Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

View Poll Results: Will you buy a FF Pentax, if one was available?
Yes, if it is a Pentax branded camera. 7918.20%
Yes, if it is a Pentax and/or Ricoh branded camera. 10023.04%
Yes, if it had the sort of specs you mention. 6013.82%
Yes, but only if it's priced no higher than, for instance, the D750. 5713.13%
No, I've bought a FF made by a different supplier. 173.92%
No, I don't need or want FF. 8319.12%
No - I would like to, but I cannot afford to buy a new camera. 276.22%
Yes, but only if it's available in forty-seven color combinations. 112.53%
Voters: 434. You may not vote on this poll

Closed Thread
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
09-17-2014, 02:12 PM   #46
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 5,413
QuoteOriginally posted by MarkJerling Quote
On the one hand I'm criticised for specs being too old, on the other hand, for specs being too progressive, seems I can't win.
The specs you have a all pretty dated other than 41MPs. None of the technology that you list is going to stand out in the market.
Organic sensor?
BSI FF sensor?

What technology can Ricoh produce that will enable it to compete with Nikon or Canon for market share? Panasonic, Sony, Olympus, Fuji, and even Samsung are really pushing the envelope with new technology.

It has to buy sensors from Sony or Samsung.
It has to buy image processors from Fujitisu.

What technology does Ricoh develop in house that allows it to get ahead of the big guys like Canon, Nikon, Sony, Olympus, Fuji, Samsung? Right now I think both Ricoh and Nikon are in a tough spot.
Canon - Sensor fabrication - in-house image processor production - Professional HD video - Strong optics - strong distribution.
Panasonic - Sensor fabrication - in-house image processor production -Professional HD video line - works with Leica for optics - strong distribution.
Fuji - Sensor fabrication - in-house image processor production - Make professional lenses for Hassy medium format and for Sony's professional HD TV broadcast cameras. Excellent optics - very innovative - strong distribution..
Sony - Sensor fabrication - in-house image processor production - Professional HD video - works with Zeiss for optics. Sony G optics are pretty average and they own a large stake in Tamron - strong distribution..
Olympus - Excellent optics - partnership with Sony - in-house image processor production - Very innovative company with a well respected R&D department.
Samsung - 20% global imaging sensor market share - strong R&D - in-house image processor production - Schneider-Kreuznach lenses - display technology - very innovative - strong distribution.

Pentax - Do they still have talented lens designers? Dependent on 3rd party for sensors and image processors. Weak global distribution.
Nikon - Strong optics and system - Dependent on 3rd party for sensors and image processors. Strong global distribution.


Last edited by Winder; 09-17-2014 at 03:30 PM. Reason: Edited to fix Nikon points.
09-17-2014, 02:56 PM   #47
Site Supporter
EssJayEff's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Hillsborough, NC
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 146
What a above the first camera with an upgradable sensor and or processor, etc., so one doesn't have to buy a new body each and every time? Now that would be innovative! (Maybe impossible but I can dream can't I?)
09-17-2014, 02:58 PM   #48
Moderator
MarkJerling's Avatar

Join Date: May 2012
Location: Wairarapa, New Zealand
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,175
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Winder Quote
The specs you have a all pretty dated other than 41MPs. None of the technology that you list is going to stand out in the market.
Organic sensor?
BSI FF sensor?

What technology can Ricoh produce that will enable it to compete with Nikon or Canon for market share? Panasonic, Sony, Olympus, Fuji, and even Samsung are really pushing the envelope with new technology.

It has to buy sensors from Sony or Samsung.
It has to buy image processors from Fujitisu.

What technology does Ricoh develop in house that allows it to get ahead of the big guys like Canon, Nikon, Sony, Olympus, Fuji, Samsung? Right now I think both Ricoh and Nikon are in a tough spot.
Canon - Sensor fabrication - in-house image processor production - Professional HD video - Strong optics - strong distribution.
Panasonic - Sensor fabrication - in-house image processor production -Professional HD video line - works with Leica for optics - strong distribution.
Fuji - Sensor fabrication - in-house image processor production - Make professional lenses for Hassy medium format and for Sony's professional HD TV broadcast cameras. Excellent optics - very innovative - strong distribution..
Sony - Sensor fabrication - in-house image processor production - Professional HD video - works with Zeiss for optics. Sony G optics are pretty average and they own a large stake in Tamron - strong distribution..
Olympus - Excellent optics - partnership with Sony - in-house image processor production - Very innovative company with a well respected R&D department.
Samsung - 20% global imaging sensor market share - strong R&D - in-house image processor production - Schneider-Kreuznach lenses - display technology - very innovative - strong distribution.

