Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
08-09-2011, 12:57 PM   #256
Veteran Member
jsherman999's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,228
QuoteOriginally posted by Aristophanes Quote
QuoteOriginally posted by jsherman999 Quote
Well, now I think you're combining two concepts here:

1) The 'requirement' for a DSLR company to provide large f/2.8 zooms for FF customers

2) The 'requirement' for a shooter to buy those huge, expensive zooms to 'get the most out of the FF camera'


#1 I have always pretty much agreed with, because a company makes a large profit on each of those zooms (depending on asking price, of course.)

#2 is a myth, largely. As I said, it's about as true as 'you need to buy zeiss lenses to get the most out of your Pentax'. Maybe technically true, but the small difference in output quality between a zeiss and it's equivalent Limited for example is only detectable in a controlled test and would be virtually invisible when viewing real-world results.

Here's what you originally wrote, which I think was invoking 'requirement' 2 more than 1:

QuoteQuote:
The D700 has a solid full stop more than the K-5 (2-2.5 over M43) and the D800 may have 2. But it has 'pro' features throughout, plus all the other advantages of FF. It loses 'value' because it requires big glass at high cost,

I was saying 'enthusiasts' are the ones more likely to be conned into buying a large, expensive zoom they don't need in order to take advantage of FF, or to be deterred from buying into FF because they think these zooms are 'required'. Pros know what they need to get the job done - not worried about them. (And there are enthusiasts who simply want those large zooms, realizing that they're not 'required' to shoot FF.)
You're splitting hairs.

The zooms are required from the manufacturer precisely because the market demands them. They can make them. They do. The quality is outstanding. Some consumers fret about the size but willingly accept the tradeoffs in numbers that completely swamps the market for primes. And the same consumers lay out big money for them.

Not just pros, but in aggregate. The market has long favoured zooms in the sales data (by many factors to 1) because the value of FL versatility outweighs the benefits of a prime's other attributes. You can argue about the merits until you are blue, but where the $$$ goes is inarguable. If you make FF DSLR cameras, you need a slate of competitive FL zooms or your camera body will not sell. People voting with their $$$ tell the story more than your post above. People who make real money will ignore (or marginalize) opinions like yours.


I think you're basically restating item #1 in my post above, and moving away from #2. (which is good - because #2 is a myth.)

Now, zooms in general are very useful, for all sorts of folks who want the most versatility - I'm disputing the 'you need the big heavy Nikon zooms, otherwise you wasted your FF body dollar' which is an argument used by certain online big-purchase self-justifiers in the various fora, and by certain photo store clerks who smell a big salary combined with limited experience walking through the door. They know those guys are susceptible to certain analogies that just sound right, like "buying a FF body without a $2300 zoom is like putting the cheapest tires possible on your Porsche! Plus, this is what the PROS use, so you obviously need it also for your soccer shots!"

I'm not saying those big zooms aren't great if it's what you really want and you understand the alternatives and relative value - I'm saying they're required from a manufacturer's perspective, not a typical enthusiast-shooter's. It's an important distinction, one you didn't make in your original post there.


.


Last edited by jsherman999; 08-09-2011 at 01:36 PM.
08-09-2011, 03:27 PM   #257
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: kobe/japan
Posts: 510
QuoteOriginally posted by jsherman999 Quote
I think you're basically restating item #1 in my post above, and moving away from #2. (which is good - because #2 is a myth.)

Now, zooms in general are very useful, for all sorts of folks who want the most versatility - I'm disputing the 'you need the big heavy Nikon zooms, otherwise you wasted your FF body dollar' which is an argument used by certain online big-purchase self-justifiers in the various fora, and by certain photo store clerks who smell a big salary combined with limited experience walking through the door. They know those guys are susceptible to certain analogies that just sound right, like "buying a FF body without a $2300 zoom is like putting the cheapest tires possible on your Porsche! Plus, this is what the PROS use, so you obviously need it also for your soccer shots!"

I'm not saying those big zooms aren't great if it's what you really want and you understand the alternatives and relative value - I'm saying they're required from a manufacturer's perspective, not a typical enthusiast-shooter's. It's an important distinction, one you didn't make in your original post there.


