Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
07-11-2011, 12:15 PM   #301
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Midwest
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,407
QuoteOriginally posted by jsherman999 Quote
For a good many shooters, that's probably true. Looking at in the other way: a lot of aps-c shooters have convinced themselves that there's no real advantage to FF, erroneously.
.
And a lot of 'em understand the advantages are mostly edge cases (LARGE prints, mostly; low light, if you've got a FF Nikon), unrelated to frame size except by economics (better performing AF, for instance), or aesthetic preference ( the "look" of a given DOF with a given FOV ), or practical (That big, gorgeous viewfinder), and that, in the grand scheme of cameras and formats, the differences are fairly small.



07-11-2011, 12:30 PM   #302
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Midwest
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,407
QuoteOriginally posted by jsherman999 Quote
Also I wasn't implying that you need to get more pedantic, I was trying to highlight that the 'aps-c is good enough for anyone, you don't need FF' argument that often gets used against FF is missing the point. The Ford Focus or Ford Escape is good enough for anyone, also, but that doesn't make upper-end car models unnecessary and unwanted. (danger - danger - never-ending one-up car analogy subthread begins...)

If I were a PJ needing the fastest AF lock, I wouldn't consider anything other than the D700 currently - maybe the D300s. If I were shooting in a studio primarily, I'm guessing a K-5 + DA* 55 1.4 would probably get me 90% of the way to the 1DsIII + 85 1.2. As a dad chasing kids, family and friends around, I enjoy the benefits of both formats, but would like to get some of the benefits of aps-c (smaller, somewhat affordable) in a FF package from one vendor who happens to provide the best small FF lenses - Pentax.
I'm certainly not the person that says "APS-C is good enough for anyone". As I said before, I'm *completely* all right with things like "I like the FF better". I'm also ok with things like "The AF I need only comes in FF bodies" or "I make really big enlargements, so I use a tripod, buy the best glass, and use a FF body because every square mm of image counts!" - Or "I shoot Theatre, and *nothing* compares with my DS3 for that!". I do have a problem with categorical statements - you don't make a lot of them, so I'm not necessarily talking about you there. I'm ok with lots of categorical statements *as long as* they start with "if all other things are identical" - because, as we all know, all other things are rarely identical. (edit) Also, I'm ok with "I *really* like the look of DOF x @ FOV y!"

The categorical discussion of FF leads to a lot of bad understandings, as well. For instance, I am willing to bet that if we gave you a Canon 5d Mk2 and a K-5 and sent you off for two weeks, then took your images from both systems and applied minimal PP, most people would prefer the images from the K-5 - that is, believe they were BETTER images. As you know, I resist the translation of "Camera X has 10% lower noise floor than Camera Y" into "Camera X makes more aesthetically pleasing images" - because it doesn't necessarily follow.

There are, however, a large number of people shooting APS-c that aren't happy with their images, and believe that FF is the solution to their problem - when in fact it's NOT the camera. Many of the FF shooters I know used to be those APS-c shooters who believed that their FF camera would make them great photographers on delivery. Many of them believe that this has happened - when even they can't tell which system the images in their LightRoom library were shot with unless they look at the metadata. That's the only point I was trying to make.
07-11-2011, 01:05 PM   #303
Veteran Member
jsherman999's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,228
QuoteOriginally posted by jstevewhite Quote
... For instance, I am willing to bet that if we gave you a Canon 5d Mk2 and a K-5 and sent you off for two weeks, then took your images from both systems and applied minimal PP, most people would prefer the images from the K-5 - that is, believe they were BETTER images. ...
If I could take the DA 15ltd, DA 35ltd, and 77ltd along with the k-5, I'd make that same bet

(But I'd still rather go out with the K-1 and FA 31, FA 43, FA 77ltds. And maybe the new FA 23 f/2 Limited. And the new FA 135 f/2.8 Limited.)
07-11-2011, 02:20 PM   #304
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Midwest
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,407
QuoteOriginally posted by jsherman999 Quote
If I could take the DA 15ltd, DA 35ltd, and 77ltd along with the k-5, I'd make that same bet

(But I'd still rather go out with the K-1 and FA 31, FA 43, FA 77ltds. And maybe the new FA 23 f/2 Limited. And the new FA 135 f/2.8 Limited.)
LOL! I was just getting at the fact that I like the K-5 (even the K20D, in good light) sensor's output more than any current Canon sensor, regardless of FF/APS-c/APS-h. It just looks better. Of course, I like the D7000 just as much as the K-5, sensor wise; and if I were gonna pick another brand, it'd be Nikon ( because I like the output better than Canon's). That sometimes, even though there *are* "technical advantages" in some ways, the "technical advantage" doesn't translate to "better pictures". That's all I was going for.