Pentax - Do they still have talented lens designers? Dependent on 3rd party for sensors and image processors. Weak global distribution.
Nikon - Strong optics and system - Dependent on 3rd party for sensors and image processors. Weak global distribution.
Very well put! I suppose they feel they can buy in sensors. As for the rest, there's a bit of a catch up game to play as to the competition.

---------- Post added 09-18-14 at 10:00 AM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by EssJayEff Quote
What a above the first camera with an upgradable sensor and or processor, etc., so one doesn't have to buy a new body each and every time? Now that would be innovative! (Maybe impossible but I can dream can't I?)
I think an upgradable sensor is in the too hard basket.
09-18-2014, 04:36 PM   #49
Moderator
MarkJerling's Avatar

Join Date: May 2012
Location: Wairarapa, New Zealand
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,175
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by pinholecam Quote
Voted #1 even when I already have A7 for my Pentax lenses and others.

The listed specs don't interest me much though.
I only need :
1. A viewfinder for better stability and composition clarity (EVF or OVF is fine)
2. AF for K-mount AF lenses
3. The same good interface so far seen on Pentax cameras
4. About K5, K3 size at most.


Other stuff will be good as differentiation from the market offerings, but for my uses, I don't need them much, esp if it adds to cost.
Thanks for voting. I think it would need to grow bigger than a K-3 or K-5 for a fullframe mirror box. If it's the size of a SFX, I'd be happy.

09-18-2014, 04:52 PM   #50
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 23,716
96 votes for an FF if you count the 10 who can't afford it. Not bad.
09-18-2014, 08:11 PM   #51
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Tumbleweed, Arizona
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 4,998
QuoteOriginally posted by MarkJerling Quote
Thanks for voting. I think it would need to grow bigger than a K-3 or K-5 for a fullframe mirror box. If it's the size of a SFX, I'd be happy.
The original *ist body had a full size mirror box, and it was quite small.

09-18-2014, 08:16 PM   #52
Pentaxian
aleonx3's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Brampton, Ontario
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,873
If it is just as good or better than k-3... I will probably skip the k-3 and get the Pentax FF....
09-18-2014, 08:44 PM   #53
Moderator
MarkJerling's Avatar

Join Date: May 2012
Location: Wairarapa, New Zealand
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,175
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
96 votes for an FF if you count the 10 who can't afford it. Not bad.
Doing a bit of statistics in terms of poll representation makes it even more interesting. So far more than 1 in 500 members have voted, which is actually a pretty good sample to start playing with, statistically.

---------- Post added 09-19-14 at 03:44 PM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by interested_observer Quote
The original *ist body had a full size mirror box, and it was quite small.

True. I'm sure they'll make it no bigger than it needs to be.

---------- Post added 09-19-14 at 03:45 PM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by aleonx3 Quote
If it is just as good or better than k-3... I will probably skip the k-3 and get the Pentax FF....
That's where I'm leaning. Plus, My wife won't agree with me buying another new camera so soon after the K-5!

09-18-2014, 09:57 PM - 1 Like   #54
Senior Member
jppp's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: SW Finland
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 141
There is an option missing: "No, but I would have likded to. I'm now going to buy an FF by another manufacturer."
For me, I'm pretty sure the ship has sailed. I'll probably be going for the Nikon 750.
09-19-2014, 06:23 AM   #55
Senior Member




Join Date: Sep 2013
Photos: Albums
Posts: 128
QuoteOriginally posted by jppp Quote
There is an option missing: "No, but I would have likded to. I'm now going to buy an FF by another manufacturer."
For me, I'm pretty sure the ship has sailed. I'll probably be going for the Nikon 750.
I'm sort of feeling that way too. The 750 not the frontrunner, but I'm seeing plenty of horses.
09-19-2014, 07:14 AM - 4 Likes   #56
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 23,716
I may still look at the Sony A7r. By then it will be discounted, the Pentax will be at premium prices, the A7r, looks to me like it will fit in my camera bag. There's no place in my bag, for even a K-5.

Taking a page from most of the forum owners, you want a K-3 and a full frame. The things APS-c is good at, and the niche served by APS-c is still unique enough in the camera market that it's a viable format with distinct advantages, most make good use of it even after they invest in larger formats.

If you're going to carry just one system, and it's going to be FF, you probably don't want a Pentax. Other systems have way more lens option available.

If you're going to two systems, you want to be able to share the same glass as much as possible. That's the biggest thing for me anyway, not carrying two sets of glass.

So those are the factors as I see it.

