Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
03-03-2012, 05:06 PM   #31
Pentaxian
Digitalis's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Adelaide.
Posts: 8,535
QuoteOriginally posted by Ryan Tischer Quote
With the 25 prime being $5K USD, I wonder how much the wide angle zoom would be??? I hope it's not as expensive as the Hasselblad 35-90!
It would probably cost just as much - designing wide angle lenses isn't easy and making them isn't easy either...the zoom could possibly cost more than the prime, and it will probably be a constant f/5.6

03-05-2012, 07:28 PM   #32
Senior Member




Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 123
QuoteOriginally posted by Pål Jensen Quote
I think that making a larger (FF) sensor for the 645D is the most important possible progress. A cropped sensor for 645 is much more of an issue than for the K-mount due to the wide angle issue. In order to go wide, and not terribly wide, you need to buy that $5000 25mm lens whereas on a FF 645 the 33-55 (or the 35mm), which I already own, goes wide enough.
Making it full-frame or as close as possible is the single most important improvement that could be made.
Having the availability of the existing lenses as a main selling feature is negated by the fact that the crop sensor makes many of those lenses useless for their intended purpose.
03-08-2012, 05:23 AM   #33
Veteran Member
revdocjim's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Mt. Akagi, Gunma Prefecture
Posts: 374
Just look at how long it is taking the regular camera market to move from aps-c to FF. And that is in spite of a much larger user base and far greater sales volume. It doesn't surprise me that development of larger sensors in the medium format market is taking so long. But I do think Pentax should come up with a real 645 and it would seem from the design of their newest lenses that they intend to do so.

As for going to 6x7, I think the chances are very slim for now. Here in Japan the Pentax 645n ii has a huge user base among professional and enthusiast photographers where as the 67 user base is much, much smaller.
03-08-2012, 07:30 AM   #34
Veteran Member




Join Date: Feb 2011
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 573
QuoteOriginally posted by revdocjim Quote
Just look at how long it is taking the regular camera market to move from aps-c to FF.
APS-C is the new 35mm. The regular camera market is not going to move there.

03-08-2012, 07:53 AM   #35
Veteran Member
Ryan Tischer's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Duluth, Minnesota
Photos: Albums
Posts: 434
I think full frame would be great, both in terms of more MP and making the available lenses much wider (IMO this is where the current available lenses lack, especially zoom). As a landscape shooter, I don't really find myself needing anything much longer than the equivalent of 100mm in 35mm FF, and I think that wildlife shooters probably much prefer the 35mm for their speed and IS.
03-08-2012, 09:14 AM   #36
Veteran Member




Join Date: Feb 2011
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 573
Wildlife shooters actually like APS-C for the format size.
03-08-2012, 09:53 AM   #37
Veteran Member
Ryan Tischer's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Duluth, Minnesota
Photos: Albums
Posts: 434
QuoteOriginally posted by Yamanobori Quote
Wildlife shooters actually like APS-C for the format size.
Yes, you're right, many do. I'm sure some probably have both full frame and APS-C bodies, depending on whether lens reach or print quality is more important.
03-08-2012, 10:25 AM   #38
Veteran Member




Join Date: Feb 2011
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 573
QuoteOriginally posted by Ryan Tischer Quote
...depending on whether lens reach or print quality is more important.
???

If they crop the 35mm to get the framing of the APS-C, how does that change anything?

As far as print quality, it is a moot point. There really is no effective difference, at least to choose one over the other even when not cropped.

03-08-2012, 10:29 AM   #39
Veteran Member
Ryan Tischer's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Duluth, Minnesota
Photos: Albums
Posts: 434
QuoteOriginally posted by Yamanobori Quote
???

If they crop the 35mm to get the framing of the APS-C, how does that change anything?

As far as print quality, it is a moot point. There really is no effective difference, at least to choose one over the other even when not cropped.

