Reading mode: Light Dark

Full Frame or Digital Medium Format - it's Time to VOTE!

Go to last post
dotnik said:
dotnik said:
Well, many here even thought that a 645D would allow use of K lenses.
Not the best strategic advisors. And if many here say "MF!" without
making it clear that they wouldn't buy it, that's a bit misleading.
Click to expand...
Huh! Misleading to whom? People don't have to explain a vote.
Click to expand...
Well. If someone counts the A and B answers, he/she probably wants to be certain that people understand the differences between A and B.
dotnik said:
They never cancelled the 645 project. Why? Because they don't have a
clue or because they continued to monitor the market?
Click to expand...
Umm. I guess you know what I think.
dotnik said:
Also we don't know what they will choose with a Pentax 645
alternative. I am sure Pentax marketing is researching that also.
Click to expand...
Now? After sinking millions into the 645D?
dotnik said:
dotnik said:
Lens prices on ebay are an indication, IMO.
Click to expand...
What happened to 35mm lenses when the K series hit the market?
Click to expand...
They rose. We will see what effect the 645D has on 645 used prices. Some have reported rising prices already. But we will see how that chnages when the 645D price becomes official.
dotnik said:
dotnik said:
They are used, but not to their full effect.
Click to expand...
Ahh but they can be used with great results. Still better than no
matching digital alternative.
Click to expand...
And worse than having an FF camera.

Jens

--

'Well, 'Zooming with your feet' is usually a stupid thing as zoom rings are designed for hands.' (Me, 2006)
My Homepage: http://www.JensRoesner.de
 
phenri said:
In addition, the MF systems best suited for digital are modular, like
the Bronica was in its time, or the Hasselblad V series, or the
Mamiya RZ-RB. The very least you must offer is interchangeable backs,
so that you can upgrade over time.
Click to expand...
There's one good reason not to do that: for the present, the sensor costs several times as much as everything else in the camera body combined. If you're going to invest in a sensor upgrade, it's senseless to save a few pennies by not upgrading its infrastructure too.
 
JensR said:
JensR said:
What would it give me? Image real estate. There's no substitute.
Click to expand...
I certainly disagree. Or we would all be "running" around with 4x5
scanning backs. But everyone has his/her own sweetspot of real estate.
Click to expand...
Well, if what you say is true - that image real estate doesn't matter - then surely we'd all be using 1/2.7" sensors in matchbox cameras?

I suspect you know what I meant, and of course in the real world compromises have to be made, ay least by most people. I never used 5x4 in the field but I know many who did. I even know one who still refers to 5x4 as small format without any irony; his large format camera is 10x8 so...

Personally I doubt I'll ever feel the need to "trade up" from APS-C, to me it's a sensible compromise - unlike FF which to me is neither one thing nor the other.

--
John Bean [GMT+1]

 
Norm1234 said:
My name is Norm, and I approved this message.
Click to expand...
I vote for KH, I think Hybrid may form a new class of cameras that will bite a bit chunk of both the p&s and DSLR market shares. I all depends on how good is the EVF. What I hate most about p&s is not the small sensor but rather the inability to frame properly. Hybrid will acknowledge that. I think they can even form two parallel Hybrid lines and find market for both: a KAF one (mechanical aperture actuator and screw AF) and a micro-K - all electronic. And they can mix and match. At any rate I think they can't afford to once again ignore this segment the way they tried to with Digital.
 
JensR said:
JensR said:
JensR said:
Well, many here even thought that a 645D would allow use of K lenses.
Not the best strategic advisors. And if many here say "MF!" without
making it clear that they wouldn't buy it, that's a bit misleading.
Click to expand...
Huh! Misleading to whom? People don't have to explain a vote.
Click to expand...
Well. If someone counts the A and B answers, he/she probably wants to
be certain that people understand the differences between A and B.
Click to expand...
Aha. I thought for a moment you meant Pentax would be that someone counting.

Pentax should of course only launch a 645D if their calculations show that they are competitive by a relatively secure margin. I also think this will only happen if Hoya is convinced and not just because Pentax wants to keep their promises.

--
.......
Have a nice day (a picture is worth a thousand words)
Jim

Link to Pentax SLR Forum Best images:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1036&message=23551175

Inspiration Challenge - in depth feedback guaranteed

'Don't overestimate technology - nothing is knowledgefree'

 
John Bean (UK) said:
John Bean (UK) said:
John Bean (UK) said:
What would it give me? Image real estate. There's no substitute.
Click to expand...
I certainly disagree. Or we would all be "running" around with 4x5
scanning backs. But everyone has his/her own sweetspot of real estate.
Click to expand...
Well, if what you say is true - that image real estate doesn't matter
  • then surely we'd all be using 1/2.7" sensors in matchbox cameras?
Click to expand...
That's certainly not what I said, as you will surely know.

