Reading mode: Light Dark

Q to 645D , now fill in the gap with a FF Pentax Ricoh

Go to last post
tigrebleu said:
tigrebleu said:
007peter wrote:

Remember - Pentax do not own any CMOS sensor production and has to rely on Sony for all its APS-C sensor. AFAIK, sony isn't selling its FF sensor, and Nikon d700 is rumor to be a Nikon's own design.....
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
tigrebleu said:
tigrebleu wrote:

While the D3s/D3/D700 are supposed to be Nikon designs, they are possibly manufactured by Sony under license.

One thing is sure, the Nikon sensors found in the D3 and D700 are actually two APS-C size sensors welded together . (A few bad sensors escaped the vigilance of the guys at the quality control and found their way on the market. The visible flaw was a vertical separation in the middle of the FF sensor, where the weld is. That's how most of the public discovered about sensor welding.)
Click to expand...
Wow, thank for informing me. Nikon GLUED sensor approach is terrible. Ouch!

I can't say I'm surprised, the production yield of FF sensor is very BAD . My Japanese Canon 5D SuperBook by CAPA , reveals canon can squeeze in :
  • 38 APS-C sensor per wafer (-3 average flaws) for a net 35 sensor per 8" wafer
  • 16 Fullframe sensor per wafer (-3 average flaws) for a net 13 sensor per 8" wafer
Canon engineer indicates that production constrain will keep the FF sensor price high for sometimes. Another challenge is gravity, those sensor nearest the center tend to be flawless, while the sensor closer to the peripheral of the wafer tend to suffer damaged.

Nikon glued approach is very cleaver, but if I"m spending $3000 on a FF dslr, I'm not buying something that is welt together.
 
I could careless about medium format 645d. Most professional photographer aren't millionaire. I know plenty of them getting by with just an APS-C for sports and 5D FF for portrait working works.
 
007peter said:
I can't say I'm surprised, the production yield of FF sensor is very BAD . My Japanese Canon 5D SuperBook by CAPA , reveals canon can squeeze in :
  • 38 APS-C sensor per wafer (-3 average flaws) for a net 35 sensor per 8" wafer
  • 16 Fullframe sensor per wafer (-3 average flaws) for a net 13 sensor per 8" wafer
Click to expand...
Those numbers seem reasonable. Moving to 12" wafers would even the numbers, but staying with 8" wafers: the production cost of a full frame sensor is therefore 35/13 or 2.7 times more than APS-C. Okay, but the cost of an APS-C sensor now is surely under $50, so going to full frame only adds $100 or thereabouts to the bill of materials.

Of course the mirror, viewfinder and shutter mechanisms all have to be a bit bigger and chunkier, but realistically the cost should not change more than $500.
 
Tan68 said:
does this advantage still exist if you have a full frame sensor with the same pixel density of APS-C?
Click to expand...
Yes, and even if the larger sensor has a higher pixel density.

What matters for resolution are line pairs per image height and pixel count does not affect this.
Tan68 said:
i ask this because 24MP and greater full frame sensors seem to be on the wishlist... a lower resolution sensor would be desirable to me..
Click to expand...
The only real advantage of low-res sensors is their smaller file size. Once you process the high-res file to same dimensions and denoise it down to the same detail, there is very little difference. Compare processed shots of D3x and D700.

--

'Well, 'Zooming with your feet' is usually a stupid thing as zoom rings are designed for hands.' (Me, 2006)
'I don't own lenses. I pwn lenses.' (2009)
My Homepage: http://www.JensRoesner.de
 
many Pentax user quit using pentax and change/ jump into nikon FF system.......that is fact!!!!!!! Why can't Pentax just build FF system and pull Nikon/Canon/Sony user into Pentax system??
 
You know how many people would buy a FF in here, about 40. The rest would pour over the specs and find every little fault with it. It would not only have to be better than Canon and Nikon, but also cheaper. Even if that were done, the lenses would then be the next issue and how we couldn't compete with all the great Nikon and Canon glass.

Yes, I know, and the sky is also blue.
 
hey. haven't seen you around often. i have been thinking about you with all this new wave of full frame blurb; you always had interesting things to say regarding full frame.
JensR said:
Tan68 said:
does this advantage still exist if you have a full frame sensor with the same pixel density of APS-C?
Click to expand...
Yes, and even if the larger sensor has a higher pixel density.

What matters for resolution are line pairs per image height and pixel count does not affect this.
JensR said:
i ask this because 24MP and greater full frame sensors seem to be on the wishlist... a lower resolution sensor would be desirable to me..
Click to expand...
The only real advantage of low-res sensors is their smaller file size. Once you process the high-res file to same dimensions and denoise it down to the same detail, there is very little difference. Compare processed shots of D3x and D700.

