Pentax FF Dead, Maybe
Posted 24/08/2013 - 15:02
Link
Mike-P wrote:
To get the equivalent APSC file size of 16mp you need a FF sensor capable of 36mp (D800). Owch.
....and more computer storage and more processing power (I still miss the speed and ease of processing the excellent 5MP files I used to get from my Olympus E-1). And if we're talking dSLR, some comparatively large and expensive lenses to make the most of the sensor. Even if the bodies get cheaper, the lenses are still going to be a serious outlay for anyone other than professionals, or the most dedicated (and well off).
To get the equivalent APSC file size of 16mp you need a FF sensor capable of 36mp (D800). Owch.
Posted 24/08/2013 - 15:20
Link
Mike-P wrote:
To get the equivalent APSC file size of 16mp you need a FF sensor capable of 36mp (D800). Owch.
It's quite likely that the lower resolution image will have less noise and might actually produce a preferable result. Images from a K100D don't always look worse than those from a K-5 despite the lesser resolution.To get the equivalent APSC file size of 16mp you need a FF sensor capable of 36mp (D800). Owch.
John K
John K
Posted 24/08/2013 - 15:30
Link
JAK wrote:
It's quite likely that the lower resolution image will have less noise and might actually produce a preferable result. Images from a K100D don't always look worse than those from a K-5 despite the lesser resolution.
I have no idea if it produces better results or not, I was just making an observation
It's quite likely that the lower resolution image will have less noise and might actually produce a preferable result. Images from a K100D don't always look worse than those from a K-5 despite the lesser resolution.
Posted 24/08/2013 - 15:31
Link
Quote:
Mike-P wrote:
To get the equivalent APSC file size of 16mp you need a FF sensor capable of 36mp (D800). Owch
Big Deal.Mike-P wrote:
To get the equivalent APSC file size of 16mp you need a FF sensor capable of 36mp (D800). Owch
Quote:
John Schick wrote:
....and more computer storage and more processing power (I still miss the speed and ease of processing the excellent 5MP files I used to get from my Olympus E-1)
Not long ago, Hard disks had 500GByte of storage. Now its over 2TByteJohn Schick wrote:
....and more computer storage and more processing power (I still miss the speed and ease of processing the excellent 5MP files I used to get from my Olympus E-1)
at no extra cost.
Did you upgrade from your Olympus E-1? And if so, why?
Quote:
John Schick wrote:
And if we're talking dSLR, some comparatively large and expensive lenses to make the most of the sensor. Even if the bodies get cheaper, the lenses are still going to be a serious outlay for anyone other than professionals, or the most dedicated (and well off).
Why would you need larger lenses, than for APS-C DSLR?John Schick wrote:
And if we're talking dSLR, some comparatively large and expensive lenses to make the most of the sensor. Even if the bodies get cheaper, the lenses are still going to be a serious outlay for anyone other than professionals, or the most dedicated (and well off).
There are plenty of F and FA lenses which cover 35mm fully. Why should new lenses be so much more expensive? Don't forget there is such a thing as competition.
Regards, Horst
Posted 24/08/2013 - 17:09
Link
Hi Horst,
I reluctantly upgraded from the E-1 partly as it was a noise box above ISO400, partly because the lens selection was small and expensive (although sometimes of stunning quality), and also to sell before the risk of the bottom falling out of the four thirds (not micro) market. I loved using it though, and in some ways I think the K-7/5 body is the closest I've found to one that fulfills similar criteria. I do also like primes...not a four thirds strength.
Yes I know for primes, there is a good range of reasonably sized FF lenses. But the issue is not so clear cut for zooms. Look at the size of quality fast full frame zooms from any manufacturer, and they tend to be pretty chunky and expensive pieces of kit. I don't think anyone would seriously argue that the equivalent of something like an APS 17-70 lens for full frame isn't going to be larger and costlier ....the Canon 24-105 being an obvious example. Likewise, without getting into arguments about focal length and field of view, the full frame equivalent of the xx-300 APS lenses would be at least the size of the Tokina 80-400, or Sigmas of similar range....and having owned both, I am clear there is a massive (pun intended) difference.
