All Forum Comments
Comment by Horst posted on Pentax FF Dead, Maybe at 22/08/2013 - 12:40
Quote:
John Riley wrote:
You might think it was a Pentax Club Outing.
.John Riley wrote:
You might think it was a Pentax Club Outing.
Maybe it was a Pentax outing.
The only other Pentax user in my workplace (about 50 people) is one guy I talked in to and showed him my K5. However he bought a K30, due to money restraints.
There are plenty of Canon and Nikon models in the place.
Regards, Horst
Comment by Horst posted on I think Pentax lost a bet... at 20/08/2013 - 01:03
Quote:
Well you do make quite a few assumptions and dubious statements that are presented as fact but may well not be, for example the 110 is not more manageable than a 35mm SLR or a DSLR. We need to define "manageable" in which case my meaning is the ability to shoot the required image easily and effectively. It would be a real challenge to survive on a Pentax 110 or a Q for that matter.
John , I did not make any assumption. it was you, who stated that The larger size is more cumbersome than the smaller ones. I just went a step further and then finally to the 110Size. This on my part was not to say the 110 is better. On the contrary, the small film size is useless for big enlargements. I don't think you understood how it was meant. Well you do make quite a few assumptions and dubious statements that are presented as fact but may well not be, for example the 110 is not more manageable than a 35mm SLR or a DSLR. We need to define "manageable" in which case my meaning is the ability to shoot the required image easily and effectively. It would be a real challenge to survive on a Pentax 110 or a Q for that matter.
further. It seems to me, that you may be slightly biased against any criticism towards Pentax products.
I assume, that most if not all of the forum members,including myself, have and love the
Pentax equipment.
This however does not mean one should not offer any criticism towards Pentax products or mention wishes.
Quote:
anyway, the argument is futile because there isn't a Pentax FF DSLR so we don't know if it would be better or not. The 645D is better in some respects but still not so in others and the same applies to FF.
What does it matter if a FF does not exist. This shouldn't stop anyone from thinking and debating about it. anyway, the argument is futile because there isn't a Pentax FF DSLR so we don't know if it would be better or not. The 645D is better in some respects but still not so in others and the same applies to FF.
not long ago, there wasn't a K5, but I am sure, some members wished to have the advanced features the K5 has.
After all, what is the forum for, if, besides a lot of other things,
a future FF can not be discussed.
The main argument against a FF seems to be it's size. But we don't even know, if it is larger or not. Going by history, maybe the first model may be somewhat larger, but then normally the next one ends up smaller again.
Regards, Horst
Comment by Horst posted on Pentax FF Dead, Maybe at 18/08/2013 - 10:38
John Wrote:
Well john, I am not sure if you know, how it works:
The crop factor of APS to FF is 1.5. So your 300mm lens looks like a 450mm lens. However it is still a 300mm lens if you consider the FF Size.
You apparently get a more telephoto with APS, but only because you look at a part of the image the lens can produce. Assuming your FF Pixel count is 1.5 times The APS count which may be 16Mp. This the works out to 24Mp.
If you now take a shot with a FF sensor, you still have all the information on the image the APS sensor gave you, plus some extra.
Now if you crop the FF image by the factor of 1.5, You arrive at the same Image and the same quality as if you mounted the 300mm lens on to an APS camera.
Again John:
Also If this is your reason for APS. It would be probably better to go to the Pentax Q or even to some of the pocket cameras. I don't think this argument is plausible.
John further:
Agreed, the 35mm format was more manageable, but the Pentax 110 was even more manageable. However, this was not my argument. I talked about the quality. Are you trying to say, the image quality of 35mm is as good or better than for example 2-1/4 square?
Agreed, 35mm was faster, Agreed the lenses where faster. So what? It depends what you do with your camera.
Not everybody is a sports photographer. If you ever had a look at colour slides and saw the difference between a 35mm slide and a a 2-1/4 square slide, you notice a great difference in favor of the 2-1/4 square.
The Photographers who took the pictures for the Swiss landscape and mountain scenery calenders took Linhof's with heavy Zeiss and Schneider lenses up in to the mountains. This was a hard slog, but no publisher would buy 35mm negatives. I wonder why?
