Why I think I want a FF Pentax

Confused · 11-13-2007, 06:25 AM

Hi barondla

When you mentioned that:

Quote:

No one has built a FF body with shake reduction!

....in all honesty, this restriction hadn't even occurred to me before now ! Even more worrying is your astute observation that:

Quote:

You would also loose the SR image stabilization.

Could you briefly explain in simple terms, the underlying reason for these two fascinating anomalies ?

Best regards
Richard

mattdm · 11-13-2007, 07:23 AM

Originally posted by Confused

Could you briefly explain in simple terms, the underlying reason for these two fascinating anomalies ?

Sure. A full-frame sensor is bigger, so there's less room for a shake reduction system. How large do you want your FF camera body to be? (Me, I'd rather a 6-8mpixel APS-C sensor in a camera with K10D-like functionality plus a usable ISO 3200 and available ISO 6400. But I don't think we're getting that either.)

**Lowell Goudge** · 11-13-2007, 07:26 AM

Originally posted by mattdm

(Me, I'd rather a 6-8mpixel APS-C sensor in a camera with K10D-like functionality plus a usable ISO 3200 and available ISO 6400. But I don't think we're getting that either.)

Me too! but make it 10 MP since 3200 ISO already exists in 6MP

**NaClH2O** · 11-13-2007, 08:31 AM

Originally posted by regken

Drove down to a sales convention the other day and the 4 hour drive both ways gave me to much time to think so now I need you to tell you why my conclusions are wrong. My set of lenses range from 28mm to 200mm and I am happy with their quality. I'm thinking I should explore wide angle shooting but a good prime in the range of 16mm to 20mm are fairly expensive. It appears a lens in that range would cost around $400. The biggest use for this lens would most likely be interior and fairly low light.

My 28mm f3.5 is a great lens but the FOV on my K10D is 42mm and not all that fast. On a FF sensor it would not only be as wide as a 19mm on the K10D but you should be able to bump the ISO by 2 or maybe 3 stops. Since I shoot a lot of landscape with the 28 and am happy with the FOV, a FF would allow me to use my 43mm, get the same FOV, and have a super fast lens with the improved ISO performance. The 70 and 77mm lenses are heralded as great portrait lenses on the 1.5 sensor so my 100mm f1.8 becomes a nice substitute for those lenses. That's another $500 I don't have to spend on lenses.

If Pentax came out with a $1,800 FF model it would only cost me $900 than the lenses. Not a bad price for having a second body and much more flexibility.That's not even taking into account it would most likely be able to shoot at 7 or 9 fps.

Is this just grand rationalization on my part or does it make sense?

Regards,

Ken

Ken, Sigma especially makes a number of fairly high quality wide angle primes. The rectilinear ones start out at 14, 20, 24 and 28. All of them are F2.8 or less. The most expensive one (14) is about 800 USD iirc. I have the F1.8 24mm and I'm quite happy with it.

NaCl(saves a lot over waiting and waiting and waiting and maybe paying over 3G for a new FF body)H2O

24X36NOW · 01-24-2008, 07:37 PM

Pentax SHOULD come out with a FF D-SLR. It's time. Their FIRST dSLR was SUPPOSED to be a FF (remember?), then Philips failed to come through or Pentax chickened out or whatever. I was extremely disappointed when the *istD came out for that exact reason (as well as hunting with a burning torch for the prize idiot who named it), and although I'm thrilled to see new camera bodies now being introduced that finally show some upmarket movement from Pentax, they really need to add a FF to their lineup as the "flagship." They are long overdue to come out with some serious new optics as well (i.e., FF compatable, constant aperture, high quality construction, etc.). For too many years Pentax has spread itself too thin (non-photography products) and "dumbed down" its product line to pursue the bottom of the market. It's time to get Pentax back to being a strong player as opposed to an also-ran!

cmv · 01-25-2008, 01:05 AM

It'll happen we just have to wait for it. I'm not convinced the Pentax model would be $4k. We don't know what Samsung has up their sleeves -- basing the cost on Canon's business model is a bad idea I think. I hope we'll see it within 1-2 years.

