[monochrome]

And what percentage of the Pentax users have a studio? Try and stay relevant, at least a little. The last studio I had was built for 8x10 film... no one in their right mind even pulled out a dinky little 35mm camera, If we're going to discus people's studio experience. If studio experience is relevant, that's where we're going.

If one stands at a natural shooting point in front of a landscape and through years of experience and observation one's learned response is to select a certain lens/Sv/AV combination at an ISO to capture an imagined visual aesthetic - IOW the studio is entirely in the mind - then the mental transition calculation necessary to create the desired image in APSc with different lenses and a different digital ISO - and an expectation to post process - is disruptive.

I think it is perfectly natural to want to 'work' in the system one has learned and practiced in for decades even when knowing full well it is possible to create a very similar image using modern equipment*



* except where standards and social preferences have.changed to prefer MTF measured sharpness across the frame in LWPH because that can be measured and because machines can make such lenses easier than they can make lenses with a more traditional, 3D, film aesthetic. I referred to replacement of former values - loss of aesthetics - in my post above. This is one of them. Releasing Hirakawa Jun is an example of intentional value destruction.

---

Last edited by monochrome; 09-25-2014 at 07:36 AM.

[Rondec]

Actually, this is exactly why I'd prefer a FF...

A couple of years ago I needed a fast normal lens; ie the APS-C equivalent of a 50mm. I looked at what was out there, and the Sigma 30/1.4 was the ticket. But I no longer use it for about half of the situations I wanted it for.

It's a terrific lens, but in some close up portraiture work the distortion bugs me. It's not like a fisheye or anything, but it's just not as flattering - doubly so if the subject has any even slightly exaggerated features. So for that I still use one of the 50's. I don't get the inclusion of the environment to the same degree as a 30 would, but it's a workable stopgap, stylistically.

Then I started looking to change up the style a bit, and wanted something like the look and FoV of an 85mm on FF at longer working distances, where the tele look would give a nice subject isolation. Oh wait, 50mm again, right?

Nope. The math says it's close - but any of the 1.2/1.4/1.7/1.8/whatever 50's I have don't appear to have the wide open sharpness of anyones 85mm. I can get pretty close at f/2 actually; the slightly sharper edges get a bit more pop, but it's just not the same bokeh vs pop of the 85's.

So... does the math of equivalence support my case?

Nope. All the math says I'm a wrong, dumb, old-fashioned fossil. By the numbers I should be able to shoot APS-C.

But my style and interpretation of the look - most especially of facial feature proportions - says otherwise.

If you need a specific look or, a specific lens, then you should shoot the format that gives it to you. The Sigma 30 isn't as nice a lens as either the Sigma 35 f1.4 or the FA 31 limited, both of which would be more likely to give that kind of effect. Equivalence tells you about wide open aperture and that's it. Most lenses will be better stopped down a stop, some lenses will have more distortion than others. The Nikon 35mm f1.4 has less distortion mounted on a D7000 than a 50mm f1.4G does on a D3x, for what it is worth (per Photozone).

[jsherman999]

Essentially, you are saying that you are used to a specific type of rendering, and find it hard to obtain nowadays. I understand that it might bother you. However it is not in itself a reason to require a full frame camera.

Of course its a (one) reason. How can you define what reasons are valid and what are not?

... Tools evolve, you might loose some things and you also gain others.
You mention that you do not get the exact look that you are used to. Fine. Does that mean that it is not possible to make great portraits with an APS-C camera? I'm sure you'll agree it is not so.

Sounds like you're suggesting that your level of acceptable compromise should be agreed apon by everyone - doesn't work that way!

In my view, the question now is : should a small company,

Ricoh is pretty big - bigger than Nikon.

divert its limited resources to create a FF body and a decent set of lenses,

Very little is "diverted". Almost all tech (hardware, firmware) used in a FF camera is used in aps-c body, and vice-versa. All lenses are mountable on each, and all FF-capable lenses are fully usable on aps-c bodies, and the lenses are sold to customers of both tiers. FF & aps-c would enjoy much more of a shared-resource dynamic than any other two tiers in Ricoh-Pentax's catalog (645 vs aps-c, P&S vs aps-c, Q vs. aps-C, etc)

...doing good on APS-C,

Main product is aps-c DSLR - which will feel pressure from below by MILC and from above by increasingly-affordable FF - "doing good" has a rapidly ticking clock on it.