.
In my opinion, if someone thinks zooms are required for fullframe then he does not understand photography.


Ps: I had 0 zooms when i shot with film on those full frames. They are certainly NOT A REQUIREMENT for making good photos.
08-09-2011, 06:20 PM - 1 Like   #258
Pentaxian
Class A's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 9,201
QuoteOriginally posted by Aristophanes Quote
You're splitting hairs.
AFAIC, he's not splitting hairs at all.

He makes an important distinction between what companies would like customers to believe (or what some customers believe) vs what is necessary.

Earlier you wrote "[The D700] loses 'value' because it requires big glass at high cost". Jay has just explained why that's not a correct statement. Not splitting hairs at all.

BTW, you still haven't told me where Nikon will get its sensors from, should SONY "pixx them off". I don't think your "SONY has to fear Nikon" theory makes any sense at all. What am I missing?
08-09-2011, 07:14 PM   #259
Site Supporter
Aristophanes's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Dartmouth, Nova Scotia
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,922
QuoteOriginally posted by jsherman999 Quote
I'm not saying those big zooms aren't great if it's what you really want and you understand the alternatives and relative value - I'm saying they're required from a manufacturer's perspective, not a typical enthusiast-shooter's. It's an important distinction, one you didn't make in your original post there.
By definition a prosumer follows in the footsteps of a pro. If pros shoot top zooms, so will prosumers.

Is there a minority subset who prefer primes and a different way of doing this. Yes. Absolutely.

Are they a valuable addition to sales? Sure. Somewhat.

Do they make the market viable? No. Not at all. The prosumer (or enthusiast, or hobbyist) who buys zooms as do the pros is the meat of the market and the major source of revenue. primes are chocolate sprinkles, not the sundae.

QuoteOriginally posted by zxaar Quote
In my opinion, if someone thinks zooms are required for fullframe then he does not understand photography.
Tell that to Nikon and Canon. they understand both markets and photography far better than you do!

QuoteOriginally posted by Class A Quote
Earlier you wrote "[The D700] loses 'value' because it requires big glass at high cost". Jay has just explained why that's not a correct statement. Not splitting hairs at all.
It is a correct statement because the market, not Jay's logic, is what matters.

The sheer numbers of the market obviate 100% his findings. It's hard, irrefutable data versus his opinion.

Also, it's pithy to assume that zooms exist because marketing sells people on the concept. They dominate sales simply because variable FL lenses have higher value to more people than fixed FL lenses. Big and heavy has proven to be no deterrence to sales.

QuoteQuote:
BTW, you still haven't told me where Nikon will get its sensors from, should SONY "pixx them off". I don't think your "SONY has to fear Nikon" theory makes any sense at all. What am I missing?
Nikon could make their own. Quite the capital investment, but technically they already make industrial photolithography equipment. They'd likely have to partner with someone, but the possibility exists. For Nikon there's no sense in duplicating what Sony industrial offers if they can strike a mutually beneficial, exclusive agreement. All the design sharing the rumours speak

What you are missing is premiums. Nikon offers volume guarantees at fixed, long term prices. That's obvious because the price of FF's has hardly budged. No sane company like Sony will pixx off this deal for the 1% of relative sales Pentax would add, while complicating Sony Imaging's own market presence. The last thing Sony wants is another FF company in the mix. And if Nikon has an engineering spec sharing agreement, then they are almost certainly proprietary, meaning only Sony and Nikon get that gen of sensor, likely for a long run. Pentax would get a ha;f-gne later leftovers at non-olume pricing. I have seen these types of arrangements in many industries. The business positions to date of Sony and Nikon indicate that FF will stay a high premium product by limiting supply of sensors. Adding another retail presence like Pentax would make poor biz sense when the real competition is Canon. The saying is: "3 is better than 4, and 2 is better than 3". It's MBA 101.

08-09-2011, 08:31 PM   #260
Veteran Member
jsherman999's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,228
Misinformation Repair

QuoteOriginally posted by Aristophanes Quote
...

QuoteOriginally posted by Class A Quote
AFAIC, he's not splitting hairs at all.

