Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
08-11-2011, 01:07 AM   #286
Pentaxian




Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Hoek van Holland
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,252
QuoteOriginally posted by jsherman999 Quote
Lordy. Did you even take the time to really read what I wrote? I'm serious, did you?




Never expected this to be such a difficult concept.

At this point I'm having a hard time figuring out what you think I'm saying with the (I thought) rather self-evident point that You don't have to buy big expensive zooms to take advantage of full frame. I'm simply describing the situation from the viewpoint of an astute FF customer. You seem to think I'm trying to describe a market model or speak in terms of a larger strategy for the manufacturer.

Did you read item #1 in that post up there? You see how I've said that I agree with it, and that it's distinct from item #2, which is a myth? (note: you can think of item #1 as a Cliff's Notes version of most of what you wrote in the paragraph above.)

Here, no need to scroll up




Maybe this is the problem: Don't confuse item #2 with "the manufacturer doesn't require a lot of people to buy the expensive zooms", because it does, or at least it comes close to a requirement, and that's what #1 was meant to cover. #2 describes a common falsehood seen from a shooter's perspective.



.
I do not think so, so let's see if I get what you are writing

Do DSLR manufacturors have to produce big fast zooms? Yes, because they will generate money for them.
Does a consumer have to buy one? No, if he doesn't need it.
Do DSLR manufacturors say that you need big fast zooms otherwise your FF will not deliver. Yes, as it makes money for them.
Does a consumer have to buy one? No, as slower smaller zooms, or even primes might fit their budget and/or requirements better. And they will get results which will be more than good enough anyway.

08-11-2011, 02:17 AM   #287
Pentaxian
Clavius's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: De Klundert
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 4,122
Maybe a stupid question of mine but... Can we really even tell the difference in IQ between FF and APS?

When I compare medium format pictures with APS pictures, a difference in IQ is clearly noticable. But when I compare FF pictures with APS the difference in IQ can be almost niglected. I don't see any difference, whilst I got 20/20 vision.

Why would Pentax invest in such a product? Isn't THAT the reason why they skipped the FF and developed a medium format in the first place? The step just isn't big and rewarding enough to be worthwhile?
08-11-2011, 03:01 AM - 2 Likes   #288
Veteran Member
Verglace's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 468
There's more reason to go FF than just IQ. Even then, a lot of people agree that full frame is better, and mathematically it is better. The main reasons I would like to get a FF camera are:

1. Larger Viewfinder
2. Finer D.O.F. control (it can go much much smaller)
3. Better IQ
4. To satisfy my tech side

Sure the 645D can satisfy all those, but then the 645D does not use the K-mount. It's not an upgrade path, it's essentially the same as buying into a new system and costs much much more than many FF cameras (5D/D700).
08-11-2011, 04:11 AM   #289
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 16,243
QuoteOriginally posted by Macario Quote
I do not think so, so let's see if I get what you are writing

Do DSLR manufacturors have to produce big fast zooms? Yes, because they will generate money for them.
Does a consumer have to buy one? No, if he doesn't need it.
Do DSLR manufacturors say that you need big fast zooms otherwise your FF will not deliver. Yes, as it makes money for them.
Does a consumer have to buy one? No, as slower smaller zooms, or even primes might fit their budget and/or requirements better. And they will get results which will be more than good enough anyway.
I think the question is who buys a *large* full frame camera, that also happens to cost 3500 dollars? It may be a budget conscious individual who buys it to mount his budget prime collection on. I doubt this is the case generally. More often, it will be someone who wants "the best" and doesn't care about size. In fact, they see their big lenses as signs of their virility and show them to be above the common APS-C SLR user.

To me, the question really comes down to whether or not you need the narrow depth of field full frame offers. I venture to say that after cropping, post processing and other standard manipulations it would be hard for most people to pick out the difference between these two formats.

To me, narrow depth of field is a side effect of opening up wide aperture lenses in order to get decent shutter speeds. It is not its goal. I have already had the experience shooting a couple at f2-ish in lower light and had the guy in good focus and the girl really soft.

