Full-frame Pentax? I hope not!


aliengrove

Link Posted 31/05/2010 - 04:36
Reading some comments on here and on other forums, I can't help wondering why so many people want to see a full-frame Pentax. Personally, I think if Pentax were to produce one it would be a step backwards.

I think that new sensor technology will eventually make full-frame cameras obsolete. At the moment, the sensors used in camera have the metal circuits on the surface of the sensor, where they use up surface area that could be used to gather light. New inventions like quantum dot sensors link will improve sensor technology to the point where having a large sensor is pointless. Olympus's commitment to four-thirds was what made me buy one of their SLR's when I first bought a digital camera. I thought it a very forward thinking approach to camera design.

I switched to Pentax because I like the fact that so many old lenses work on their new cameras, and also I wanted the weather sealing the K7 and kit lenses have and the superior high ISO noise performance compared to the four-thirds sensor. I also love the fact that the apparent focal length means those lenses work as if they are one and a half times more powerful than they are on a 35mm camera (not as much, however, as the 2x crop factor on four-thirds). With lenses such as the Sigma 10-20 and the Pentax 12-24 available, I don't see this as a disadvantage when it comes to wide-angle.

Basing sensor size on an almost obsolete format (apologies to the film buffs amongst you), the 35mm negative, is akin to saying that CD's should be the same size as vinyl LP's.

Personally, I hope Pentax never produce a full-frame DSLR. I would rather see innovation in sensor design leading to better (mirrorless?) cameras than carry a brick like the full-frame Canikons I see weighing down their deluded owners.

As long as they don't abandon the K-mount, which is unlikely given the commitment they have shown to it, I'll stick with Pentax and leave full-frame to the puritans.
Flurble

My Website
PPG
flickr
G+
Facebook
Last Edited by aliengrove on 31/05/2010 - 04:40

dougf8

Link Posted 31/05/2010 - 06:32
If you're a pro buy a 645D. Probably far better than FF.

I would like better low light performance but not at 2-3 times the price.
Lurking is shirking.!

terje-l

Link Posted 31/05/2010 - 07:33
Totally agree with your arguments, Jonathan. I don't understand the craving for full-format sensors either.
Best regards
Terry

K20D, Optio I10, DA 18-55 1:3.5-5.6 AL II, A 1:1.7/50, D FA 1:2.8/100 Macro, Sigma 70-300 1:4-5.6 APO DG Macro, Pentax AF 360FGZ
Last Edited by terje-l on 31/05/2010 - 07:33

flossie

Link Posted 31/05/2010 - 07:39
As has been said MANY times before, the reason the FF canon's and nikons are so big and heavy is due to the Pro features such as ruggedness / batteries / grips not the actual sensor size!

Compare Nikon D3s with F5 (say) - they are that size because it suits Journos, not because they need to be...

You could make a K7 FF quite easily - a DSLR (FF) doesn't have to be any bigger than an SLR (35mm) - remove the film & add a screen - and SLR's came in all sorts of sizes in the 1980's and 1990's...

Quote:

I switched to Pentax because I like the fact that so many old lenses work on their new cameras

FF - check. Apart from the tiny handful of digital lenses they made recently, and a compatability setting is easy (as done by caninokon)

Quote:
and also I wanted the weather sealing the K7 and kit lenses have

FF - can be done (e.g. new DFA 100 MACRO - reissued in WR but FF)

Quote:
and the superior high ISO noise performance compared to the four-thirds sensor.

FF will always be better at high iso/noise than APS-C. Bigger sensor. Same reason APS-C beats 4/3/m4/3.

Quote:
I also love the fact that the apparent focal length means those lenses work as if they are one and a half times more powerful than they are on a 35mm camera (not as much, however, as the 2x crop factor on four-thirds). With lenses such as the Sigma 10-20 and the Pentax 12-24 available, I don't see this as a disadvantage when it comes to wide-angle.