APS-c is great except for extreme narrow DoF and resolution, and low light. APS-c is also more versatile in terms of lens selection, you really can't get the versatility of the Pentax 18-135 in an FF system with the same IQ. There's not 27-200 on FF rated for excellent of IQ at every focal length. Also, part of the versatility of APS_c is the ability to make native use of the best lenses from two formats, APS-c and Full Frame. No other format offers that.

MF is great for resolution and the "MF look." and the 645z is awesome for low light ugh ISO.

FF is the most versatile of the systems for shallow DoF, and AF..and has specialized cameras for low light performance and fast AF performance.

APS-c is the most versatile for as a combination of IQ, reach and magnification based on existing lenses.

4/3 is the most portable, but is limited by lenses if you're a birder. It will take a long time to build up the store of native, useful legacy glass. You can take 1000mm AF lens stick it on your APS-c and shoot like it was a 1400mm lens. With 4/3 you'd get more reach, but lose AF and constant exposure metering.

FF gives you the option to buy very expensive gear with very fast focusing glass for sports and BiFs etc. but I find people tend to be a little naive about how much better FF is in this regard. Shooting snowy owls my K-3 was fast enough, maybe shooting Blue jays maybe a Canon or Nikon would be better. It looks like it on paper. I just haven't seen it in the field as much as the way people go on would predict. Sometimes I get fewer images, but rarely actually miss altogether images they get. Sometimes I get just as good images but fewer. If they get 5 keepers I get 3. 80% of the time focus speed isn't an issue and we both get lots of images to throw out, as many as we want.

Talking resolution.
The best APS-c is about a 20% improvement in lw/ph over 4/3
The best Full Frame is about a 20% improvement in lw/ph over the best APS-c
The best Medium Format is about a 20% improvement in lw/ph over the best Full Frame

Understanding that 20x30 prints can be made tom a 12 MP image, you really have to work justify anything more than a 4/3 camera.

You have to have niche arguments...

FF- narrow DoF, FF just excels here, APS-c and be adequate, MF can be adequate, if are interested in extreme DoF FF is for you, but both APS-c and MF do a good enough job for many.
HI resolution--- there is a whole stream in the art world that thrives on very high definition images. The most expensive images sold are this type of image. MF is the only way to go if you are maximizing detail in your prints.
Macro and wildlife- APS-c gets the nod for both of these in my opinion. Taking the weight off long lenses by allowing you to use shorter lenses, and the extra magnification for macros make it stand out in both those areas.
4/3 is extremely portable...
The Q is even more portable, but diffraction makes the images less useful when using adapted long glass etc. As pixels get smaller, the diffraction limit sets in at lower ƒ-stops. By Q size, diffraction is noticeable in almost every image I've seen.

You could almost draw a line and ask yourself . now where do I fall on this scale? The simple fact is none of these does it all. Going with a one camera system I'd ask, what am I giving up for what I'm getting?

I'd look at my images and see, what percentage macro, what percentage narrow DoF that needs to be narrower than APS-c with ƒ1.4 glass, or with long glass from further back, "do I like images with impeccable detail", as in you hate printing at less than your pixel size/300 for maximum print detail? Look for the clues, what type of shooter are you.

But long story short, even if I may end up with a Pentax FF, I want to go to a camera store, and compare it to the A7r and make the decision based on my feeling of what I might use the cameras for. APS-c is already way over the top for house hold type needs and excels at the type of shooting I do. It's the 4/3 I probably should own on steroids. Talking FF to me is like talking extra steroids to go on top of the APS-c steroids I'm already taking.

looking at the numbers and saying... well 16 MP or 24MP or 36 MP is enough for me is a compromise solution when 51 Mp is available. If you want resolution high ISO performance go for MF. After that, let the horse trading begin. What are you going to give up to get what you want?

As general rule, you give up versatility for resolution. The smaller the system, the more versatile it's going to be, and the more portable.

From MF most want something lighter and cheaper.. OK then, but you're going to have to give up resolution combined with high ISO performance, the maximum IQ at every f-stop and ISO.
Want even lighter, than FF? You're going to have to give up extremely narrow DoF and some high ISO performance.

Where anyone falls on that scale is pretty much irrelevant to anyone else's personal decision, unless you're relatively new to photography and you really like their portfolio. People will fall somewhere on the scale from the smallest point and shoot, someone who just wants a decent image to remind them of the place they were, to someone who wants a wall mural that looks like they are still there. Each personal decision is irrelevant to every one else. The fact that one guy wants a D750 makes absolutely no difference to the next guy. Each has to compile their own list of what's important and select what means their own personal list and trade offs.

