[northcoastgreg]

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.

Actually, far from repairing misinformation, this just once again misses the very point at issue. The question is not whether this or that individual dislikes large, expensive zooms, but whether there is a large enough market of photographers who would be willing to shoot smaller, slower, inexpensive primes with expensive FF cameras to make it worth while, in terms of profitability, for Pentax to introduce such a camera. All indications strongly suggest that the expensive FF/cheap prime market is very small, and that most people interested and capable of buying an FF camera will wish to use it with an FF zoom. And even among those who wish to use primes with FF, how many of them will be eager to use, not the slow, inexpensive primes favored by the handful of budget minded FF consumers, but the expensive professional primes, like the Canon 50/1.2 and the Nikkor 24/1.4? Again, it's all about what most people will do, not what they can do.

It should also be noted that many of the slower primes in the Canikon lineup, particuarly the wide angles, are not as well regarded as the f2.8 zooms. Since the primary reason for FF is incremental improvement in IQ, most photographers who can afford a $2,500+ camera are not going to be inclined to stick a $300 prime in front of it. If you are an IQ junkie and you need your fix (and that's what seems to be driving the FF mania among the enthusiast crowd), what's the point of spending all the money for an FF and then taking a step backward with the glass?

[Rondec]

Actually, far from repairing misinformation, this just once again misses the very point at issue. The question is not whether this or that individual dislikes large, expensive zooms, but whether there is a large enough market of photographers who would be willing to shoot smaller, slower, inexpensive primes with expensive FF cameras to make it worth while, in terms of profitability, for Pentax to introduce such a camera. All indications strongly suggest that the expensive FF/cheap prime market is very small, and that most people interested and capable of buying an FF camera will wish to use it with an FF zoom. And even among those who wish to use primes with FF, how many of them will be eager to use, not the slow, inexpensive primes favored by the handful of budget minded FF consumers, but the expensive professional primes, like the Canon 50/1.2 and the Nikkor 24/1.4? Again, it's all about what most people will do, not what they can do.

It should also be noted that many of the slower primes in the Canikon lineup, particuarly the wide angles, are not as well regarded as the f2.8 zooms. Since the primary reason for FF is incremental improvement in IQ, most photographers who can afford a $2,500+ camera are not going to be inclined to stick a $300 prime in front of it. If you are an IQ junkie and you need your fix (and that's what seems to be driving the FF mania among the enthusiast crowd), what's the point of spending all the money for an FF and then taking a step backward with the glass?

And then putting a 5 dollar Tiffen filter in front of it all.

[RonHendriks1966]

And we want that new screen on the back: Sony makes 'WhiteMagic' LCD panel with brighter or lower power modes: Digital Photography Review

Or do we want a bigger screen then 3" VGA or a 4" wide 16:9 screen?

Edit: and a better jpg in the RAW image to review since it is of very low quality to review.

[jsherman999]

Actually, far from repairing misinformation, this just once again misses the very point at issue. The question is not whether this or that individual dislikes large, expensive zooms, but whether there is a large enough market of photographers who would be willing to shoot smaller, slower, inexpensive primes with expensive FF cameras to make it worth while, in terms of profitability,

No, you've missed my point as well. It's actually tangential to the main point of this thread, but it's vital. See my item #1 in the original post on the subject (quoted below), it basically describes what you're talking about:

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.

for Pentax to introduce such a camera. All indications strongly suggest that the expensive FF/cheap prime market is very small, and that most people interested and capable of buying an FF camera will wish to use it with an FF zoom. And even among those who wish to use primes with FF, how many of them will be eager to use, not the slow, inexpensive primes favored by the handful of budget minded FF consumers, but the expensive professional primes, like the Canon 50/1.2 and the Nikkor 24/1.4? Again, it's all about what most people will do, not what they can do.

Yet there are people continually saying "I don't like or can't afford the big zooms, so I doubt I'd gain much from FF."

Incidentally, one of the kick-in-the pants events that got me considering FF in the first place was a chance meeting with a pro getting some prints made in my local camera shop. He mentioned to me that the lens he probably used most on his D700 was the pre-D 50 1.8. I thought that was encouraging to hear, and made me re-think the whole idea of FF... Of course I was sure I wouldn't do that, I'd get the best primes and at least the 14-24 2.8 at some point, but now 1.5 years after I bought my D700, my most used lens is... the 50 1.8D.

Now, Pentax would/should offer the big zooms for a number of reasons, if they bring out a FF DSLR. But someone doesn't need to buy those zooms to take advantage of FF. Read the following in green again carefully:

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.

