Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Pentax / Samsung dSLR, K Mount Mirrorless

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Sep 23, 2010, 9:59 PM   #11
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Washington State
Posts: 930
Default

Pentaxians aren't the only 'cheapskates'. The Oly crowd is already waiting for the price of the new E5 to come down as well. The again it seems to be an underwhelming camera so it makes sense to want it to be cheaper. FF is a niche market and Pentax already has their niche..

john
jelow1966 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 23, 2010, 10:13 PM   #12
Senior Member
 
mtngal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Frazier Park, CA
Posts: 16,052
Default

Speaking for myself, I am not interested in a ff camera. Several years ago a friend of mine showed off his new FF Canon (don't remember which one) and I was really, really impressed with the quality of his pictures. As I flipped through the shots he had taken for samples, I noticed how heavy it was and how tired my arms got just reviewing his pictures. There's no way I could comfortably shoot with one - I sometime struggle with the K20 and one of my heavier lenses. Not to mention that I can't afford a camera that costs that much.

I know that in the past having a full frame camera as an upgrade has been used as a selling point. Buy an entry level dSLR of a particular manufacturer just because you can grow into the full frame later. It doesn't matter that the person is never going to afford a ff camera or that they couldn't physically manage a big, heavy camera. But it's there and it's a marketing tool, possibly filling someone's mind with dreams when they'll never get beyond shooting their kids. I guess that's not such a bad thing, really. With the way cameras are today (all have excellent image quality), you have to have something that separates your camera from the rest.

I'm glad that Pentax doesn't have a ff offering - I'd be afraid that they would spend all of their limited research funds improving it for the few who could afford them and cut back on the features/quality of the cameras they sell to the rest of us. They would try to force us into the more expensive cameras. For someone like me it would spell disaster.
mtngal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 23, 2010, 11:11 PM   #13
Senior Member
 
NMRecording's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Eastern Appalachains
Posts: 866
Default

well put mtngal! Although I was under the impression that pentax already released one...

I saw the 645D on ebay for 10,000.00

They better not try to push me into that, theyll push me right off the edge
NMRecording is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 24, 2010, 1:03 AM   #14
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 225
Default

Its interesting how the low light performance is creeping up slowly but steadily each and every year.......is it taking that long to increase the capabilities of these cameras? No, its marketing. Give the consumer a little at a time so he will keep buying the next newer model. I read an article about sensor light sensitivity in, I believe, Popular Photography (dont quote me on that I reserve the right to be wrong ! ) around three or four years ago. In that article they stated that researchers in Korea reorted having a sensor that could take a color correct and properly exposed image in a room having no more ambient light than a candle. Yes they were saying this was possible without flash. When I read that the K5 was going to have an upper ISO of 51200 I just smiled remembering that article that I read. This year it is 51200 next it will be 102400 or 204800. If I am not mistaken isnt there already a camera that boasts 102400?
Any way since the question is about FF , no I would not upgrade right away if it were available. Mainly because of price. Also it may not be THAT big of an IQ jump over my Kx. Now if I could get a 654 for around three grand I might be convinced to invest! LOL LOL of course with a 645 I would need a new computer and a few Terabites to handle the file sizes!
bock1965 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 24, 2010, 1:28 AM   #15
Senior Member
 
rhermans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Antwerp - Belgium
Posts: 3,454
Default

Not sure about the low light performance being held back. For as far as I understand it this last jump is the result of changing the structure of the sensor with placing the wires that connect the light sensors below the sensor instead of above it. Giving up to 40% more light hitting the sensor.

Not the same sensitivity as the current FF sensors but closer to them.

Doing the same with a ff sensor would give them an extra high iso advantage of 20-30%. But because ff aren't sold that much they might lag a bit behind in this case.

Then again how much high iso's do I need, if I can get a 1/90s at f8 in a normal sport hall with images clean enough to get 11" out of them I'm set. (1/180s would be stellar)
__________________
rhermans is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 24, 2010, 7:02 AM   #16
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxfordshire, UK
Posts: 48
Default

Would I want a FF? Possibly! Every time I see a pro I envy their kit and the high quality photos they can acheive.

But then I remember a few things. Like the cost of the body and, more especially, the glass. And the size and weight of the kit. And did I mention the cost? And then I realise that I don't really need one. I know it would be nice to create huge blow-ups of those few photos that deserve it. But the way things are developing in the sensor-world, maybe the K-5 would give me what I need,

And in the real-world, the first thing I need is more spending money (or a shorter list of things to spend money on!)
__________________
Keith
Ke1th is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 24, 2010, 9:46 AM   #17
Senior Member
 
mtngal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Frazier Park, CA
Posts: 16,052
Default

The Pentax 645 isn't a full frame camera - it's a medium format camera. It's lenses are even bigger and heavier than anything available for 35 mm cameras. Definitely for the pros.
mtngal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 24, 2010, 10:54 AM   #18
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 225
Default

I personally dont mind weight and size. I think those are minor gripes. The 645 is for anyone who can afford it and can exploit it's capabilities. Amateur or pro. By what I see here in this forum there are many folks here who could really make the 645 shine.

Mtngal imagine one of your IR images printed at 8 x 10.........FEET !! Or imagine one of Mole's butterflies or landscapes printed at that size!
bock1965 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 24, 2010, 12:26 PM   #19
Senior Member
 
Frogfish's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Shanghai, China
Posts: 2,774
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mtngal View Post
The Pentax 645 isn't a full frame camera - it's a medium format camera. It's lenses are even bigger and heavier than anything available for 35 mm cameras. Definitely for the pros.
An ex-colleague of mine shoots Medium format and he took his camera with him on a 2,000 mile push-bike ride around Nepal & India. He brought some huge poster-size prints into work one day. My goodness the quality - it was like National Geographic.
__________________
http://frogfish.smugmug.com
Pentax : 15 Ltd, 77 Ltd, 43/1.9 Ltd, Cosina 55/1.2, DA*300/4, Contax Zeiss Distagon 28/2.8, Raynox 150/250, AFA x1.7, Metz 50 af1.

Nikon : D800, D600, Sigma 500/4.5, Sigma 120-300/2.8, Zeiss Distagon ZF2 - 21/2.8, Zeiss Distagon ZF2 - 35/2.0, Nikkor 85/1.8G, Sigma 50/1.4. Nikon x1.4 TC, Sigma x2.0 TC
Frogfish is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 24, 2010, 1:29 PM   #20
Senior Member
 
thkn777's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Germany
Posts: 1,831
Default

Hm,
as a former Minolta user I always have an eye on Sony and if I really would feel the need for FF, I'd probably go that route. I see the advantage of FF at the wide and standard/normal range, while APS-C offers a lot at the tele end.

Size and weight... well... there are heavy lenses also for APS-C as well as lightweight ones for FF... so it's the combined weight that counts.

My 2 cents,
Th.
thkn777 is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 3:48 PM.