Chocolar · 01-25-2008, 09:27 PM

Originally posted by mattdm

Sure. A full-frame sensor is bigger, so there's less room for a shake reduction system. How large do you want your FF camera body to be? (Me, I'd rather a 6-8mpixel APS-C sensor in a camera with K10D-like functionality plus a usable ISO 3200 and available ISO 6400. But I don't think we're getting that either.)

k20d has SR and it's not bigger than any non-SR DSLRs in its class, therefore SR mechanism doesn't take that much room. I'm sure Pentax (or Sony) can build a SR FF DSLR the size of Canon 5D or smaller if they want to, and they will. I've never seen a SR mechanism, so I have no idea how "big" they are

, but if you take a look at a bunch of Dslr, and their sizes, you can't tell which one has SR unless it says so on the body. Btw, even the tiny Fuji f50d has ccd SR. Just my opinion of course

flyer · 01-26-2008, 06:13 AM

One of the reason you don't find SR on full frame sensor is due to the extra weight of said sensor. The heavier the sensor, the more inertia you have to deal with, so it takes bigger and stronger magnets to move it around, thus more battery power and so on...

Ramitt · 01-26-2008, 09:10 AM

Considering niether Nikon or Canon use in body shake reduction might have a lot to do with why nobody makes a FF with it.

hefty1 · 01-26-2008, 09:22 AM

The FA and the DA lenses project an image circle onto an area larger than the APS-C sensor (FF in the case of the FA's, APS-H in the case of most of the DA's). They have to do this because a stabilised sensor is moving up/down and side-to-side as the photo is being taken, if the image circle only "just" covered APS-C you'd have vignetting where the edges of the sensor were being shifted outside of that area.

In order to have a FF sensor with stabilisation you'd need lenses with an image circle larger than FF, so you can discount the idea of any of your existing glass working on such a body. Canikon get away with it because the stabilisation is in each lens, not the body. Those manufacturers using in-body systems could probably make a compromise by having stabilisation work on a new even-bigger-still lens system (XLA?

) and have it shut down when an FA/etc lens is attached. Wonderful.

Personally, I think technology will overcome any shortcomings of the APS-C (or thereabouts) sensor within the next 5 years and the current FF models will be remembered as dinosaurs that tried to cling to an outdated principle well beyond its sell-by date. Just my $0.02

WMBP · 01-26-2008, 09:34 AM

Originally posted by hefty1

Personally, I think technology will overcome any shortcomings of the APS-C (or thereabouts) sensor within the next 5 years and the current FF models will be remembered as dinosaurs that tried to cling to an outdated principle well beyond its sell-by date. Just my $0.02

I have no crystal ball, but if I had to place a $100 bet today, I'd agree with hefty here. I do not think FF is the future.

It might develop into an independent format for special uses, like medium format. But I don't think that APS-C format DSLRs will be obsolete in three years. And I'm not sure about the FF turning into a separate format. There are Leaf backs and other larger format cameras already for folks who want absurdly hi-res photos for print work.

Will

offertonhatter · 01-26-2008, 09:56 AM

I dont think we will see a FF Pentax in the medium term, not until they bring out a new range of Lenses. At the moment the only Lenses that will work with FF made by Pentax are the 100m Macro, the 50mm F1.4 and the limiteds that are still available. Pentax would have to do a major release of Lenses before they could make a FF camera. With the R&D resources at the moment, I cannot see that happen. The only way they could do this would be to go back to the FA* blueprints and start re making them again, along with a full start up of production of the old limiteds (mmm that would be good though, re making the 85mm Limited)

As far as I can see, that would not happen. which is a shame.

So I can only see at the moment APS-C and DA lenses for Pentax.