It is clear to me that APS-C gives me one stop more depth of field for the same shutter speeds and that, in general is a good thing. I can understand wanting something different, but I don't really understand where the goal of "as narrow depth of field as possible" started.

08-11-2011, 04:25 AM   #290
Site Supporter
Aristophanes's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Dartmouth, Nova Scotia
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,922
QuoteOriginally posted by zxaar Quote
Prove it.


If you can not prove it, then it is another one of silly opinion of yours which has almost ZERO value.
It's called the market. It has all the value. No company invests hundreds of millions if $$$ in capital unless they know who or why items are bought. Not opinion...fact.
08-11-2011, 05:55 AM   #291
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Romania
Posts: 9,336
I can't say I completely agree, IMO both primes and zooms are necessary even if more zooms are sold.
But since Pentax already (still?) have some very nice FF primes, ("standard") zooms would be an absolute priority.
08-11-2011, 06:07 AM   #292
Site Supporter
Clinton's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,826
QuoteOriginally posted by Clavius Quote
Maybe a stupid question of mine but... Can we really even tell the difference in IQ between FF and APS?
Lets say that Pentax continues their APSC trend, keeping pace with the sensors and being able to compete against the full frame sensors in terms of resolution and high ISO shooting (which at some point runs up against the laws of physics).

A sensor or two down the road, we wont be able to achieve maximum resolution at much more than F5.6 or even F4 because the point of diffraction moves down as sensor resolution moves up at the same sensor size. Eventually, a 26 megapixel image at F8 will only be as clear as a 16ish megapixel image.

However if the sensor is bigger, that changes the rules, both in terms of the laws of physics for high ISO shooting.
08-11-2011, 06:27 AM   #293
Pentaxian
redrockcoulee's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Medicine Hat
Posts: 2,135
QuoteOriginally posted by Clinton Quote
Lets say that Pentax continues their APSC trend, keeping pace with the sensors and being able to compete against the full frame sensors in terms of resolution and high ISO shooting (which at some point runs up against the laws of physics).

A sensor or two down the road, we wont be able to achieve maximum resolution at much more than F5.6 or even F4 because the point of diffraction moves down as sensor resolution moves up at the same sensor size. Eventually, a 26 megapixel image at F8 will only be as clear as a 16ish megapixel image.

However if the sensor is bigger, that changes the rules, both in terms of the laws of physics for high ISO shooting.
Will this not also be the case for full frames in a few more generations after it is for APSC? Not an agruement but just trying to understand. And if that is the case how many generations could this be?

08-11-2011, 06:35 AM   #294
Site Supporter
Clinton's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,826
QuoteOriginally posted by redrockcoulee Quote
Will this not also be the case for full frames in a few more generations after it is for APSC? Not an agruement but just trying to understand. And if that is the case how many generations could this be?
It is. At some point you really cant add more megapixels to any sensor without iso noise going up as light jumps from receptor to receptor and the airy circles of diffraction being picked up due to more resolution.

This article is great at explaining the point of diffraction, and it has a calculator you can play with at the end:

Diffraction Limited Photography: Pixel Size, Aperture and Airy Disks
08-11-2011, 07:14 AM   #295
Pentaxian
Clavius's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: De Klundert
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 4,122
QuoteOriginally posted by Clinton Quote
Lets say that Pentax continues their APSC trend, keeping pace with the sensors and being able to compete against the full frame sensors in terms of resolution and high ISO shooting (which at some point runs up against the laws of physics).

A sensor or two down the road, we wont be able to achieve maximum resolution at much more than F5.6 or even F4 because the point of diffraction moves down as sensor resolution moves up at the same sensor size. Eventually, a 26 megapixel image at F8 will only be as clear as a 16ish megapixel image.

However if the sensor is bigger, that changes the rules, both in terms of the laws of physics for high ISO shooting.

OK thanks, now I understand a lot more... But I'm also back to my original point. The FF sensor isn't *THAT* much bigger then the APS-C sensor. And that's why the IQ also isn't that much better. As I said, it's barely noticable. Is it then worth putting R&D and resource in that for Pentax?

