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 25, 2010, 1:20 AM   #31
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 225
Default

Frogfish, applause for your mentioning that even a lowly 3mp cam make some very nice enlargements!

Just to be clear for rveryone here since I have spoken of the 645. I am completly aware that what we are calling full frame means the same size as 35mm film. While I am not a camera historian I know of medium format slrs and large format view cameras. Could you imagine the cost and quality of a sensor that was 8 x 10 inches like large format view cameras that use sheet film? We're talking billboard or building mural size prints! We're also talking about file sizes in the gigabites or maybe terabites for raw images!
I remember when I upgraded from a 640 by 480 ixla that took 20 or so images ti a 1 mp HP that had a 1 inch or so viewscreen! What a wonderfull leap and I printed 8x10s from that 1mp camera that I felt good about. My next camera was a canon 3.2 mp with a 3x optical lens! Pure heaven and nice prints! Dl 6 mp was next and now I have a Kx 12.4 mp.............Will I ever truly need more mp's ? likely not but I will want them! Did I ever want a medium format in the film days ? yes but back then I could hardly afford a manual 35mm vivitar slr from kmart. And I sure would like to have a digital medium format today but............I can afford a Kx !
bock1965 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 25, 2010, 1:47 AM   #32
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Washington State
Posts: 930
Default

Yes, but you might be able to afford a medium format film camera now. I have been tempted to get one just to see what it's like (film, not digital!). As for MPs i think the reality is that 5-6 is all you really need but more can be better if you have to crop. I'd actually want higher numbers in a P&S since with a DSLR I can just buy longer glass and eliminate the need for cropping.

john
jelow1966 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 25, 2010, 11:00 AM   #33
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 225
Default

John I was thinking the same thing as I was hitting the submit button for my previuos post! I agree with notion that 5 or 6 mp is in reality all I really need. Thar coupled with the need to hone my photographic skills. Although I do see a need to increase the amount of mp's in the event of a physicaly larger sensor.
bock1965 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 25, 2010, 12:32 PM   #34
Senior Member
 
Monza76's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 4,093
Default

Scott Kelby in his excellent book "The Digital Photography Book" Volume 1, points out that for the vast majority of hobbyist photographers 6Mp is enough resolution. Obviously that level has gone the way of the dinosaur in new products but the premise that resolution is not the biggest issue is paramount. The Nikon D700 is only 12Mp which means huge pixels and excellent low light performance. My 6Mp Pentaxes (I have owned a DS and a DL and my wife has a K100D Super) are much better cameras in low light than the K10D I now use.

I don't need or want a 135 sized sensor, all I require is a camera that provides good low light performance and light weight, that is why a KX (or more likely a KR) is probably in my future.

I already said I was cheap.
__________________
Ira
Riverview, NB, Canada
http://aicphotography.blogspot.com/
_______________________________
Current equipment
Pentax K5, K3:
FA 35mm f2, FA 50 f1.4, FA 28-70mm f4, FA 28-80mm f3.5-5.6, F 50mm f1.7, Tamron SP 70-200mm f2.8 Di, DA 10-17 f3.5-4.5, DA 14 f2.8, DA 16-45mm f4, DA 18-55mm f3.5-5.6 WR, DA 50-200mm f4-5.6 WR, AF-540FGZ

Olympus E-P2, E-P5, OM-D E-M1: 9mm to 150mm lenses

_______________________________
Monza76 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 25, 2010, 12:57 PM   #35
Senior Member
 
tacticdesigns's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 998
Default

Interesting question.

If you had asked me this a couple of years ago, I would have said they have to do it. Everyone else is doing it.

Now that I've actually sat down and started trying to learn how to use my camera, I've completely forgotten about APS vs. Full Frame.

For me, I've just been having so much fun using my camera, that I've forgotten its an APS sized sensor.

And that K-r really does look like a fun camera. I'm tempted by that one. <grin>

Take care,
Glen
tacticdesigns is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 26, 2010, 12:57 AM   #36
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Western Canada
Posts: 3,076
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Monza76 View Post
Can't add much here,Personally I have owned a DL, DS and a K10D with battery grip. I like the great feel and balance of the K10D but usually reached for the smaller lighter models since they were so much easier to carry. To me, 135 format is now the modern Medium format. The people who used 645 series cameras from Pentax and Mamiya are now using Canon 5D and Nikon D700 for weddings and things. The D3s and 1D models are the realm of the rough and tumble world of the high end photojournalist (and, dare I say it, paparazzi).

35mm film was rarely used for any prints larger than 11"x14", that was medium format territory. Our APS-C cameras are now capable of surpassing 35mm film in many respects so why do we suddenly need medium format quality.

Two of my friends own 135 format cameras, one has a Canon 5D MkII the other a Nikon D700. They are marvelous cameras that produce marvelous images, but they are heavy, expensive and show little advantage in the 8"x10" size I typically print to.

Yes I like Pentax, yes I fit the profile (I am cheap), most of my lenses are film era glass but I am not pushing for a camera system I will not buy and that could even put the company if further jeopardy. After all, the 645D may actually be the game changer Pentax needs.
Monza,

I have to disagree with you that FF is the new medium format. I've seen pictures from an actual medium format camera the new 645D and IMO...FF doesn't match it.

The Pentax Medium format 645 digital has a significantly larger sensor (as do all digital medium formats) then a FF camera.

Medium format cameras are described by their manufacturers as medium format cameras. I note that Nikon, Canon and Sony do not describe their FF cameras as anything but what they are...Full frame cameras.

