Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
02-05-2011, 12:32 PM   #31
Junior Member
oppositz's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Camillus, NY
Posts: 39
Original Poster
Thanks everyone for the "reality check"

The points made are things that I did know. I am aware that I'm very susceptible to always looking at grass on other side of fence...

In terms of money there is no question that sticking to Pentax is the best way to go. Jumping brands will easily cost $5K just to get started.

Compact size and weight are a plus for me.

And if sometime in the future I "really" need to go FF. I can do it then.

02-05-2011, 01:14 PM   #32
Ash
Community Manager
Loyal Site Supporter
Ash's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Toowoomba, Queensland
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 22,695
Indeed - if someone really wants FF - it's available, and with a price tag to boot.
There have been several discussions about the virtue of going with something like a second hand 5DMkII, for little more than what the K-5 costs now, but all too often the lens cost factor is not considered in the equation.
In the end, how you value FF will determine whether or not you wish to invest in another system to get it. To me, even if I had the disposable income, I don't have the need for FF to consider changing systems - but that's just me.
03-13-2011, 10:40 AM   #33
Veteran Member
Laurentiu Cristofor's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: WA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,044
I just read this statement today in a photography book I'm going through and I thought it would be interesting to share on one of the FF discussions:

"The lenses of small-format cameras let in much more light than those of larger format cameras, and allow subjects to be photographed in even the worst lighting conditions."
03-13-2011, 11:11 AM   #34
Pentaxian
Lowell Goudge's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 15,400
I am going out today with my pentax full frame camera (PZ-1)

03-13-2011, 01:33 PM   #35
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: GMT +10
Photos: Albums
Posts: 10,843
Not a single new FF camera was released in 2010, whilst dozens of other models and types of cameras were released (APS-C, 4/3 etc).

FF digital is a dead-end 'nostalgia' format. The market and technology have moved on.

Related:
Year in Review (Episode #4): The Dark Side of Full Frame - 1001 Noisy Cameras
03-13-2011, 03:03 PM   #36
Veteran Member
RioRico's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Limbo, California
Posts: 11,264
QuoteOriginally posted by Laurentiu Cristofor Quote
I just read this statement today in a photography book I'm going through and I thought it would be interesting to share on one of the FF discussions:

"The lenses of small-format cameras let in much more light than those of larger format cameras, and allow subjects to be photographed in even the worst lighting conditions."
I'll guess that this statement is about 120- and 135-formats vs 4x5, 5x7, 8x10 etc. And it is very true. Larger formats use focal lengths in the 150-400mm range, and speed is rare there. Long fast lenses are big and expensive. Try pricing (and finding!) a 200/2 sometime. I just got a (cheap!) 120/1.8 Xray lens, and it weighs 870g stripped, with no focusing helicoid, almost 5.5x the mass of an OM 50/1.8 at 160g. Going down to smaller formats like 8mm, 16mm, CCTV, we'll find that f/1.0 lenses are neither rare nor costly -- my B&H Filmovara 15-25/1.2 weighs just 110g and set me back all of one buck.

Of course, the trade-offs include DOF control, resolution, physical size, noise, FOV, all the stuff we know about. I'll try to hack a 5mpx fixed-lens P&S to accommodate that Filmovara beauty, but I won't expect a lot in terms of IQ. What are the fastest phone.cam lenses? Whaddya bet we'll see a 1mm f/0.5 sometime soon?

Yes, smaller faster lenses are better for low light and fast action. So why don't Sports Illustrated shooters use m/4.3 or phone.cams?

Last edited by RioRico; 03-13-2011 at 03:11 PM.
03-13-2011, 05:37 PM   #37
Site Supporter
Biro's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 1,182
Something else has occurred to me about the desire for a new FF digital camera on the part of long-time Pentaxians with legacy glass. Is that old, classic glass even up to the job? This is really a question more than a statement. Perhaps others can tell us more.

I remember when Pentax had to upgrade it's original 18-55mm kit lens when it brought out the K10 and K200. The lens was considered one of the best kit lenses around when it was introduced. But it came out at the time of the 6mp ist* and K100. When camera/sensor resolution jumped from 6mp to 10mp, the shortcomings of the original 18-55 became noticeable.

Okay, so that's an early kit lens in the digital era. But indeed, on this forum and others, I have read passing, indirect remarks from some Pentaxians about how even the legendary FA Limited primes - for all of their lovely sharpness, bokeh, contrast, color and rendering - might have been coming up just a bit short in the resolution department as we moved to 14-16mp. Current FF cameras from Nikon and Sony are in the 24mp range. Can the old glass even keep up?

If the answer is, no, the classic glass can't keep up (and I am not claiming this is definitely the case) it would be the ultimate, bitter irony for many life-long Pentaxians who have been hanging in there waiting for a new FF camera to go with their beloved Pentax lenses.

Last edited by Biro; 03-13-2011 at 05:43 PM.
03-13-2011, 06:42 PM   #38
Senior Member
catsman50's Avatar

Join Date: May 2009
Location: jupiter FL
Posts: 139
I have the answer! go back to film!lol seriously that's all that digital is trying to replicate. or go to a medium format get even better shots!

