[peasant]

Authenticity is everything.31 as 31,43 as 43,77 as 77.A headline ff with these lens(an my adored Zeiss)just scream niche fulfilled.The parsimonious Pentaxians will dispute this but I say look to the future and my particular tastes.Ricoh play with the big boys,why not an assault on the status quo?

[abacus07]

I feel like I started this little war but that was not my intentions. It was simply meant as a joke that we'll now wishlists for two lineups of awesome expensive lenses. And I'm not talking about the lenses that go to production. But rather the wishlist of 85/1.4, 50/1.2, 135/2.0, a long super fast telephoto prime/zoom, etc...

And maybe I'm missing the market and there really are that many pentaxians with crazy money to throw around getting the camera and a full lens lineup. But I don't think this forum is representative of the normal pentax owner.

But if it makes business sense to do it and they can pull it off without taking resources away from the DA/APSC bread and butter that they have developed. then I think it would be great to introduce a full frame camera. I'm just not convinced that Pentax is big enough although it's possible that Ricoh could be thinking big and be willing to pour a lot of upfront development and manufacturing upgrade money into Pentax. We will see.

[peasant]

I've taken a liberty here,I've snatched a post from "denoir",this is from the "alt"section at Fred Miranda, ff vs crop re lens or body purchase,it's Canon but I think it translates.denoir says: I have both cameras Jim. My answer without hesitation is to go for the 5DII. The 7D is in many ways a better camera, but there is no substitute for FF. And using a 21 Distagon on a cropper is really not worth it - it's so much better on FF. There are on the other hand loads of less expensive manual focus lenses that produce fantastic results on FF.

As for your other questions, the 5DII is about a stop ahead of the 7D in noise i.e at ISO 3200 on the 5DII you'll get similar noise levels as ISO 1600 on the 7D. Regarding sharpness, the 7D puts a much higher strain on the lenses (due to higher pixel density). So unless you use really high end glass that completely outresolves the 7D sensor, the 5DII will produce sharper results.

I bought my 5DII as a backup camera to my 7D. I thought that it was a clever way of getting to use each of my lenses as separate (apparent) focal lengths. I was not particularly impressed with the 5DII at first as the 7D was more modern and had much better auto focus and a bunch of other features. So my intention was to use the 7D as the main camera. Soon however I noticed how much better my 5DII images were and I basically stopped using the 7D.

It wasn't about sharpness or high ISO - it was about the whole look, everything from vignetting and field curvature to subject isolation with shallow DOF. The images were simply more interesting and less flat. Hence my recommendation is to go FF now and save up for the ZE 21 and get it later.

[PentaxMom Felua]

Pentax ff? no happen. If: ?.

When allowed to think freely along my own line, this is what I dream:

Ricoh be Ricoh, dream me up a GXR ff module with "house-town-kitchen" -abitlities, so, range me a 28 - 90 mm , preferably apr. f 3.0. And make it decent resolution wise. I really could do with a small super good compact cam combo.

Pentax know-how might help.

PERICOH GXR A - 12 ff 28 - 90 mm f 3.1.

Magnificent ui and iq. But heh, just housewife talk. Would fit my big-brown-mom-purse very good, and, please make it shiny orange. If I am to be Dutch, then might as well be with a touch of Dutch Orange.

[peasant]

just housewife talk

Yes an I'm just an astronaut.

[Macario]

You doesn't seem to understand what are you talking about
I'm talking about the whole picture, not about the 100% crop.


I can easily pay $3k-$4k for a FF body. And will have about the same coverage what I have now with the exception of 110-135mm which is covered now by 77Ltd and FA* 85 (not a big deal, I prefer wider angles) with much better IQ (Distagon 21 is much better than 15Ltd, the 31Ltd is better than Distagon as a ≈31mm lens, the 43Ltd is a fantastic gem which I prefer to the 31Ltd on APS-C, the 77Ltd is much better 77mm lens than the A 50 f1.2 on APS-C, etc).
But 645D will cost me about $15000 (the price in Europe and Russia) for just a body, then I will have to buy lenses. So the price will raise over the $18000 at least.
But in reality the difference in IQ between high MP FF isn't as as large as the the difference between APS-C and FF. When the 645D will move to the real 60x45 sensor things will change, but it's in future.

Yep, but how good will those lenses be at the borders? For all we know they might be very bad.


So a larger sensor in the MF isn't much better than a FF sensor, but a FF sensor is much better thana APS-C sensor. Isn't that convenient for your arguements to want a FF camera (and that statement is BS anyway, and you know it. )

[Blue]

Yep, but how good will those lenses be at the borders? For all we know they might be very bad.
. . .

That is mythology perpetuated by pure USDA grade A

[Kunzite]

So a larger sensor in the MF isn't much better than a FF sensor, but a FF sensor is much better thana APS-C sensor. Isn't that convenient for your arguements to want a FF camera (and that statement is BS anyway, and you know it. )

Yep, very convenient. Unfortunately, Imaging Resource has something to say on this matter:
Pentax 645D Camera - First Shots
Scroll down to the images.

[Macario]

ok, I did have a look at the pictures, well they say that they have never seen so much detail with a camera yet. So then they are saying that the MF is better than the FF, right?

[Kunzite]

Yep, precisely.

[Macario]

ok, then I read it right (it is amazing that you can see the fabric of the cloth)

[Emacs]

So a larger sensor in the MF isn't much better than a FF sensor, but a FF sensor is much better thana APS-C sensor. Isn't that convenient for your arguements to want a FF camera (and that statement is BS anyway, and you know it. )

On the cropped MF, which is only 1.3 times larger than 135 FF
645D provides more details due to absense of AA filter and high MP sensor, but I really don't see much difference between look of shots taken with it and 135 FF.
Do you want know what I mean? Take a look at shots taken with pentax 67, mamiya 7, etc — that's the real difference.
So I repeat: you won't see much difference in IQ between 645D and 1Ds mk IV, D4x with their >30Mp sensors. I bet they even will have some advantage in certain areas, like wider DR.

[Kunzite]

Sorry, Emacs - I was busy looking again at the Imaging Resource page (indeed, those 645D pics looks amazing). What were you saying?

[Macario]

yep, and a FF is only 1.5 times bigger than APS-C, so that arguements doesn't hold any ground.
There is alot of difference between the pictures, alot. That you don't want to see it, is another matter.

[Emacs]

Ðèñóíîê îáúåêòèâà. Ïëàñòèêà è îáúåìíîñòü êàðòèíêè. Òîëüêî ïîêàçàòåëüíûå ïðèìåðû. :: Ôîðóì :: Êëóá Foto.ru

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-medium-format-645-6x7-645d/87027-p...hotos-168.html

I prefer the images from foto.ru, but they put some very demonstrative examples at the pentaxforums too