07-11-2011, 09:15 PM   #305
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 5,708
"Why I don't like the "if you want a full-frame camera, switch to Canikon" argument.

Maybe you would go for the "Switch to Sony" argument instead?

You only have a couple of choices. It is really not even an argument. There are 3 choices. If you want a FF body then pick one of the three. There are trade-offs with every brand. Advantages to every brand. If one brand does not have what you want/need, then find a brand that does..... do something about it other than complaining.
07-11-2011, 09:47 PM   #306
Veteran Member




Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: California
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,354
Original Poster
Hostility.
07-11-2011, 10:45 PM   #307
Veteran Member
jsherman999's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,228
QuoteOriginally posted by Winder Quote
"Why I don't like the "if you want a full-frame camera, switch to Canikon" argument.

Maybe you would go for the "Switch to Sony" argument instead?

You only have a couple of choices. It is really not even an argument. There are 3 choices. If you want a FF body then pick one of the three. There are trade-offs with every brand. Advantages to every brand. If one brand does not have what you want/need, then find a brand that does..... do something about it other than complaining.


Asking your preferred vendor for an enhanced upgrade path is allowed. Right now it's K-5 @ $1300 -----> 645D @ $10,000, and that 645D might as well be a Canon, because it's a different mount.

Something everyone should keep in mind here - a FF offering by Pentax/Ricoh strengthens K-mount in almost every possible way, including the aps-c tier, because it's all part of the same product silo.


.
07-11-2011, 11:25 PM   #308
Pentaxian
twitch's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 4,571
I bet Pentax would sell a ton of DFA 70-200mm f2/8 lenses even to K-5/K-7 users. Just because PEntax spend research effort on FF lenses doesn't mean everyone owning Pentax APS-C cameras dont benefit.

07-12-2011, 12:35 AM   #309
Veteran Member




Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Canberra
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 739
QuoteOriginally posted by jsherman999 Quote
Asking your preferred vendor for an enhanced upgrade path is allowed. Right now it's K-5 @ $1300 -----> 645D @ $10,000, and that 645D might as well be a Canon, because it's a different mount.
.
Warning - Ramble ahead....

This is a really good basis for the position/emotion of many, and extremely rational and cogniscent. But, 'tis not without drawbacks....

It's for similar reasons Kawasaki for example produces their "entry level" sports bike 250 and sell it, relatively speaking, at cost. The 250 is very much a sheep dressed in wolfs clothing (no, I didn't get it backwards). They realize they can "capture" consumers with a dirt cheap option that appeals to their "fashion sense" as they begin their riding career and then progress them to the bigger, profitable bikes in the 600, 750, 1000 markets. Continuing the similarities - 99% of people won't ever be able to ride beyond the capabilities of a modern 600 (call it APS-C), but they know people *will* want the "on paper" "benefits" a 750 (MF)/1000(FF) could, in their minds, deliver them. Kawasaki make no attempts to establish which is "right" for you or "best" economically for the company - as long as there is bums on seats with a K badge and a life long attachment to the company as the consumer explores their options.

Does it work? Well, kwaka riders are very defensive of the brand generally speaking, and rarely consider exploring the potentially greener (boom-tish) grass elsewhere. But does it work fiscally for kawasaki ? Not always, as so much money and effort is often spent in continuously chasing the ever diverging market segments whilst preserving the "core" consumers means more and more they are seemingly making no one happy in their quest to be everything to everyone... Perhaps they'd be better of focusing on their strengths and capitalizing on those...

