Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
04-06-2015, 10:04 AM   #106
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 23,778
QuoteOriginally posted by Homo_erectus Quote
My K5iis can bang out misfocused shots all day long at a much higher rate than my D750 bangs out in focus shots.

And PentaxForums own review of the K3 shows that in the real world the keeper rate of the K3 is about 67% while the D610 gets around 97% and the K5ii lags far behind at 53%. Pentax K-3 Review - Autofocus | PentaxForums.com Reviews

It's incredibly nice to be able to chose between a run of shots that are *all* in focus for the one or two that have great expressions or moments of action vs (the all too common occurrence with the K5ii) of being disappointed by the great shot that is misfocused and having to chose between two lesser shots that are perfectly focused.
That does need to be qualified a little bit... the K-3 has a higher frame rate than the D610, so if you're doing the burst thing, you should get the same number of keepers. And I've had shots of 23 frames with all in focus... in which case the advantage goes to the K-3. Faster frame rate, larger buffer, more magnification. If you are a wedding photographer you definitely have an advantage with a D610. More to choose from, much faster low light focusing. If you are in wildlife, and your image is going to be compared to 500 other images of the same animal, the extra magnification of the K-3 is going to put you over the top sometimes, not all the time, but sometimes. But the main thing for me, is even though the FF shooting heavy wieghts have circumstances where they will get a better image, like if they have more MPS than I do and can fill the frame... I get a lot they don't. But this is a case of a totally different type pf philosophy, for different shooting needs. The wedding guys need lots of images to choose from all acceptably good. Acceptably good doesn't work for me. I need the best possible image, period.

The following three images were all featured on various Facebook group pages as the lead photo at one time or another. Many taken at the same location as 3 to 5 Canikon guys. Seeing what those guys post.... I sometimes get better images using my K-3.







They may have an easier time getting "acceptable" images, but there are circumstances like the last image, where I scrambled up a snow bank with 30 year old $35 lens and light weight tripod, where the FF guys with their huge lenses with their gamble heads setting up in the parking lot didn't get anything near as good. I got 6 great images, I'm sure they got 200 acceptable images. The perfect set up, for me, is the guys who can afford both. They have their huge FF set up in the parking lot with the 600mm lens. If they don't see what they like they grab their APS_c and shorter lens and come up where I am.

I'm just happy to have a set-up that gives me a chance to compete with the heavy weights, with a relatively lightweight portable system, by focussing on the situations they have trouble with.

And the other issue for me is, I can only sell great images.... acceptable doesn't cut it.


Last edited by normhead; 04-10-2015 at 08:56 AM.
04-06-2015, 10:34 AM   #107
Veteran Member




Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 392
It's funny because the things that I shoot for fun are wildlife and that's what I kept the K5iis + 1.4 AW TC + da* 60-250 for. I get some great shots with that set up and even though the keeper rate is not great I'm not making my living with those shots so it's fine. It's pure pleasure shooting for me.

The nikon gear is for paid gigs where I need to produce a few hundred shots of someones once in a lifetime event.

Basically, I want a FF Pentax that has AF as good as my Nikon so I can keep one set of lenses and two bodies, a FF and an APSC.
04-06-2015, 03:12 PM   #108
New Member




Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Piatra Neamt
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 16
Coming back to the main question of this thread, "what would make you buy the FF", here's what I would like the Pentax FF to have/be like. I'm a hobbyist photographer who has a thing for shooting film, so my remarks are influenced by my experience of using mostly the Pentax LX. As for digital, I own a K20D, so I might not be fully up-to-date with all the newest features in Pentax DSLRs.

