[normhead]

Does this deal include the check you cash for somebody stuck in Africa that can't find a bank to use and can't get home without your help?

That guy was supposed to send me $14,000,000. Where's my money? I was going to use it to buy a camera with a 35x24 sensor, to use when I don't have time to set up the 4x5 film camera I'd buy first.

[macman24054]

in some other nation that still has meaningful, useful interest savings rates

are there any

[mee]

This probably means that it will cost more than $500.

Well.. shucks.. then I'm out.

[Zygonyx]

Small player : Pentaxeros did put on business a 800€ pre-order scheme, roughly 10 month ago. I guess now they've become millionaries

[Digitalis]

...and I have a Nigerian prince who has invited me to share in US$184million he inherited from his father who kicked the bucket..

[colonel00]

Here's how to do it. Everyone give me $500 for their order. Them go out and collect $600 from others and just pay me a $100 admin fee for each order. Then, recruit people to work under you and you can keep $50 off their admin fees. It's a beautiful system.

[bxf]

...and I have a Nigerian prince who has invited me to share in US$184million he inherited from his father who kicked the bucket..

I'll see your Nigerian prince and raise you one African general's widow, one doctor, and one exiled tribal chief.

[Joel B]

Where's my money?

My wife has to deal with this! Every month somebody will bring in a cashiers check for a large amount from some poor artist in Beri Beri or Itcy Kitchy. There will be a sob story attached to set the hook. It will take 15 to 20 minutes to convince said dupes that it is all a scam!

Now for the record, this company isn't a scam. Doesn't look like they have great prices either. Go with B+H or Adorama.

[deus ursus]

Norwegian Pentax (Ricoh) dealer fovi.no charges NOK 1,- for advance orders on the FF. That's about 11 ¢.

[Kunzite]

Our (the Romanian) Pentax dealer casually asked me if I want to reserve a K-1. I politely declined, as I'd want to skip the first batches - just in case.

[normhead]

Our (the Romanian) Pentax dealer casually asked me if I want to reserve a K-1. I politely declined, as I'd want to skip the first batches - just in case.

They must be seeing literature we aren't.

A lot of forum members aren't going to want to pay what this camera costs, you can tell just reading the posts. So that's probably the big question, and the question that determines how well this camera sells.

For me the difference between $2000 and $3000 is the difference between, "I might save up" and "never going to happen". There are a lot of Pentax users in that boat I suspect. It's just straight market economics. Most Pentax users still use 16 MP cameras like the K-30 and K-50 that they buy in the $500 range, and a 16 MP camera is still a lot of camera.

Personally I'm resigned to thinking, when the price drops right before the next one is introduced or second hand, will probably be my best options, and even then not certain.

[bertwert]

35x24

Still wrong

[normhead]

Still wrong

From now on I'm going with 35mil, thats what we used to go with in film days. I don't actually care what size it is.

The term Full Frame is used by D-SLR users as a short-hand for an image sensor which is the same size as 35mm format (36×24 mm) film .[1][2] Historically, 35 mm was considered a small film format compared with medium format, large format and even larger. This is in contrast to cameras with smaller sensors (for instance, those with a size equivalent to APS-C-size film), much smaller than a full 35 mm frame.

Technically, digital cameras don't produce any frames. Frames is a film term, so if you're going to get all picky... there's a lot to accomplish here. A frame is one image on a film roll, and they have numbers, added by the manufactures for reference. SO, you would often refer to frame 4a, when you were telling film processors which image you wanted enlarged. SO technically, a full frame is a no frame camera. The sensor is 35mm, not the image, where as in film the original image was 35mm. A 35 mm camera produced 35 mm images. I inch sensors, APS_c sensors, and 35mil sensors, can all produce 20 MP images, images with the same physical dimensions and practically identical resolution and results, and can be enlarged effectively enlarged to the same size, where as in film days, you shot larger format to get more detail and larger prints. Shooting a larger format in digital, doesn't guarantee you more resolution, or larger prints. Claiming there is still a frame is terribly misleading and causes a lot of confusion.

Yet everyone does it.

[bertwert]

From now on I'm going with 35mil

35mm looks nicer than 35mil, but at least you'd be correct

I don't actually care what size it is.

36mmx24mm

[normhead]

35mm looks nicer than 35mil, but at least you'd be correct

36mmx24mm

I'm just going to say 35mil, because that's what we used to call 35mm SLRs. If we're going to adopt him terminology there, I'm way happier with that than full frame, which is essentially nonsense. "Full Frame" is marketing invention of camera manufacturers. 35mm was a a technical term describing image size. But as i pointed out in the above post, the importance of sensor size has been greatly diminished in the digital age. Some people are still clinging to the importance it had in film as a relevant standard. It's still a standard, just a standard greatly diminished in importance.

IN digital 35mil can mean, less subject resolution and less depth of field, if you are comparing with a Canon 6D on a wildlife image with a K-3 image taken with the same settings and lens. You actually can enlarge the K-3 image more if you shoot from 100-400 ISO on both. Assumptions adopted from film days are misleading, and really should just be discarded.

Especially since a Lumix DMC FZ1000 with a one inch sensor costing $1000 can out perform a $1500 Canon 6D with a $1300 lens on it, in bright light, and give you considerably more depth of field and open a stop wider. The old adages of the film age, have pretty much evaporated in the digital age. Today, it's all about depth of field, low light performance and MP. A very small sensor can produce 20 MP (more resolution) , and considerably more DOF on a much lighter portable system, and the 6D is actually a poor choice, in that circumstance. Even the low light is somewhat offset, in that the Lumix is ƒ4 at 400mm equivalent, while the Canon would be ƒ5.6 for the $1300 lens, and the 6D would have to use ƒ8 or 11, to match the DoF of the Lumix at ƒ4. Equivalence is a bitch.