K-mount requires FF to remain viable in 2018+, and you have enter the market long before your main current product is no longer viable.
.

[RonHendriks1966]

Ricoh is pretty big - bigger than Nikon.

Both smaller then GoPro and they make tiny sensor camera's.

[monochrome]

Both smaller then GoPro and they make tiny sensor camera's.

Revenue Ron, Revenue.

GPRO > Price / Share +$80 | Earnings / Share $0.07 (seven cents) | Price / Earnings Ratio 1083.

Revenue trending at $988 million forward.

Ricoh Revenue = $21 Billion -- 21 x larger than GoPro

GoPro isn't a valid comparison for anything. Ricoh, Nikon. Sony and Canon are large, global, established, integrated enterprises - not speculative internet darlings.

When it comes - and surely it will - the GoPro fall is going to be spectacular.

[jsherman999]

Both smaller then GoPro and they make tiny sensor camera's.

? talking about the same GoPro? Looks like less than $1B USD in revenue in 2013...

---------- Post added 09-25-14 at 10:13 AM ----------

EDIT:

Revenue Ron, Revenue.
GPRO > Price / Share +$80 | Earnings / Share $0.07 (seven cents) | Price / Earnings Ratio 1083.

GoPro isn't a valid comparison for anything. Ricoh, Nikon. Sony and Canon are large, global, established, integrated enterprises - not speculative internet darlings.

When it comes - and surely it will - the fall is going to be spectacular.

Yes, basically there are a lot of entities that could make that same product at (probably) less cost. Is the 'GoPro' name alone able to sustain any lead? (I wouldn't buy the stock.)

[monochrome]

? talking about the same GoPro? Looks like less than $1B USD in revenue in 2013...

---------- Post added 09-25-14 at 10:13 AM ----------

EDIT:



Yes, basically there are a lot of entities that could make that same product at (probably) less cost. Is the 'GoPro' name alone able to sustain any lead? (I wouldn't buy the stock.)

I recall the last time Prices became so disconnected from Earnings. 1999 - 2000.

[jsherman999]

I recall the last time Prices became so disconnected from Earnings. 1999 - 2000.

If history clubs us on the head more than once maybe we'll eventually learn from it

[monochrome]

If history clubs us on the head more than once maybe we'll eventually learn from it

Doubt it. Once every 15 or 20 years everybody has to get a new T-shirt.

[noser]

If you need a specific look or, a specific lens, then you should shoot the format that gives it to you. The Sigma 30 isn't as nice a lens as either the Sigma 35 f1.4 or the FA 31 limited, both of which would be more likely to give that kind of effect. Equivalence tells you about wide open aperture and that's it. Most lenses will be better stopped down a stop, some lenses will have more distortion than others. The Nikon 35mm f1.4 has less distortion mounted on a D7000 than a 50mm f1.4G does on a D3x, for what it is worth (per Photozone).

Yup, yup, and yup. I didn't go into details, but suffice to say that I could throw away $400 at a lens when I couldn't justify $12000 for 645D's performance (or lack of...), and the Sigma Art lenses weren't out. Price and delivery also ruled out the FA31 - I only had a couple of days to decide and buy.

Believe me, I get the whole equivalence thing (let's not drag out the slide rule for the thousandth time). As I said, had to bite the bullet on bokeh to get a modicum of pop (as in pop > sharpness). Most of the 85mm shots I like from others are either at 1.2, 1.4, or at most 2.0, so it's tough to match. Once in a while I do see some closer work where f/5.6 and a distant background still looks excellent, but thats more careful subject placement/composition than anything.

As for distortion - I'm talking about FoV feature proportion distortion, not optical distortion - BIG difference. And portraits is the only thing where I care/notice.