That's why the images on the forum are so important. If you really like a guys images, "I want to shoot what that guy shoots" is a good way to select equipment. If someone else takes the image you want to take, you can probably learn with the equipment they have to do what they do, if that's what you really want. When I hear an opinion that doesn't sound real, I usually try and look at some of the guy's images. And if his opinion is out to lunch, there usually aren't any or maybe one or two. You're dealing with someone who has read a lot but has never bothered to integrate the field experience necessary to actually understand what he/she is talking about.

If the poster says something that sounds to be too good to be true, and you look to see what he's posted, because to me, that's the best way to evaluate what might be for you, and he has nothing, he/she is probably blowing smoke... just a general observation. You may have the other thing happen, where the person has posted lots of pictures. You can look and say "hey those are great, I want what he has", but the opposite can happen, you can look and say "that's not what I want." Nothing does a disservice to the forum and causes as much acrimony as people taking part in the format debates, without giving un-informed or rookie reader a clear portfolio, demonstrating how the words they speak translate into the photographic concepts they espouse. And that's why photo books with commentary are so important. You see the philosophy, and you see the results. And it's the biggest weakness of the internet experience. You read the philosophy disembodied from the results. If you like the results, you're probably going to like the philosophy. And you learn the mind set you need to take into the field to get those results.

Last edited by normhead; 09-19-2014 at 10:02 AM.
09-19-2014, 07:25 AM   #57
Veteran Member




Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: SoCal
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 494
As much as I might like FF, I don't think it would be for me unless I went pro.
K-30 is large/bulky enough. I'd consider a FF with the Sony Alpha, but its not really a great camera for holding (no nice grip), and is pricey.

I figure if I was going to high end FF, I might consider MF.
09-19-2014, 07:45 AM   #58
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 23,716
QuoteOriginally posted by formercanuck Quote
As much as I might like FF, I don't think it would be for me unless I went pro.
K-30 is large/bulky enough. I'd consider a FF with the Sony Alpha, but its not really a great camera for holding (no nice grip), and is pricey.

I figure if I was going to high end FF, I might consider MF.
I sort of think as of the Sony A7r as being almost an MF, in that I see it's main use as being on a tripod, sort of negating the really bad ergonomics for hand holding. Watching people trying to manoeuvre their 600mm Nikon ƒ4 lenses on a really heavy tripod to get the same shot, I'm getting with my A-400 hand held or on a light weight tripod can be somewhat amusing. Especially given that my lens cost $500 and theirs cost $12,000. So FF for wildlife... not going to happen here, but for landscape maybe. But then an A7r is only 20% more lw/ph (resolution) than my K-3, that's hardly worth an upgrade. Especially given the IQ of the K-3 images.

Of course on an MF system, you're not even getting that wildlife image... that's why you keep your APS-c for wildlife, and shoot MF for landscape if you feel you need an upgrade, and you're young enough to carry it.
09-19-2014, 08:06 AM   #59
Site Supporter
jcdoss's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Kansas City, MO
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,804
Norm, you can switch between FF and APS-C mode on the A7 cameras at will. How easy it is, I don't know since I don't have one, but at 36mp, an APSC frame would be about 10-12 MP (I did the math once, and forgot the answer). Since the switch will be reflected in the EVF, I'd think this would be an ideal way to manage your two-system approach, if you chose APSC and FF as your two systems.... you have them both in the same camera.
09-19-2014, 08:30 AM   #60
Site Supporter
jatrax's Avatar

Join Date: May 2010
Location: Oregon
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 10,285
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
But long story short,
Short?

But seriously, that novel was the best summation of the various strengths / weakness of different formats I have seen.
Closed Thread

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, agree, aps-c, argument, buttons, features, ff, ff poll, full frame poll, full-frame, kit, lenses, list, market, nikon, options, pentax, pentax poll, pm, poll to gauge, post, price, ricoh, sake, screen, shot, touch, unicorn
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Would you buy a Pentax Full Frame DSLR? extended poll i83N Pentax Full Frame 113 04-02-2015 07:12 AM
Would you buy a Pentax FF? ozlizard Pentax News and Rumors 119 12-12-2009 05:29 AM
How many forum members does it take to change a lightbulb? Gooshin General Talk 24 12-02-2008 08:29 AM
Would you buy a FF Pentax? bymy141 Pentax DSLR Discussion 52 04-14-2008 09:50 PM
How many forum members does it take to change a light bulb? photo_mom General Talk 11 04-28-2007 04:50 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:03 AM. | See also: NikonForums.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