He makes an important distinction between what companies would like customers to believe (or what some customers believe) vs what is necessary.

Earlier you wrote "[The D700] loses 'value' because it requires big glass at high cost". Jay has just explained why that's not a correct statement. Not splitting hairs at all.

It is a correct statement because the market, not Jay's logic, is what matters.


Well, you're missing my point again, but now I suspect you're missing it on purpose....

I'll try once more, just in case: From a DSLR manufacturer's perspective, large expensive zooms are a something close to a requirement in order to maximize profits and accelerate ROI.

To an individual shooter, they are not - they are simply an option. It's a refutation of your statement that "D700 loses value because it requires big glass at high cost", when

1) 'value' is determined by the individual shooter, not the manufacturer, and
2) It obviously doesn't require big glass at high cost, from that shooter's perspective. Unless they've been misinformed.

In other words: if you dislike large, expensive zooms, that need not be a reason you stay away from FF. Because they're not required. My point was an attempt at proactive misinformation repair.


.

.
08-09-2011, 08:54 PM   #261
Veteran Member
jsherman999's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,228
FF: Canon:1 Nikon:2 Sony:3 Ricoh:4, with a bullet

QuoteOriginally posted by Aristophanes Quote
... Adding another retail presence like Pentax would make poor biz sense when the real competition is Canon. The saying is: "3 is better than 4, and 2 is better than 3". It's MBA 101.

Of course that doesn't really apply directly here, because numbers two and four would be buying the most expensive element (sensor) in the retail good from number three, who happens to have a division that manufactures those elements. Oh, and number four also happens to be in a blood battle with number one in another area (copiers.)

(We've already established that any sensors that contain Nikon IP are probably not on the table.)

MBA 102 warns against misapplication of microeconomic platitudes.

.

Last edited by jsherman999; 08-09-2011 at 09:05 PM.
08-09-2011, 09:59 PM   #262
Site Supporter
Clinton's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,826
Can I just have my $3500 FF K-1 yet?
08-09-2011, 10:50 PM   #263
New Member




Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 8
QuoteOriginally posted by Class A Quote
BTW, you still haven't told me where Nikon will get its sensors from, should SONY "pixx them off". I don't think your "SONY has to fear Nikon" theory makes any sense at all. What am I missing?
Nikon have some sensors which are not Sony, most probably they are produced by Renesas.The sensors of the D3, D3s, D700 and D3100 are made by Nikon
This Nikon sensors are a lot different than Sony ones.

08-10-2011, 12:30 AM   #264
Forum Member




Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: adelaide
Photos: Albums
Posts: 89
QuoteOriginally posted by jsherman999 Quote
#2 is a myth, largely. As I said, it's about as true as 'you need to buy zeiss lenses to get the most out of your Pentax'. Maybe technically true, but the small difference in output quality between a zeiss and it's equivalent Limited for example is only detectable in a controlled test and would be virtually invisible when viewing real-world results.
Yeah but that logic just about kills the entire thread,in the real world none of this(photograpically) matters.les3457 posted a nice comparison between the Pentax 31 and the Zeiss 28 in the lens section,perhaps you might like to read it.Failing that or also go to FM and check out the Alternative Gear forum,post your Zeiss theory there,it might be illuminating for you.
08-10-2011, 12:46 AM   #265
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: kobe/japan
Posts: 510
QuoteOriginally posted by Aristophanes Quote

Tell that to Nikon and Canon. they understand both markets and photography far better than you do!
Why???

Are Nikon/Canon posting in this thread. As far as I understand Nikon or Canon never claimed that Zooms are required for Full frames. Not in this thread NOR at any other forums that I read.
Do you have link to such a claim made by them.


So I again repeat, if anyone thinks zooms are a *requirement* for FFs then he does not understand photography.
08-10-2011, 01:50 AM   #266
Pentaxian
RonHendriks1966's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2009
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,714
QuoteOriginally posted by Clinton Quote
Can I just have my $3500 FF K-1 yet?
Not yet, we first have to sort out wich lenses are required before you are alowed to leave the shop.


Well lenses are tools. So if it is a zoom or a prime, it needs to fill the bill. So it has to deliver on sensor performance. With a high quality FF sensor of 24 or 36 megapixel, it better is a damn good lens.

