full frame..


ikillrocknroll

Link Posted 26/01/2008 - 20:53
1. Do you think Pentax will release a full frame camera onto the market?
2. Why not? (if not)
3. When do you think they will release it? (if yes)

The problem with FF is that all these new lenses have a smaller image circle than FF, so ultimately Pentax would have to build up a whole new digital system. Although in my view, to get the third place in the photographic company war after Canikon, over Oly and Sony they need to.

I reckon they may introduce a 1.25/1.3x crop sensor into a new camera within a year and a half, and maybe after a year of that, a FF camera will be released after a quantity of lenses has been made to support it?
http://www.behance.net/robbranigan
K20D, DA18-55II, FA50 1.4, DA10-17
To buy: Metz 58 AF-1, DA*50-135, DA12-24, DA100M

Gwyn

Link Posted 26/01/2008 - 21:17
1, No
2, the market is too small - the cost of a full frame would be very high, which would automatically limit the market. Pentax would not only have to develop a ff camera but a whole new range of lenses. This would do away with backward compatibility, one of Pentax's strong points.
3, see above


What is the point in keeping on whinging about an FF camera? If you really want fork out the dosh and get the Canon. As far as I am concerned APS has too many advantages to go FF.
I can see there would be a market for the digital 645 but that is a real niche market.

iceblinker

Link Posted 26/01/2008 - 21:23
The general trend of technology is towards miniaturistation. I think the qualty of sensors will continue to improve - so they won't need to be larger to have very low noise as well as a great many pixels. It looks like the K20D is impressive in this way already.

Maybe Pentax are actually thinking further ahead than Canon and Nikon and realising that FF is simply not necessary (except for some of the very most demanding professional photography, perhaps).

Personally I wouldn't want the extra expense, bulk and weight of FF lenses after investing in some 'cropped' ones.
~Pete

xbow

Link Posted 26/01/2008 - 21:27
It's partly down to the public and what they decide Canon have already said that they expect all except their entry level (***D) model to be full frame sooner or later. IF the camera buying public don't like the cost/performance ratio of full frame models then perhaps reduced size sensors have a future. There is at least one other consideration and that is physical size of the camera. When Olympus first introduced the OM1 in the 1970's most makers laughed and said it was too small - then they all followed suit and made smaller cameras, at least for the amateur market.

I think if Canon can reduce the price of full frame sensors massively and quickly before there is significant further development of smaller sensors then maybe other makers will have to follow suit? We'll have to wait and see .................
K5, LightRoom 5
Sigma 8-16 Pentax DA 16-45 Pentax DA 55-300 Pentax 18-55WR Tamron 90 Di Macro Metz 44 AF-1

Dwight-Morton

Link Posted 26/01/2008 - 22:13
Cannon makes it's money from other sources than photography something that Hoya-Pentax does not do, so they have to take care of their assets better. & they might be better suited making their own sensors and thus make more money.

Have a great week,

MattMatic

Link Posted 26/01/2008 - 22:13
(Yawn )
Here we go again...

I reckon a very large part of it is that there are a great many people who think that a FF digital will suddenly make them produce pro quality images.

I've seen really rubbish out of a 5D, and I've seen pros use APS cameras and got results just as good as FF.

As I've heard said "Size isn't everything" (Isn't it what you do with it that matters??!)

Matt
http://www.mattmatic.co.uk
(For gallery, tips and links)

hefty1

Link Posted 26/01/2008 - 22:19
xbow wrote:
I think if Canon can reduce the price of full frame sensors massively and quickly before there is significant further development of smaller sensors then maybe other makers will have to follow suit? We'll have to wait and see .................

The thing is, manufacturers don't have to follow each other at all any more. Back in the days of film then all the competing systems had to be based on dimensions dictated by the film makers (Kodak, Fuji, Ilford, etc) or their products wouldn't work. Now each company makes their own sensors (or has the opportunity to do so) there is no need for them to all wander down the same path - we're simply going through a transitional period where they're all making comparisons to 35mm in order not to confuse the general public. Once those who have never used a film camera form the majority of buyers then this period will end and we'll see comparisons based on who makes the best sensor rather than who makes the biggest. There's an outside chance that the biggest will also happen to be the best, however, I have a hunch that technology will overcome the current limitations of the smaller sensors and the current crop of full frame DSLRs will be looked back upon as dinosaurs that slavishly followed an outdated format that was well passed its sell-by date (after all, 35mm film was introduced as a cinematic format in the days before "talkies" - I think with 100+ years under its belt it's time it took its retirement gracefully).

In answer to the original question; I wouldn't want a full frame sensor - not just because it would be horrendously expensive (and marginally bulkier) but also because it would kill one or other of two things that I love about the current system: In body SR and the K mount itself.

In order to have in-body SR the image circle of the lens must be larger than the sensor in order for it to move around without straying over the edges and causing vignetting (hence the DA's cover an APS-H area).

To have SR on a full frame sensor you would either need lens based stabilisation like Nikon and Canon or, if you wanted it in-body, you'd need a new series of lenses that formed a larger-than-35mm image circle. It's unlikely the K mount would physically support the latter so either way you'd be looking at replacing your entire lens collection with absolutely no backwards compatability (or maybe limited to using an adaptor and cropping the sensor to an APS-C size when your current lenses were fitted - kinda defies the whole point of the exercise for me).

As for when Pentax will release a "Full Frame" sensor - let's hope it's around about the Forty-Teenth of Never or we'll all be looking at large piles of scrap glass. I already own a Practika B Mount so I know the pain well...
Joining the Q

Tyr

Link Posted 26/01/2008 - 22:25
These sorts of discussions can get really tedious. Just look at dpressingreviews and you'll see that a lot of people don't have a clue about photography, they are just tech heads with an addiction to specifications and too much time to complain.

