[FantasticMrFox]

+1! There's something special on MF pictures that is beyond MP count on the sensor or technical numbers.

I don't see it. The way pretty much no one (including me) cannot tell a random APS-C image from a full-frame image, or a Nikon from a Leica image, I also cannot tell a random MF from an FF or even an APS-C image. I think the whole 'there is something to FF images' or 'there is something to MF images' is primarily esoteric, pretty much a placebo effect. You know it's an MF image, so you project something into it that isn't there. Another factor implicated in creating this illusion might be the different format ratio (1.5 for APS-C and FF, 1.33 for Pentax MF) and maybe also that for whatever reason photographers using MF might be pursuing a common similar style different from most FF shooters? I'm not sure.

Anyway, I assume that the notion that there is something special to Leica images, of FF images, of MF images would not hold up to scientific scrutiny, i.e. when presented with near-identical images produced with either MF or FF cameras subjects would not be able to tell which one is which above chance.

[btnapa]

Personally, I have no interest at all in switching to a Sony camera. I love my Pentax K3 and already have money saved up for the upcoming Pentax full frame.

Do you think there's any chance that this outstanding and class leading sensor might end up in the Pentax full frame?


Thanks,
Dave

Wanting to see how they perform, I just tested my three Amigos on a friend's A7R. I did this in preparation for the arrival of the Pentax FF or a possible switch to a A7rII. As expected the three Amigos delivered with stellar results. I did want a 645Z (still do) but as Michael said in his conclusion, there are other considerations besides the sensor size or quality. Two features came in handy while testing my lenses on the A7R. First was the tilting screen since I had the camera on a tripod and did not want to scoot down to see previews. However, the feature that is and will be invaluable for my aging eyes is the focus peaking through the viewfinder. I hated the feature initially a couple of years ago but it has grown on me since then... And now it is a must for me.

Based on history, I expect Pentax to deliver a knock out still camera but suffer in the video department, unless they pull a rabbit out of the hat and shock us all with pro 4k. Not being a video shooter, I do not care about the video that much. But if I were a video and photo shooter, the A7RII wins hands down.

As to a 645Z, I still want one...but the cost of entry is way more than an FF and apparently the image difference is not that dramatic.

I think the bigger issue not only for Pentax but for Canon and Nikon is the rapid development and acceptance of MLC and EVFs.

[biz-engineer]

I think the whole 'there is something to FF images' or 'there is something to MF images' is primarily esoteric, pretty much a placebo effect.

There may be a placebo effect. But apart from that , there are measurable differences for the same image, perceivable without enlargement. A few years ago, I did an experiment. With my K200D, I framed some images similar to the ones taken by photographer Raymond Depardon with Mamiya 6x7. The similar feeling from my K200D images was obtained after I had corrected the image for distortion, lighting and cropped them with the same form factor. What I found out: for the same field of view, especially for wide to normal field of view, 6x7 render reality with no distortion, giving a very authentic reproduction. However, there would be less difference between FF and MF I suppose.

[BlakeShellman]

Though I've seen the thread for the Pentax Full Frame I never really followed them since I just got my K3 last November and is stil new as far I'm concerned. If Sony's FF is over $3000 I have to believe Pentax's will be in that price range and if that's the case I don't think I'd buy one new unless the price comes down to below $1500 or so.

---

Last edited by BlakeShellman; 08-22-2015 at 09:41 AM.

[Fenwoodian]

If Lloyd Chambers is correct, 42MP (with anticipated pixel shift) will really be demanding on lenses! Only the best of the best lenses will shine on the 80MP (equivalent) pixel shifted Pentax full frame sensor.

I wonder if Zeiss will start making their Otis lenses in the Pentax mount after the "near medium format goodness" of the Pentax full frame comes out?

[FantasticMrFox]

If Lloyd Chambers is correct, 42MP (with anticipated pixel shift) will really be demanding on lenses! Only the best of the best lenses will shine on the 80MP (equivalent) pixel shifted Pentax full frame sensor.

I doubt this will be really relevant in practical use. Who will look at an 80 MP image in 100% mode on a regular basis? It's not like existing lenses will fare worse on higher resolution sensors than on lower resolution sensors, they might just not be able to take full advantage of the additional resolution.

I wonder if Zeiss will start making their Otis lenses in the Pentax mount after the "near medium format goodness" of the Pentax full frame comes out?

That will depend on whether Zeiss thinks they can make a decent profit on Pentax lenses. The Pentax FF could be a technological revolution of whatever magnitude, Zeiss will only supply lenses if the market share is promising enough. Let's hope that's going to be the case, also in order to get that 24, 50 and 24-35 mm 'Art'

[monochrome]

a 42 mp pentax FF would cannibalize the 645Z

Possibly - but if the planned 645Z production has already been achieved, or monthly volume is already falling off, why wouldn't Pentax compete with itself?