I mean, APS-C would be on it's limit in two sensor generations time... But then the FF wil follow a generation later.

Haha... Eventually this would mean: Bigger = better.
08-11-2011, 07:39 AM   #296
Administrator
Site Webmaster
Adam's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Arizona
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 43,141
FF sensors offer more resolution or better noise performance- there's no denying that as there's twice as much room to get the same job done. But I agree that the generational difference will probably just keep getting smaller and smaller.

With that said I was e-mailed a link to an interesting post listing Pentax's recent patents:
Rumores Pentax 2011

It looks like they are looking into a better shutter mechanism and a new AF system, which suggests that they're researching a. faster framerates and b. AF during video recording. While this doesn't mean that a full-frame is on its way, it definitely suggests that they're putting time into SLR R&D instead of wasting time with mirrorless gear etc.

Adam
PentaxForums.com Webmaster (Site Usage Guide | Site Help | My Photography)



PentaxForums.com's high server and development costs are user-supported. You can help cover those costs by donating. Or, buy your photo gear from our affiliates, Adorama, B&H Photo, or Topaz Labs, and get FREE Marketplace access - click here to see how! Trusted Pentax retailers:

08-11-2011, 07:59 AM   #297
Veteran Member




Join Date: Aug 2009
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,236
QuoteOriginally posted by Clavius Quote
OK thanks, now I understand a lot more... But I'm also back to my original point. The FF sensor isn't *THAT* much bigger then the APS-C sensor. And that's why the IQ also isn't that much better. As I said, it's barely noticable. Is it then worth putting R&D and resource in that for Pentax?
Image sensor format - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The size difference looks pretty significant to me. My math skills are not good, but it looks like more than 40% more area to capture light?
08-11-2011, 08:42 AM   #298
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 5,799
QuoteOriginally posted by sjwaldron Quote
Image sensor format - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The size difference looks pretty significant to me. My math skills are not good, but it looks like more than 40% more area to capture light?
The lens projects the same image circle regardless of the sensor size. The intensity of light transmitted through the lens is always the same.

If I mask off the outer 50% of the pixels on a D3s sensor do the unmasked photosites become less efficient? NO. But I have decreased the effective size of the sensor....

Size is only important because it allows you to use larger more efficient photosites which gather more light and have a higher capacity.

There are many variables to sensor performance. The GH-1 has a sensor that is better than the APS-C sensor in my K-7. D3s, D3x, & A900 are all the same size and yet they all three have very different high ISO performance.

If the heat issues with back illuminated sensors are worked out we will see them in 4/3 size sensors first, and they will probably outperform APS-C sensors. BI sensors suffer from heat issues and it gets worse as the sensor gets larger. Smaller BI sensors outperform larger front Illuminated sensors. This is why Pentax is using a smaller BI sensor in the Q.
08-11-2011, 09:04 AM   #299
Pentaxian
RonHendriks1966's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2009
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,714
QuoteOriginally posted by Adam Quote
With that said I was e-mailed a link to an interesting post listing Pentax's recent patents:
Rumores Pentax 2011

It looks like they are looking into a better shutter mechanism and a new AF system, which suggests that they're researching a. faster framerates and b. AF during video recording. While this doesn't mean that a full-frame is on its way, it definitely suggests that they're putting time into SLR R&D instead of wasting time with mirrorless gear etc.
well the new sensor that should be in Sony's A77 should do 12 fps and that probably is needing a new shutter.
08-11-2011, 11:53 AM   #300
Pentaxian
redrockcoulee's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Medicine Hat
Posts: 2,135
QuoteOriginally posted by Clinton Quote
It is. At some point you really cant add more megapixels to any sensor without iso noise going up as light jumps from receptor to receptor and the airy circles of diffraction being picked up due to more resolution.

This article is great at explaining the point of diffraction, and it has a calculator you can play with at the end:

Diffraction Limited Photography: Pixel Size, Aperture and Airy Disks
Thanks for the link and in answering my question.
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 01:10 PM. | 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