Since then I've been looking for the right format to move to. I've been shooting 120 on my 645N, but good film is a hassle. I do my own B&W, but not color (and not likely ever). I really, really, really like the AoV/DoF of MF. I've delayed until now (post-Photokina) to see if there was a unicorn or not before I decide if the 645Z can fill the needs I have. It might! It's fast (3 fps, same as the ol' K10D), and it's high ISO kicks my K5 square in the giblets. It's almost a K3 killer. FF might be a format that I'd consider as maybe the best balance between size, weight, and performance, but since I'm used to the 645 size/weight isn't a big deal anymore, so it's just a performance/price thing now.

[ElJamoquio]

Huh? The perspective of a 30ish mm lens on APS-C is the same as the perspective of a 45ish mm lens on FF.

To my knowledge there's not a lens out there on 645N that can match the DOF of 36x24 but I could be missing something.


IIRC... I may not - F/1.4 on APS-C is about F/3.5 on 645, so the F/2.8 lenses on 645 would be faster than the AF lenses available for APS-C.

[bdery]

Why do people say if you want better than a Pentax APS-C then Pentax already has you covered with the 645 range

Because, from a technological point of view (resolution, noise, etc) APS-C and FF are more or less on par. APS-C today is better than full frame was 2-3 years ago... and people yearned for FF then.

So if you need a true step in technology, the solution is not a marginal increase in sensor size.

Of course its a (one) reason. How can you define what reasons are valid and what are not?

Sounds like you're suggesting that your level of acceptable compromise should be agreed apon by everyone - doesn't work that way!

Please don't get upset. It's just gear...

I'm of course not saying MY needs are the reference point. But neither are yours. So far, however, Pentax seems to agree with me, and I think it makes sense.

Demographics... people used to the 35mm perspective are inevitably getting fewer over time.

As of today, the Pentax brand only offers APS-C cameras. So you can either stick with the brand and learn to use those tools, accepting that you have to relearn some stuff (which we do all the time anyway) or, if you prefer not to relearn the perspective, go with another brand, and then learn their new system.

Even if Pentax did release a FF at one point, and even if you get back to the comfort zone you yearn for (not judging here), it won't be "the same"...

Ricoh is pretty big - bigger than Nikon.

But they don't have dozens of employees lying around doing nothing. their resources are committed already. And they do more varied stuff than Nikon.

Very little is "diverted". Almost all tech (hardware, firmware) used in a FF camera is used in aps-c body, and vice-versa. All lenses are mountable on each, and all FF-capable lenses are fully usable on aps-c bodies, and the lenses are sold to customers of both tiers. FF & aps-c would enjoy much more of a shared-resource dynamic than any other two tiers in Ricoh-Pentax's catalog (645 vs aps-c, P&S vs aps-c, Q vs. aps-C, etc)

This makes me smile (in a good way). "Almost all tech" is so far from the truth!

I'm an optical designer. I can tell you that thinking this way is naive at best.

Main product is aps-c DSLR - which will feel pressure from below by MILC and from above by increasingly-affordable FF - "doing good" has a rapidly ticking clock on it.

K-mount requires FF to remain viable in 2018+, and you have enter the market long before your main current product is no longer viable.

Increasingly affordable FF is still, for the moment, twice as expensive as APS-C.

Nikon is not doing well currently, they even threw out a significant part of their management. Meanwhile, Pentax is profitable.

[jsherman999]

Because, from a technological point of view (resolution, noise, etc) APS-C and FF are more or less on par. APS-C today is better than full frame was 2-3 years ago... and people yearned for FF then.

So if you need a true step in technology, the solution is not a marginal increase in sensor size.

Three things to remember:

1) The difference in sensor are between 645d/z and FF is less than the difference between FF and aps-c. You get a bigger 'jump' going from aps-c to FF than you do from FF to MFD.

2) The retail price delta between lowest-end MFD ($8500, body only) and upper-end aps-c ($1500?) is about $7000 - body only, lenses expand this delta much more. Lower-end FF - aps-c delta is anywhere from $200 - $1000 delta, depending on which body comparisons you're looking at.