In my experience, one of the biggest advantages of FF lies in the wide-normal focal lengths, where the FOV/DOF combos can bring results aps-c physically or financially can't match. For example, there is no 13mm f/1.8, no 16mm f/1.8, no 35mm f/1.2, etc for aps-c. The small primes bring you these combos for a fraction of the cost it would require to approach them on aps-c. This is an advantage for FF.

It should also be noted that many of the slower primes in the Canikon lineup, particuarly the wide angles, are not as well regarded as the f2.8 zooms.

Can't speak for Canon, but I've found that the Nikon 20 2.8D is very good. It doesn't have the flare control of the DA 15ltd, but in just about every way it compares - including size. It's a joy to shoot in the D700 because of it's size and sharpness, and provides, In aps-c equiv FOV/DOF terms, a 13mm f/1.8 lens.

The Nikon 24 2.8D was sub-par, IMO, but I've found a Sigma Super-wide II 24mm f/2.8 AF for $77 that is better than the Nikon 24-70 2.8 I tried at 24mm wide-open. And it's tiny. The little 50 1.8D provides an incredibly useful FOV on FF, locks focus very, very quickly, allows incredible DOF control, and basically out-resolves the sensor. It's going to be a while before I reach the limits of this equipment, if I ever do.

Since the primary reason for FF is incremental improvement in IQ, most photographers who can afford a $2,500+ camera are not going to be inclined to stick a $300 prime in front of it.

Those who actually know what they're doing may, as long as what they don't actually require is the versatility of a zoom. And if they do need the versatility, there are some excellent alternatives to the big $2K zooms - like the smaller, $300 Tamron 28-75 2.8 in the example I gave. And FWIW, for most telephoto users I'd recommend the $1200 Sigma 100-300 f/4 HSM on FF before the $2300 Nikon 70-200 2.8. I think it's sharper, focuses just as fast if not faster, It's a bit lighter, and gets you more reach.

If you are an IQ junkie and you need your fix (and that's what seems to be driving the FF mania among the enthusiast crowd), what's the point of spending all the money for an FF and then taking a step backward with the glass?

That's entirely the point - it's not a a step back at all, especially when size is a value criteria. And keep in mind that 'enthusiasts' outnumber 'pros' by a huge margin among FF customers. Thom Hogan has said that there are not enough pros out there to account for sales of the D3 alone, let alone the D700, 5DII, 1DSII, A900, etc.

Enthusiasts are in it for the fun - and the D700 with a set of small, sharp primes and/or 3rd party zooms is very fun, and can be relatively affordable. As could a Pentax K-1 with the incredible FA LImiteds, and various other FF primes and zooms.


.

---

Last edited by jsherman999; 08-10-2011 at 01:51 PM.

[Macario]

Ok, is it just me, or doesn't most what is written here make any sense. Isn't it just that you need the lens that fits your photography the best, and is within your budget. If you need big expensive zooms, wel then get them. If you don't, then why wouldn't you be able to get the best out of a FF camera? At the end, it is the result that counts. Do I need a big 2.8 zoom? No I don't for my photography, does this mean that my photo's will be of inferior quality if I would have a FF camera? That is just plain arrogant to say. I would rather have primes, and if a zoom, then the 250-600. But sadly that is way, way out of my budget. Maybe a good thing, as it is not 2.8, so my pics would probably be rubish anyway

[Rondec]

Ok, is it just me, or doesn't most what is written here make any sense. Isn't it just that you need the lens that fits your photography the best, and is within your budget. If you need big expensive zooms, wel then get them. If you don't, then why wouldn't you be able to get the best out of a FF camera? At the end, it is the result that counts. Do I need a big 2.8 zoom? No I don't for my photography, does this mean that my photo's will be of inferior quality if I would have a FF camera? That is just plain arrogant to say. I would rather have primes, and if a zoom, then the 250-600. But sadly that is way, way out of my budget. Maybe a good thing, as it is not 2.8, so my pics would probably be rubish anyway

Well, I think this thread is not really about glass, it is about bodies. The glass just happens to be mentioned with regard to a specific variety of body. Traditionally, people would recommend saving money on a camera body and buying more expensive glass, but clearly that is not the perspective of some on this thread.

[sjwaldron]

Yet there are people continually saying "I don't like or can't afford the big zooms, so I doubt I'd gain much from FF."

Incidentally, one of the kick-in-the pants events that got me considering FF in the first place was a chance meeting with a pro getting some prints made in my local camera shop. He mentioned to me that the lens he probably used most on his D700 was the pre-D 50 1.8. I thought that was encouraging to hear, and made me re-think the whole idea of FF... Of course I was sure I wouldn't do that, I'd get the best primes and at least the 14-24 2.8 at some point, but now 1.5 years after I bought my D700, my most used lens is... the 50 1.8D.

