[itshimitis]

I would have jumped in much earlier if Pentax would have had its act together. They claimed to have designed the 645D specifically for landscape photography, yet a year later you still can't get a wide enough landscape photography lens with a U.S. warranty (the 25mm). (The 35mm lens is not very wide after the crop factor, especially for the work I do.)

Thanks for considering these ideas.

Realised I had missed this point. I bought my 645D in Tokyo - substantial saving against the UK price of £9,000 (about $4k over the US price - hence why we call it rip off Britain - the electricals and even Levi's multiply their prices when they export to the UK). I also bought the DFA 55 and the FA35 while I was there. The camera has a Japanese warranty (although I still got it fixed when it went faulty through Pentax UK). The lenses however have a worldwide warranty, so not limited by where they come from.

[jackinkc]

There is no loss of quality with the higher 645D pixel count - the sensor is larger. As for the Nikon 800, get ready for Sony to come down the pike with a new Alpha with the same sensor used in the most recent Nikon.

[normhead]

Free advice: Arrogance and derision do not make you look superior.

Who's trying to look superior here. I'll simplify it for you... what you posted is trivia and minutae, not worth writing about. Your insistence on thinking your figures mean something in the real world...needs support.

I've explained what they don't mean..

For large scale images the 645 images will be better. Without real world examples your mathematical constructs are just that, mathematical constructs that are impossible to evaluate without actual examples. They might mean something they might mean nothing. If you're going to assert that they mean something... prove it. Show me a picture. Math is for geeks.

[Yamanobori]

13.61 EV vs 11.37 EV dynamic range means a difference of 373%.


You really need to familiarize yourself with the concept of logarithmic scales.

Actually, the difference between those is 20%. There is a reason imaging uses logs rather than a simple number scale.

[ironlionzion]

Normhead: I am confused to why you argue that the 645D has better image quality than other cameras with smaller sensors, but in the Full Frame thread(https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-dslr-discussion/175341-why-do-peop...me-sensor.html), you say that FF is useless and unnecessary with no tangible benefit? FF, as you know, is significantly larger than crop sensors, so by your logic, if 645D reaps the benefits of a larger sensor over APS-C, then shouldn't a FF also reap the benefits of having a larger sensor? (though not by as large a margin)

[Aboudd]

+1 for phono line. - these technical discussions suck. As a person who flunked freshman math two semesters in a row, this crap gives me a migraine. It is the image that counts. STOP THE MADNESS!

[Bigvern1263]

I concur and just test drove this baby today (645D)....The detail is just crazy good..insanely detailed.... that from a newbie to MF , looking forward to printing off BIG !!

[normhead]

ironlionzion

One of the reasons I don't like FF is because there's a 645....
It's really quite simple ...

If you need to go big go 645.
If you need under 30 inches in print and 2500 pixels on a screen, go APS-c
That leaves FF in that tiny little window between where APS-c isn't good enough and to where FF isn't good enough, and that's a very small window.

It's not inconceivable that there might be a few shooters somewhere in the world that fit into that window. Most of us are under utilizing APS-c and are so far from needing FF.. it's not funny. In fact I would bet there are more people who need a 645 than technically need a FF system.

Everytime there is a an improvement in sensor technology... the number of users who technically need Full Frame goes down. If I go on Kijiji where i live I can see at least 10 Nikon D700s described as "barely used". ( My k20D wasn't "barely used" a week after I got it.) In the Pentax section, not one K-5. I'm guessing, some people have to buy an FF camera, before they discover they don't need it.

Capeesh?

[jackinkc]

Congratulations. Happy? It still won't make people give up the Hasselblad H4-31. As I said it's not all about numbers. Nikon have I believe reduced the quality of the sensor to fit the 36 megapixels, and this will particularly affect ISO range which has been reduced. Fitting more photosites on a smaller sensor also increases it's signal to noise ratio. So not only will it have lower ISO it will likely handle noise less well than its predecessor. Sounds like one hell of an achievement! So what they have done is to turn a good pro level camera and make it more commercial, which won't make it more professional.

