Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
08-09-2010, 03:38 PM   #46
Veteran Member
RBellavance's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Near Montréal, Canada
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,716
QuoteOriginally posted by WMBP Quote
I know that I'm in a minority here but I tend to agree with Mohawk above, well, I agree with his first and last points. (I'm not waiting for a 645D.) I don't regard my current bodies as disposable or in need of annual or biannual replacement. And I still don't see anything about full-frame that makes me feel that it's essential to the ongoing success of my photography practice.
I feel exactly the same way (and I believe this is not the first time I've quoted you to say "me too!" )

The fact that a camera has a 24x36mm sensor instead of a 16x24mm one does not, by itself, make it inherently more appealing to me.


Last edited by RBellavance; 08-09-2010 at 05:14 PM.
08-09-2010, 03:59 PM   #47
Pentaxian
falconeye's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Munich, Alps, Germany
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,863
QuoteOriginally posted by WMBP Quote
I wouldn't buy FF in order to take photos that were AS GOOD as the ones I'm taking already.
No, probably not. But this was in response to a post I started with "Somebody who hasn't invested in either APSC or FF ...".

Most of my arguments don't apply anymore if you remove a piece That must be because they have been weak in the first place

The remark about 50-135/2.8 and 70-200/4 was vendor-neutral. We talk about technology, not products here. E.g., the Canon EF 70-200mm f/4 USM L is a highly acclaimed lens and just $650 (non IS version).

You may realize how much this is true if you jump across APSC right to FourThird. The equivalent Zuiko 35-100/2 sells for $2100, 3x the price. And no, it is not better. You would have to make a map of all available equivalent lens pair combinations to turn this argument into a scientific one. But you get a feeling that, if a FF body is only $200-$400 more expensive, the FF system suddenly becomes the more affordable alternative.
08-09-2010, 04:45 PM   #48
Pentaxian
Pål Jensen's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Norway
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,073
QuoteOriginally posted by falconeye Quote
The remark about 50-135/2.8 and 70-200/4 was vendor-neutral. We talk about technology, not products here. E.g., the Canon EF 70-200mm f/4 USM L is a highly acclaimed lens and just $650 (non IS version).
.
This is a false assumption. Almost everyone buy lenses by angle of view and speed. A 50-135/2.8 needs to be compared with a 70-200/2.8. The cost and weight/size penalty is massive.
08-09-2010, 05:08 PM   #49
Veteran Member
creampuff's Avatar

Join Date: May 2007
Location: Singapore
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,955
C'mon Falk, how can you make the claim that FF is the cheaper option?
Your point of reference with regards to a FF lens is the Canon EF 70-200mm f/4 USM L. Well this non-IS version of this lens has been bought by both FF and cropped sensor Canon users and given the vast number of Canon users, there is economy of scale for the street prices to be this low. And we know this lens is being phased out by its more expensive IS counterpart.

Secondly with regards to FF camera bodies, Canon and Nikon first unveiled them in their flagship EOS 1Ds series and D3 cameras first. These were and still are expensive. Canikon's large user base comes about from their second-tier FF offerings (5D / D700) where key features are trickled down to a lower priced model pro/serious enthusiast price point. Again a large existing user base ensures they got a larger pool of FF upgraders buying in. With this means that there is considerable economies of scale in production.

What does this mean for Pentax? Even though the Pentax user base is growing, it is still not big enough, so there just isn't enough numbers who will migrate to FF. Secondly, with no economies of scale in FF camera production to begin with, I can't imagine prices will be cheap with the first Pentax FF offering. How Pentax will keep costs down is commonality of parts, much like the similarities between the K-7 and 645D. I do welcome a future Pentax FF offering but I'm realistic enough not to get my hopes up that it will be cut priced.