John Schick wrote:
People and especially news people bought the Nikon-F's in big quantities. They where bigger and heavier than the equivalent Pentax cameras.
John Schick wrote further:
I can only assume, the reluctance of the majority of the forum members to acknowledge that the FF size is better is because they are the proud owners of a Camera with an APS sensor. This was and still is quite an investment for most of us and it is hard to acknowledge that there is something which may be better then one has paid a high price for it.
I am sure, Pentax may also be reluctant to go to FF, because of the many DA type lenses, which must be a lot easier and cheaper to produce, the the lenses which cover the FF size. The best example is the high price of the DA-Limited lenses, which, so I have read, Cover the FF size.
Regards, Horst
Quote:
For example, the crop factor means APS-C is better than FF for sports and nature shots. Our long lenses are even longer and if that's what we want, then APS-C is better
.For example, the crop factor means APS-C is better than FF for sports and nature shots. Our long lenses are even longer and if that's what we want, then APS-C is better
Well john, I am not sure if you know, how it works:
The crop factor of APS to FF is 1.5. So your 300mm lens looks like a 450mm lens. However it is still a 300mm lens if you consider the FF Size.
You apparently get a more telephoto with APS, but only because you look at a part of the image the lens can produce. Assuming your FF Pixel count is 1.5 times The APS count which may be 16Mp. This the works out to 24Mp.
If you now take a shot with a FF sensor, you still have all the information on the image the APS sensor gave you, plus some extra.
Now if you crop the FF image by the factor of 1.5, You arrive at the same Image and the same quality as if you mounted the 300mm lens on to an APS camera.
Again John:
Quote:
Our cameras are more compact than FF, so for travel it could be argued that APS-C is better.
How do you know, that the FF is more compact than an APS size camera?Our cameras are more compact than FF, so for travel it could be argued that APS-C is better.
Also If this is your reason for APS. It would be probably better to go to the Pentax Q or even to some of the pocket cameras. I don't think this argument is plausible.
John further:
Quote:
As for film, 35mm is much better than 6x9cm or half or full plate. More compact, more manageable, more versatile, faster to use, the list goes on.
Larger is not always better.
Well, I suppose, according to your theory, all the people for example who own a Pentax 645D have to be a bunch of idiots. To pay a lot more money for a larger camera if they can a an APS for about 1000 bucks and get the same image quality as the 645.As for film, 35mm is much better than 6x9cm or half or full plate. More compact, more manageable, more versatile, faster to use, the list goes on.
Larger is not always better.
Agreed, the 35mm format was more manageable, but the Pentax 110 was even more manageable. However, this was not my argument. I talked about the quality. Are you trying to say, the image quality of 35mm is as good or better than for example 2-1/4 square?
Agreed, 35mm was faster, Agreed the lenses where faster. So what? It depends what you do with your camera.
Not everybody is a sports photographer. If you ever had a look at colour slides and saw the difference between a 35mm slide and a a 2-1/4 square slide, you notice a great difference in favor of the 2-1/4 square.
The Photographers who took the pictures for the Swiss landscape and mountain scenery calenders took Linhof's with heavy Zeiss and Schneider lenses up in to the mountains. This was a hard slog, but no publisher would buy 35mm negatives. I wonder why?
John Schick wrote:
Quote:
But I can't agree larger size is always better. Read the number of posts by people who buy larger cameras with their larger lenses and then end up barely using them because they're too big to lug around, and it then becomes clear that FF cameras are compromises just like any other.
There is really no reason, why a full frame camera should be that much larger. most of your pre-digital cameras where FF. some where smaller than the K5. E.G the MX ME, Super-A etc.But I can't agree larger size is always better. Read the number of posts by people who buy larger cameras with their larger lenses and then end up barely using them because they're too big to lug around, and it then becomes clear that FF cameras are compromises just like any other.
People and especially news people bought the Nikon-F's in big quantities. They where bigger and heavier than the equivalent Pentax cameras.
John Schick wrote further:
Quote:
You go for the best mix of price, quality, size and features that suits you best. And for many people, it is not automatically correct the FF is always going to be better.