I do adnit I'm a little picky about this, probably because I'm a medium format (film) user and owner.
Les
lesmore49 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 26, 2010, 2:54 AM   #37
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 225
Default

hhmmm I am not sure that anyone was saying that FF (35mm) sensors were as good as the medium format..............I think that the thinking goes like this........Time was it went like this, Large format , medium format then 35mm which was at one time refered to by the medium and large format guys as the miniature format..........now since that (not that I am aware of ! ) there arent any digital "large" format cameras available to the consumer ,medium format cameras are the "new" large, FF cameras are the "new" medium and the aps cameras are the "new" 35mm

As always I reserve the right to be wrong! ............
bock1965 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 26, 2010, 10:56 AM   #38
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Western Canada
Posts: 3,076
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bock1965 View Post
hhmmm I am not sure that anyone was saying that FF (35mm) sensors were as good as the medium format..............I think that the thinking goes like this........Time was it went like this, Large format , medium format then 35mm which was at one time refered to by the medium and large format guys as the miniature format..........now since that (not that I am aware of ! ) there arent any digital "large" format cameras available to the consumer ,medium format cameras are the "new" large, FF cameras are the "new" medium and the aps cameras are the "new" 35mm

As always I reserve the right to be wrong! ............

A large format (film) dwarfs even a medium format (film).

I know as you say some use the formula you expressed as the 'new' system.

What happens eventually when large digital view cameras are available and I think they will be eventually.

Yes they would have a limited market...but I do think that digital has sparked a mini revolution in photography and has drawn many more people into SLR (D) photography, who will want more.....medium format and some...large format at reasonable prices.

Technology always seems to start pricey and evolve into much cheaper over years.

When I gaze into my crystal ball...and look into the future 10-20 years from now...I see reasonable priced medium formats and the strong possibility of large format view (digital) cameras.

I could be wrong but I don't think so.
lesmore49 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 26, 2010, 11:18 AM   #39
Senior Member
 
Monza76's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 4,093
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lesmore49 View Post
Monza,

I have to disagree with you that FF is the new medium format. I've seen pictures from an actual medium format camera the new 645D and IMO...FF doesn't match it.

The Pentax Medium format 645 digital has a significantly larger sensor (as do all digital medium formats) then a FF camera.

Medium format cameras are described by their manufacturers as medium format cameras. I note that Nikon, Canon and Sony do not describe their FF cameras as anything but what they are...Full frame cameras.

I do adnit I'm a little picky about this, probably because I'm a medium format (film) user and owner.
Les
Les

What I mean is that FF cameras are now capable of results that were once the realm of medium format film while medium format digital is up there with smaller view cameras in image quality.

Traditionally 135film was used only for small prints and photojournalism while medium format was used for weddings and other events where larger prints would be required and the larger 6X7 cameras were used for some advertising work but much was done with studio bound view cameras. Nowadays the view cameras are only used for very special projects (or with medium format backs), Medium format digital has become the studio camera for large prints and the wedding photographers are getting the results they need from FF cameras such as the Canon 5D.

I am not implying that FF is as good as digital MF, just that it has replace film MF in many of its former roles.
__________________
Ira
Riverview, NB, Canada
http://aicphotography.blogspot.com/
_______________________________
Current equipment
Pentax K5, K3:
FA 35mm f2, FA 50 f1.4, FA 28-70mm f4, FA 28-80mm f3.5-5.6, F 50mm f1.7, Tamron SP 70-200mm f2.8 Di, DA 10-17 f3.5-4.5, DA 14 f2.8, DA 16-45mm f4, DA 18-55mm f3.5-5.6 WR, DA 50-200mm f4-5.6 WR, AF-540FGZ

Olympus E-P2, E-P5, OM-D E-M1: 9mm to 150mm lenses

_______________________________
Monza76 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 26, 2010, 12:31 PM   #40
Senior Member
 
snostorm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Chicago Suburb, IL, USA
Posts: 2,770
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lesmore49 View Post
A large format (film) dwarfs even a medium format (film).

I know as you say some use the formula you expressed as the 'new' system.

What happens eventually when large digital view cameras are available and I think they will be eventually.

Yes they would have a limited market...but I do think that digital has sparked a mini revolution in photography and has drawn many more people into SLR (D) photography, who will want more.....medium format and some...large format at reasonable prices.

Technology always seems to start pricey and evolve into much cheaper over years.

When I gaze into my crystal ball...and look into the future 10-20 years from now...I see reasonable priced medium formats and the strong possibility of large format view (digital) cameras.

I could be wrong but I don't think so.
Hi Les,

With the highest res MF digital back alone (you still need to buy a camera to attach it to -- and lenses) costing in the neighborhood of a nice luxury sedan, like an Acura RL (@$39K USD), I don't think that there's going to be much of a call for Large format digital, except maybe for NASA or the CIA -- and besides, it would probably be a crop sensor anyway, so make it 3.25x4" with 200MP at @ 4x the cost, so $160K.

With 22-80 MP, we're talking up to almost 4x the resolution of 135 format sensors. All the MF sensors seem to guarantee 12 stops of DR, produce 16 bit files, and are capable of astounding IQ and resolution with top quality glass, so I don't really think there will be too many who might demand much more.

I think that with digital, it's likely that they'll stop at MF, and the APS-CD=135F, 135D=MFF, and MFD=LFF are probably about the right equivalents for the foreseeable future. Assuming that the 7D's sensor technology can be used in a 135 sensor, that's 36MP, so let's say APS-C tops out at 20MP, 135 format tops out at 40MP, and MF at 90-100 MP. . .

Speculating like this is really silly. . .

Scott
snostorm 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 9:50 PM.