Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
11-11-2007, 08:28 AM   #1
Veteran Member




Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Bangor, Maine
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,382
Why I think I want a FF Pentax

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


Last edited by regken; 11-11-2007 at 09:28 AM.
11-11-2007, 08:57 AM   #2
Veteran Member
JamesD's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: USA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 536
lol... I think you're pretty good at rationalizing (and we all do it).
11-11-2007, 09:19 AM   #3
Inactive Account




Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: London
Posts: 1,067
Hi Ken (regken)

QuoteQuote:
If Pentax came out with a $1,800 FF model.......
Whoa Tonto, STOP RIGHT THERE for a moment......Quite obviously as you clearly stated:

QuoteQuote:
The 4 hour drive both ways gave me too much time to think
Were you possibly travelling with the roof down whilst the sun was shining brightly ? You really ought to have pulled over for a while and let your poor old grey matter cool down a bit, because I suspect it may have been severely over-heating.....lol !
Back in the 'Real World', simply consider how many years it took for N****n to come up with some genuine Full-Frame competition in order to give C****n something to worry about !
I sure hope you have VERY deep pockets to fund the necessary R&D costs, not forgetting to include sufficient funds for the construction a new clean-air CCD or CMOS fabrication plant.
If on the other hand you are correct in your desire to see Pentoya come up with such a beast in the near future, realistically how many people will be able to afford such a luxury item if it becomes available. Not nearly enough judging by the expression on the directors faces ! Dream on........

Best regards
Richard

Last edited by Confused; 11-12-2007 at 01:13 PM.
11-11-2007, 09:48 AM   #4
Veteran Member




Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Bangor, Maine
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,382
Original Poster
Oops

QuoteOriginally posted by Confused Quote
Hi Ken (regken)

Were you possibly travelling with the roof down whilst the sun was shining brightly ? You really ought to have pulled over for a while and let your poor old grey matter cool down a bit, because I suspect it may have been severely over-heating.....lol !

Best regards
Richard
Hi Richard,
Driving a convertible with the top down in Maine at this time of year would be insane and thinking the sun would be out is ludicrous. For some reason I thought the Canon 4D was selling for around $2,200 but now that I look and see it is at $3,100 I guess my $1,800 is about $1,000 short. My accountant would never allow me to go that high. I guess it's back to looking for a wide angle prime.

Ken

11-11-2007, 11:31 AM   #5
Veteran Member
Finn's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Phoenix
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,056
QuoteOriginally posted by regken Quote
I'm thinking I should explore wide angle shooting but a good prime in the range of 16mm to 20mm are fairly expensive.
That's why all of my wide angle work is on film -- it's cheaper that way!
11-11-2007, 03:04 PM   #6
Veteran Member




Join Date: Sep 2006
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 5,713
I was going to say that Pentax made several Full Frame cameras, which can often be purchased for very little cash.

They're called Film Cameras

But Finn more or less beat me to it.
11-11-2007, 03:16 PM   #7
Site Supporter
SpecialK's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: So California
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 14,421
QuoteOriginally posted by little laker Quote
I was going to say that Pentax made several Full Frame cameras, which can often be purchased for very little cash.

They're called Film Cameras

But Finn more or less beat me to it.
Don't forget to factor in the cost of film and processing which can be a lot if you shoot a lot.
11-11-2007, 06:51 PM   #8
Inactive Account




Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: London
Posts: 1,067
Hi SpecialK

QuoteQuote:
Don't forget to factor in the cost of film and processing
Oh my God, I do believe we're starting to slide backwards down the 'slippery slope' again...where's the bl***dy hand-brake gone !

Best regards 'digitally speaking'
Richard


Last edited by Confused; 11-12-2007 at 12:37 PM.
11-12-2007, 07:00 AM   #9
Pentaxian
Lowell Goudge's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 15,312
I think most people here have it right.

If you really only live in the extreme wide angle world, either a different manufacturer, or film is the best option.

I shot that way for almost 4 years, until the extreme wide angles came out for digital. I used the 18-35mm lens that came with my *istD on my PZ-1. It took great shots, and has almost the same field of view on the PZ-1 as the sigma 10-20 when used on either my *istD or K10D.

For some, film might still be an option, because you can get really slow film, (iso 25, iso50 etc).

You can also consider using a film body for the final shots, and do setup etc with a digital body.

processing is not all that bad, and there is a shop near me that will scan your negatives for something lime $1.00 per strip (note here that a strip is any strip, whether it is 4 frames or the whole roll so have the labs process your film but give instructions NOT to cut the negs apart)
11-12-2007, 07:44 AM   #10
Not Registered
Guest




QuoteOriginally posted by Lowell Goudge Quote

processing is not all that bad, and there is a shop near me that will scan your negatives for something lime $1.00 per strip (note here that a strip is any strip, whether it is 4 frames or the whole roll so have the labs process your film but give instructions NOT to cut the negs apart)
Sorry for Hijacking the thread, does anybody used ScanCafe for scanning negatives? Are they any good?