I am very happy with my APS K10D, it makes for a lighter system. Getting good images is about being to use your equipment propperly not having the most expensive, biggest, highest technology, etc. 'Professional' imaging does have its teach heads with no real know how but also some very skilled people who can work with whatever you give them.

PS. has anyone looked on dpressing reviews and read the K20D threads. People complaining that it isn't an Eos 1D MKIII competitor practically.
Regards,
Dan

https://www.flickr.com/photos/honourabletyr/

ikillrocknroll

Link Posted 27/01/2008 - 00:47
Well that was the reply that I expected

Yeah, I never said I wanted one nor that it was a good idea, I just figure they will follow suit.

Wouldnt M, A, F, FA, DFA lenses be compatible with a FF camera..?
Making it backward compatible, bar the DA lenses.
http://www.behance.net/robbranigan
K20D, DA18-55II, FA50 1.4, DA10-17
To buy: Metz 58 AF-1, DA*50-135, DA12-24, DA100M

johnriley

Link Posted 27/01/2008 - 08:48
Quote:
Wouldnt M, A, F, FA, DFA lenses be compatible with a FF camera..?

Yes in that they are full frame lenses. But then all the current range would be no good so Pentax wouldn't sell any new lenses.

Not much sense in that...
Best regards, John

viewfinder

Link Posted 27/01/2008 - 11:05
If Pentax wantsw to stay in the game then they will have to make FF models eventually as the market is moving that way. Since they were until recently a maker of 35mm bodies and lenses they still have much of the capability in place and there would not be any "backwards compatability" problems that people seem to imagine.

Whether or not FF sensors offer better image quality seems to be largely down to whether or not the claimant has a FF or APS camera.......

However, it has always been true that a big chunk of film ALWAYS beats a smaller chunk of film when it comes to image quality in most of it's many issues, so physics will dictate that this is also true with sensors.

It's basically 'horses for courses' with camera sizes and formats,...it always was, despite the delusions of folk, and it remains so in the digital era.

ikillrocknroll

Link Posted 27/01/2008 - 11:45
"Yes in that they are full frame lenses. But then all the current range would be no good so Pentax wouldn't sell any new lenses. "

Do Canon not sell any other lenses apart from L lenses then?
Course they do.


And in reply to your first paragraph viewfinder, exactly

Hypothetical situation
Pentax make two new camera ranges
K1D
K1DX

One is FF, the other not.
Now, if they make say a collection of 5 High quality FF lenses
Remember that the 77, 31, etc will all work with them, and are all still widely available
There would be a fullframe solution
And those new lenses would be extreme high quality (As alot of Pentax glass is)
They could be used on the K*00Ds, the K*0Ds and the K1D

So canon have say, 15 L lenses out
They also have a much larger amount of normal digital lenses out that Pentax
Its the same situation

If professional photographers want a FF pentax, they will have thought about using the use of their lenses
But they could still use the widely available
31, 35, 43, 50 1.4, 50 macro, 77, 100 macro, 20-35, 28-105
and im sure they could get hold of some FA*s

So pentax have made say, 5 DA* lenses that wouldnt work on them
And FF users probably would want to use DA lenses


I dont know, it doesnt seem much of a loss to me
Because if they can produce the K20D at what seems to me, a very good price for the quality
They could beat out the prices of Canikon
The high quality lenses that Pentax make, the FA primes, and the DA*s are ALOT cheaper than the L lenses of Canon, which range from say 600 to well, I dont know, *000's

Thats just my personal view on the situation really
You can take it however you want
http://www.behance.net/robbranigan
K20D, DA18-55II, FA50 1.4, DA10-17
To buy: Metz 58 AF-1, DA*50-135, DA12-24, DA100M

ChrisA

Link Posted 27/01/2008 - 11:53
viewfinder wrote:
However, it has always been true that a big chunk of film ALWAYS beats a smaller chunk of film

This is true.

Quote:
so physics will dictate that this is also true with sensors.

However this does not follow, for the following reason:

The film is a tiny part of the cost of having a bigger space to record the image on, whereas this is not the case for sensors.

As Matt has explained, it is much, much more difficult and therefore expensive to make a big sensor of the same quality and resolution as a small sensor. You cannot scale up the sensor size, and scale up its price by only the same proportion.

The objective is image quality. So if it remains technically easier to improve image quality with little sensors than it is to make big ones, then that's what they'll do.

So it also doesn't follow that to stay in the game they'll
Quote:
have to make FF models eventually

If they can achieve the required IQ, then they won't need to.

Whether they can or not, at the very top end, remains to be seen, of course.

Gwyn

Link Posted 27/01/2008 - 12:07
[quote="viewfinder"]If Pentax wantsw to stay in the game then they will have to make FF models eventually as the market is moving that way....
/quote]

Huh?
I haven't noticed too many full frames being launched recently.

It seems to me that there is tiny group of people who are convinced full frame digital is the answer to their prayers. When and if they come out at a price most people can afford it will be the same group of people who complain about them endlessly and will demand bigger better faster.....
As I said before if you really want a full frame then go buy a Canon.
Hire one for a few days and see if you think they are worth the money.

ChrisA

Link Posted 27/01/2008 - 12:13
Gwyn wrote:
Huh?
I haven't noticed too many full frames being launched recently.

Well, in fairness, the new Nikon D3 is full frame. And it's interesting that they chose to go just for 12 MP, and presumably bigger pixels, which is presumably what gives it ISO 25600 in some boost mode.

But in due course, things will have moved on, and the same sort of range will probably be available with the smaller sensors at far less cost.
Add a Comment
You must be registered or logged-in to comment.