[Blue]

This thread has crossed my 20 page threshold that I usually reserve for lens clubs. If I continue to read it through 40 pages, do I get my FF Pentax?

No, but you can spend the night at a Holiday Inn Express and pretend your K-5 is a ff in the morning.

[maxfield_photo]

This thread has crossed my 20 page threshold that I usually reserve for lens clubs. If I continue to read it through 40 pages, do I get my FF Pentax?

12 pages of folks wanting a FF, and 12 pages of folks telling us why we shouldn't want one. Clearly, it's a touchy subject, I have to wonder why they care though.

[jsherman999]

12 pages of folks wanting a FF, and 12 pages of folks telling us why we shouldn't want one. Clearly, it's a touchy subject, I have to wonder why they care though.

Was wondering the same thing a couple months ago after a dpreview thread on FF went sour, and put my thoughts in this thread already:

My view:

1) Some simply don't see the business case for it. Every time I've see armchair analysis to support that, here and in other forums, it seems to suffer from two faults: A) It's a smart 18-month plan, but a shortsighted long-term plan for K-mount, or, lately, B) It applies directly to Pentax-standalone, not Pentax-Hoya and even less to Pentax-Ricoh - because the capital involved to make a FF push, and the ROI associated involves a lower percentage of revenue, thus less net risk to the parent organization. And a longish ROI (3-6 years) is less of a big deal if the expenditure is 1% of gross revenue (with Ricoh) than if it's something like 50% of gross value (Pentax Imaging-standalone.)

2) Some don't care about FF, have no intention of buying a FF camera, and feel that talk surrounding the issue is tiresome, because they think it doesn't in any way apply to them (yet it does - they share the same mount and will benefit directly from investment in it.)

3) Some actively campaign against it because they feel their aps-c-only lens investment will be devalued, or their top-o-line Pentax body will no longer be top-o-line, or both. There's an active anti-FF campaigner on dpreview who recently admitted to this - it surprised me, but made me admire his honesty.

(Some Anti's fit into two or more of these categories, etc. However the folks who simply say "It would be neat, might consider buying one, but doubt we'll ever see it" and move on are not in any of those categories, they're simply healthy sceptics. )


.


.

[Winder]

according to dxo mark sensors d3x k5 d7000 vastly outperform the one from d3 d3s or d700 in respect with dynamic range....

You are comparing sensor technology that is two generations old? The D3 and D700 line is due to be replaced and announcements are expected very soon. Then you can compare.

[Winder]

Not sure what you are saying. According to Dxo mark the D3x has better dynamic range than the D3s by a stop and half. I haven't shot with either camera, so I can't really comment otherwise. Iso shooting does seem to go to the D3x by half a stop.

In general, new technology not only brings better dynamic range/high iso shooting, it also brings more pixels and by definition smaller pixels. So far, the smaller pixels have not stopped the improvements in the other areas.

The D3x has ISO 100 and the D3s does not. This throws off the curve that DxO uses. This is why the K-5 outperforms the D7000 even though they are the same sensor. K-5 uses ISO 80 where as the D7000 uses ISO 100.

The area under the curve is a better guide to which sensor preforms better over the entire range.

You could compare the A900 and the D3x which use the same sensor. There is a significant variation between the two even though they use the same sensor.

[RioRico]

Full-frame cameras are too large.

[twitch]

Full-frame cameras are too large.

Wow, hate to see the medium format digital version.

[Kunzite]

I wonder if you do not get what I wrote, or you just simply ignore it on purpose because you want to make your statement and that is the only statement that count's.
If you would really read what I wrote, you would see that I wrote that there are ways to make lenses work on the body. So no lens would be wasted.

I really read what you wrote. I've even downloaded the Z-20 manual to take a look, as I don't have that camera - what a cumbersome interface! Lots of button pushing to do for what I'm doing by just twisting a dial, on my K-5. That could be solved by a mode dial, however what we'll get is... the K-r (current single wheel) interface.
Besides, you don't get my point - at all. It doesn't make sense to start with an inferior, incompatible concept and somehow make it work when a superior alternative is available.