Oh... I ride a Yamaha btw

(apologies - I'm sitting on public transport at the moment... Killing time and all... )

Last edited by adr1an; 07-12-2011 at 12:50 AM.
07-12-2011, 04:09 AM   #310
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 15,737
QuoteOriginally posted by jsherman999 Quote
Asking your preferred vendor for an enhanced upgrade path is allowed. Right now it's K-5 @ $1300 -----> 645D @ $10,000, and that 645D might as well be a Canon, because it's a different mount.

Something everyone should keep in mind here - a FF offering by Pentax/Ricoh strengthens K-mount in almost every possible way, including the aps-c tier, because it's all part of the same product silo.


.
The 645D made sense for Pentax to release for two reasons: first of all, the medium format market isn't particularly competitive from a specs standpoint and second, a lot of the R and D cost was spread over two models (in this case the K7). I don't see that project as holding Pentax back from releasing a full frame camera, under Hoya, they just didn't think they could make a go of it, in what is a really tough market. Maybe Ricoh will green-light such a project, but even if they did, I doubt we would see it till middle of next year.

Anyway, I want to see Pentax do well, because it means my lenses will continue to be supported. If they could release a full frame camera and actually make money with it, that is fine with me. If they can't, then I would rather have them hold back.
07-12-2011, 04:48 AM   #311
Pentaxian
TaoMaas's Avatar

Join Date: May 2007
Location: Oklahoma City
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,195
I think there's just not enough potential sales out there for Pentax to do the investment needed to come out with a FF camera. I know there are Pentax users who would like a FF camera. Heck, I wouldn't mind having one myself! But Pentax's market share is already pretty small. If you remove those Pentax DSLR owners who don't want or can't afford a FF, you're not left with much of a market. That means that Pentax would have to attract Nikon/Canon/Sony folks. The only way to do that is to offer some kind of competitive advantage. So, what would that advantage be?
07-12-2011, 05:12 AM   #312
Veteran Member
jsherman999's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,228
QuoteOriginally posted by TaoMaas Quote
So, what would that advantage be?
Smallest, rugged, with small, great FF lenses that carry their own reputation.
07-12-2011, 05:20 AM   #313
Site Supporter
Aristophanes's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Dartmouth, Nova Scotia
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,854
QuoteOriginally posted by jsherman999 Quote
Asking your preferred vendor for an enhanced upgrade path is allowed. Right now it's K-5 @ $1300 -----> 645D @ $10,000, and that 645D might as well be a Canon, because it's a different mount.

Something everyone should keep in mind here - a FF offering by Pentax/Ricoh strengthens K-mount in almost every possible way, including the aps-c tier, because it's all part of the same product silo.
Realistically the 645D is not an upgrade path. That's like going from a Honda Civic to a 5 ton truck. It's a separate silo by design. It's priced for maximum margins at low sales volumes, and undercuts the current MF offering substantially making it the value proposition in the world of delivery trucks.

An FF DSLR would have to fit into Pentax's 4-5% market share for the current DSLR (non-MF) market. It would likely not expand market share because the price point would be very high limiting gross sales (that's the Q's job). The smaller Pentax bodies of the last 2 generations of APS-C have done nothing to move market share. The larger K20D may have been a better seller than the K-7 and even the K-5.

If you're working within a constrained market share an FF DSLR from Pentax will shift resources from APS-C where the volumes are. All you're doing is moving the same customers around while trying to support the extreme costs of FF lens development with a tiny user base. Canon and Nikon have the economies of scale to do this; Sony is apparently willing to burn some capital to stay a player. Pentax does not have enough of either, even with Ricoh the owner.

This argues that FF would weaken the k-mount by stretching resources. Comments about how Pentax could do FF without fast zooms make the problem worse because now the Pentax FF is seriously under-spec compared to the competition, doing nothing to solve the migration scenario from the OP. You've just made the silo smaller. And so much for expanding market share. The same principle applies with the fantasy that an FF sensor can be supported technically in a much smaller body. You'd have to pay $800 for the sensor and then seriously downgrade the specs to get a reasonable price point and body size. How does a no-video, no live view, no SR, 2 FPS FF DSLR sound to you at $2,000 per body the size of a D300? And with only 5 primes and 3 moderate f/3.5-4 zooms and no third party support?