Well Zoom is a matter of taste - I find the wide end far more useful than the long end of a camera - if you take pictures of birds a long way away, go APS-C. If you take pictures of interiors and people, go FF.
Still shooting in the dark (literally and metaphorically)...
Last Edited by flossie on 31/05/2010 - 07:45

aliengrove

Link Posted 31/05/2010 - 09:08
Flossie, I have to say from your argument for FF cameras I wonder why you bought a Pentax...

The next generation of sensors will make the difference between FF and APS-C sized sensors a bit pointless, as it will soon reach the stage where the printer or screen will not be able to show the full resolution of the picture. As I said, I just don't see the point of sticking with a standard based on an old format, everything else technology wise has moved on and got smaller, why should cameras be stuck in the 1960's?

If I was a journo, I think I would be looking for lighter kit to lug around. It's interesting that Nick Danziger mainly uses an Olympus E400, an entry-level model. I think a lot of journos are under the misapprehension Canikon gives them some sort of stret-cred. At the moment, I can understand FF if you want to produce a picture for a billboard, but then medium format would be a better choice. In the long term, I don't see the point of developing full-frame any further. As the link I put in my first post said, soon it will be possible to photograph wedding with a camera phone. The resolution of a picture will in a few years be dictated solely by the glass it is taken through.
Flurble

My Website
PPG
flickr
G+
Facebook

flossie

Link Posted 31/05/2010 - 09:33
I bought a Kx specifically for its low-light capabilities at 1/4 the price of a D700... and size was an issue (at the time... now I've got more used to it, not so much now). Also the backwards-compatability appeals to me (I like old MF prime lenses and dislike manufacturers deliberatly breaking compatability to sell new lenses like canon/nikon/sony do...).

I did not buy a K7 or a D90 basically because they suck at 1600/3200 ISO. I wouldn't buy a D700 now because its being replaced later this year and is a generation behind. If the replacement is stunning and Pentax fail to deliver - and I actually have any cash left (unlikely! ) then I might have a dilemma, much as I don't want to change brand. Also my ability and skills can't justify an upgrade at the moment!


Resolution is a red-herring - I've got a 30" monitor which can't display half a 12 megpixel image already - the Megapixel wars are over. I could get a mobile phone with 12 megapixels but it still won't take a decent picture - a bigger sensor will always produce a better image though - that's why people get so excited about Medium-Format or IMAX etc etc...


You are right about the street-cred aspect of journos...having big bulky pro gear gets them into places - but it also gets them thrown out of places! Though having been in the background when the Paps are swarming, I've been amazed at how well they can conceal a big bulky camera under their jacket though then whip it out & grab the shot - but that's how they make their living!
Still shooting in the dark (literally and metaphorically)...
Last Edited by flossie on 31/05/2010 - 09:37

Anvh

Link Posted 31/05/2010 - 10:08
[quote:3496ace15f="flossie"]a bigger sensor will always produce a better image though [quote]
Yes but there may come a time that APS-C produce quality that's more then good enough... then why would you go for a bigger sensor, camera and lenses if you don't use the extra quality?

The current APS-C cameras are now at such a level where the 135sensor was 3~4 years ago and with the new sensor technologie that might come this or next year it makes you wonder if you need to go bigger.
Stefan


K10D, K5
DA* 16-50, DA* 50-135, D-FA 100 Macro, DA 40 Ltd, DA 18-55
AF-540FGZ

kerrowdown

Link Posted 05/06/2010 - 23:36
I want FF again, cos all my old school manual lenses cover FF format and my 15mm will become truly wide again.
My Harem of Ladies.... “Mistress" (Pentax-A 15mm F3.5 ), "Good Lady” (Pentax-A 20mm F2.8 ), “Friendly Lady” (Pentax-A 24mm F2.8 ), "Deviate Lady" (Pentax 28mm F3.5 Shift ), "Street Lady" (Pentax-A 28mm F2.8 ), "Retro Lady" (SMC Pentax-M 40mm F2.8 ), "Special Lady” (Pentax-A 50mm F1.2 ), “Femme Fatale” (Pentax-A 50mm F2.8 Macro ), “Sweetheart” (Pentax-A* 85mm F1.4 ), "Lady Luck” (Pentax-A* 135mm F1.8 ), “Gorgeous Lady” (Pentax-A* 200mm F2.8 ED ), “Duchess” (Pentax-A* 300mm F4.0 ) and "HM The Queen" (SMC Pentax 500mm F4.5 ).

pentaxian450

Link Posted 06/06/2010 - 00:10
kerrowdown wrote:
and my 15mm will become truly wide again.