I said that I disagree with your statement that there is no substitute for real estate.

So while I exposed your overly broad statement as hyperbole by taking it literally, you twisted my words as a comeback. #tsk tsk tsk#

I even said that the issue is about finding one's sweet spot and thereby refuted your matchbox argument before you even made it.
John Bean (UK) said:
I suspect you know what I meant,
Click to expand...
That MF would be your sweet spot? And that you used hyperbole to make it clear that APS-C isn't?
John Bean (UK) said:
Personally I doubt I'll ever feel the need to "trade up" from APS-C,
to me it's a sensible compromise - unlike FF which to me is neither
one thing nor the other.
Click to expand...
I rather have the best of both worlds, and that's FF (to me).

--

'Well, 'Zooming with your feet' is usually a stupid thing as zoom rings are designed for hands.' (Me, 2006)
My Homepage: http://www.JensRoesner.de
 
FF has showed itself capable of producing quality once in the realm of MF not too many years ago....do we really need more? Certainly I don't see an amateur use for the 645D, Pentax's supposed target market.

Given the state of the economy, recent drastic price cuts by MF players like Hassleblad, and Leica's new S-system, I hardly, hardly see a place for Pentax in MF.

--
http://madhubuti.deviantart.com/gallery/
 
dotnik said:
dotnik said:
dotnik said:
dotnik said:
Well, many here even thought that a 645D would allow use of K lenses.
Not the best strategic advisors. And if many here say "MF!" without
making it clear that they wouldn't buy it, that's a bit misleading.
Click to expand...
Huh! Misleading to whom? People don't have to explain a vote.
Click to expand...
Well. If someone counts the A and B answers, he/she probably wants to
be certain that people understand the differences between A and B.
Click to expand...
Aha. I thought for a moment you meant Pentax would be that someone
counting.
Click to expand...
How long did you suffer from this misinterpretation? I guess until the he/she part?
dotnik said:
Pentax should of course only launch a 645D if their calculations show
that they are competitive by a relatively secure margin. I also think
this will only happen if Hoya is convinced and not just because
Pentax wants to keep their promises.
Click to expand...
Reading the interview, one could get the impression that it is considered a prestigious project. But maybe it would be good if Hoya saw the 645D as a marketing device and not a product that brings money by its sales directly.

--

'Well, 'Zooming with your feet' is usually a stupid thing as zoom rings are designed for hands.' (Me, 2006)
My Homepage: http://www.JensRoesner.de
 
JensR said:
JensR said:
JensR said:
JensR said:
JensR said:
Well, many here even thought that a 645D would allow use of K lenses.
Not the best strategic advisors. And if many here say "MF!" without
making it clear that they wouldn't buy it, that's a bit misleading.
Click to expand...
Huh! Misleading to whom? People don't have to explain a vote.
Click to expand...
Well. If someone counts the A and B answers, he/she probably wants to
be certain that people understand the differences between A and B.
Click to expand...
Aha. I thought for a moment you meant Pentax would be that someone
counting.
Click to expand...
How long did you suffer from this misinterpretation? I guess until
the he/she part?
Click to expand...
I just did not understand your big concern regarding this poll as we both agree about the questionable value. Of course there will be people who base their votes on false assumptions but statisticly that will happen on both sides. Generally I think people here are more knowledgeable than the average Joe.

--
.......
Have a nice day (a picture is worth a thousand words)
Jim

Link to Pentax SLR Forum Best images:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1036&message=23551175

Inspiration Challenge - in depth feedback guaranteed

'Don't overestimate technology - nothing is knowledgefree'

 
JensR said:
JensR said:
JensR said:
JensR said:
What would it give me? Image real estate. There's no substitute.
Click to expand...
I certainly disagree. Or we would all be "running" around with 4x5
scanning backs. But everyone has his/her own sweetspot of real estate.
Click to expand...
Well, if what you say is true - that image real estate doesn't matter
  • then surely we'd all be using 1/2.7" sensors in matchbox cameras?
Click to expand...
That's certainly not what I said, as you will surely know.
I said that I disagree with your statement that there is no
substitute for real estate.
So while I exposed your overly broad statement as hyperbole by taking
it literally, you twisted my words as a comeback. #tsk tsk tsk#
Click to expand...
Jens you surprise me. My statement was not hyperbole but fact, although it was left without boundary conditions related to the real word. There is no substitute for image real estate but there are compromises whose effectiveness to address specific limitations of the lack of size will no doubt be satisfactory for some mass of users. That's why film cameras existed in sizes from sub-miniature to very large formats.