You're spot on John and it is true that many people go for the size and features which suits them best. That why the Instamatic cameras where such a success. However it would be nice to have the choice.You go for the best mix of price, quality, size and features that suits you best. And for many people, it is not automatically correct the FF is always going to be better.
I can only assume, the reluctance of the majority of the forum members to acknowledge that the FF size is better is because they are the proud owners of a Camera with an APS sensor. This was and still is quite an investment for most of us and it is hard to acknowledge that there is something which may be better then one has paid a high price for it.
I am sure, Pentax may also be reluctant to go to FF, because of the many DA type lenses, which must be a lot easier and cheaper to produce, the the lenses which cover the FF size. The best example is the high price of the DA-Limited lenses, which, so I have read, Cover the FF size.
Regards, Horst
Comment by Horst posted on Pentax FF Dead, Maybe at 18/08/2013 - 05:08
Quote:
Stuey wrote:
I'm still hopeful that Pentax release a ff dslr that way we can get back to whinging about the lack of long lenses most of us could not afford even if more existed
I don't see why. A 300mm lens in APC is exactly the same lens as in FF.Stuey wrote:
I'm still hopeful that Pentax release a ff dslr that way we can get back to whinging about the lack of long lenses most of us could not afford even if more existed
It only seems to be a 450mm lens in APC , because the APC sensor registers only the centre part pf the image
If you crop your 300mm FF Picture to APC size your back to 450mm.
You can do this in the camera or in software.
However If you like wide angle shots, then the FF has the instant advantage. A 15mm lens on APC does show you less than on FF.
I think, people are being brainwashed by manufacturers who are pushing smaller than FF formats.
Any complaint about FF is completely absurd. FF is always better than APC or similar.
This is like saying in the film camera days, 35mm is better than 6 x 9 or half or full plate. The larger size is always better.
The same goes for digital.
No question.
Regards, Horst
Comment by Horst posted on Pentax FF Dead, Maybe at 17/08/2013 - 15:07
Hi, I think it's a great picture. Whatever anybody else
says, I like it a lot.
Regards, Horst
says, I like it a lot.
Regards, Horst
Comment by Horst posted on I don't do landscapes at 17/08/2013 - 14:37
Quote:
Jonathan wrote:
3. I agree the cheap Pentax 50mm is over-priced, it makes me very glad I have the FA version. Having said that, the Canon 50/1.8 has the most horrendous build quality of any lens ever made, I wouldn't buy it even if it cost a tenner.
I've never seen the cannon 50/1.8 lens.Jonathan wrote:
3. I agree the cheap Pentax 50mm is over-priced, it makes me very glad I have the FA version. Having said that, the Canon 50/1.8 has the most horrendous build quality of any lens ever made, I wouldn't buy it even if it cost a tenner.
But, I am sure it can not be worth and dreadfully made as is the
Pentax FA 35-80 f4-5.6 It is hard to believe how miserable the mechanics of this lens with the plastic bayonet mounting is.The focusing is loose and wobbles like a lambs tail.The whole lens assembly is plastic. I wouldn't be supriced if the lenses are plastic to. It's just awful. The silver paint wears off and shows the black underneath. I inherited as part of a camera I bought on eBay.
When I saw the lens I could not believe, that Pentax could make such a heap of crap.
I have the Pentax-F 35-80 f4-5.6 also. This lens is OK. It has the metal bayonet mounting and the mechanical parts are firm and solid. Nothing is loose. It also make acceptable pictures.
I suppose this is a special lens for masochists.
Regards, Horst
Horst
Comment by Horst posted on I think Pentax lost a bet... at 12/08/2013 - 14:53
Hi,
here in Melbourne, the Post office shops sell the Pentax X-5 including a carrying case and a 8Gb SD card for 199 Dollars AUS. This is about 118 GBP
or 138 Euro . This is a Fathers Day packet.
With it being so cheap, maybe the Australian Pentax importer (C R Kennedy)
Knows something we don't.
