[mikeodial]

I'm expecting the Pentax FF to be a more advanced camera than the D810 and that the price will be maybe $100 less than the D810 was on release, which i believe was over $3100. Pixel shift alone will mean as a landscape camera the Pentax will easily out-do a D810 in some circumstances, like studio stills and windless landscapes.

If that goal is achieved, the FF will do very well. I have been using a D810 for the last few months and it is an amazing machine. Most impressive is the ability to draw amazing detail out of the shadows, the DR is something else. It also is very demanding on technique, and when I moved from the 24mp K3 to the Nikon I really missed the stabilization and underestimated the impact on technique of all those extra pixels. However, it is worth it. Hope the new Pentax FF is all that and some more.

---------- Post added 10-27-15 at 09:57 AM ----------

I don't, and honestly, when it comes purchase time this tax season, I'll finally have to make a decision... DFA 150-450 or FF. I can make a case for both, and I go back and forth, day after day. I personally am not convinced there's a lot of difference between a K-3 and a D810 in terms of meaningful out put. The threads on the IR fabrics really pop on a D810, but, you stand back 6 feet and you can't see them anyway. And an FF would require an expensive new wide angle, when I already have the Sigma 8-16 for APS-c. SO while I'm excited about the release, I'm a long way from deciding to purchase. Another part of that, is I haven't been out to an Art Show for over a year. Logistical problems. My local Zellers has beautiful framed canvases for 70 bucks, I used to get $300 for mine, that's less than I can buy the frames for, and if I never do another 30x20 in my life, there is no possibility I'll see any benefit from a full frame, printing at 18x12 or whatever.

SO, I'm not sure what the circumstances would be that would inspire me to buy a full frame, but I'm really happy there's going to be one available. It's kind of like a security blanket. For my wildlife shooting or macro, it's definitely a no go. If it's 3k, it will still be a toss up, used 645D or Pentax FF for landscape. I have some 645 A glass.

Norm, I sort of faced a similar decision, but could not afford to stay with both Pentax and another digital system. I seriously considered the 645D, but I was worried about the size factor, particularly all that extra glass. (Had a 6 x 7 in my past and knew I only lugged it around when I really needed it and wanted a camera I could take with me all the time). In the end I went with a D810 and a few manual Zeiss lenses. This is not medium format, but it's close, but with the handling and usability of a DSLR. The D810 is much bigger than my K3 was, but looks similar in size to the new FF. It's not that hard to handle and has great ergonomics, just as the K3 has. I am pretty happy with where I am now, even though there will be rare occasions the large prints are needed. ONe main in this system difference are the Zeiss optics, which are just wonderful, to me at least. They have the color rendering of my FA limited (perhaps a little cooler), but also super sharp and can get more than enough detail out of that 36mp sensor. All of this did not come cheap, but neither will the new FF and the new glass to take advantage of it. I purchased most of the Zeiss lenses used, and they will likely last longer than me.

[normhead]

Ha, ha, at my age, even cheap lenses will last longer than me...

Now that there is definitely a full frame coming, I expect everyone will be going through this process. For many, FF is not even a worthwhile option... but it could be. The big thing for me is the low light performance. I won't buy anything for a stop better, if it can give me 2 stops better low light performance for wildlife, I'll consider it. But I really stopped thinking much about an FF when I got the K-3. The 24 MP made a 36 MP FF a lot less desirable. The measured increase in resolution is about 25%, for 100% more money, you really have to want that to go for it.

[Collinb]

Unless you're going to print out billboards, anything over 25 MP or so is just overkill. Then you're just spending lots and lots of harddrive space for not much gain.

For reference, a 4K display is only 8.3 MP, so you can view a 16MP image at 50% scaling (still good to avoid artifacts). 24MP puts you at 33%, which is more than enough downscaling to suppress camera flaws.


I'm not sure about that blog post. For a "pro" site, there's way too much emphasis on MP. He doesn't just use them to differentiate them by name; he suggests more MP like it's going to matter to people.

It's not always about printing. It's about impressions.

Going back to the film days ...
There's a reason weddings were generally shot with a blad -- big neg, zeiss lenses. Tough to beat.
There's a reason studios would use the RB/RZ camerase.
There's a reason architectural photographers would use a 4x5, and not just for the movements.

Even in the digital world, irregardless of sensor ...
There's a reason people spend a lot of money on sharper lenses.

People want the sharpness both on paper and on screen.
It's what sells.
One need not be printing billboards to get the advantage of more pixels.

