Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
06-28-2011, 01:36 PM   #76
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Midwest
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,407
QuoteOriginally posted by fuent104 Quote
I'm not sure where some of the information in this discussion is coming from. How are some people so sure the legacy lenses won't look good on a full frame sensor?

For one thing, that is exactly how they have been used for their entire history, except for the last several years. Also, aside from using them on Canon or Nikon ff bodies, how many of us have actually seen how they perform on ff digital? When I was using them on my film bodies, I never thought "These lenses really look bad on this 35mm frame due to a lack of corner sharpness. I wish someone would invent a smaller format so I could use these lenses for optimal performance."

Also, I don't think Pentax has forgotten how to make lenses that cover the ff image area. They would not need to reinvent the wheel to manufacture some new ff lenses.

My desire for Pentax ff is not out of brand allegiance. I have 2 Pentax film bodies, 2 Pentax digital bodies, and many lenses, some of which have automatic features. Switching to another brand means switching to another system, or maintaining two systems, neither of which I would like to do (the second of which is not necessarily economically feasible for me).
It's because sensors and film are analogous, not identical. Apparently angle of incidence has some much more significant implications on digital than on film; Apparently secondary reflections from the sensors to the back element back to the sensors are more significant in digital, as well. That's what people say, anyway, including manufacturers. I'm not sure I buy it all; I've seen lots of legacy lenses used successfully on Canon FF... *shrug*

06-28-2011, 01:48 PM   #77
Pentaxian
Emacs's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Moscow
Posts: 1,221
QuoteOriginally posted by jstevewhite Quote
of the same magnification (that is, the FF print is 1.5x larger).
Pointless, If I need certain size I will print in it. No matter what the sensor is. So larger sensor is clear winner in this case.

QuoteQuote:
better IQ than most films ever made in 35mm format.
Of course, the film has so many limitations that prevents to take a profit from the larger area.
06-28-2011, 02:17 PM   #78
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Midwest
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,407
QuoteOriginally posted by Emacs Quote
Pointless, If I need certain size I will print in it. No matter what the sensor is. So larger sensor is clear winner in this case.
No, that's not the case. As long as the source out-resolves the print media, the prints are indistinguishable (all other things being equal). Such as, say, 8x10 prints.


QuoteQuote:
Of course, the film has so many limitations that prevents to take a profit from the larger area.
I'm not sure what you mean. Film's limitations were many, depending on the film. Color films suffered from diffusion between color layers that limited their maximum resolution, but increasing the size of the film still yielded more detail, all other things being equal. My point was only that current APS-c resolves more detail than most 35mm films, and has better contrast and saturation, period: "Better IQ". (Excepting special purpose films like Tech Pan, which was specifically designed for ridiculously high resolutions). Looking at my own negatives, at ISO 100 with, say, the FA35 f2, my K-5 resolves more detail than my Hasselblad did with ISO400 film, and considerably more than my Canon FD system with ISO100 film. My Canon FD L 50 still beats it in black-and-white on Tech Pan, though. And of course my 4x5 images contain more detail. And with the digital world's ability to adjust contrast, saturation, and microcontrast, there's no contest.

Which is why I find it amusing when you call APS-c "crappy".
06-28-2011, 05:56 PM   #79
Senior Member




Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Florida
Photos: Albums
Posts: 231
I'm not trying to start an argument but initially it's OUR money they're using to run their business. Photography is unique in that it is a system which includes lenses and flash components that arguably are timeless, and no manufacturer perpetuated this concept more than Pentax by keeping their lens mount through the transition from film (glad they did).

The timing of this industry's development in the past decade has led some of us to follow a brand with certain expectations and loyalty that they (Pentax) will follow the same or similar path as their competitors.

Pentax has done the same as (or more than) the other big three brands in all areas but FF. In fact, Sony really is a sort of an odd man out in that they are really not strictly a 'DSLR camera company' like Canon, Nikon and Pentax. I realize all these companies have a hand in other things like printers, scanners, CCTV, etc., but when you say Canon, Nikon, Pentax or Olympus don't you think consumers think camera? I just think some people expected Pentax to follow the same path as the others, especially after keeping the film (FF) lens mount. Those people remained loyal, and probably expected Pentax to reciprocate.

I started this reply early yesterday and didn't finish. I read many responses since that made a lot of sense but still feel my opinion is somewhat different so I decided to post. If I'm mistaken and this is redundant, sorry...

