Pentax FF: Less MP more Image Quality ?

Why would you need to defend it if it is good?

I'm sure you will realise I've never defended my K-5IIS or K-3, they are so good I don't need to do this

Cheers
David

I'm not convinced they should bother. I'd prefer that they concentrate on offering what is increasingly looking like the only high quality enthusiast level APSC dSLR system available, plus an expansion of the medium format offering to capture folk wanting to upgrade from full frame. Both are niches which play to Pentax strengths. I'm not sure FF is any more.

Nope, just explaining my thoughts. I've nothing to defend.

Good to see your sense of humour is intact Smeggy!!

Cheers
David

I think it also depends on the lenses purchased with the new ff body. There is also a learn curve of using a new system, I admit I found the changeover difficult at first and still learning, Pentax just seems more natural to use and tends to have similarity across the range. I have two bodies in my new system an ff and a crop sensor body and yet they are so different to use.

As for expensive to change over I sold all my Pentax gear and replaced it all with the same spec lenses and it cost me £100 on top of my Pentax stuff and I ended up with a sigma 100-300mm f/4 to replace my tokina 100-300 f/4 mf lens. I do wonder if when a Pentax ff does appear if I will be able to afford to swap back again.

Thinking about it, we're talking here about image quality without defining exactly which parameters we seek, but the inference seems to be that lower noise is wanted.

To be honest, noise is already incredibly low. Just think about how noisy (grainy) even ISO 400 film is, never mind the more esoteric ones such as the long gone Kodak Recording Film 2475 and Agfapan 1000.

However, I don't mind noise (grain) within reason, as long as it's reproduced as crisp, sharp grain. Tri-X in FX-39, yum yum!

It's not just lower noise but the type of noise between ff and crop sensors. The noise on ff seems so more refined than crop sensor noise.

Interesting post given that not so long ago you listed one of the 'cons' of the K-5II as being "Not Full Frame"

http://www.ephotozine.com/article/pentax-k-5-ii-dslr-review-20717




.

I still own a FF 12mp camera which when launched was seen as the first affordable FF camera, it lacks many modern features (in fact most of them) When paired with a 24mm f/1.4 lens it still produces excellent landscape photos (albeit at lower iso's)that are more than a match for any modern camera

Despite the thoughts that a 12mp count is satisfactory I cannot see it being a commercial success and would think 20mp a realistic minimum to compete with others on the market.

We all have our own ideas as to what would make an ideal camera, but manufacturers have to think commercially which is often at odds with enthusiasts views

Personally think the market is going in two directions, one is affordable, smaller and lighter FF. The other appears to be the CSC route and in particular the Fuji X system with SLR type bodies and quality lenses.

I did say that, very observant. But what did I mean by it? At the time the general hue and cry was for a full frame Pentax DSLR, so the comment really referred to that being one of the very few cons that could be found with the K-5 II and/or IIs. In other words, it didn't fulfil the desires of the FF wishers.

Please remember that when I do review it is done from a neutral standpoint and the pros and cons are not my personal opinions. For me personally the point wasn't a con point at all, but there were the large number of other people in the world who were being thought about.

There is no doubt that being right or wrong about the full frame argument. Ricoh are certainly losing market users and will never be taken seriously by professional photographers until they have one in their armoury. Anyone like me who likes to take images in low light venues without the harshness flash. Will have spent lots of money on the fastest lenses that Pentax have to offer. But when coupled to a crop sensor camera still they cannot compete with the image quality that comes from full frame. I see signs of Ricoh putting the Pentax house in order somewhat, By updating the product range. So I'l hang on a little more yet. Mainly due to the investment I have made into the system, and a little brand loyalty I seem to have unknowingly developed.

Though I find this statement tempting...

I would rather more focus on increasing, if technically possible, dynamic range. I certainly have zero interest, at this time or foreseeable future, for anything higher than 16 MP and would be very happy with 14 or even 12. Indeed I actively don't want more than 16 thanks all the same. for one thing RAW file sizes from such MP sensors fill my, already bursting at the seams, mac's drive way too quickly.

So yes smeggy your proposition meets with my approval

I'd love to see the camera industry aim for, even if it's impossible right now, to et a sensor that has the same dynamic range as the human eye - imagine my urbex shots in a dark factory / mill and the bright scene outside without one being blown out, or the other a murky shadow...and without needing to utilise HDR.

That is my dream for the future of photography.

That can only be the characteristics of a particular sensor design not anything fundamental to FF or APSC so you could get a pure-random-noise or sensor-related-grainlike-noise pattern on any sensor size.

It will come. But why limit your DR requirements to that of the human eye?

I predict we will get better and better DR from smaller and smaller sensors as time goes by. Then one day there will come a breakthrough when someone produces a sensor that has a fast enough read time and low enough scan induced noise to do multiple fast scans per shot giving effectively infinite DR.

For example you set your camera to take a 30 second exposure at wide aperture and in bright light. The camera scans the sensor after 1/1000 second, then 2/1000 second, then 4/1000 then 8/1000 etc. until the 30 seconds is reached or all pixels are fully overexposed. The light level for each pixel can then be calculated based on how long it takes to blow rather than current methods of measuring how many photons land on that pixel during the exposure. As it would be a single exposure there would be no mirror/shutter flap between each scan unlike current HDR methods.

That's my dream anyway