Best wishes,
Jon
I reluctantly upgraded from the E-1 partly as it was a noise box above ISO400, partly because the lens selection was small and expensive (although sometimes of stunning quality), and also to sell before the risk of the bottom falling out of the four thirds (not micro) market. I loved using it though, and in some ways I think the K-7/5 body is the closest I've found to one that fulfills similar criteria. I do also like primes...not a four thirds strength.
Yes I know for primes, there is a good range of reasonably sized FF lenses. But the issue is not so clear cut for zooms. Look at the size of quality fast full frame zooms from any manufacturer, and they tend to be pretty chunky and expensive pieces of kit. I don't think anyone would seriously argue that the equivalent of something like an APS 17-70 lens for full frame isn't going to be larger and costlier ....the Canon 24-105 being an obvious example. Likewise, without getting into arguments about focal length and field of view, the full frame equivalent of the xx-300 APS lenses would be at least the size of the Tokina 80-400, or Sigmas of similar range....and having owned both, I am clear there is a massive (pun intended) difference.
Best wishes,
Jon
Posted 24/08/2013 - 22:35
Link
Horst wrote:
There are plenty of F and FA lenses which cover 35mm fully. Why should new lenses be so much more expensive? Don't forget there is such a thing as competition.
Regards, Horst
Making the most of the sensor?Quote:
John Schick wrote:
And if we're talking dSLR, some comparatively large and expensive lenses to make the most of the sensor. Even if the bodies get cheaper, the lenses are still going to be a serious outlay for anyone other than professionals, or the most dedicated (and well off).
Why would you need larger lenses, than for APS-C DSLR?John Schick wrote:
And if we're talking dSLR, some comparatively large and expensive lenses to make the most of the sensor. Even if the bodies get cheaper, the lenses are still going to be a serious outlay for anyone other than professionals, or the most dedicated (and well off).
There are plenty of F and FA lenses which cover 35mm fully. Why should new lenses be so much more expensive? Don't forget there is such a thing as competition.
Regards, Horst
Well in terms of resolution the Nokia 808 with it's minuscule lens does OK against the Pentax K-5II/IIs and even the Nikon D800E
Of course the colours and noise aren't a patch on the DSLRs
See here
.
[i]Bodies: 1x K-5IIs, 2x K-5, Sony TX-5, Nokia 808
Lenses: Pentax DA 10-17mm ED(IF) Fish Eye, Pentax DA 14mm f/2.8, Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8, Pentax-A 28mm f/2.8, Sigma 30mm F1.4 EX DC, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.2, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.4, Pentax-FA 50mm f/1.4, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.7, Pentax DA* 50-135mm f/2.8, Sigma 135-400mm APO DG, and more ..
Flash: AF-540FGZ, Vivitar 283
Lenses: Pentax DA 10-17mm ED(IF) Fish Eye, Pentax DA 14mm f/2.8, Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8, Pentax-A 28mm f/2.8, Sigma 30mm F1.4 EX DC, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.2, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.4, Pentax-FA 50mm f/1.4, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.7, Pentax DA* 50-135mm f/2.8, Sigma 135-400mm APO DG, and more ..
Flash: AF-540FGZ, Vivitar 283
Posted 24/08/2013 - 22:54
Link
Consensus from people I know using the likes of the Canon 5D etc is that they are not forgiving of cheaper lenses, and it's even more important than APSC to get the best glass you can.
Going to bow out of this thread now - it's taking too much time but has been friendly and respectful even though there's rather a divergence of views, not a characteristic of all photo forums but long may it continue here!
Cheers,
Jon
Going to bow out of this thread now - it's taking too much time but has been friendly and respectful even though there's rather a divergence of views, not a characteristic of all photo forums but long may it continue here!
Cheers,
Jon
Posted 24/08/2013 - 23:53
Link
No one would argue against getting great quality lenses if you can
[i]Bodies: 1x K-5IIs, 2x K-5, Sony TX-5, Nokia 808
Lenses: Pentax DA 10-17mm ED(IF) Fish Eye, Pentax DA 14mm f/2.8, Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8, Pentax-A 28mm f/2.8, Sigma 30mm F1.4 EX DC, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.2, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.4, Pentax-FA 50mm f/1.4, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.7, Pentax DA* 50-135mm f/2.8, Sigma 135-400mm APO DG, and more ..