Regards, Horst
here in Melbourne, the Post office shops sell the Pentax X-5 including a carrying case and a 8Gb SD card for 199 Dollars AUS. This is about 118 GBP
or 138 Euro . This is a Fathers Day packet.
With it being so cheap, maybe the Australian Pentax importer (C R Kennedy)
Knows something we don't.
Regards, Horst
Comment by Horst posted on The cheapest X-5 yet at 12/08/2013 - 14:31
I imagine, the equipment will still be called Pentax.
It doesn't really matter what company makes it, as long as it is still in the Pentax vain.
Maybe on day it could be Nikon=Pentax or Canon-Pentax or Leica-Pentax.
Who cares, as long as it well made and all my lenses will still fit.
Horst
It doesn't really matter what company makes it, as long as it is still in the Pentax vain.
Maybe on day it could be Nikon=Pentax or Canon-Pentax or Leica-Pentax.
Who cares, as long as it well made and all my lenses will still fit.
Horst
Some years ago, most people owned a Nokia mobile phone. It was the state of the art then. One could make and receive calls send text and that was about it.
Then smarter phones arrived, Nokia stuck with the existing types. After all people likes Nokia. OK, they lost a few sales , So what!
Then the smartphones arrived . With apple, Samsung, LG and others.
Nokia who?
Then there was Pentax with 16MP APS-C. Wow!!, Still there is Pentax, or
Rico-Pentax with APS-C and plenty of beginners and cheaper cameras, a new one every month.
And then there are Nikon and Canon with APS and FF. Wow!!.
Does Pentax need a FF camera? Yes,or else see Nokia.
You can't sit on your Laurels. The Spotmatic was the last real world success. Then Pentax mucked around with the screw mount until it was to late. How many Journalists used Pentax? None, They used Nikon and some Leica M4's and the only Nikon.
When you see advertisements in Photo journals, what do you see? Nikon and Canon. Pentax who??.
Unless Pentax pulls its finger out, there won't be any Pentax.
Every time I try and buy some new Pentax equipment here in Melbourne (4 million inhabitants), It has to be ordered in from the agents.
Don't Get me wrong, I am not anti Pentax, on the contrary. I have lots of Pentax equipment which I love. But the doesn't stop me from seeing things the way they are.
Bring on the FF. Don't fiddle with small things like card doors, 24MP APC-S etc.
Horst
Then smarter phones arrived, Nokia stuck with the existing types. After all people likes Nokia. OK, they lost a few sales , So what!
Then the smartphones arrived . With apple, Samsung, LG and others.
Nokia who?
Then there was Pentax with 16MP APS-C. Wow!!, Still there is Pentax, or
Rico-Pentax with APS-C and plenty of beginners and cheaper cameras, a new one every month.
And then there are Nikon and Canon with APS and FF. Wow!!.
Does Pentax need a FF camera? Yes,or else see Nokia.
You can't sit on your Laurels. The Spotmatic was the last real world success. Then Pentax mucked around with the screw mount until it was to late. How many Journalists used Pentax? None, They used Nikon and some Leica M4's and the only Nikon.
When you see advertisements in Photo journals, what do you see? Nikon and Canon. Pentax who??.
Unless Pentax pulls its finger out, there won't be any Pentax.
Every time I try and buy some new Pentax equipment here in Melbourne (4 million inhabitants), It has to be ordered in from the agents.
Don't Get me wrong, I am not anti Pentax, on the contrary. I have lots of Pentax equipment which I love. But the doesn't stop me from seeing things the way they are.
Bring on the FF. Don't fiddle with small things like card doors, 24MP APC-S etc.
Horst
Quite a few posts ago, the majority of you assumed a FF K5 equivalent would need to be just about as big as to need a wheelbarrow to drag it around. So much for consistency.
There is no reason not to build a FF exactly the size of a K5. All it requires is a larger mirror and a larger focusing screen in front of a FF sensor. The Lens mount to sensor stays as before. Keep the K mount. Its great. Also Pentax could make a lot of new lenses to cover the FF after the lot of APS only lenses it has now..
You could still use any existing lenses, but of course the lure of the new FF lenses would be hard to resist.
Regards, Horst