If you carefully read what I wrote, I've already addressed this in my previous messages. I'm just repeating to make things clear.

[rawr]

Full-frame cameras are too large.

Size has it's advantages when cleaning time comes around:

[Macario]

I really read what you wrote. I've even downloaded the Z-20 manual to take a look, as I don't have that camera - what a cumbersome interface! Lots of button pushing to do for what I'm doing by just twisting a dial, on my K-5. That could be solved by a mode dial, however what we'll get is... the K-r (current single wheel) interface.
Besides, you don't get my point - at all. It doesn't make sense to start with an inferior, incompatible concept and somehow make it work when a superior alternative is available.

If you carefully read what I wrote, I've already addressed this in my previous messages. I'm just repeating to make things clear.

Ah, there is your biggest mistake, you downloaded and read the manual and based your opinion on that. With just reading the manual, I would never have bought the Z-20. because it would not have made any sense to me. But I needed a quick back-up which didn't cost too much, and at that time I could get the Z-20. And withing a few frames the set-up made a lot off sense to me. And have you actaully ever used the MZ-S?

also with the dual wheels, if you really read. You would have noticed that I said that I love the dual wheels on my K-7 and that for me personally how the single wheel is implemented on the K-R does not work. But if implemented in the way it was done on the Z-20 it could work. Never said it would, it could.

Further more, there was a lot of sceptism about the MZ-S interface when it came out. But when it was reviewed, all of the reviewers said that how it worked was very easy, and very quick (and this was in the time when there were already many dual wheel cameras on the market). So Don't dismiss something already before you have tried it

[Macario]

Oh and talking about crippled or inferior, In the MZ time there were low end budget cameras Like the MZ-10 which used a crippled K mount, as in they could only use lenses with a A setting, and only use them in that setting. They were called crippled because they could not use any other pentax lens. If you were a serious amatuer, you would get one of the cameras that did not have the crippled K mount. This was taken into the Digital era, and because people that owned Pentax lenses were furious that they couldn't use the old legacy lenses without an A setting , they used a trick to work around it, the stop down metering. So when looked from that point, what we have now is a crippled inferiour K-mount on all the digital cameras.

[RonHendriks1966]

This is getting funny. I want a not so large full frame

[Rondec]

Full-frame cameras are too large.

With Pentax's experience in miniaturization, I bet they get the camera, maybe half that size?

[Kunzite]

And have you actaully ever used the MZ-S?

Yes, and it was "love at the first touch" - it fitted my hand like a glove. Again you're making no effort to understand my point - which has nothing to do with love or hate, with it being usable with old lenses or not.

Rondec, half the size? I'll need a bigger camera bag, can you recommend me something?

[Macario]

Yes, and it was "love at the first touch" - it fitted my hand like a glove. Again you're making no effort to understand my point - which has nothing to do with love or hate, with it being usable with old lenses or not.

Rondec, half the size? I'll need a bigger camera bag, can you recommend me something?

Ofcourse I do get your point, it is an old camera with an old Af system, only 2.5FPS, not dual wheel so you cannot use your DA lenses (which are optimized for APS-C, so who knows if and how they will perform on a FF concidering the borders. And if buying FF, why use those lenses and crop, therefore not fully using the FF sensor),so not from this time. But that is excactly the point, you see just that, you do not see beyond that. Yes the AF sytem is dated, ok lets put a new one in. Only 2.5FPS, hey with the material we have now we can go to 8FPS let's throw that in. HHHHHHMMMMMMMM, people are used to dual wheels now, lets see if it can work, or see if we can come with another solution. the slanted top, hm, it was very good back then, but now with the LCD screens, it doesn't really need to be slanted anymore. The point is, they have had a working FF camera the MZ-S which does fit a FF sensor (we can only guess if it will in a K-5 body), so if I would work in their R&D departemt, I would say, ok we are going for FF, and we have one already so let's see first what we can do with that base before totally designing a new camera (and before any remarks, I do work in R&D and have worked for in different companies, so I do know how they generaly think and operate).
And that is why I said if they would come out with a FF camera which looks liek the MZ-S I would be tempted, cause I know if they do it, it will be totally updated to todays specs.