I'll gladly put a 4x5 or 8x10 contact or chrome against a ff dslr image.
Information (in the image) is everything.
And the impression given to the customer makes the sale.

[normhead]

However,that being said, comparing a digital sensor to a 4x5 negative... that's just not right.

There's a reason people spend a lot of money on sharper lenses.

There's also a reason most people don't. In fact I'd love to do psych profiles of people who buy expensive glass and cameras. Insistence on absolute technical quality, is it necessary, or is it a personality flaw, where in the person can not be happy with his work unless he knows it meets the absolute highest technical standards?

My cousin used a couple Hassies in his wedding business.. so don't get me wrong, I have a handle on the reality. The reality in that case was he had a very high end clientele who expected things to look a certain way, and 35 mm film was definitely resolution challenged. Whether or not that translates to digital the same way, somehow I doubt it.

But, in reference to my cousin's Hassies, if I can find a few clients that will pay me the equivalence of $15,000 for a wedding and albums, on a regular basis, as he did, I'll buy whatever the clients think I should have too. If they think I should have a bank of lights I'll rent it, if they think I should have 3 assistants, I'll hire them, there's a difference between good business sense and technical necessity. But you have to ask, is the insistence on top notch gear compensation for doubt about the artistic merit of one's pictures? After all, if you're going to have the confidence to do these kind of things, you have to get it from somewhere. Buying the most expensive equipment can help with that, I'm sure. SO that might be the reason for owning the sharpest lenses and most expensive gear, but it has nothing to do with the average guy. I'd venture that I get cleaner enlargements from my K-5 and K-3 than I did from my Program Plus or 645. Using film as a comparison point is just a really bad thing to do.

I don't much appreciate this line of reasoning.

If there's a reason, show us, if you don't know what it is, don't bring it up like it's some kind of defining argument in the discussion. It could be technical, social or psychological, and probably is a bit of all three. DOn't assume there's one reason for using larger formats, there could be 5, 3 of which are of no relevance to the average shooter, and the other two might not make any difference at all.

---

Last edited by normhead; 10-27-2015 at 08:03 AM.

[mikeodial]

Ha, ha, at my age, even cheap lenses will last longer than me...

Now that there is definitely a full frame coming, I expect everyone will be going through this process. For many, FF is not even a worthwhile option... but it could be. The big thing for me is the low light performance. I won't buy anything for a stop better, if it can give me 2 stops better low light performance for wildlife, I'll consider it. But I really stopped thinking much about an FF when I got the K-3. The 24 MP made a 36 MP FF a lot less desirable. The measured increase in resolution is about 25%, for 100% more money, you really have to want that to go for it.

One of the main advantages from the FF I didn't expect was in PP. I find myself cropping a lot more than I did before, and doing so without a great loss in quality. I know you can argue I should be doing a better job of framing, which is true, but sometimes you see the image differently when you get it home. The low light performance of the D810 is wonderful. See photos attached.

---------- Post added 10-27-15 at 10:34 AM ----------

Images

[Rondec]

For whatever it is worth, when I questioned the Ricoh Rep at the NY show last Thursday, he said that the FF senor is 36mp and 42mp with Pixel Shift enabled. However, I did not ask him if the senor is the same as the Nikon D800.

That wouldn't make any sense. Why it would go up to 42 megapixel with pixel shift. With the K3 II, I think megapixels stay the same, it just adds color depth, dynamic range, and resolution to that image. My guess is the guy doesn't actually know. Why taking three or four 36 megapixel images and combining them would produce a 42 megapixel image is beyond me. (not saying he didn't say it, just that maybe he doesn't know and has just heard rumors and combined them into a strange story)

[Fenwoodian]

That wouldn't make any sense. Why it would go up to 42 megapixel with pixel shift. With the K3 II, I think megapixels stay the same, it just adds color depth, dynamic range, and resolution to that image. My guess is the guy doesn't actually know. Why taking three or four 36 megapixel images and combining them would produce a 42 megapixel image is beyond me. (not saying he didn't say it, just that maybe he doesn't know and has just heard rumors and combined them into a strange story)

I just checked the size of the files of some K3II images that I took. Here's what I found:

jpg = 13mb
dng not shifted = 27mb
dng shifted = 120mb
pef shifted = 111mb

So, it would appear the shifted image files are a little over 4 times larger than a non-shifted file.

What would that make a full frame shifted dng file - maybe around 250mb? Wow, now that's HUGE!! Maybe we'll need more SD cards and cloud storage.

---

Last edited by Fenwoodian; 10-27-2015 at 10:10 AM.