08-09-2010, 07:44 PM   #50
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Southern Indiana
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 15,319
Full frame is cheaper if you mount that specific Canon lenses on it. Hoya might sell a full frame camera for a little cheaper than equivalent Canon/Nikon offerings, but I would guarantee that the full frame lenses sold will be priced equivalent to the IS versions of Canon's lenses, even if they don't contain IS. I doubt that Pentax would release a 70-200 f4, so what you would see, would be a 70-200 f2.8 retailing for 2200 dollars. Suddenly your camera cost has more than doubled.

Needless to say, I am not particularly interested in full frame. I am invested in APS C and pretty happy with the results.
08-09-2010, 08:18 PM   #51
Veteran Member
Pentaxor's Avatar

Join Date: May 2009
Location: Vancouver, B.C.
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,513
no problem to those who are pretty much satisfied with APS-C. but the thread talks about asking people that are interested of getting a Full-Frame at a certain price tag. it doesn't prove or tell anything of future market sales, only speculations. we won't know how many certain people would invest on a Pentax FF. but we do see statistics from Canikon FF users.
08-09-2010, 10:15 PM   #52
Veteran Member
frank's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Singapore
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,202
FF system isn't just more expensive, it's generally a lot more heavier than APSC system. Most people wouldn't like to carry that kind of load when go out traveling or just taking photos. To me APSC system is still the best compromise of weight and image quality.

Back to the poll, I'd pay as much as $2000usd for a FF camera from Pentax, probably can stretch a bit, but not too much more. It's not that I can't afford it, it's that I just can't justify the cost and the results I might get with a FF camera.
08-09-2010, 10:37 PM   #53
Veteran Member
WMBP's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Dallas, Texas
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,496
QuoteOriginally posted by falconeye Quote
You may realize how much this is true if you jump across APSC right to FourThird. The equivalent Zuiko 35-100/2 sells for $2100, 3x the price. And no, it is not better.
Well, I am with you here. I have been looking into micro 4/3 lately. Idle curiosity, mainly, but it's also been the case that I've been looking at the greener grass over in one neighbor's yard (Canon/Nikon) that I thought perhaps I'd take a break and starting feeling envious about the grass of the folks living in the smaller house on the other side of my yard. These fits come and go. I'm almost over it this time.

Anyway, metaphors aside, I have found myself wondering what the point of micro four-thirds is. Smaller cameras. That seems to sum it up. But they aren't MUCH smaller. They aren't any cheaper, as far as I can tell. And while they may take some really good photos, if the light is cooperative, overall, I don't see how anybody could claim that they take BETTER photos.

But the thing that really gets me is how expensive they are. I thought one of the original claims about four-thirds and then even more so, micro-four-thirds, was that smaller would translate into less expensive. Hasn't happened, as far as I can see.


QuoteQuote:
You would have to make a map of all available equivalent lens pair combinations to turn this argument into a scientific one. But you get a feeling that, if a FF body is only $200-$400 more expensive, the FF system suddenly becomes the more affordable alternative.
Sorry, Falk, I still think it's a somewhat convoluted calculation. However, for the record, notwithstanding my fairly consistent pooh-poohing of 36x24 in this forum over the last several years, IF AND WHEN a full-frame camera is available new for just $200 more than I paid originally for my current bodies, I'm selling my APS-C gear and going full-frame. IF AND WHEN.

Will

08-10-2010, 02:50 AM   #54
Pentaxian
falconeye's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Munich, Alps, Germany
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,863
QuoteOriginally posted by Pål Jensen Quote
This is a false assumption. Almost everyone buy lenses by angle of view and speed. A 50-135/2.8 needs to be compared with a 70-200/2.8. The cost and weight/size penalty is massive.
Please, read about equivalent lenses here: Luminous landscape
I won't discuss it now.

QuoteOriginally posted by creampuff Quote
C'mon Falk, how can you make the claim that FF is the cheaper option?
Your point of reference with regards to a FF lens is the Canon EF 70-200mm f/4 USM L.
Because I can?

Seriously though, it is based on considerations about the laws of optics involved. I made the given comparison because I had looked up the particular lenses before.

