know one out of 30 or so non-pro dslr owners who actually owns more than three lenses. These people seem to be a good chunk DSLR buyers. For them APSC will be better value.

QuoteQuote:
Nikon's 28-300 f/3.5-6.3. Just for reference, that would be about the same performance as if the K-3 had a ~36MP sensor and a 18-200 F/2.3-4.0.

How much would you expect that combo to cost?
If I have a superzoom I'd stick to shooting it at f/8, since I'm guessing that's where they'll perform well. Even at the widest aperture the background separation is very poor anyway. Is the nikon any good wide open? If it's not good, the wider effective aperture argument is pointless as both will be shot stopped down. Can you tell me why the K-3 needs to be 36mp and not 24mp like the D600, assuming we're not suddenly discussing D800 here?

Added: seems pretty typical performance for a superzoom. I can't find any detailed reviews of this lens other than photozone though, so maybe Klaus has a bad sample.
http://www.photozone.de/nikon_ff/578-nikkorafs28300vrff?start=1

Last edited by Andi Lo; 07-02-2014 at 12:31 PM.
07-02-2014, 12:35 PM   #328
Pentaxian
RonHendriks1966's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2009
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,714
QuoteOriginally posted by Andi Lo Quote
Right on Norn. I fall into that category you mentioned with cheap FF body and secondhand lens. What I sorely miss from APSC is the MFD.

I've totally forgotten about the superzoom aspect of APSC, you're totally right that FF doesnt have anything as compelling as APSC in terms of superzoom. Sometimes I get stuck in my FF = DOF control mindset that I forget that other photographers shoots differently and employs different methods / lenses.
Canon had 35-350mm and now 28-300mm and those lenses are huge. Not the kind you want to lugg around when traveling and backpacking.

---------- Post added 02-07-14 at 21:36 ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by Andi Lo Quote
Is there a bridgecam that has close to APSC IQ? From what I know the difference in IQ between lowend FF and APSC isnt as huge as APSC to bridgecams, but feel free to correct me.

Also you can change lenses with APSC, I dont know any bridgecams that has a interchangeable lens system.
New 1" sensor inside Panasonic travelzoom camera should be good.

http://www.dpreview.com/previews/panasonic-lumix-dmc-fz1000

Last edited by RonHendriks1966; 07-02-2014 at 12:41 PM.
07-02-2014, 12:42 PM   #329
Pentaxian
ChristianRock's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Woodstock, GA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 4,532
Ok let me say something about this whole "equivalence" cost analysis that has taken over the forum.

Some of us don't care that f/2.8 on FF is f/1.8 on APS-C. We'll gladly take our shots in f/8 and appreciate that it's at least f/11 in DOF in FF terms, thank you very much. Our f/11 shots are what, f/18 on FF? So it goes both ways. I'd leave the DOF out of equivalence comparisons, especially if it is in zooms, where nobody uses them wide open anyway - zoom bokeh sucks.

This "my full frame f/3.5-5.6 is equivalent to a f/2.3-4 in APS-C" argument is hogwash. Sorry but there's no nicer word I can use for it. Nobody buys an APS-C system thinking, "I will match what I'd want in a FF system where f/2.8 is the good stuff, so I'll have to get me some f/1.2 zooms!!!"

Seriously, my humble request is, let's stop that argument as it has absolutely zero effect on reality.

Thank you.


P.S. for reference see this funny article, especially the part about how equivalence is the #1 trolling experience in camera forums.
07-02-2014, 01:09 PM   #330
Veteran Member
Andi Lo's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Halifax, Nova Scotia
Posts: 2,925
QuoteQuote:
New 1" sensor inside Panasonic travelzoom camera should be good.

http://www.dpreview.com/previews/panasonic-lumix-dmc-fz1000
Badass specs and design, i love it x) It's basically using all of their mirrorless techs. If I do need one at some point I might look into buying one.

QuoteOriginally posted by ChristianRock Quote
This "my full frame f/3.5-5.6 is equivalent to a f/2.3-4 in APS-C" argument is hogwash. Sorry but there's no nicer word I can use for it. Nobody buys an APS-C system thinking, "I will match what I'd want in a FF system where f/2.8 is the good stuff, so I'll have to get me some f/1.2 zooms!!!"

Seriously, my humble request is, let's stop that argument as it has absolutely zero effect on reality.
Christian that's a dangerous statement as the argument goes both ways.... Equivalence concept may not matter for you, especially if as you say if you shoot mostly at f/8. I do fully agree with you that using equivalence on a superzoom is rather pointless, as you'll probably shoot it at f/8 anyway (see my reply above to ElJamoquio). I'd say that if you shoot mostly stopped down, equivalence is moot.

However equivalence it does matter for some photographers in some situations. In fact it's why I use FF at all. I use 85mm/1.8, 28-75/2.8, and 70-200/2.8 wide open almost exclusively, and I can't achieve the same in APSC without considerable cost / lens changing. While equivalence may have zero effect on your "reality" (pictures), it does on mine.

Equivalence is just a fact, not a religion, it has own its place in someone's toolbox.

PS. that's a great article, the last two is totally hilarious and most of it are true. When will Pentax die I wonder? at this point maybe Pentax will outlast all the other camera companies

Last edited by Andi Lo; 07-02-2014 at 01:26 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, 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 11:10 PM. | 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