Flash: AF-540FGZ, Vivitar 283
Lenses: Pentax DA 10-17mm ED(IF) Fish Eye, Pentax DA 14mm f/2.8, Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8, Pentax-A 28mm f/2.8, Sigma 30mm F1.4 EX DC, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.2, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.4, Pentax-FA 50mm f/1.4, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.7, Pentax DA* 50-135mm f/2.8, Sigma 135-400mm APO DG, and more ..
Flash: AF-540FGZ, Vivitar 283
Posted 25/08/2013 - 00:35
Link
AxelLuther wrote:
Regarding price - this really is no longer the case that Pentax is cheaper. Comparable bodies for me are K5iiS and Nikon D7100 - the Pentax body costs 10% more but does not offer 10% more features or quality. They need to change this - otherwise it might get difficult to beat against the competitors (especially when using same parts as Nikon or Sony )
Maybe things changed overnight, or maybe things are different on the continent, but the K-5IIs is around £750-£770 (£725 at the moment at SRS) and the D7100 is around £840.Regarding price - this really is no longer the case that Pentax is cheaper. Comparable bodies for me are K5iiS and Nikon D7100 - the Pentax body costs 10% more but does not offer 10% more features or quality. They need to change this - otherwise it might get difficult to beat against the competitors (especially when using same parts as Nikon or Sony )
Dan
K-3, a macro lens and a DA*300mm...
Posted 25/08/2013 - 00:37
Link
Smeggypants wrote:
No one would argue against getting great quality lenses if you can
I think LOMO would... No one would argue against getting great quality lenses if you can
Dan
K-3, a macro lens and a DA*300mm...
Posted 25/08/2013 - 00:46
Link
hehe
[i]Bodies: 1x K-5IIs, 2x K-5, Sony TX-5, Nokia 808
Lenses: Pentax DA 10-17mm ED(IF) Fish Eye, Pentax DA 14mm f/2.8, Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8, Pentax-A 28mm f/2.8, Sigma 30mm F1.4 EX DC, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.2, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.4, Pentax-FA 50mm f/1.4, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.7, Pentax DA* 50-135mm f/2.8, Sigma 135-400mm APO DG, and more ..
Flash: AF-540FGZ, Vivitar 283
Lenses: Pentax DA 10-17mm ED(IF) Fish Eye, Pentax DA 14mm f/2.8, Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8, Pentax-A 28mm f/2.8, Sigma 30mm F1.4 EX DC, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.2, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.4, Pentax-FA 50mm f/1.4, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.7, Pentax DA* 50-135mm f/2.8, Sigma 135-400mm APO DG, and more ..
Flash: AF-540FGZ, Vivitar 283
Posted 17/10/2013 - 21:23
Link
Let`s pop up FF thread again.
Everybody has already studied K-3 specs... Yes?
1. Processor, shutter and frames pers second is made for paramount speed and operates at 24mp figures. So, can easily work with fulframe too!
2. New AF mechanism with lot of points and -3EV. It is capable for serious work - can be super good for new FF too.
3. Predictable AF linked with totally new light measuring tecnology - super good for FF too!
My conclusion - if Pentax is not cramming into kind of K5III just more MP, but makes a lot of technology improvements, it is signal for strong further developement path.
Everybody has already studied K-3 specs... Yes?
1. Processor, shutter and frames pers second is made for paramount speed and operates at 24mp figures. So, can easily work with fulframe too!
2. New AF mechanism with lot of points and -3EV. It is capable for serious work - can be super good for new FF too.
3. Predictable AF linked with totally new light measuring tecnology - super good for FF too!
My conclusion - if Pentax is not cramming into kind of K5III just more MP, but makes a lot of technology improvements, it is signal for strong further developement path.
Posted 17/10/2013 - 21:31
Link
michaelblue wrote:
....and will wildlife photographers want full frame....reducing the focal length of their long lenses? .....just a thought
Yes, they will ....and will wildlife photographers want full frame....reducing the focal length of their long lenses? .....just a thought
Regards
David
Add Comment
To leave a comment - Log in to Pentax User or create a new account.
13627 posts
18 years
Hythe,
Hampshire UK