I repeat - it's not the number of megapixels that matters but how they are handling them. Nikon have handicapped it to stop people buying it instead of the D4.

So not necessarily very much to crow about - you'll be able to print bigger but that's not the only equation when it comes to quality. Oh and by crowing you come over as an arse.

Please get ack to me when you've actually tested the new Nikon.

[normhead]

Nikon D800 Sample Photos Are Mind Blowing

This man has a very easily blown mind. I hope he's on drugs... because if he is he can quit, it he isn't there's no hope.

[jackinkc]

An adapter for the 67 body or for the 645D? Which bayonet? Sounds interesting.

I am talking about adapting Pentacon 6/Kiev 60 lenses to my 645D camera. I am having problems acquiring a decent adapter for this purpose - I've tried two from Ukraine; one would not work at all and the other really isn't satisfactory. I'll keep trying

[ironlionzion]

ironlionzion One of the reasons I don't like FF is because there's a 645.... It's really quite simple ... If you need to go big go 645. If you need under 30 inches in print and 2500 pixels on a screen, go APS-c That leaves FF in that tiny little window between where APS-c isn't good enough and to where FF isn't good enough, and that's a very small window.

APS-C is about 16x24mm
FF is about 24x36mm
645D is about 33x44mm

When you consider the area of the sensor, FF is significantly larger than APS-C. 645D is an even greater step up from FF.
I understand your argument that many people don't need the benefits of FF. But then again, one could say some people should have stuck to a point and shoot instead of upgrading to a DSLR. One could say that people don't need the benefits of the K5 and should have just stuck to the K-r or K-x. Great photos have been taken on lesser "quality" cameras.

Surely, having the only upgrade option from the $1k K5 be the $10k 645D is a huge jump...something in between would be appreciated by many.

The thing is, technology and image quality is improving for a reason: people want it whether or not they need it. Now, whether Pentax should or should not produce a FF, only they know the market well enough and they themselves are the only ones qualified to say whether starting a FF line will be profitable.

[RonHendriks1966]

If you need under 30 inches in print and 2500 pixels on a screen, go APS-c. That leaves FF in that tiny little window between where APS-c isn't good enough and to where FF isn't good enough, and that's a very small window.

Surely, having the only upgrade option from the $1k K5 be the $10k 645D is a huge jump...something in between would be appreciated by many.

I'm such a luckey man. I own a Fujitsu P27T-6 screen that is 2560x1440 pixels and don't have 10k to spend. I'm in that window.

[normhead]

They'd have to devote a pile of resources to FF to catch the new Nikon... in fact they are going to have to devote a pile of resources just to level the playing field anyway, the D800 would seem to bring 645 resolution to FF. Without a significant price drop or it's hard to imagine the 645 even surviving, unless it turns out that the D800 sucks at IQ, and the initial released photos don't suggest that. You've lost the resolution advantage in turns of pixels... that leaves DoF and possibly low light capability. How many cameras can you actually sell based solely on narrower DoF? If Pentax can get to 24 Mp on an APS-c sensor and resolve the lack of sharpness issue, that's all I could possibly want, and probably way more than I need... unless print or display technologies take a giant leap and I have some way of using those large images.

I'm such a luckey man. I own a Fujitsu P27T-6 screen that is 2560x1440 pixels and don't have 10k to spend. I'm in that window.

You can se the difference between an FF and APS-c image at 2560? I think you might be taking the limit a little too literally.

[RonHendriks1966]

You can se the difference between an FF and APS-c image at 2560?

You should go out and buy such a fantastic screen. Your pictures are going to look amazing (when they are good enough for the big screen). I've made pictures with K-7 that I thought where great, but actually fall down on that new big screen.

I think you might be taking the limit a little too literally.

I'll take any straw to hold on to