Pentax FF Dead, Maybe

Does it reduce the size of the bird, or just affect the field of view of the lens? - Meaning same sized bird, just more of the scene in the final picture on FF?

With crop one can get one bird in viewfinder, but with FF... Whooping two birds with one shot!

......so you heard this from someone in China who works for someone else who is contracted by someone else who works with (not for) Ricoh.....seems pretty reliable

That's what I thought, rather than the birds being any bigger. Crop factor vs enlargement.

I don't understand why FF is so important. Yes I want an affordable FF option, but that's so that my existing lens collection can be used at their 'native' focal lengths and become interchangeable across film & digital bodies. An expensive FF body might be a top-of-the-range jewel in the crown - but how many of us would pay £2k for it? It would be more expensive than an equivalent Canikon simply because they don't have in-body SR and the R&D would be more expensive due to the smaller initial production numbers. Ricoh shouldn't be looking at FF as a 'me too' product simply because others do it and it's seen as some kind of holy grail.

The 135 format was never about top-quality IQ or super shallow DoF, the film/developer you used defined your spacial resolution and grain (I guess that's noise in DSLR terms). It was about being the smallest/most portable format that would provide acceptable/good results for general photography. If you wanted more than that then you could use medium or larger formats.

I'm sure that 24mp APS-C is going to better most (if not all 135 film) from a practical shooting point of view. I'm going to guess that most people wouldn't be able to tell the difference between a 24mp APS-C image and a 24mp FF image. To better it you probably need a very expensive 36mp FF body (or two if you want the option of AA/non-AA filters).

The biggest difference for me is that my wide-angles become wide-angles again (and I don't have to buy more lenses) and my tele-photos become much shorter (and I've never wished that). With the launch of the K-3, I'm thinking the previously unthinkable and considering selling a lot of my 135 format glass to help fund a set of DA Limiteds.

My telephotos don't change at all between camera formats.

Best regards

johnha,

I completely understand your point.

But imagine - with FF your limited makes 1.5x times less chromatic aberration. Picture of that sharp detail becomes 1.5x times sharper. FA 31mm 1.8 limited skyrockets in price even more (gladly I have one) - because it is wide and bright. Taking portrait with it, makes subject closer and bokeh much more visible and adds extra space around subject, making wide angle dynamics...

...and so many advanced folks left Pentax just because there was no path of growth. They were/are true Pentax dealers - because people asked questions and theses persons sold them Pentax.

Now they use Canon/Nikon and sell these cameras to beginners. Ok, all this is talked uncountable times.

not really. the Nikon D4 is only 16mp but above ISO200 has nearly stops better dynamic range.

DXO Mark K-5 v D-4

16MP FF pixels are much bigger than 16MP APS-C

Here we go again. You do not reduce the focal length of your tele lens with FF. A 300mm lens is a 300mm lens no matter what the size of your sensor.
All say APS-C does, is to give you in effect a cropped version of the FF.
Now If you take the picture with a FF sensor. (of course with the appropriate increase in pixel quantity) You can either crop it already in you camera or later in your software.
It seems everybody is only worried (unnecessary so) about birdwatchers and similar tele photographers. What about the wide angle people.

That's where the real problem starts by having APS-C .
With a given focal length, say 24mm You loose a fair bit of your image.
The to get back to the same as the 24mm lens You now have to invest in a 18mm lens and so on. You loose, no matter what on the wide angles.

No you may say:" just invest in the next smaller focal length" if you hace an APS-C
Fair enough, but at the same time don't forget to the say:" just invest in the next size Tele lens if you have a FF, if you don,t want to crop.

With FF you only gain, You don't loose.

Then we get the comment: "With the extra pixels required, we get more noise." Why should you? The pixel size is the same for APS-C or FF.
This means, the light sensitivity of each pixel is the same as before.
Not even taking in to account the advances in technology.
The Pentax APS-C cameras are really great, but don't knock the FF, they are even greater.
At least your beloved 50mm F-whatever Has still the same angle of view as on your Film camera and is not suddenly a 75mm.

Regards, Horst

johnha wrote:

This is not quite correct.

Barnack decided on the 35mm format, because it was a relatively easy to come by and to develop type of film, which could be used in a pocketable and unobtrusive camera. also a bonus for news reporters.
However he used more of the available film area then the movie people which used it cross wise. Barnack used the film lengthwise.

Your correct in saying it was the smallest format to give acceptable results. That why 110 etc never became a standard.

However it of course was inferior to the Half-plates and 2-1/4 squares when used with the equivalent quality lenses and cameras

The same scenario is the FF with say 36MP compared to the APS with 16- or even 24MP.

Regards, Horst

johnha wrote:

Look at all the cars on the marked. They look all basically the same. They have all the same features.

Camera manufacturers must do the same for a given type of camera. Be it compacts or SLR's They can and should not fall behind. If they do. they have a great uphill clime to get back on an even Kiel. See Pentax.

Regards, Horst

Yup.

Yes and that's because the extensive surveys on product desires and requirements all give similar results.

Its short sighted to say Ricoh/Pentax shouldn't release a FF becuase other companies do it. On the contrary it's the biggest reason to release a FF camera. Regardless of any technical reasons of FF v. APS-C there's plenty enough marketing desirability to make people buy FF and Pentax are missing out my not offering a product in this sector.

Ricehigh's just posted a link to some photos taken with
a Pentax K-5iiS + NEW 21mm HD. Looking at them I can't
imagine why anyone would need anything better

http://news.mapcamera.com/KASYAPA.php?itemid=22519

Some good samples of other Pentax/Ricoh gear...
http://news.mapcamera.com/KASYAPA.php?catid=281&blogid=64

You could take two shots and stitch them together to
make a FF shot

--

Well of course I drive a Honda Civic 1.6 and can't imagine why anyone would need anything 'better'... horses for courses