03-13-2011, 08:45 PM   #39
Veteran Member
Laurentiu Cristofor's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: WA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,044
QuoteOriginally posted by RioRico Quote
I'll guess that this statement is about 120- and 135-formats vs 4x5, 5x7, 8x10 etc.
Yes, it's from HCB explaining his choice of Leica.
03-13-2011, 09:57 PM   #40
Veteran Member
Laurentiu Cristofor's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: WA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,044
Had to leave earlier so I couldn't write more.

QuoteOriginally posted by RioRico Quote
So why don't Sports Illustrated shooters use m/4.3 or phone.cams?
Because they shoot in controlled settings. But look at the street protests in Egypt and you'll see where phone cams get used and images from them can make it into news. Every format has its use.

Will m4/3 cameras be used professionally? I think their main problem is that they are too small - they're not easy to handhold and they lack body features that a professional would like. But they're still in their infancy and they're not trying to appeal to the professional market yet.

BTW, I guess you've seen this. It's lenses like this that could make the m4/3 format interesting as a main system.
03-14-2011, 06:54 AM   #41
Veteran Member
RioRico's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Limbo, California
Posts: 11,264
@Laurentiu,
Ah yes, I should have recognized the HCB quote. Small-format cameras, and now phone.cams, have made photography ubiquitous.

But the cost of easy image production, is neglect of fine control over image-making, emphasizing the *taking* rather than *making* of pictures. If infinite DOF is desired, short lenses on tiny frames are great. For controlled DOF, we usually seek different gear, especially if our shots are to be enlarged and closely examined. Some images can still only be created using bulky large-format gear. I'll posit a dichotomy: small formats are good for recording the world; large formats are good for examining the world.

And I think high-end sports photographers use FF cams and not m4/3, more for desired IQ than because of controlled conditions.
03-14-2011, 12:03 PM   #42
Veteran Member
Laurentiu Cristofor's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: WA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,044
QuoteOriginally posted by RioRico Quote
And I think high-end sports photographers use FF cams and not m4/3, more for desired IQ than because of controlled conditions.
I was thinking of the swimsuit edition when I was talking of controlled conditions I had in mind a video posted here where you could see that the photographer was using a MF - a Pentax 645 I think. If the models would be running around instead, they would drop the MF camera for a FF or APS. But there is a limit in size and that will be dictated IMO more by ergonomy than by IQ - i.e. even when IQ will stop being an issue, it will still not mean that tiny cameras will be used by pros - not by choice. I remember an article about a photojournalist who lost his entire equipment on location somewhere in Iraq or Afghanistan and he finished his assignment using a P&S borrowed from a colleague.

QuoteOriginally posted by RioRico Quote
emphasizing the *taking* rather than *making* of pictures.
Yes, that is an important distinction. When you're making images, you can pick the equipment, but if you're taking them, your choice will be for something you're likely to carry around.
03-14-2011, 12:30 PM   #43
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Western Canada
Posts: 4,100
QuoteOriginally posted by oppositz Quote
I've waited and waited since before the K-5 for some indication that Pentax would introduce a FF camera.

If I knew it was only a year or two out I would buy a K-5 and wait. But nothing is ever said to show us what the future will bring. I don't see where Pentax acknowledging a planned FF would threaten APS-C sales much since they will appeal to different markets as demonstrated by Nikon and Canon. In fact knowing this would reinforce brand loyalty!

I love my K10D and its well thought out design and ease of use. But, time is up. With the new Nikon D800 about to be released I am going to cut my losses and change brands. Once I have the Nikon in my hands all my Pentax stuff will go on eBay.

I WANT A FULL FRAME PENTAX! (or assurance one is coming)
Why don't you go one better and get a medium format, like the Pentax 645D.
Yeh, it's a lot of money, but you got to pull out all stops for the best.
03-15-2011, 01:39 PM   #44
Senior Member
Spare Tire's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Montréal
Posts: 120
QuoteOriginally posted by lesmore49 Quote
Why don't you go one better and get a medium format, like the Pentax 645D.
Yeh, it's a lot of money, but you got to pull out all stops for the best.
Pentax 645D is a crop sensor.
03-15-2011, 02:16 PM   #45
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Western Canada
Posts: 4,100
QuoteOriginally posted by Spare Tire Quote
Pentax 645D is a crop sensor.

No...the Pentax 645D has a sensor larger than a full frame. It's a medium format.
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, frame, k-5, nikon, pentax, photography
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Full frame pentax cem.kumuk Pentax DSLR Discussion 11 11-12-2010 03:13 PM
Pentax and Full Frame... Shutter-bug Photographic Technique 60 11-03-2010 10:03 AM
Pentax A 50/1.2 on Full Frame aegisphan Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 23 10-28-2010 04:16 PM
The almost full frame Pentax? denisv Photographic Technique 44 01-19-2009 04:01 AM
New Pentax k18D - Full Frame ebooks4pentax Pentax DSLR Discussion 17 10-31-2007 05:46 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:36 PM. | 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