[biz-engineer]

Why it would go up to 42 megapixel with pixel shift.

Because of the extra image area covered by sensor shift when using 645 lenses, because that would be a unique Pentax feature that Canon and Nikon can't replicate. Although this was rumored and considered as a joke, I think it could be serious: why not provide an upgrade path from FF to MF via sensor shift ?

[Rondec]

I just checked the size of the files of some K3II images that I took. Here's what I found:

jpg = 13mb
dng not shifted = 27mb
dng shifted = 120mb
pef shifted = 111mb

So, it would appear the shifted image files are a little over 4 times larger than a non-shifted file.

What would that make a full frame shifted dng file - maybe around 250mb? Wow, now that's HUGE!! Maybe we'll need more SD cards and cloud storage.

Well, the DNG files just are a container that holds four RAW images, the same with the PEF files. The big comparison would be the jpeg shifted versus jpeg non- shifted.

[Dipsoid]

Well, the DNG files just are a container that holds four RAW images, the same with the PEF files. The big comparison would be the jpeg shifted versus jpeg non- shifted.

I don't think the file size would change much, if at all. With a raw file, you're getting four times as much pixel information stored in the file, where as with jpeg you're getting the same amount of pixels stored in the file. It might be a tiny bit larger because the way jpeg compression works. At higher quality compression levels the more color variation at the pixel level in an image leads to larger files, so it should change. I honestly don't think it would by much.

[infoomatic]

personally, I don't need more than 24MP on a FF camera (quite satisfied with my A7-II). However, I guess the Pentax will come with a 36MP sensor, I think its mainly because of the price difference to the bleeding edge 42MP BSI sensor. I think the Pentax FF would be too expensive with that 42MP sensor.
I will buy the fullframe anyway; sensor resolution does not hold me back from buying despite the higher storage costs.

[mikeodial]

personally, I don't need more than 24MP on a FF camera (quite satisfied with my A7-II). However, I guess the Pentax will come with a 36MP sensor, I think its mainly because of the price difference to the bleeding edge 42MP BSI sensor. I think the Pentax FF would be too expensive with that 42MP sensor.
I will buy the fullframe anyway; sensor resolution does not hold me back from buying despite the higher storage costs.

The storage costs are often offset by a better dynamic range in the high res images. So where I would almost always bracket on my K3, I rarely do on the D810. I suspect the DR will be very good on the new FF, allowing for less need for bracketing. (Aside from HDR of course). I only use bracketing for focusing now on the D810.

[Pål Jensen]

Like me, I expect that many of you are regular visitors to Thom Hogan's various photography websites.

Today on this webpage he says "Competitors like Pentax are picking up on that 36mp sensor, too, so Nikon needs to move further ahead". In the context of the entire article, I believe that this statement is saying that the new Pentax full frame will have the same 36mp sensor that the Nikon 800 series cameras have.

Obviously, Pentax/Ricoh has not announced yet what sensor the full frame will have. Does Thom have inside information, or is he just making an educated guess?

If the sensor turns out to be the same 36mp sensor that's in the Nikon D800, D800E, and D810 will you be happy with it? Or, were you (like me) hoping that the Pentax full frame would have the new Sony 42mp sensor in it?

Also, assuming Thom is correct in this prediction,what impact do you think having this sensor in the new Pentax full frame might have on it's price? The Nikon D810 currently is selling for $2,797. Maybe be even lower on Black Friday and before Christmas. Given that, I would think a likely starting price for the Pentax full frame might be around $2,300.

I think it will have a 36mp sensor in order to keep the price reasonable. The rest of the camera doesn't strike me as looking cheap...

[rawr]

I think it will have a 36mp sensor in order to keep the price reasonable.

By now the Sony 36MP IMX094AQP sensor chip, as seen first in the D800 released Feb 2012, is at least 4 years old (assuming it started to roll out of a Sony chip factory maybe 6 months before the D800 was actually announced). So that's a mid 2011 chip. After 4 years of production, it should be very affordable indeed.

However 4 years is a long time in the chip world. I hope that since 2011, Sony have been continuously evolving, developing and tuning the chip.

FWIW, at the moment Sony is only listing 2 chips as available for full-frame - a 24MP (IMX128) and a 36 MP chip (still the same IMX094):

Sony Global - Products

[Cynog Ap Brychan]

Having owned a D810 for a year, and a D800 before it, I would be more than happy if the Pentax FF had the same sensor. All I really desire is a K-3 II with that sensor. Anything else will be a bonus.