@ Lowell, how much do they charge per DVD? (althought being local maybe you are using a flash drive)

Thanks
11-12-2007, 07:57 AM   #11
Pentaxian
Lowell Goudge's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 15,312
QuoteOriginally posted by Gruoso Quote
Sorry for Hijacking the thread, does anybody used ScanCafe for scanning negatives? Are they any good?

@ Lowell, how much do they charge per DVD? (althought being local maybe you are using a flash drive)

Thanks
I think they quoted something like $6.00 for photo CD, plus $1.00 per strip. Obviously all values Canadian.

I have never used the scanning service, as I have my own scanner (Minolta Dimage II. 2880 DPI 40 bit color) and at the time, scanning the neg's was not an issue in terms of my time as I might shoot 4-5 rolls intermixed with a trip where there would be another 500-1000 shots digital at longer focal lengths, however, since I got the Sigma 10-20, I am much more inclined to shoot wide angle, and I like the images I get when I use this lens on my K10D.

As an additional note, most photo finishers can now give you a disk of your photos as they use exclusively digital processing to do prints, BUT, I tried this once and got badly burned, because they gave the images in 600 by 480 pixel format without telling me first this was how they would do them. Be careful if you ask for this option.
11-12-2007, 08:49 AM   #12
Not Registered
Guest




QuoteOriginally posted by Lowell Goudge Quote
As an additional note, most photo finishers can now give you a disk of your photos as they use exclusively digital processing to do prints, BUT, I tried this once and got badly burned, because they gave the images in 600 by 480 pixel format without telling me first this was how they would do them. Be careful if you ask for this option.
I think that yours is the best case scenario, I tried once in a regular photofinisher and what I received was the scan of the tiny printproofs nor the scan of the negatives. I was considering other proffesional solutions online since photostores in Ann Arbor are pretty much dead (or are extremely expensive). Hopefully I will move to San Francisco area next year and I hope to find a better service.

Thank you for the information on the prices on that place, they seem to be very competitive.
11-12-2007, 10:18 AM   #13
Veteran Member




Join Date: Sep 2006
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 5,713
A friend of mine gets his film developed in a drug store i Kelowna, British Columbia for around $8.00 per roll, and they scan it to a disk for that same $8.00. It's getting better, however I haven't always been impressed with the quality.
They'd often alter the exposure to the point where they're over exposed. He now rights down DO Not Alter on the package.

Now that I'm entering the world of Medium Format film I'll have to get some developing done.
In my case the camera store will probably let me do the scanning, and process the images the way I want.

If your on good terms with a camera store they'll probably let you do the same thing

I can't honestly say how much it'll cost me per roll.
I should know by Thursday.
11-12-2007, 01:06 PM   #14
Veteran Member
*isteve's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: London, England
Posts: 1,187
QuoteOriginally posted by regken Quote
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
Pentax could not make a $1800 FF camera. Even Canon cannot make one that cheap with a crappy old body and a fully amortised chip that was designed for the original 1DS on their own fab and sold at cost price (and even a loss at one point). If was still outsold by the D200 so go figure. The cheapest Pentax could manage would be likely to be around $4000 on a first attempt and probably more.

On the other hand a 16-45 lens is <$400, constant F4 and equiv to 24mm on your FF camera. There are also 12-24, 10-20 sigma, 14mm and 21mm to consider. You could by every single one twice and still have change over the cost of a FF body.

I use a 31 where I would have used a 43, the 43 for portraits (equiv 65 is perfect for head and shoulders) and the 77 is now a fantastic portrait lens.
11-12-2007, 08:11 PM   #15
Site Supporter




Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: midwest, United States
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,220
It would be less expensive to buy the lenses you want to fit the aps c sensor. You wouldn't gain no 2 to 3 stops of ISO by using full frame sensor. You would also loose the SR image stabilization. No one has built a FF body with shake reduction! Your older lenses probably aren't as good as the newer ones.
So you want a FF body so you can carry around a bigger camera, lacking shake reduction, having problems with sharpness at the edges with wideangles, with lower quality lenses, and more expensive new lenses. Canikon would kill for our primes. C owners hack up Limiteds to put them on their camera. I don't get it.
thanks
barondla
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!
28mm, camera, cost, dslr, ff, fov, iso, k10d, lens, lenses, photography, range, sensor
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:54 PM. | 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