Bill

06-28-2011, 06:18 PM - 1 Like   #80
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: kobe/japan
Posts: 510
QuoteOriginally posted by Snydly Quote
I'm not trying to start an argument but initially it's OUR money they're using to run their business.

As soon as you buy *THEIR* products, it becomes *THEIR* money. It no longer remains *YOUR* money. They run their business from *THEIR* money.
06-28-2011, 06:23 PM   #81
Ash
Community Manager
Loyal Site Supporter
Ash's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Toowoomba, Queensland
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 22,679
QuoteOriginally posted by Snydly Quote
I'm not trying to start an argument but initially it's OUR money they're using to run their business.
I think you're looking at it the wrong way around. If you're dissatisfied with a product, you'd be loathe to spending your money on it in the first place. You have a choice. And Pentax has a choice in what products it develops and releases. There is no obligation a business has to please its entire customer base (fundamentally impossible anyway). If a customer is not happy with what the business offers, the customer should take the money elsewhere.

I take your point, and sure, a business would do well to listen to its clients, which I believe Pentax does reasonably well, but it's not a mandatory requirement.

Last edited by Ash; 06-28-2011 at 10:14 PM.
06-28-2011, 06:26 PM   #82
Loyal Site Supporter
eddie1960's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 12,165
The issue with old lenses on ff bearing softer comes from a vouple of things
First no coating on the rear of the lens means reflected light bouncing around inside iff the sensor and back to the sensor
This happened when mamiya went digital without new lenses and it was a vommon complant newer lenses have tje coating and the issue went away
Also what may have been good enough iq on film doesnt stand up to the finer pixel putch of higher resolution digital so an fa ltd will likely still perform very well (aside from the coating issye) a lot of othe legacy glass may nit be up to the task
Im not sure a lot of my old m glass which looks pretty good on apsc and film will be as good on digital ff
06-28-2011, 07:34 PM   #83
Site Supporter
Aristophanes's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Dartmouth, Nova Scotia
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,790
QuoteOriginally posted by Snydly Quote
I'm not trying to start an argument but initially it's OUR money they're using to run their business. Photography is unique in that it is a system which includes lenses and flash components that arguably are timeless, and no manufacturer perpetuated this concept more than Pentax by keeping their lens mount through the transition from film (glad they did).

The timing of this industry's development in the past decade has led some of us to follow a brand with certain expectations and loyalty that they (Pentax) will follow the same or similar path as their competitors.

Pentax has done the same as (or more than) the other big three brands in all areas but FF. In fact, Sony really is a sort of an odd man out in that they are really not strictly a 'DSLR camera company' like Canon, Nikon and Pentax. I realize all these companies have a hand in other things like printers, scanners, CCTV, etc., but when you say Canon, Nikon, Pentax or Olympus don't you think consumers think camera? I just think some people expected Pentax to follow the same path as the others, especially after keeping the film (FF) lens mount. Those people remained loyal, and probably expected Pentax to reciprocate.

I started this reply early yesterday and didn't finish. I read many responses since that made a lot of sense but still feel my opinion is somewhat different so I decided to post. If I'm mistaken and this is redundant, sorry...

Bill
For a long time Canon's name was with the photocopiers that trumped Xerox Canon was seen as a bit gimmicky compared to Nikon and Pentax, both"serious" camera companies. Then the world went all AF and electronic and suddenly Canon had an edge in adapting microprocessors to cameras (as did Minolta who had a better vision). Nikon, Olympus, and Pentax were caught flat-footed.

The issue has largely been one of sensor costs. Pentax (and Olympus, Konica, Minolta, Leica, Contax, Mamiya, etc.) never had the research or industrial capacity to manufacture sensors. Leica in particular pretty much went bankrupt and had to be bailed out by family money from a German forest products company and an eccentric camera-loving philanthropist.

Canon barely had the capacity to ramp up for in-house sensor production, and Sony is large industrial already in that game when they bought out Konica/Minolta. Nikon really struggled to keep up with Canon, and only in the last 3 years have become the company they used to be almost all by focusing (sic) on their DSLR strength and creating their own fabs to supply much of their needs. Pentax was simply ever large enough to get there and has little background in that part of the supply chain. It's basic economics. I believe Pentax would *like* to make FF, and I bet they have skunkworks mock-ups. But they are not large enough to create their own supply and are therefore dependent on external companies for their camera development in a manner that was never an issue in the film era.