01-24-2008, 07:37 PM	#20
24X36NOW Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: CT, USA Posts: 498	Why does everyone seem to want to LIMIT Pentax?? Pentax SHOULD come out with a FF D-SLR. It's time. Their FIRST dSLR was SUPPOSED to be a FF (remember?), then Philips failed to come through or Pentax chickened out or whatever. I was extremely disappointed when the *istD came out for that exact reason (as well as hunting with a burning torch for the prize idiot who named it), and although I'm thrilled to see new camera bodies now being introduced that finally show some upmarket movement from Pentax, they really need to add a FF to their lineup as the "flagship." They are long overdue to come out with some serious new optics as well (i.e., FF compatable, constant aperture, high quality construction, etc.). For too many years Pentax has spread itself too thin (non-photography products) and "dumbed down" its product line to pursue the bottom of the market. It's time to get Pentax back to being a strong player as opposed to an also-ran!

11-13-2007, 06:25 AM	#16
Confused Inactive Account Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: London Posts: 1,067	Hi barondla When you mentioned that: Quote: No one has built a FF body with shake reduction! ....in all honesty, this restriction hadn't even occurred to me before now ! Even more worrying is your astute observation that: Quote: You would also loose the SR image stabilization. Could you briefly explain in simple terms, the underlying reason for these two fascinating anomalies ? Best regards Richard

11-13-2007, 07:23 AM	#17
mattdm Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Boston, MA Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,948	Originally posted by Confused Could you briefly explain in simple terms, the underlying reason for these two fascinating anomalies ? Sure. A full-frame sensor is bigger, so there's less room for a shake reduction system. How large do you want your FF camera body to be? (Me, I'd rather a 6-8mpixel APS-C sensor in a camera with K10D-like functionality plus a usable ISO 3200 and available ISO 6400. But I don't think we're getting that either.)

11-13-2007, 07:26 AM	#18
Lowell Goudge Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Toronto Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,888	Originally posted by mattdm (Me, I'd rather a 6-8mpixel APS-C sensor in a camera with K10D-like functionality plus a usable ISO 3200 and available ISO 6400. But I don't think we're getting that either.) Me too! but make it 10 MP since 3200 ISO already exists in 6MP

11-13-2007, 08:31 AM	#19
NaClH2O Site Supporter Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Bronx NY Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 5,631	Originally posted by regken Drove down to a sales convention the other day and the 4 hour drive both ways gave me to much time to think so now I need you to tell you why my conclusions are wrong. My set of lenses range from 28mm to 200mm and I am happy with their quality. I'm thinking I should explore wide angle shooting but a good prime in the range of 16mm to 20mm are fairly expensive. It appears a lens in that range would cost around $400. The biggest use for this lens would most likely be interior and fairly low light. My 28mm f3.5 is a great lens but the FOV on my K10D is 42mm and not all that fast. On a FF sensor it would not only be as wide as a 19mm on the K10D but you should be able to bump the ISO by 2 or maybe 3 stops. Since I shoot a lot of landscape with the 28 and am happy with the FOV, a FF would allow me to use my 43mm, get the same FOV, and have a super fast lens with the improved ISO performance. The 70 and 77mm lenses are heralded as great portrait lenses on the 1.5 sensor so my 100mm f1.8 becomes a nice substitute for those lenses. That's another $500 I don't have to spend on lenses. If Pentax came out with a $1,800 FF model it would only cost me $900 than the lenses. Not a bad price for having a second body and much more flexibility.That's not even taking into account it would most likely be able to shoot at 7 or 9 fps. Is this just grand rationalization on my part or does it make sense? Regards, Ken Ken, Sigma especially makes a number of fairly high quality wide angle primes. The rectilinear ones start out at 14, 20, 24 and 28. All of them are F2.8 or less. The most expensive one (14) is about 800 USD iirc. I have the F1.8 24mm and I'm quite happy with it. NaCl(saves a lot over waiting and waiting and waiting and maybe paying over 3G for a new FF body)H2O

01-25-2008, 01:05 AM	#21
cmv Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Chicago, IL, USA Posts: 147	It'll happen we just have to wait for it. I'm not convinced the Pentax model would be $4k. We don't know what Samsung has up their sleeves -- basing the cost on Canon's business model is a bad idea I think. I hope we'll see it within 1-2 years.