I want Pentax full-frame because I shoot with prime lenses most of the time.

DA* 300mm - Useful in more situations.
DA* 55mm - Now a fast general purpose normal with WR & SDM.
FA 31mm - Back to its intended purpose, a wide angle.
D-FA 100mm - Useful in more situations.
FA* 85mm - Back to its intended purpose.
DA 40mm - Now a slight wide angle.

I also have a few M42 lenses that would benefit for easier manual focus with a nice big viewfinder.

That's one of the big points I see to having a FF camera body to go along with my APS-C bodies. More versatility out of my prime lenses. It just really makes sense to me. As I've said before, I would not switch to FF, I would supplement my kit with it. The 645 system isn't an option for a multitude of reasons.

I now see video as something that's important as I've been getting into it more. I think Pentax's next K-mount push will include improved video control because I'm not sure where else they will go with APS-C after the K-5. I can see them including that in the FF body as Pentax seems pretty good in crossing over technology, just look at how similar the 645D is in some aspects to the K-7/K-5. I think the main issue for Pentax FF is if Sony has a sensor for it at a decent price.

[Pentikonian]

I understand jsherman999's point perfectly.

There are people out there who believe, because of what they have been told or read, that it would be a waste of their money to buy a FF camera unless they are willing to spend the big bucks for the latest-greatest super-glass.

The 70-200 2.8 VRII is not necessary to produce great imagery... understanding light, exposure, composition, etc... highly contribute to the act of producing a photograph.

Having said that, people should use what glass they need to get the images they need or want.

If you are a pro, and if you need the new expensive zooms to get the images that meet your client's expectations - get the glass. If a prime will meet those expectations - get the glass.

For the hobbyists/ enthusiasts/ soccer moms/ etc... get what you need to shoot the images you want to shoot. If you can afford the big glass, and want it, buy it. But don't think for a minute that you have to have that glass to use your FF body and get great images.

IMHO too many of the above group get wrapped up in the pixel peeping/ measure-baiting and worry about "ultimate" sharpness at the pixel level. What are you doing with the image? Web display? Home prints of 8.5x11? 13x19? Send out to a lab for 20x30? I'd wager that most people would be well served with just about any piece of decent glass, and their intended audience won't know the difference.

There are other reasons to move into FF as well. At the time I moved, it was due to the easier ability to use my old MF lenses, a much better viewfinder, better DR, and significantly better handling of high ISO images. Even though I was being told otherwise, I knew that I didn't need the 14-24 or 70-200 to get decent images. I got them because I had saved the money for them and wanted them. My "lesser" glass still performs just fine and I am still the limiting factor on my images.

[jsherman999]

...Traditionally, people would recommend saving money on a camera body and buying more expensive glass, but clearly that is not the perspective of some on this thread.

I would agree, which is one of the reasons I bought the D700 and not the D3s (and have hung on to my K20D vs upgrading that yet.)

Also, three things to keep in mind about the 'spend all your money on glass' advice:

1) Size. Big stays home a lot.

2) Diminishing returns. Miniscule difference in IQ between a $1200 Zeiss Distagon 35mm and the DA 35mm Limited is going to be worth it only to those susceptible to Veblan goods (but I do want a Zeiss prime anyway)

3) Field is leveled. That 'spend your money on glass' advice is somewhat of a holdover from an era when truly horrible lenses shared the world with truly great lenses. Now, almost all lenses are pretty good, with the exception of the kit lenses - and even they are better than they used to be. (see a recent article on color transmission on Lenstip regarding this phenomenon - see the chart below, showing the Sigma 24-70 beating the Nikon across the visible spectrum in color transmission: )


(note: visible spectrum runs from 400nm to 700nm)



.

[Kerrowdown]

Does all this mean my FF Pentax is not coming yet.

[Aristophanes]

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.

I am not missing your point. Like a great many, you assume a market is amorphous. It is not.

If Nikon released a D700 with all zooms and no primes, it would sell.

If it released a D700 and all primes and no zooms it would fail massively. Not only would the D700 as a market option lose value, it would not exist at all!

The only reasons primes exist is because zooms create an economy-of-scale and primes fill a marginal demand.

You can speak only of an individual consumer buying exclusively on the margins, but there existence is sustained solely by a multitude of consumers who do not.

The value, blah, blah, blah, only exists if the market is underwritten entirely through the cost-shifting of the superior market.