You're right that Pentax may offer a DFA*70-200/2.8 and no DFA*70-200/4. But certainly not at a crazy price point given that 3rd party versions are below the current DA*50-135/2.8 price. I think it's necessary to compare non-IS prices. They are cheaper to make...

Heck, I know quite a few Pentaxians who buy the "Tamron SP AF 70-200mm F/2,8 Di LD [IF] MACRO" or the "Sigma 70-200mm F2,8 II EX DG Makro HSM" over the DA*50-135/2.8 -- already now and for APSC! Especially the Tamron is of outstanding optical quality and only 2/3 the price! I would actually recommend doing that when weather resistance and SDM is not a must.

The current loss in lens sales for Pentax (because they don't offer more attractive full frame lenses) is one of the reasons which made me write that other article about Photokina.

The truth is this: The vendors are trying and will continue to try to make full frame more expensive than APSC. But because the physical reasons for the premium have gone or are going away, eventually, they'll fail.


But really, I'm not wanting to discuss it. I only defend what I thought was a minor correction to a claim made that a full frame system is more expensive a priori. It isn't.
08-10-2010, 09:59 AM   #55
Pentaxian




Join Date: May 2007
Location: WW community of Pentax users
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,139
QuoteOriginally posted by creampuff Quote
...Throw in any new FF lenses that Pentax might introduce with a FF image circle and you can already tell that only a handful of people have that kind of money to spend. FF dreamers will have a rude awakening thru a sticker price shock.
I was completely set for a FF Pentax camera with the lenses I own. Only DA*16-50 and DA Ltd 21mm were APS-C and I already had the proper FF versions for these.
So only cost = FF body.
Too bad...
08-10-2010, 10:47 AM   #56
Veteran Member




Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: New Orleans
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,054
Any survey results yet?
08-10-2010, 11:04 AM   #57
Veteran Member
Pentaxor's Avatar

Join Date: May 2009
Location: Vancouver, B.C.
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,513
QuoteOriginally posted by Bart Quote
I was completely set for a FF Pentax camera with the lenses I own. Only DA*16-50 and DA Ltd 21mm were APS-C and I already had the proper FF versions for these.
So only cost = FF body.
Too bad...
same here, only APS-C lens are DA12-24 and the WR kit lens.
08-10-2010, 11:09 AM   #58
Pentaxian




Join Date: May 2007
Location: WW community of Pentax users
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,139
QuoteOriginally posted by Pentaxor Quote
same here, only APS-C lens are DA12-24 and the WR kit lens.
I believe this also negates the argument about a FF being heavier: when you already are using FF capable lenses, what is the difference.
08-10-2010, 11:57 AM   #59
Veteran Member
Pentaxor's Avatar

Join Date: May 2009
Location: Vancouver, B.C.
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,513
QuoteOriginally posted by Bart Quote
I believe this also negates the argument about a FF being heavier: when you already are using FF capable lenses, what is the difference.
true enough. the DA* lenses are heavy as well. some of the old FA lenses are light and not really heavy at all. so it's more of a false notion that all FF lenses are heavy. I would say they must be referring to those new CANIKON FF lenses which are massively huge and heavy. but this is Pentax.
08-10-2010, 03:29 PM   #60
Veteran Member
uccemebug's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 959
Original Poster
survey results

Some 70 people took the time to respond to the survey (with a bit of drop-off along the way). Thank you all for your participation.

The survey is now closed. Here are some screen shots of the results.





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, dslr, ff, ff pentax, pentax, photography, survey
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
How much would you pay for this? timstone Pentax Film SLR Discussion 6 04-18-2010 10:56 AM
how much would you pay for ff? philmorley Pentax News and Rumors 70 02-16-2010 06:56 AM
How much to Pay for a LX? sixstring Pentax Film SLR Discussion 13 05-11-2008 03:49 AM
How much to pay for a 50/1.2 Arpe Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 14 05-30-2007 11:18 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:05 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.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