3) Lens purchases made for aps-c DSLRs cannot be used on MFD bodies - a Pentax FF body could mount and AF any K-mount lens.

There are very few people - less than 6000 per year worldwide, according to Pentax - who see the above as acceptable-enough, or who have specific-enough needs to buy a medium format 645 camera. This is not a viable, longtime, workable answer to FF for Pentax.

Please don't get upset. It's just gear...

Really, I'm never upset about gear, and I enjoy these discussions. Amusement is the usual emotion

I'm of course not saying MY needs are the reference point. But neither are yours. So far, however, Pentax seems to agree with me, and I think it makes sense.

Actually, unless they're outright lying now, they see it my way.

I think the FF paralysis up until this point has had more to do with : ownership turmoil + fear of MILC disruption = institutional inertia.

As a related aside - big and small companies make strategic mistakes all the time, and I think hindsight may show us that Pentax's decision to begin to enter FF in 2015/16 vs 2011/12 was a bad one. They lost time, market position, customers, initiative. We'll see.

But they don't have dozens of employees lying around doing nothing. their resources are committed already.

There would need to be a shift in or addition of resources - but neither you nor I know how much would need to be hired/acquired/leased vs re-allocated.

Since they reportedly have FF lenses in development and ghosted on the roadmap, and have officially stated that FF is 'in development and waiting for release strategy (paraphrased,)' then they have not found this capacity issue as daunting as you do.

This makes me smile (in a good way). "Almost all tech" is so far from the truth!

I'm an optical designer. I can tell you that thinking this way is naive at best.

I guess (sorry, here) I'll have to call your expertise into question, then. (Also... your arguments/data should stand on their own, "don't argue with me I'm an optical designer/expert/physics major" is a no-op sidestep.

Going back to the D300/D700 Nikon has shown the benefits of this development and manufacturing sharing - those two bodies are very, very similar, and they've carried that forward. Firmware and UI are almost exactly the same. Nikon has talked about leveraging these synergies in tradeshow interviews. Their sharp, affordable 28/50/85mm f/1.8 lenses sell in big numbers to both aps-c shooters and FF customers. Canon has done similar things with the 6D/7D... the potential differences between similar-tier apsc and FF DSLR bodies are fewer than the similarities. Then there's the lens development, which can be shared much more tightly than 645 and something like the Q can be with aps-c.

Increasingly affordable FF is still, for the moment, twice as expensive as APS-C.

Adorama has K3 at $1000 and D610 at $1700 right now. That's not 'twice', and in fact a $700 (and dropping) body difference is getting to the point where it stops mattering to a big chunk of aps-c customers.

The big problem for Pentax going forward is that they won't be able to sell a $1500 aps-c camera in the same volume they did in 2010 - their initial early-adopter MSRP flagship margins will have to drop quite a bit, or something else will have to give. If they want to continue to sell K-mount DSLR products, they'll need FF - and they've basically admitted this now. (unless they're just lying again )

.

[ElJamoquio]

Increasingly affordable FF is still, for the moment, twice as expensive as APS-C.

When the K-5 was released, four short years ago, it initially sold at $1750.

So, yes, to me, FF is now affordable. In fact it's pretty much the only thing sold at that price now. Add in one normal zoom of F/2.8 (APS-C) equivalent, and you're talking same price or cheaper for FF.

APS-C cameras are now $1k cameras. If Pentax wants higher prices they'll have to move upmarket.

[Rondec]

When the K-5 was released, four short years ago, it initially sold at $1750.

So, yes, to me, FF is now affordable. In fact it's pretty much the only thing sold at that price now. Add in one normal zoom of F/2.8 (APS-C) equivalent, and you're talking same price or cheaper for FF.

APS-C cameras are now $1k cameras. If Pentax wants higher prices they'll have to move upmarket.

I bought my K5 for 900 dollars. Just cause Hoya squeezed early adopters for every penny they were worth doesn't mean that most APS-C cameras sold at such a price for the most part.

In addition, add in one brand-name normal f2.8 zoom for your full frame and you may have blown your budget for the next three years.