How do you market such a camera? The loss of features makes the argument to buy the other's guy's D300 with its smaller sensor!

Throw in the disruptive technologies of pellicle with EVF and mirrorless and the FF argument diminishes.

So Pentax opted for the Q which is positioned as a second camera for the all-in-one silo DSLR crowd, not intended to compete with the APS-C revenue stream like FF would inevitably do. It's also designed for some buzz and theoretically mass market potential. I question the price most of all, but the concept is sound and design interesting (it has a hot shoe for goodness sake).

It's far easier to keep people in the silo going downmarket than up.
07-12-2011, 05:22 AM   #314
Veteran Member
RioRico's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Limbo, California
Posts: 11,264
QuoteOriginally posted by TaoMaas Quote
...Pentax would have to attract Nikon/Canon/Sony folks. The only way to do that is to offer some kind of competitive advantage. So, what would that advantage be?
"Pixie dust" won't be enough. Compactness won't be enough, and a small SLR body apparently hasn't room for both SR and super AF. Economy won't be enough -- the A850 was cheap enough, but died anyway. Just to match CaNikon would require super AF, and to attract pros would need a complete lens line, and a global pro support network -- and these take time to build.

Maybe the necessary advantage sidesteps Canikony, at least skipping the global pro market, rather as the 645D sidestepped studio pros by being an outdoors MF dSLR. Maybe the paradigm-shifter will be an GXR2 body with an FF sensor and super AF and PK mount and SR, cheap (like under US$2k). Then the advantage would be compactness AND economy AND full functionality.

But does Pentax have the technologies, and Ricoh the low-cost production, to build this? Or is magic required. And then we're back to pixie dust...
07-12-2011, 05:43 AM   #315
Loyal Site Supporter
eddie1960's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 12,264
QuoteOriginally posted by jsherman999 Quote
Smallest, rugged, with small, great FF lenses that carry their own reputation.
while i agree with you, i think a majority of the potential customers know squat about Pentax, many of them are even surprised it's still in business if they know the name. A big chunk of this market is people under 30 and Pentax market presence in the last 15 years has been as crappy as it could be. Many of us look back at the history of the brand we grew up with and assume it still carries that value. I hate to say it but it really doesn't. An educated consumer who does research will frequently end up with Pentax because the value is still excellent, but I don't think the brand has enough awareness for a FF release at the moment. I think if Ricoh can ramp up lens releases, put out the next 2 camera bodies (perhaps keeping one or both of the current ones on the market to have a 3-4 body system) do some marketing and get the awareness level up then they could move into FF successfully
I would like a FF myself, but i'm realistic and just don't think the payback is there yet, and would rather they made money and reinvested in the brand first through broader lens assortments (for apsc and 645) new flashes, improved bodies and marketing. getting back in specialist Brick and Mortar stores will rely on some of this. If we want to see the market share grow people will need to be able to pick up the cameras not just buy on spec from reviews and the web.
and though I hate big box as a channel, i think keeping an older model in production for low price kit on the floor grab and go is a path that will bring users to the brand (Canon and Nikon both do this to good success at the costco/walmart/bestbuy etc level, and i've seen older sonys and m43 olys sold this way as well
The Kx kit should have been marketed this way, instead it was just dropped
this doesn't eat into current line sales really(these buyers were never looking at Pentax in the first place) and isn't a big profit generator up front, but expanding the user base is good for the brand
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, films, image, lenses, passion, pentax, photography, production, slr, switch
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
How do the K5 photos compare to Full Frame camera photos as far as the "look" goes? crossover37 Pentax K-5 166 05-16-2011 07:24 PM
Full frame or improved AF. What do you want in the "K-8"? johnmflores Pentax DSLR Discussion 73 06-04-2010 11:35 AM
Nikon's 1998 vintage "full frame" DSLR pingflood General Talk 5 07-25-2009 05:44 PM
How does the camera "know" where the first frame starts? pbo Pentax Medium Format 9 07-08-2009 08:23 AM
German c't calls K-7 "full frame" falconeye Pentax News and Rumors 3 05-24-2009 11:18 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:41 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