Surely, if they don't, someone else will.

[btnapa]

As for the A7rII vs Pentax FF. Hard to say just yet the problem with sony are the lens matchings. I did the A6000 lens test and there is such a large difference in performance between lenses with a sony that it is entirely possible that the Pentax FF with the same sensor will be better. Yes i am aware that we are talking about a FF vs Crop sensor but you have to start somewhere and comparing it to a 645d/z isn't any better.

I agree with the lens behavior issue on various cameras. Big shut out to Pentax. My Pentax lenses did great on the A6000 test and even better on the A7R I had borrowed from a friend.

One of the posts I read about the A7RII said that some of the inherent aberration problems with legacy lenses seem to have disappeared or reduced greatly. I hope that is the case with the Pentax FF as well. The Three Amigos and some of my 645 A and FA lenses that I own have serious purple fringing issue when shot wide open. It would be great if the CA is reduced or eliminated without resorting to PP.

[quant2325]

You guys are all nuts. Moore's Law isn't dead, and neither are all the corollaries. Of course everything will be obsolete for those wanting the newest and greatest every year or two!

At some point more MPs and larger sensors won't make any difference for most people. We are getting closer and closer to that point for many of us now. For most consumers, that inflection point was reached two years ago when camera sales dropped off a cliff due to smartphones.

Yesterday I shot a "perfect" macro shot the kids will gladly delete once I die. I suppose it could be "more perfect" with the latest and greatest sensor, but it doesn't matter. Remember, most of the iconic photographs the world has ever seen were taken on equipment not as good as today's smartphones.

[btnapa]

I don't see it. The way pretty much no one (including me) cannot tell a random APS-C image from a full-frame image, or a Nikon from a Leica image, I also cannot tell a random MF from an FF or even an APS-C image. I think the whole 'there is something to FF images' or 'there is something to MF images' is primarily esoteric, pretty much a placebo effect. You know it's an MF image, so you project something into it that isn't there. Another factor implicated in creating this illusion might be the different format ratio (1.5 for APS-C and FF, 1.33 for Pentax MF) and maybe also that for whatever reason photographers using MF might be pursuing a common similar style different from most FF shooters? I'm not sure.

Anyway, I assume that the notion that there is something special to Leica images, of FF images, of MF images would not hold up to scientific scrutiny, i.e. when presented with near-identical images produced with either MF or FF cameras subjects would not be able to tell which one is which above chance.

I agree with you with the differences not being so dramatic. However, the only exception is for people who print big prints (30"x40" and beyond). This is one place an MF or large megapixel FF will show its extra resolution advantages.

I shoot products and all of my paid work with a K3 and no one has complained about not enough resolution. We use the images for a variety of applications including large posters for trade shows. In these situations, products usually fill the frame and large prints do not show noticeable degradation. However, as I am shooting more nature and landscapes, the extra resolution of MF and high MP FF will come into play rather quickly because of detailed elements in the scenes.

[FantasticMrFox]

At some point more MPs and larger sensors won't make any difference for most people. We are getting closer and closer to that point for many of us now.

More MPs have already stopped making a difference to a lot of people. At the same time people already claimed a decade ago that no one would ever realistically need more than 6 MP, and look where we are now.

I'm just an amateur and am currently looking and printing some of the images I took in Namibia big to hang them at my wall. Some of these are heavily cropped because certain animals don't exactly walk up to your car to have their portraits taken, and even with the 24 MP of my K3 I am getting to a point where if I want to print these cropped images big, the quality won't exactly be great. Would I have appreciated a 36 or 42 MP sensor for wildlife photography over there? Yes, certainly.

[Rondec]

More MPs have already stopped making a difference to a lot of people. At the same time people already claimed a decade ago that no one would ever realistically need more than 6 MP, and look where we are now.

I'm just an amateur and am currently looking and printing some of the images I took in Namibia big to hang them at my wall. Some of these are heavily cropped because certain animals don't exactly walk up to your car to have their portraits taken, and even with the 24 MP of my K3 I am getting to a point where if I want to print these cropped images big, the quality won't exactly be great. Would I have appreciated a 36 or 42 MP sensor for wildlife photography over there? Yes, certainly.

For the situation you mention, you need a longer lens, not more megapixels. You are already cropping APS-C pretty hard, it sounds like, I doubt you are getting to get much benefit either from 36 or 42 megapixel full frame unless you also invest in a longer equivalent lens. More megapixels with APS-C could help a little bit, but it probably would take about perfect technique and a really sharp lens to make that work.