06-28-2011, 07:42 PM   #84
Site Supporter
Aristophanes's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Dartmouth, Nova Scotia
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,790
QuoteOriginally posted by jstevewhite Quote
I'm not sure what you mean. Film's limitations were many, depending on the film. Color films suffered from diffusion between color layers that limited their maximum resolution, but increasing the size of the film still yielded more detail, all other things being equal. My point was only that current APS-c resolves more detail than most 35mm films, and has better contrast and saturation, period: "Better IQ". (Excepting special purpose films like Tech Pan, which was specifically designed for ridiculously high resolutions). Looking at my own negatives, at ISO 100 with, say, the FA35 f2, my K-5 resolves more detail than my Hasselblad did with ISO400 film, and considerably more than my Canon FD system with ISO100 film. My Canon FD L 50 still beats it in black-and-white on Tech Pan, though. And of course my 4x5 images contain more detail. And with the digital world's ability to adjust contrast, saturation, and microcontrast, there's no contest.
Ironically, this absolute, clinical detail supplied by the unforgiving sensor that can magnify even the slightest lack of rear coating on a legacy lens is something that makes people want to use film again!

Ahhh...Portra 400. No chimping. No PP, just send it out to RPL.

Film's limitations are looking more and more like the imperfections we need to see the world less as a perfect reflection and more as an interpretation, begging the question: "What is photography?"

And the Q has "toy" lenses.

So how many angels can fit on the head of a pin?
06-28-2011, 08:26 PM - 1 Like   #85
Veteran Member
RioRico's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Limbo, California
Posts: 11,264
QuoteOriginally posted by Aristophanes Quote
So how many angels can fit on the head of a pin?
A) Measure a pinhead's surface area
B) Measure some angels' arses
C) Divide A by B. Elementary, eh?
06-28-2011, 08:38 PM   #86
Senior Member




Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Florida
Photos: Albums
Posts: 231
QuoteOriginally posted by zxaar Quote
As soon as you buy *THEIR* products, it becomes *THEIR* money. It no longer remains *YOUR* money. They run their business from *THEIR* money.
Wow, now it all makes sense.
06-28-2011, 09:02 PM   #87
Pentaxian
jsherman999's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,228
QuoteOriginally posted by Aristophanes Quote
...
Film's limitations are looking more and more like the imperfections we need to see the world less as a perfect reflection and more as an interpretation, begging the question: "What is photography?"
DA Limiteds, FA Limiteds.


QuoteQuote:

And the Q has "toy" lenses.
Thing is, people can and will make good art with anything, sometimes especially so when challenged by subject matter, media or tools (And then 'Q' will get more credit than it deserves! )

QuoteQuote:
So how many angels can fit on the head of a pin?
All of them. Even if they're dancing.

.
06-28-2011, 09:10 PM   #88
Veteran Member
yeatzee's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Temecula
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,675
QuoteOriginally posted by jsherman999 Quote


Thing is, people can and will make good art with anything, sometimes especially so when challenged by subject matter, media or tools (And then 'Q' will get more credit than it deserves! )




.
So Jay, when are you getting ur pentax Q?
06-28-2011, 09:41 PM   #89
Moderator
Site Supporter
Blue's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Florida Hill Country
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 17,166
QuoteOriginally posted by jsherman999 Quote
Very, very true. Ned B hinted that this was why Pentax wasn't moving to FF yet - not enough new (expensive) FF lenses to accelerate ROI, and the lenses are harder to spin up from scratch than the body.




Not a given. Product uniqueness can expand a market, and there is also some untapped market among existing K-mount shooters now (See quoted comment below. ) The MFD market was something like 500 units per month worldwide when Pentax decided to enter it - with a relatively unique offerring.
The trouble with Ned is that he is the "used car sales man" for the Hoya Corporate Office. He says what they tell him. They actually have nearly as many ff lenses that could go out as the do aps-c. They have about 32 lens on the Pentax Imaging site not including the silver DA ltds. Of those, The FA ltd, FA 50/1.4, D FA 50/1.8, D FA 100 WR and DA* 55 are ff as is the recently discontinued FA 35/2 and FA* 600/4. I suspect the DA* 200, 300. The point is, its not like they have a huge '35mm' lens catalog as it is. They recently cranked out a batch of FA 35/2, FA 20-35/4 and A 50/1.2 so that shows than can tool up on the lines. I don't think the lens argument really holds up.
06-28-2011, 10:09 PM   #90
Veteran Member




Join Date: Aug 2009
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,236
I love talking about Pentax full-frame. I'll first include some background as how I see it before saying where I think they will go.