1. Compatibility with all the old manual-focus K-mount lenses :
A de-crippled lens mount would be ideal, however I suppose Ricoh won't want to de-cripple the mount, in order to encourage people to buy new lenses. Nevertheless, stop-down metering at the push of a button is still good enough. I don't think we have reason to worry about compatibility in the case of Pentax. Lack of compatibility would be a show-stopper, as I would definitely switch to another system.
2. Big, bright, comfortable viewfinder
I think think we can also take this for granted in the coming camera.
3. Interchangeable focusing screens,
so I can install a split-screen and microprism focusing screen, to use with the old lenses. I have such a screen on my K20D and I like it more than the electronic focus confirmation. I don't see a reason why Pentax would discard interchangeable screens, so I don't worry much about it.
4. High dynamic range
I shoot mostly on film because I appreciate the extremely high dynamic range of negative film (the other major reason is that I can use the full field of my wide-angle manual lenses). It's nice to be able to have HDR with a single exposure and not have to do exposure bracketing.
In my case, I would be willing to accept a lower resolution in exchange for a higher dynamic range.
5. Features for making very long exposures / astrophotography:
- low-noise
- long-exposure noise reduction (dark frame subtraction) that can be deactivated (the K20D can't do this and it's extremely annoying, I suppose it's no longer a problem for newer bodies)
- locking the mirror up by up to 10-20s before the exposure starts, to leave more time for vibrations to stop (the K20D only allows 2 seconds)
- a cheap bulb remote (or press shutter button to start exposure, press again to end)
6. Good handling
I consider the handling on the K20D as excellent. Even better on the newer bodies since they're more compact. Keep up the good work, Pentax!
7. As compact and lightweight as possible without compromising durability
My old LX accompanies me more often on my hiking trips than my K20D. If you've ever used the Pentax-M 20mm f/4 on a film body, you'll know how small a package that makes (with excellent IQ!). It's a joy to use!
Of course, you can't make a digital full-frame as small as a film camera (you need space for all the electronics, for the LCD etc.), but if the new FF could be made comparable in size to the APS-C models, that would be great. In my case, I would be willing to do away with the swivel LCD to make the camera more compact; I suppose other users would disagree on this point.
8. Weather-sealing
I think we can pretty much take this for granted from Pentax.
9. Good video capabilities
as good as the competition at the time of launch.

"Excellent IQ, excellent autofocus ..." and many other useful features have already been expressed by other members, so I won't restate them. I just wanted to express my point of view as mainly a nature photographer who doesn't want to ruin his back hauling a big, clunky camera up into the mountains but still wants high IQ. I could do this with a mirrorless camera or one of the newer Pentax APS-C bodies, but I really like my old lenses and I want to be able to use them at their full potential. That's the main reason why I use the LX more than the K20D.

And a small thought on de-crippling the K-mount:
I would be willing to bet that at some point, someone at Pentax thought that "the old lenses are killing our sales of new lenses". These old lenses should not be viewed as a threat, but as an asset. Pentax's DSLR market share is low compared to canikon. And the way to increase market share is not by trying to sell lenses directly, but by increasing the number of bodies out there. A strong incentive to buy the Pentax FF would be its compatibility with all the Pentax lenses ever made, at their originally intended FOV and preferably with open-aperture metering. In time, these buyers will want to benefit from the higher IQ afforded by newer optical designs, they will want to replace a set of primes with a zoom of achieving the same quality thanks to the newer design, or they will feel the need for AF and will therefore invest in new lenses. The old lenses would then be sold to others, perhaps new people upgrading to FF who do not yet have the budget to buy new FF lenses alongside their new FF body.

If someone from Pentax/Ricoh is reading this, I would also like to point them to the Nikon Df as an example of a beautifully crafted camera, made for "pure photography". I love its looks and its controls and the fact that it fully supports all Nikon lenses. If I would have been a Nikon user, I would have bought that camera in a heartbeat! My only griefs with it would be that it lacks a video mode (I think that's a bit too much "pure" in "pure photography") and that it remains relatively big.
At this point, I don't think that a DSLR in Nikon Df's style would be the best thing since it would scare away some people; I would rather keep with the modern layout for now. However, it would be nice to see a retro-styled, compact, digital FF "Pentax LX" in a few years from now.
04-06-2015, 05:48 PM   #109
Junior Member




Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Western Wisconsin
Posts: 26
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
I'm surprised you shot MF for 8 years, and you think you can be happy with FF. It didn't work that way for me, I shot both MF and FF film, and it's the MF images that really stand out for me. Too bad you sold your MF lenses, you can find 645Ds advertised for $2,999 in good shape.
I didn't shoot enough medium format to make it worth my while. Yeah, I got some gorgeous images, but I just didn't get the camera out enough. For the last few years most of my shooting has been events (my kids were in the cult called marching band/drum corps and my wife made a run for elected office) - either low light or fast action or both, which couldn't be done with my 645n (and would still be problematic for the 645D). Selling the MF lenses and camera bought me my K-5 and a couple of decent zooms. And if I want to get back into MF - well, the lenses I sold are selling for less on ebay than what I got for mine. I could buy the same lenses that I sold and pocket the change... (in fact I'm looking at the current prices on the 67 right now...)

But the MF makes me realize that I can do better than APS-C. If I can keep the low-light performance & high speed of APS-C with higher resolution, I'll be happier.

As for switching to another brand - Let me see what the K-FF looks like. If it has some of the features (like sensor shift) that you mention, I'll probably stay with Pentax. But for now it's all hypothetical. I'll use the best tools I can find going forwards.

04-08-2015, 07:37 PM   #110
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2014
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 363
Original Poster
Medium format digital versus FF

Several comments in this thread have mentioned the Medium Format digital camera the 645D as an alternative. If the new FF is 36MP and perhaps has some other "high res" pixel shift mode to increase effective resolution even more, don't you think this will impact medium format digital camera sales? Or are these a totally different animal?
04-08-2015, 07:59 PM   #111
Site Supporter




Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,892
QuoteOriginally posted by mikeodial Quote
Several comments in this thread have mentioned the Medium Format digital camera the 645D as an alternative. If the new FF is 36MP and perhaps has some other "high res" pixel shift mode to increase effective resolution even more, don't you think this will impact medium format digital camera sales? Or are these a totally different animal?
I think it's a different animal. Right now, to buy a MF camera, you have to care about the resolution, but not the low-light capability.

If the FF has 36MP it still won't have the resolution of the MF camera.

On top of that, even if the FF has sensor shift, sensor shift is unlikely to work in dynamic environments, like oceans (or any moving water), trees with even a small amount of wind, etc.
04-08-2015, 08:16 PM - 1 Like   #112
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 5,418
QuoteOriginally posted by mikeodial Quote
Several comments in this thread have mentioned the Medium Format digital camera the 645D as an alternative. If the new FF is 36MP and perhaps has some other "high res" pixel shift mode to increase effective resolution even more, don't you think this will impact medium format digital camera sales? Or are these a totally different animal?

To a small degree, but for most people they are different animals. When I had the 67II and then the Contax 645 I was still using my 35mm Canon a lot. More mega-pickles aren't the only thing that matter when it comes to the differences.


If you get the chance go to a gallery that has medium or large format on display. Looking at images compressed for the web makes it hard to see the actual differences in IQ between different formats.
04-09-2015, 07:51 AM   #113
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 23,778
QuoteQuote:
I think it's a different animal. Right now, to buy a MF camera, you have to care about the resolution, but not the low-light capability.
The 645z has the best low light capability out there. Clean images to 6400 ISO. SO clean DxO won't test it. They don't want to show up their bread and butter. Pentax is still selling them as fast as they can make them... but hey, that's not good enough for DxO. Instead they post picture of the 645z, and then include 645D specs.

04-09-2015, 04:55 PM   #114
Loyal Site Supporter
clackers's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Melbourne
Photos: Albums
Posts: 7,727
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
The 645z has the best low light capability out there. Clean images to 6400 ISO. SO clean DxO won't test it. They don't want to show up their bread and butter. Pentax is still selling them as fast as they can make them... but hey, that's not good enough for DxO. Instead they post picture of the 645z, and then include 645D specs.
Sickening, isn't it?