[FantasticMrFox]

For the situation you mention, you need a longer lens, not more megapixels.

Yes, but longer lenses are pretty pricey and not really affordable on a student budget, at least not if you want some that deliver a decent quality at the long end. I was already using my HD DA 55-300 WR on the long end and still had to crop. The increase in sensor resolution is a natural evolutionary process and in a couple of years there will probably be 36 MP APS-C cameras at the same price point as current 24 MP cameras. Longer lenses of a decent quality, however, will always be more expensive than shorter or worse lenses.

The MP and cropping question is even more relevant with full frame, which does not have the same reach as crop factor cameras. For example the 36 MP Nikon D810 gives you more reach at an acceptable quality than the 24 MP Nikon D750, provided the same lens is used.

I guess all I want to say is that there is still an advantage to more MP in newer sensors. At the moment the development is happening at a sustainable rate, with new sensors offering a higher resolution all the while also improving on noise performance, dynamic range etc.

[patarok]

Michael Reichmann is the founder of the LuminousLandscape.com . I expect that most of you are familiar with this website. I have a very high regard for Mr Reichmann, and I understand that his website is one of the most visited photography website on the Internet.

He recently reviewed the Sony A7RII. He compared it to his favorite medium format digital camera, the Pentax 645Z. In his review ( https://luminous-landscape.com/sony-a7rii-review-and-hands-on-report/ ) Michael says that the IQ of the Sony A7RII is very very close to the Pentax 645Z. He went on to say "Frankly, if I had to choose one over the other I’d go with the A7RII."

Personally, I have no interest at all in switching to a Sony camera. I love my Pentax K3 and already have money saved up for the upcoming Pentax full frame.

My hope is that Pentax puts the back-illuminated 42.4-Megapixel CMOS sensor that's in the ony A7RII into their new full frame. Knowing how Pentax/Ricoh does a great job of camera design, I have no doubt that this sensor in the new Pentax full frame would be a match made in heaven.

Do you think there's any chance that this outstanding and class leading sensor might end up in the Pentax full frame?


Thanks,
Dave

One CAN see a difference between MF and FF i also saw results from the A7IIR and i played around a bit with the 645Z and i have to admit when it comes to IQ .... There are worlds between the IQ of a Pentax 645Z and the little flat iron from sony... flange diameter.... flange focal distance .... the sensor pixel size... all that indeed has impact on IQ and the feeling of a clean and clear picture.... why do you think real professionals are still using large format cameras.... (Prestige?? NO.... never... believe me...) They would all love to get something in their hands tiny as mid sized filofax and get the same results as they get with their Linhof M679cs. But the fact is: the Linhof will deliver BETTER PICTURES.....!!) No one that needs the material for his profession to gain a living, would buy a camera without a digital back for 10.000bucks if he could have the same results with a camera for about 2000 Euros.... except some nouveau riche dumbos whose fathers already bought a hasselblad and did let grow a 1cm thick dust layer upon it. There is a reason for every camera and there is a reason for the pixel density on lets say a Nikon D4 or a Canon 1DX.... Yes Canon also has a foot in the megapixel door but thats only because they know some megapixel-hype-boys will buy it... no nO NO. We really do NOT need about 40MP on a FF sensor. i would be happy to see a Pentax FF DSLR with a 24.5MP Sensor that gives me cool results at ISO 25.600 shooting rates around 10 still frames per second, endless RAW shooting. AND Pixelshift.... man... that would be so much data... where are your 5-4 "512GB SD cards" for 250bucks each??? NO.

and really.... do you think "One drives into Mordor with a viral website(money) and comes back with the truth in has bags...?" nope. ----------------------------------------------->

[Chippedoff]

You guys are all nuts. Moore's Law isn't dead, and neither are all the corollaries. Of course everything will be obsolete for those wanting the newest and greatest every year or two!

At some point more MPs and larger sensors won't make any difference for most people. We are getting closer and closer to that point for many of us now. For most consumers, that inflection point was reached two years ago when camera sales dropped off a cliff due to smartphones.

Yesterday I shot a "perfect" macro shot the kids will gladly delete once I die. I suppose it could be "more perfect" with the latest and greatest sensor, but it doesn't matter. Remember, most of the iconic photographs the world has ever seen were taken on equipment not as good as today's smartphones.

The Sony RX100 IV is a 20 mpix but it has a stacked filter sensor. The only difference is that the sony stacked pre filters limit interference so that the sensor has less partial exposure points and overly bright points to deal with so you get a sharper image. The downside is that the sony cameras in this thread are rather expensive and quick & easy access to settings on the Sony cameras is almost non existent. Which is one reason i hope the new Pentax FF camera is a dslr with room for proper dials and programmable buttons but not in the K-s1 configuration.