Why don't you get a 10mm lens? It will give you the same coverage as your old 15 on a FF camera, but it will be cheaper than getting a FF camera. Your argument doesn't hold any more.
Yves (another one of those crazy Canucks)

Pentaxophile

Link Posted 06/06/2010 - 00:49
pentaxian450 wrote:
kerrowdown wrote:
and my 15mm will become truly wide again.

Why don't you get a 10mm lens? It will give you the same coverage as your old 15 on a FF camera, but it will be cheaper than getting a FF camera. Your argument doesn't hold any more.

The coverage would be the same, but the focal length, depth of field etc, would not.

FF sceptics... Pick up a film slr and tell me you wouldn't like that huuuuge viewfinder!
[link=https://500px.com/will_brealey/[/link]

pentaxian450

Link Posted 06/06/2010 - 00:57
There is not that much difference in depth of field between APS-C and FF cameras. The larger depth of field from the small sensor is offset by the larger enlargement ratio needed to have the same picture size. If I take my Bronica with a 75-2.8 and my 35mm SLR 50-1.4, set them both on hyperfocal, I get exactly the same depth of field. If you have a 30mm lens (or close to) with a DOF scale patterned for APS-C sensor, compare it with a 50mm lens with the DOF scale made for 35 mm, and you won't see any diff.
Yves (another one of those crazy Canucks)
Last Edited by pentaxian450 on 06/06/2010 - 00:58

kerrowdown

Link Posted 06/06/2010 - 01:13
pentaxian450 wrote:
kerrowdown wrote:
and my 15mm will become truly wide again.

Why don't you get a 10mm lens? It will give you the same coverage as your old 15 on a FF camera, but it will be cheaper than getting a FF camera. Your argument doesn't hold any more.

Sorry didn't know that Pentax did a 10mm prime, I'll look into that, as you can see from my sig I'm not a zoom user.
My Harem of Ladies.... “Mistress" (Pentax-A 15mm F3.5 ), "Good Lady” (Pentax-A 20mm F2.8 ), “Friendly Lady” (Pentax-A 24mm F2.8 ), "Deviate Lady" (Pentax 28mm F3.5 Shift ), "Street Lady" (Pentax-A 28mm F2.8 ), "Retro Lady" (SMC Pentax-M 40mm F2.8 ), "Special Lady” (Pentax-A 50mm F1.2 ), “Femme Fatale” (Pentax-A 50mm F2.8 Macro ), “Sweetheart” (Pentax-A* 85mm F1.4 ), "Lady Luck” (Pentax-A* 135mm F1.8 ), “Gorgeous Lady” (Pentax-A* 200mm F2.8 ED ), “Duchess” (Pentax-A* 300mm F4.0 ) and "HM The Queen" (SMC Pentax 500mm F4.5 ).
Last Edited by kerrowdown on 06/06/2010 - 01:15

MrCynical

Link Posted 06/06/2010 - 01:59
dougf8 wrote:
If you're a pro buy a 645D. Probably far better than FF.

But by the time it gets here will cost about 6x what the Canon 5D MkII does. That extra £7500* could buy the following lenses:

*16-35 f2.8 L II - £1200
*24-70 f2.8 L - £1000
*85 f1.2 L II - £1800
*100 Macro f2.8 L IS - £790
*70-200 f2.8 L IS II (the '4 stop IS' one) - £2400

That is, in my opinion, a stellar photography kit for less money (the total cost of those lenses is £7190 - this is extremely relative of course!) than the 645D costs (the only thing missing is a long telephoto, but I'm not a wildlife photographer and you wouldn't be using a 645D for long tele either ).