Yamanobori, you're right... I don't think I got enough sleep last night (restless thinking about my new 645D!)
03-08-2012, 11:22 AM   #40
Pentaxian
RonHendriks1966's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2009
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,556
QuoteOriginally posted by Yamanobori Quote
Wildlife shooters actually like APS-C for the format size.
Well Canon 1D iv with APS-H sensor is also very popular among them. That would pare well with 560mm/f5.6 I guess.
03-08-2012, 12:53 PM   #41
Loyal Site Supporter
eddie1960's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 12,168
QuoteOriginally posted by Yamanobori Quote
???

If they crop the 35mm to get the framing of the APS-C, how does that change anything?

As far as print quality, it is a moot point. There really is no effective difference, at least to choose one over the other even when not cropped.
if the terms are equal. but until the D800 they weren't equal if you cropped FF to APSC before the 645 you got a much lower res image than a top quality apc sensor was capable of (ie 6 mp from a D700 vs 16MP from a D7000)
with the D800 the crop will give similar performance to the D7000 (or K5) so now they are equal footing, in which case the Ff is the better choice because it allows the best of both worlds (until that pesky 24mp apsc sensor body arrives then the inequity starts again)

certainly if you are a birder and need the long reach the apsc has had an advantage up till now. If on the other hand you shoot a lot of WA FFhas held the advantage. sure there have been some good WA lenses developed for apsc but show me a 35 1.4 or a 24 1.4 equivalent in apsc - you can't because it doesn't exist. neither does a 50 1.2 or 1.4.

With the fast lenses that have been developed for FF the narrow DOF advantage of a 645 system has been negated somewhat, but there are other reasons for shooting 645 (or 6x6, 6x7,6x9,6x12,6x24)
03-09-2012, 06:23 AM   #42
Pentaxian
RonHendriks1966's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2009
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,556
QuoteOriginally posted by eddie1960 Quote
if the terms are equal. but until the D800 they weren't equal if you cropped FF to APSC before the 645 you got a much lower res image than a top quality apc sensor was capable of (ie 6 mp from a D700 vs 16MP from a D7000)
with the D800 the crop will give similar performance to the D7000 (or K5) so now they are equal footing, in which case the Ff is the better choice because it allows the best of both worlds (until that pesky 24mp apsc sensor body arrives then the inequity starts again)

certainly if you are a birder and need the long reach the apsc has had an advantage up till now. If on the other hand you shoot a lot of WA FFhas held the advantage.
Can you choose in the camera to change the settings? So just put a full frame 300mm on your camera and in one shot make a 36mp full resolutionshot and the next taking a 16mp cropshot? Otherwise you will end up making large 75 MB RAW files to crop out a part of the sensor for your little bird.
03-09-2012, 06:59 AM   #43
Loyal Site Supporter
eddie1960's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 12,168
QuoteOriginally posted by RonHendriks1966 Quote
Can you choose in the camera to change the settings? So just put a full frame 300mm on your camera and in one shot make a 36mp full resolutionshot and the next taking a 16mp cropshot? Otherwise you will end up making large 75 MB RAW files to crop out a part of the sensor for your little bird.
exactly, with the advent of the D800 the argument for apsc for reach is less relevant.
03-09-2012, 07:39 AM   #44
Pentaxian




Join Date: May 2011
Location: All over the place
Posts: 2,469
Possibly but it makes getting critical focus more 'critical'. The bird will be smaller in the frame and couple with less DOF due to larger sensor I still think APSC will have some advantages
03-09-2012, 08:15 AM   #45
Loyal Site Supporter
eddie1960's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 12,168
QuoteOriginally posted by itshimitis Quote
Possibly but it makes getting critical focus more 'critical'. The bird will be smaller in the frame and couple with less DOF due to larger sensor I still think APSC will have some advantages
you realise in crop mode the D800 is pretty much a D7000 or K5 sensor (size and pixel pitch other performance may vary)
So if you put a 300 22.8 on the D800 it and put it in apsc crop mode it will be like shooting a 300 2.8 on apsc

read falk's equivalence paper and it will make sense

Previously if you did that on a D700 it would be more like using a k100 but with better performance from a noise/iso standpoint
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!
camera, medium format
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:14 AM. | 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