Mike Johnston K20 quote.
Posted 18/12/2008 - 10:43
Link
Within a couple of generations of camera I reckon the "full frame noise advantage" will be no more, it'll be interesting to see how many people are still willing then to pay the extra for a FF sensor? Pentax's decision to continue concentrating on APS-C could be seen in retrospect to be a very shrewd move IMO.
And kudos to Mike Johnston, I tend to give more credence to his opinions as he's an actual photographer as opposed to a lab tester.
And kudos to Mike Johnston, I tend to give more credence to his opinions as he's an actual photographer as opposed to a lab tester.
Joining the Q
Posted 18/12/2008 - 15:08
Link
He writes a very enjoyable column in BW photography magazine too.
Kris Lockyear
It is an illusion that photos are made with the camera… they are made with the eye, heart and head. Henri Cartier-Bresson
Lots of film bodies, a couple of digital ones, too many lenses (mainly older glass) and a Horseman LE 5x4.
It is an illusion that photos are made with the camera… they are made with the eye, heart and head. Henri Cartier-Bresson
Lots of film bodies, a couple of digital ones, too many lenses (mainly older glass) and a Horseman LE 5x4.
Posted 18/12/2008 - 16:04
Link
hefty1 wrote:
Within a couple of generations of camera I reckon the "full frame noise advantage" will be no more, it'll be interesting to see how many people are still willing then to pay the extra for a FF sensor? Pentax's decision to continue concentrating on APS-C could be seen in retrospect to be a very shrewd move IMO.
My sentiments too. Everyone wants smaller but better, and I think they will get it - look at the Micro 4/3! Perhaps More's law of computing fits camera sensors too.
Within a couple of generations of camera I reckon the "full frame noise advantage" will be no more, it'll be interesting to see how many people are still willing then to pay the extra for a FF sensor? Pentax's decision to continue concentrating on APS-C could be seen in retrospect to be a very shrewd move IMO.
Bodies: K5IIs, K7, MZ5n, LX, MV
Lenses: DA*16-50, DA18-55WR, DA18-135, DAL35, M50 F2, A50 f1.4, FA50 f1.4, DA*50-135, DA55-300, Tamron 70-300, DFA 100 WR Macro, M135 f3.5, Sigma 120-400 APO DG HSM, Tokina 500 f8.0
Flash: Metz 58, Metz 48
Accessories: BG4, Pentax right angle finder, Pentax mirror adaptor lens, O-ME53 Viewfinder Loupe
Auto 110 System: Auto 110, Winder, 18mm, 24mm, 50mm, 70mm, 20-40mm, AF100P, 1.7x telecon
Lenses: DA*16-50, DA18-55WR, DA18-135, DAL35, M50 F2, A50 f1.4, FA50 f1.4, DA*50-135, DA55-300, Tamron 70-300, DFA 100 WR Macro, M135 f3.5, Sigma 120-400 APO DG HSM, Tokina 500 f8.0
Flash: Metz 58, Metz 48
Accessories: BG4, Pentax right angle finder, Pentax mirror adaptor lens, O-ME53 Viewfinder Loupe
Auto 110 System: Auto 110, Winder, 18mm, 24mm, 50mm, 70mm, 20-40mm, AF100P, 1.7x telecon
Add Comment
To leave a comment - Log in to Pentax User or create a new account.
308 posts
19 years
Essex
To test that impression, I compared it with what is becoming my "Old Trusty," the Pentax K20D, a currently $810 camera with a really good APS-C sized sensor (and which I also don't own, N.B.) The 5D Mark II is better than the 14.6-megapixel K20D. But it's not that much better. If the 5D Mark II lags behind the D700 by not-quite-a-stop in high-ISO noise, then the K20D lags behind the 5D Mark II also by not-quite-a-stop—certainly it looks at least as good at ISO 1250 as the Canon looks at ISO 2500 (and yes, I ran the tests). And the Canon does indeed have more resolution—but not that much more resolution. A paper size, maybe? Maybe a tad less?
http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2008/12/sony-vs...