In a market, there is no "individual shooter" just like a factory cannot tool up for an individual. The misinformation here is that there is a robust enough prime market for FF (or APS-C) to drive market choice. Wrong. Your individual choice is solely sustained by the market mean. Put in individual terms, your ability to have as many primes as you do is because for every one you buy, there are 8 guys who buy the zoom instead. The value of a flexible FL's has been proven absolutely in sales for about 30 years now. It drives the market.

So *you* cannot speak for the Everyman "individual shooter" and apply that experience as a market option. You can only speak for you. The toothache in this thread is the guy who continues to speak about his choices to veer off the norm being some new normal that Pentax could/should adopt to break a new FF market open. Every single bit of sales data for over 30 years now says that if Pentax were to go FF they should ignore the primes for the big glass zooms to establish a foothold in the market norm as the only way to get traction and revenue against the competition. If I am an external investor looking at Ricoh, my concern is for the other 8 guys who bulk up the gross sales, who I know are out there in dominant numbers, because that's who buys from Canikon!

[zxaar]

If Nikon released a D700 with all zooms and no primes, it would sell.

If it released a D700 and all primes and no zooms it would fail massively. Not only would the D700 as a market option lose value, it would not exist at all!

Prove it.


If you can not prove it, then it is another one of silly opinion of yours which has almost ZERO value.

[jsherman999]

I am not missing your point. Like a great many, you assume a market is amorphous. It is not.

If Nikon released a D700 with all zooms and no primes, it would sell.

If it released a D700 and all primes and no zooms it would fail massively. Not only would the D700 as a market option lose value, it would not exist at all!

Lordy. Did you even take the time to really read what I wrote? I'm serious, did you?

...
You can speak only of an individual consumer buying exclusively on the margins, but there existence is sustained solely by a multitude of consumers who do not.

The value, blah, blah, blah, only exists if the market is underwritten entirely through the cost-shifting of the superior market.

In a market, there is no "individual shooter" just like a factory cannot tool up for an individual. The misinformation here is that there is a robust enough prime market for FF (or APS-C) to drive market choice. Wrong. Your individual choice is solely sustained by the market mean. Put in individual terms, your ability to have as many primes as you do is because for every one you buy, there are 8 guys who buy the zoom instead. The value of a flexible FL's has been proven absolutely in sales for about 30 years now. It drives the market.

So *you* cannot speak for the Everyman "individual shooter" and apply that experience as a market option. You can only speak for you. The toothache in this thread is the guy who continues to speak about his choices to veer off the norm being some new normal that Pentax could/should adopt to break a new FF market open. Every single bit of sales data for over 30 years now says that if Pentax were to go FF they should ignore the primes for the big glass zooms to establish a foothold in the market norm as the only way to get traction and revenue against the competition. If I am an external investor looking at Ricoh, my concern is for the other 8 guys who bulk up the gross sales, who I know are out there in dominant numbers, because that's who buys from Canikon!

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

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.

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.



.

[loveisageless]

I'm a former Pentax shooter (K10D/K7). I skipped the K5 due to the QC issues. I've migrated to Nikon (D300S/D700). What has become very apparent is that for those noobies who stick with it beyond the kit lens stage there is a strong interest in upgrading. The D90 owners want the D7000 or a D300S. The D300S folks want a D700. Interestingly enough, not many of the D700 folk want the D3S (X?). What has also been interesting is that the D300S folks tend to keep their cameras as a back up to their D700(s) or they buy a D7000 or a second D700. Pentax has some killer FF lenses. If I were to have a choice of an improved K5 or a FF offering, it would be the FF that would have me back with Pentax in heartbeat. I would do the same as I've done with Nikon- a FF for wide angle and an APS-C for the reach. Think back to when Ford, GM and Chrysler were the only cars available for purchase in the US. Toyota, Honda and Datsun started out very small here and look where they are today in market share. If you build a quality product that gives people what they are looking for, provide top notch customer service and support, people will buy it. What is needed is for the new owners to develop the products and provide strong incentives for brick and mortar retailers to carry them, so potential buyers could see and feel the difference between the brands.

[loveisageless]

The huge (in size and price) Nikon zooms are not "required" to make good use of a FF camera. Professional photographers and wannabes (with fat wallets) buy them. There are far more folk who buy the slower lighter zooms and produce satisfying results. One of the benefits of the better ISO performance is that one doesn't need to have the fastest, most expensive lenses. Nikons smaller (in size and focal length) primes (20mm, 35 mm, 50mm, 85mm) both MF and AF are also very popular with FF users and are very affordable on the used market.