The same is true of digital formats but to a much lesser extent because of the nature of the beast, and it's pretty clear to all concerned that formats so small as to be virtually useless for film are spectacularly better as digital. An exotic 4x5 digital back is in many ways analogous to equally exotic 20x24 (whatever) cameras rather than the same size film; I see the MF digital cameras filling a void where 5x4 film would have been the preferred option.
JensR said:
I even said that the issue is about finding one's sweet spot [...]
Click to expand...
You seem to be getting hot under the collar about this topic for reasons that are not clear to me so it's probably best if I leave it at this point.
JensR said:
I rather have the best of both worlds, and that's FF (to me).
Click to expand...
Yes, I think you've made that patently clear. I still disagree :-)

--
John Bean [GMT+1]

 
dotnik said:
I just did not understand your big concern regarding this poll as we
both agree about the questionable value.
Click to expand...
This forum can build up a momentum quickly. But a momentum based on false conceptions can become problematic.

So, if people think "Everyone in this thread is going to buy MF" when only a few will, or if people think that they can use their K lenses on the 645D when they cannot, these are misconceptions.

--

'Well, 'Zooming with your feet' is usually a stupid thing as zoom rings are designed for hands.' (Me, 2006)
My Homepage: http://www.JensRoesner.de
 
John Bean (UK) said:
Jens you surprise me.
Click to expand...
You me, too.
John Bean (UK) said:
My statement was not hyperbole but fact,
although it was left without boundary conditions related to the real
word.
Click to expand...
Okay, hyperbole might not have been the right term. Without boundary conditions as you call them, it's still rather #umm# misleading. You didn't even say for what purpose there is no substitute for real estate. I assume IQ.
But for photography as an artform, there are other things besides IQ.

There is also no substitute for FPS or viewfinder quality or battery stamina or portability or tripod stability....
John Bean (UK) said:
There is no substitute for image real estate but there are
compromises whose effectiveness to address specific limitations of
the lack of size will no doubt be satisfactory for some mass of
users.
Click to expand...
Not only satisfactory, but perfectly suited.
John Bean (UK) said:
John Bean (UK) said:
I even said that the issue is about finding one's sweet spot [...]
Click to expand...
You seem to be getting hot under the collar about this topic for
reasons that are not clear to me
Click to expand...
I've said it numerous times and as you indicated that you've had enough of my posts on this, I won't bother to retell it now.
John Bean (UK) said:
so it's probably best if I leave it at this point.
Click to expand...
Your call.

--

'Well, 'Zooming with your feet' is usually a stupid thing as zoom rings are designed for hands.' (Me, 2006)
My Homepage: http://www.JensRoesner.de
 
A 24 Mpix full frame around 2000 euros, 3 images per second is enough.
To use with my beloved limited FA and FA* lenses...
With the ability to use APSC lenses with a reduced 12 Mpix image
Cheers

--
jpgoube
 
JensR said:
JensR said:
I just did not understand your big concern regarding this poll as we
both agree about the questionable value.
Click to expand...
This forum can build up a momentum quickly. But a momentum based on
false conceptions can become problematic.
Click to expand...
Hmm. I think you are overestimating the power of the momentum generated in this case. FF or MF will be too expensive for the masses.
JensR said:
So, if people think "Everyone in this thread is going to buy MF" when
only a few will, or if people think that they can use their K lenses
on the 645D when they cannot, these are misconceptions.
Click to expand...
There are also people who think the K20D does everything the *istD did and that Pentax has just been adding features.

You can't avoid such situations. The question is how big the impact is in the big picture. In the end those things typically do not affect the success significantly.

--
.......
Have a nice day (a picture is worth a thousand words)
Jim

Link to Pentax SLR Forum Best images:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1036&message=23551175

Inspiration Challenge - in depth feedback guaranteed

'Don't overestimate technology - nothing is knowledgefree'

 
FF is not worth dipping into with so many other models in such a small market.
645D can be very risky as well.

Pentax should put effort where the money is - the APS-C market and the up coming APS-C EVIL market.
 
First i want full backward compability with old glass on any forthcoming pentax DSLR bodies with K-mount.

Then i want a FF DSLR( if i can afford it).

Lage
 
nosnoop said:
FF is not worth dipping into with so many other models in such a
small market.
645D can be very risky as well.

Pentax should put effort where the money is - the APS-C market and
the up coming APS-C EVIL market.
Click to expand...
...so APS-C is not worth dipping with so many models, considering Pentax personal small market share.... :) JK.....

The new 1.4X TC and DA lenses, will probably cover FF format.
DA* 55 f 1.4 and 1.4X TC = 77 f 1.8...LOL

I'll never-ever buy DA crop format lenses....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top