01-25-2008, 09:27 PM	#22
Chocolar Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: OC, California Posts: 147	Originally posted by mattdm Sure. A full-frame sensor is bigger, so there's less room for a shake reduction system. How large do you want your FF camera body to be? (Me, I'd rather a 6-8mpixel APS-C sensor in a camera with K10D-like functionality plus a usable ISO 3200 and available ISO 6400. But I don't think we're getting that either.) k20d has SR and it's not bigger than any non-SR DSLRs in its class, therefore SR mechanism doesn't take that much room. I'm sure Pentax (or Sony) can build a SR FF DSLR the size of Canon 5D or smaller if they want to, and they will. I've never seen a SR mechanism, so I have no idea how "big" they are , but if you take a look at a bunch of Dslr, and their sizes, you can't tell which one has SR unless it says so on the body. Btw, even the tiny Fuji f50d has ccd SR. Just my opinion of course

01-26-2008, 06:13 AM	#23
flyer Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Ste-Anne des Plaines, Qc., Canada Posts: 2,013	One of the reason you don't find SR on full frame sensor is due to the extra weight of said sensor. The heavier the sensor, the more inertia you have to deal with, so it takes bigger and stronger magnets to move it around, thus more battery power and so on...

01-26-2008, 09:10 AM	#24
Ramitt Junior Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Bloomington, IN Posts: 36	Considering niether Nikon or Canon use in body shake reduction might have a lot to do with why nobody makes a FF with it.

01-26-2008, 09:22 AM	#25
hefty1 Inactive Account Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Buckinghamshire, UK Posts: 30	The FA and the DA lenses project an image circle onto an area larger than the APS-C sensor (FF in the case of the FA's, APS-H in the case of most of the DA's). They have to do this because a stabilised sensor is moving up/down and side-to-side as the photo is being taken, if the image circle only "just" covered APS-C you'd have vignetting where the edges of the sensor were being shifted outside of that area. In order to have a FF sensor with stabilisation you'd need lenses with an image circle larger than FF, so you can discount the idea of any of your existing glass working on such a body. Canikon get away with it because the stabilisation is in each lens, not the body. Those manufacturers using in-body systems could probably make a compromise by having stabilisation work on a new even-bigger-still lens system (XLA? ) and have it shut down when an FA/etc lens is attached. Wonderful. Personally, I think technology will overcome any shortcomings of the APS-C (or thereabouts) sensor within the next 5 years and the current FF models will be remembered as dinosaurs that tried to cling to an outdated principle well beyond its sell-by date. Just my $0.02

01-26-2008, 09:34 AM	#26
WMBP Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Dallas, Texas Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,482	Originally posted by hefty1 Personally, I think technology will overcome any shortcomings of the APS-C (or thereabouts) sensor within the next 5 years and the current FF models will be remembered as dinosaurs that tried to cling to an outdated principle well beyond its sell-by date. Just my $0.02 I have no crystal ball, but if I had to place a $100 bet today, I'd agree with hefty here. I do not think FF is the future. It might develop into an independent format for special uses, like medium format. But I don't think that APS-C format DSLRs will be obsolete in three years. And I'm not sure about the FF turning into a separate format. There are Leaf backs and other larger format cameras already for folks who want absurdly hi-res photos for print work. Will

01-26-2008, 09:56 AM	#27
offertonhatter Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: North West UK Posts: 390	I dont think we will see a FF Pentax in the medium term, not until they bring out a new range of Lenses. At the moment the only Lenses that will work with FF made by Pentax are the 100m Macro, the 50mm F1.4 and the limiteds that are still available. Pentax would have to do a major release of Lenses before they could make a FF camera. With the R&D resources at the moment, I cannot see that happen. The only way they could do this would be to go back to the FA* blueprints and start re making them again, along with a full start up of production of the old limiteds (mmm that would be good though, re making the 85mm Limited) As far as I can see, that would not happen. which is a shame. So I can only see at the moment APS-C and DA lenses for Pentax.