Any 645Z owner out there live near their office?

Tell them you'll loan them your body and lens and see if the offer's taken up! :-)
04-11-2015, 10:00 AM   #115
Site Supporter




Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,892
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
The 645z has the best low light capability out there. Clean images to 6400 ISO. SO clean DxO won't test it. They don't want to show up their bread and butter. Pentax is still selling them as fast as they can make them... but hey, that's not good enough for DxO. Instead they post picture of the 645z, and then include 645D specs.
The sensor in the camera is great, but the lenses are so slow that the system has no more low-light capability than a K-5.
04-11-2015, 10:15 AM   #116
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 23,778
There are 2.8 lenses for it. I consider 800 as the upper limit for the K-5. So let me count on my fingers here... 800 @ ƒ1.4 equivalent on the 645z would be ISO 3200 ƒ2.8 on the 645z. So ISO 3200. The 645z is one stop better at ISO 6400, same as an FF, but it's still a good point. But the big selling point of MF has to be resolution. It's just that in this case, you're gaining resolution, while remaining the same or better for low light. And of course that's only shooting ƒ1.4 on APS-c or FF, which is a pretty limiting ƒ stop.

Just as for most of us, the big selling point for FF is resolution. If you need it, you have to go for it.

Last edited by normhead; 04-11-2015 at 10:20 AM.
04-11-2015, 12:28 PM   #117
Site Supporter




Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,892
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
There are 2.8 lenses for it. I consider 800 as the upper limit for the K-5. So let me count on my fingers here... 800 @ 1.4 equivalent on the 645z would be ISO 3200 2.8 on the 645z. So ISO 3200. The 645z is one stop better at ISO 6400, same as an FF, but it's still a good point. But the big selling point of MF has to be resolution. It's just that in this case, you're gaining resolution, while remaining the same or better for low light. And of course that's only shooting 1.4 on APS-c or FF, which is a pretty limiting stop.

Just as for most of us, the big selling point for FF is resolution. If you need it, you have to go for it.
I've always said that (in a perfect-knowledge world) resolution is the primary reason for MF.

But I think you're underestimating the K-5 or overestimating the 645z. I haven't seen any evidence of any improvement, much less an entire stop.
04-11-2015, 12:46 PM   #118
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 23,778
QuoteOriginally posted by ElJamoquio Quote
I've always said that (in a perfect-knowledge world) resolution is the primary reason for MF.

But I think you're underestimating the K-5 or overestimating the 645z. I haven't seen any evidence of any improvement, much less an entire stop.
You might be right, comparing the swatches on IR, 6400 645z isn't as good as 800 K-5 and is over my personal cut off point, which is pretty much 800 ISO K-5 or 640 ISO K-3.
04-15-2015, 12:22 AM   #119
Pentaxian
MD Optofonik's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: California
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 900
Tilt screen for waist level live view. That would be the only reason for me to want to spend that kind of money on any
camera.
04-15-2015, 04:13 AM   #120
Senior Member
devouges's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 188
Tilt screen will be ery tempting.

Price willbe a major concern for me..... I hope it will be less than 2k

I came from a K10 to a K5iis just before the K3 was announced....... I am VERY happy with my K5iiS
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, body, camera, control, da, ff, frame, full-frame, k3, lenses, pentax, wr
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
What will make you buy the K3? Rupert Pentax K-3 106 10-19-2013 01:16 PM
Would you buy a Pentax Full Frame DSLR? Tesla Pentax Full Frame 364 07-11-2013 10:01 AM
Pentax full frame fisheye for the 645D...would you buy one? slackercruster Pentax Medium Format 7 06-19-2012 07:01 AM
What would you buy? A Full Frame Pentax or an EVIL Pentax? johnmflores Pentax DSLR Discussion 104 07-29-2010 07:55 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:36 PM. | 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