For losing the crop wich is so handy for tele you need some good long glass.

So we are back again with some good, longer en fast glass. 85mm/f1.4; 135mm/f2; 80-200mm/f2.8; 300mm/f2.8; 600mm/f4 and more of this. Also some nice wide angle and something mediumzoom.

That are a lot off new lenses in both zoom and prime but not all off them have to be there at the start. I don't have enough money to buy them all at once.
08-10-2011, 03:45 AM   #267
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 16,255
There is such an odd mix of statements on this thread. Some people wanting a "bare bones, stripped down" full frame camera (of course lacking video). Some people wanting a bigger camera, some wanting a smaller camera. Some not caring if there is SR in the camera or not. Most not caring if Pentax releases any new lenses with this camera, because of course, they will be using older, cheaper lenses with it.

Just a quick comment on the primes versus zooms issue. Professionals tend to use zooms. Hobbyists use what they are comfortable with. Pentaxians tend to use primes more (although there are certainly plenty of zoom users even here on the forum, where I would think the die-hard prime users would be). Professionals may recommend primes for ultimate image quality, I know many professional photographers and all but one use zooms nearly entirely for paid work (the one who doesn't bought a Canon 50mm f1.2 L and uses that all the time, but she doesn't really have money for other lenses at present either).

Anyway, I don't think Pentax can listen to us, since I don't think we really know what we want. In the end, Pentax has to decide if they can make money on such a camera and accompanying lenses. Once again, none of us actually knows the answer to that. I just hope the K Mount continues to be supported long term.
08-10-2011, 05:28 AM   #268
Pentaxian
TaoMaas's Avatar

Join Date: May 2007
Location: Oklahoma City
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,197
QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
Some people wanting a "bare bones, stripped down" full frame camera (of course lacking video).
I'm one of the folks who talked about dropping features so that Pentax could make a smaller, cheaper FF. But on my walk into work yesterday, I passed a video crew shooting a commercial for a local jeweler. They were shooting with a Canon FF DSLR. Hmmm...... Now I'm wondering if ramping up the video capabilities on a Pentax FF might help create that niche that would make it more viable. Just a thought.....
08-10-2011, 07:17 AM   #269
Veteran Member
maxfield_photo's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Posts: 1,215
Well my reason for not wanting video is I would never use the feature, and I'd rather not pay for something that I'll never use. But I have to acknowledge the fact that if the camera were released without video, it would turn away those wannabe Ingmar Bergmans who are looking to shoot the next Seventh Seal, so I think it is a necessary evil if the camera is to be successful. I'd also like a larger camera, but I realize that the trend these days is for smaller, and Pentax will probably make it as small the mirror box will allow (hopefully they will not forgo shake reduction).

As for lenses, I think a lot of pros would use primes if they could, but since professional photography requires a lot of improvisation, and since there is a limited amount of room in a camera bag, they opt for a few large-aperture zooms rather than many primes. Also since a lot of pros use a flash, zooms allow them to get closer without changing the flash-to-subject distance. (the TTL folks probably don't care though)
08-10-2011, 08:35 AM   #270
Veteran Member
jsherman999's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,228
QuoteOriginally posted by maxfield_photo Quote
Well my reason for not wanting video is I would never use the feature, and I'd rather not pay for something that I'll never use.
I agree with the sentiment, but if the sensor and the bus supports video transfer already, it adds very little to the cost of the camera to include video capability for the user. Now.. AF during video may add some more significant cost, but again, probably not a huge amount (speculation on my part, though re AF.)
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, frame, pentax, photography
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
full frame digital beaumont Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 55 01-30-2011 06:31 AM
LX + Scan=Full Frame Digital ziggy7 Pentax Film SLR Discussion 45 01-09-2011 01:59 AM
Digital Only or Full Frame lenses JamieP Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 15 05-10-2009 08:48 PM
DA vs FA Limited and the question of full frame digital 8540tomg Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 27 11-29-2008 10:07 AM
Full Frame Digital with DA lenses konraDarnok Pentax News and Rumors 27 08-20-2008 11:07 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:05 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