--

'Well, 'Zooming with your feet' is usually a stupid thing as zoom rings are designed for hands.' (Me, 2006)
'I don't own lenses. I pwn lenses.' (2009)
My Homepage: http://www.JensRoesner.de
Click to expand...
 
okay, i have a K24/2.8

compared to my Tamron 17-50 at 24mm, i see the extreme corners of the K24 start to suffer. suffer is a poor word, really; the corners are still fine. just that the corners on the 17-50 look better.

since the K24 corners were not looking (comparatively) so hot on my APS-C, i figured the lens would show even worse corners on a full frame... but, this isn't necessarily the case? the K24 may not have as poor corners on full frame as i imagine?
JensR said:
Tan68 said:
does this advantage still exist if you have a full frame sensor with the same pixel density of APS-C?
Click to expand...
Yes, and even if the larger sensor has a higher pixel density.

What matters for resolution are line pairs per image height and pixel count does not affect this.
JensR said:
i ask this because 24MP and greater full frame sensors seem to be on the wishlist... a lower resolution sensor would be desirable to me..
Click to expand...
The only real advantage of low-res sensors is their smaller file size. Once you process the high-res file to same dimensions and denoise it down to the same detail, there is very little difference. Compare processed shots of D3x and D700.

--

'Well, 'Zooming with your feet' is usually a stupid thing as zoom rings are designed for hands.' (Me, 2006)
'I don't own lenses. I pwn lenses.' (2009)
My Homepage: http://www.JensRoesner.de
Click to expand...
 
Tan68 said:
hey. haven't seen you around often. i have been thinking about you with all this new wave of full frame blurb; you always had interesting things to say regarding full frame.
Click to expand...
Thanks - I guess ;)

I'm more active on flickr, nowadays.

Anyway, not much to say about FF, really. Technical arguments haven't changed and until we know how much money from their office business Ricoh is going to invest into Ricontax, I don't feel like making predictions there ;)

I do like the way how Ricoh and Pentax have in the past thought about the photographer and user interfaces - so I hope they can make it together...

Cheers
Jens

--

'Well, 'Zooming with your feet' is usually a stupid thing as zoom rings are designed for hands.' (Me, 2006)
'I don't own lenses. I pwn lenses.' (2009)
My Homepage: http://www.JensRoesner.de
 
007peter said:
Remember - Pentax do not own any CMOS sensor production and has to rely on Sony for all its APS-C sensor. AFAIK, sony isn't selling its FF sensor, and Nikon d700 is rumor to be a Nikon's own design.
Click to expand...
Aren't 24 megapixel full frame sensors found in Nikon D3x same as in Sony full frame DSLRs?

After all, if Sony doesn't sell FF sensors it do not necessarely mean that they do not sell it on purpose. Maybe there are no buyers?

--
Edvinas
 
Tan68 said:
okay, i have a K24/2.8

compared to my Tamron 17-50 at 24mm, i see the extreme corners of the K24 start to suffer. suffer is a poor word, really; the corners are still fine. just that the corners on the 17-50 look better.

since the K24 corners were not looking (comparatively) so hot on my APS-C, i figured the lens would show even worse corners on a full frame... but, this isn't necessarily the case? the K24 may not have as poor corners on full frame as i imagine?
Click to expand...
There are a two things to keep in mind:

24/2.8 on FF is like 15.8/1.8 on APS-C for FOV, DOF and photons captured per time.

You compared on the same sensor, but you would have to compare:

17-50@24 in APS-C corner
vs
K24 in FF corner

The resolution of the 17-50 measured in lp/mm needs to be 1.5x times higher to be better than the K24 when measured in lp/ph.

From your observation no conclusion can be made whether the K24 on FF would be better or worse than the 17-50 on APS-C.

Cheers
Jens

--

'Well, 'Zooming with your feet' is usually a stupid thing as zoom rings are designed for hands.' (Me, 2006)
'I don't own lenses. I pwn lenses.' (2009)
My Homepage: http://www.JensRoesner.de
 
Edvinas said:
Aren't 24 megapixel full frame sensors found in Nikon D3x same as in Sony full frame DSLRs?
Click to expand...
They are almost identical, AFAIK. Nikon seems to have high-ISO noise under better control than Sony, though.

--

'Well, 'Zooming with your feet' is usually a stupid thing as zoom rings are designed for hands.' (Me, 2006)
'I don't own lenses. I pwn lenses.' (2009)
My Homepage: http://www.JensRoesner.de
 
JensR said:
JensR said:
Aren't 24 megapixel full frame sensors found in Nikon D3x same as in Sony full frame DSLRs?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Well, that's not a surprise. It was always like this: Pentax and Nikon did better job than Sony with their own sensors. The same goes for K-5, D7000 and Sonys (sorry, don't remember models with that sensor).

--
Edvinas
 
007peter said:
Wow, thank for informing me. Nikon GLUED sensor approach is terrible. Ouch!