* I am assuming a theoretical UK price of £9000 (compared to approx. £1500-1600 for the 5D Mk II). Given that Pentax seems to think $1 is equivalent in value to £1.50 rather than about 60-70p, this could be a conservative estimate but I have decided to give them the benefit of the doubt.

K10D

Link Posted 06/06/2010 - 08:40
I was hoping that a Pentax Fx body would appear. As mentioned above, lenses like the 15mm and of course the 28 shift would be usable once again.

I would love a 31mm Ltd but why buy it to put on a body it was not made for? I want it on FF to use all of the glass. I could use it on a 35mm film body of course but the cost does not justify that. The same for the rest of the Pentax FF Ltd's. Edge to edge sharpness suddenly means nothing on an APS sensor.

Jonathan, you mentioned in your OP

"I also love the fact that the apparent focal length means those lenses work as if they are one and a half times more powerful than they are on a 35mm camera (not as much, however, as the 2x crop factor on four-thirds)."

The magnification never changes. Only the FOV. As discussed many times here, it was a great marketing con. Less FOV due to smaller sensor size generally means more enlargement to get an image to print size dimensions. Fortunately, most DSLR's have enough resolution that we don't always notice any ill effect with this.

September 2000, the MZ-D (MR-52) was shown at Photokina. It never went into production for various reasons. It was to be FF. It looked the biz and I thought that Pentax were about to conquer the DSLR market.

For those of us that want a Pentax FF, we may be waiting for a bus that will never arrive. If like me, you get a year older each year, you may want to re-consider your options. I bought a FF DSLR and have never regretted it.

To date there has been a gap at the wide end and people are waiting for the Sigma 8-16mm. At f/4.5 - f/5.6, it still wont be too useful indoors at least not on my K7.

The passing of the 35mm *ist and Pentax film bodies was a sad day indeed, as so much more was lost along with it.

Regards
cameradextrous _ Motorcycles etc. link
Last Edited by K10D on 06/06/2010 - 08:41

KZ

Link Posted 06/06/2010 - 09:28
aliengrove wrote:
Reading some comments on here and on other forums, I can't help wondering why so many people want to see a full-frame Pentax. Personally, I think if Pentax were to produce one it would be a step backwards.

I think that new sensor technology will eventually make full-frame cameras obsolete. At the moment, the sensors used in camera have the metal circuits on the surface of the sensor, where they use up surface area that could be used to gather light. New inventions like quantum dot sensors link will improve sensor technology to the point where having a large sensor is pointless. Olympus's commitment to four-thirds was what made me buy one of their SLR's when I first bought a digital camera. I thought it a very forward thinking approach to camera design.

I switched to Pentax because I like the fact that so many old lenses work on their new cameras, and also I wanted the weather sealing the K7 and kit lenses have and the superior high ISO noise performance compared to the four-thirds sensor. I also love the fact that the apparent focal length means those lenses work as if they are one and a half times more powerful than they are on a 35mm camera (not as much, however, as the 2x crop factor on four-thirds). With lenses such as the Sigma 10-20 and the Pentax 12-24 available, I don't see this as a disadvantage when it comes to wide-angle.

Basing sensor size on an almost obsolete format (apologies to the film buffs amongst you), the 35mm negative, is akin to saying that CD's should be the same size as vinyl LP's.

Personally, I hope Pentax never produce a full-frame DSLR. I would rather see innovation in sensor design leading to better (mirrorless?) cameras than carry a brick like the full-frame Canikons I see weighing down their deluded owners.

As long as they don't abandon the K-mount, which is unlikely given the commitment they have shown to it, I'll stick with Pentax and leave full-frame to the puritans.

Seconded.
One more thing: An FF system is at least twice more cost. That's why even at C/N it is a far more less market than APS-C and mostly for pro photographers. (Pro is who earns money on it.)
Add a Comment
You must be registered or logged-in to comment.