I think the K-7 and K-x were a positive turning point for Pentax. Both in leadership (Hoya) and focus on the photographic tools they offer. Camera companies are not known to be fast. Even before Hoya showed up there was a shift internally when the K-7 was being developed, so I'd say it was more internal Pentax with some reality checks by Hoya that made the biggest changes happen.

The K-7 era shifted to focus on the historical strengths of Pentax (small yet excellent ergonomics, weather resistant evolution, quality construction, retro yet good look), but missed a few marks by partnering with Samsung instead of Sony technology wise. Some of that was fixed once the K-x came out (fun cameras for everyone, sensor improvements from Sony, low price point to entice).

The K-5 generation is now pushing forward in absolute image quality and further focusing on Pentax specific strengths all around. While the 645D was before this, I'll just included it here along with the K-5 and K-r. Pentax has shifted a bit further to really focus on quality output results as it was the next logical step. The K-5 is the strongest APS-C camera around, thanks in part to Sony and Pentax programmers/engineers. The 645D and K-5 show everyone that Pentax is serious about absolute image quality and professional photographers. Along with that, more focus on low-cost WR lenses along with cheap entry ones. Where else can you find something like the 50-200mm WR? That's a great lens in my opinion.

So moving forward we have the GPS accessory and the Pentax Q to look at. I see two distinct markets Pentax is (still) interested in focusing on. The serious photographers who have a tendency to enjoy the outdoors. These people want absolute quality in results and the tools themselves.

With much hate from the western enthusiasts, Pentax also desires to focus on people who just want to enjoy photography everywhere they can with their small yet powerful setups. The K-r and new Q focus on these people. What most don't realize is that this will help keep Pentax profitable. The Q was never designed to appease the pros. It's a high quality photographic tool for casual photographers with a special emphasis toward women (
). It makes sense when the history of their company is looked at.

I still see a few issues before Pentax moves to full-frame 35mm, but some of the hurdles have passed.

- Pentax is not a "me to" camera company. They dabbled with that in the early DSLR days, especially the K10D/K20D era. It nearly killed them. The Q proves they have a unique idea on what photography tools should be like. This is the biggest issue I see with them offering full-frame in the somewhat near future.

- Existing DA* lenses are hit and miss for full-frame and some are specifically designed with focal lengths to fit with APS-C cameras such as the 50-135mm f2.8. Others like the 300mm and 200mm should be fine if FF comes out. All pentax will have to do is offer an optional in-camera crop for any lenses that can't fill the frame.

- Pentax has been saying in the past they won't discount anything if all of the factors fall into place. The factors I can see would be FF mark-share increasing and/or APS-C DSLRs decreasing due to mirror-less big sensor bodies. Sony is a big factor as well. I can't see Pentax using one of the existing sensors out there, so they would wait until a suitable sensor is available at a good price. Things like cheap WR lenses show Pentax doesn't want to release insanely expensive 35mm FF pro equipment (that's what 645D is for...). I think if Pentax can assemble a 35mm FF for a good price they would seriously consider it.

- What's the next step after the K-5? Better video control should be a given. Besides that I'm having a hard time seeing where the K-5 level body will go. Dropping APS-C pro for FF pro would obviously be a bad idea because there are benefits to APS-C in size/weight and telephoto consideration. I can't see them completely replacing the K-5 with a full-frame unless they somehow made it the same size. I think the big question is if Pentax will decide to offer three 35mm cameras at a time again or not. The 645D is a case against that in part, but there is a big price gap between that and the K-5 body.

- Pentax 35mm feels a big stagnant, so I think some big thing should be on the horizon. Sure the 645D and Q probably took a lot of resources to accomplish, but I find it hard to believe that 35mm isn't their primary focus. The kind of unexciting releases in the 35mm lens department makes me think they are up to something. it might happen the next release cycle, or not...

I do know I'd be interested in FF for:
1. Getting more use out of my prime lenses if I owned a FF and APS-C body. I'd love to see my 31mm on a FF Pentax body...
2. A nice big viewfinder and all of the benefits to that.
3. Depth of field considerations. Had a chance to use a 645D, amazing DOF possibilities there. There is no way I could afford one at the moment though.

Last edited by sjwaldron; 06-28-2011 at 10:18 PM.
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 08:25 AM. | 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