I can't say I'm surprised, the production yield of FF sensor is very BAD . My Japanese Canon 5D SuperBook by CAPA , reveals canon can squeeze in :
  • 38 APS-C sensor per wafer (-3 average flaws) for a net 35 sensor per 8" wafer
  • 16 Fullframe sensor per wafer (-3 average flaws) for a net 13 sensor per 8" wafer
Canon engineer indicates that production constrain will keep the FF sensor price high for sometimes. Another challenge is gravity, those sensor nearest the center tend to be flawless, while the sensor closer to the peripheral of the wafer tend to suffer damaged.

Nikon glued approach is very cleaver, but if I"m spending $3000 on a FF dslr, I'm not buying something that is welt together.
Click to expand...
Yup, it's more like glued. I didn't meant welded like in "welding metal", but as in fused in one piece. The final result is the same: it's not a true FF sensor, but it's much cheaper than making it this way. The numbers you wrote above outline this very well.

And while making a FF sensor out of two APS-C sensors seems like cheating, it's excellent when it works well. However, when it doesn't work well, it's a fail!

And speaking of $3000, I can tell you it's worth every penny. I can assure you my D700 had great IQ... It's only because I had no other choice that I sold it. (Financial issues forced me to part from my D700, at least for a while.)
:(

Thanks to its rarity, though, I sold it for about as much as when I bought it brand new.
:)

I could never get that money for my K-7, K10D, 16-45mm F/4 and 50-135mm F/2.8 lenses put together, unfortunately. So out went the D700.
:(

--

If photography can be considered like painting, then I'm still at the preschool "paint with your fingers" level.
 
I don't believe there will be a Ricotex DSLR FF even in 10 years. There may be a chance after that, if Ricoh drop both the 645D and the Q, so it can concentrate on the mainstream business, tackling the problems directly, like SDM, the lens line-up, flash units, unreasonable high lens prices, distribution channel, marketing... and build up Pentax core business again in the next 10 years. All the distractions like MF and tiny mirrorless projects almost certainly means no chance for any FF. FF is not something that you can go into half-heartedly, without a strong backing in resourse and customer support, commitment and that means getting Pentax healthy and strong in this APS-C DSLR sector first. If it cannot get enough confidence and following in APS-C DSLR market, why even consider a major go-for-broke push into FF DSLR market, and compete with Nikon and Canon in their strongest market?

This Q to 645D gap is easy to fix. Just drop the 645D. No more gap. :) and use tlhe resources saved to prototype a Ricotex mirrorless FF using some K-variant mount on a mirrorless body, and hope for some brand-new wonder FF sensor from Sony to kickstart it, one day, and hopefully the FF mirrorless opportunity is still available then.
 
1) Hoya was not a disaster for Pentax. While the takeover seemed somewhat acrimonious, Pentax as an entity was on it's way out. The company would not have survived without a buyer, and I don't recall any other company stepping up to the plate at the time.
Were it not for Hoya, Pentax would most likely not exist at all today.
Perhaps some people think this would be less of a disaster?

2) A 135 format digital camera from Pentax is more likely now (presuming the Ricoh deal goes ahead) than it was with Hoya as owners, but I don't think it is all that likely to happen.

One can often look at history to predict the future. Historically, Pentax viewed 35mm film as the confines of the amateur, and treated medium format as the professional camera.

At this point, the APS-C format is pretty much entrenched as the 35mm film replacement, and the 645 format is handling the professional format.

As much as I would like to see a 123 format DSLR from Pentax, I'm not holding out any hope. I really think it's a non starter at this point.
 
thanks. that no conclusion can be drawn is fine.
i was being unfair to the old lens and now i know that.
JensR said:
Tan68 said:
okay, i have a K24/2.8

since the K24 corners were not looking (comparatively) so hot on my APS-C, i figured the lens would show even worse corners on a full frame... but, this isn't necessarily the case?
Click to expand...
...

The resolution of the 17-50 measured in lp/mm needs to be 1.5x times higher to be better than the K24 when measured in lp/ph.

From your observation no conclusion can be made whether the K24 on FF would be better or worse than the 17-50 on APS-C.

Cheers
Jens

--

'Well, 'Zooming with your feet' is usually a stupid thing as zoom rings are designed for hands.' (Me, 2006)
'I don't own lenses. I pwn lenses.' (2009)
My Homepage: http://www.JensRoesner.de
Click to expand...
 
I would like to try some older Pentax lenses like my SMC Pentax-M 20mm F4 that is one of the smallest FF 20mm super wide angle lenses made.
 
huh funny copiare, APS-C better than m4/3rds?
FF better than APS-C?
have you even shot with all those 2 other formats?

I use both FF and 4/3rds, sadly not APS-C

yes the FF gives more lowlight capability and noise control, plus really nice DOF effect.

other than those 3, 4/3rds excels. I dont care if people say Nikon or canon FF are sharper than 4/3rds(Olympus E). Compare it yourself and see the result.

My point is, every format has it's own advantages and disadvantages. Every individual has it's own choice, and you shouldn't judge either format just the way you like it.
 
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