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

Zvonimir Tosic · Jul 6, 2011

Or, a DSLR equivalent of the Leica M9. For ultimate picture quality, nothing else.

No video, no gimmicks, reduced size, perhaps no hand grip, sturdy construction, huge pentaprism, barebone DSLR for legacy K glass, like FA31, FA43 and FA77.

In other words, nothing even remotely like today's FF DSLR black dreadnoughts, which people will immediately start comparing with top of line Canons and Nikons. There you lose everything because you must jump, from scratch, over years of joint development of best FF DSLRs on the market.

But that's why M9 sells like hotcakes — because it's totally different from current FF DSLRs.

In any case, it must not be a new system of any kind, because even K-mount must one day give its way to the mirror-less brother, which will most likely be an APS-C one (or even m4/3).

DagT · Jul 7, 2011

No more than there ever was a gap between 24x36 and 645 film formats, as the ratio between them and the new APS-C and 645D and is the same.

Also, I know several professional and semi professional photographers who are leaving their FF cameras because difference is quality does not defend the difference in cost. The ones who can afford it would rather buy 645 where the difference is significant.
--
DagT

awaldram · Jul 7, 2011

David VL said:
huh funny copiare, APS-C better than m4/3rds?
FF better than APS-C?
have you even shot with all those 2 other formats?

There's a lot of people speaking with no experience at the moment

David VL said:
I use both FF and 4/3rds, sadly not APS-C

I get to use FF and APS-c

Sadly FF is generally loaners but on the plus side the loanees (?) are Pro's so the body comes with beauts like the Canon 200mm EF F2.

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

Agree with what you've put , But would expand on that in that below iso400 the latest aps-c as used in the K5 beats the current crop of FF sensors in IQ.

Downside is you need something special lens wise on the front to retrieve this advantage.

David VL said:
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.

Agreed also the reach advantage shouldn't be dismissed with cropped sensor formats.

David VL said:
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.

Agreed the R+D bucks being pumped into the dominant formats Vs any other is showing in their IQ.

You can see this in MF sensors they should be many times better than APS-c than they are but the technology in aps-c negates some (no where near all) of that advantage.

And as I say today the Sony aps-c sensor outperforms the older tech in the d3 a900 etc in many areas.

Hopefully the latest FF sensors rumored from Sony will address this shortcoming.

--
My PPG

http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/home#section=ARTIST&subSection=1471087&subSubSection=0&language=EN
My Photo Stream
http://www.flickr.com/photos/awaldram/

Copiare · Jul 7, 2011

David VL said:
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 currently shoot FullFrame and APS-C. Thanks for asking!

David VL said:
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.

What advantages? There are none.

The larger the sensor generally the better the image quality. The same was true in the days of film.

8x10> 4x5> MF> 35mm> HF or APS> 110> Disc

Digital:

MF> 35mm> APS-H> APS-C> M4/3> P&S

Check the DXO scores when the old NEX3 & NEX 5 were tested last year:

http://front1.dxomark.com/index.php/Publications/DxOMark-Reviews/DxOMark-review-for-Sony-NEX-3-and-NEX-5

Namely the comparison of NEX vs. M4/3

The larger APS-C sensor outperforms the M4/3 across the board.

This was last year! The new Sony NEX C3 that Sony just released has the stellar 16MP APS-C sensor in it that is also in the Pentax K5 and Nikon D7000. The new new Sony 16MP APS-C sensor easily outperforms the older 14MP sensor used in the above comparison.

Larger Sensors = Better Image Quality

Comparing the sensors in my D700 to my NEX 5, the three year old FullFrame 12MP Nikon (Renesis) sensor clobbers the newer Sony APS-C 14MP sensor. My Nikon FullFrame outshines my NEX 5 which has been shown to outperform M4/3. I don't feel the need to try the M4/3 format. It has nothing to offer me. If you like it, that's great!

I wish I could put the Nikon D700 sensor in an NEX.
Now that would really be something.

awaldram · Jul 7, 2011

Copiare said:
David VL said:

huh funny copiare, APS-C better than m4/3rds?
FF better than APS-C?
have you even shot with all those 2 other formats?

Click to expand...

I currently shoot FullFrame and APS-C. Thanks for asking!

Copiare said:

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.

Click to expand...

What advantages? There are none.

The larger the sensor generally the better the image quality. The same was true in the days of film.

8x10> 4x5> MF> 35mm> HF or APS> 110> Disc

Digital:

MF> 35mm> APS-H> APS-C> M4/3> P&S

Check the DXO scores

Whatever !!

--
My PPG

http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/home#section=ARTIST&subSection=1471087&subSubSection=0&language=EN
My Photo Stream
http://www.flickr.com/photos/awaldram/

Copiare · Jul 7, 2011

awaldram said:
awaldram said:

Check the DXO scores

Click to expand...

Whatever !!

Let's see.

FullFrame sensors that are over three years old versus the latest generation of APS-C sensors.

When the new generation of FullFrame sensors come out this will change.

You're brilliant awaldram!

Your posts are complete crap!

A true comparison would be the Sony 6MP APS-C Sensor to the Nikon Renesis 12MP FullFrame Sensor. Both are from the same time frame.

Quit licking leaded paint chips!

Gerry Winterbourne · Jul 7, 2011

Copiare said:
David VL said:

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.

Click to expand...

Copiare said:
What advantages? There are none.

The obvious advantages of smaller-format cameras are (1) size (2) weight (3) cost.

It doesn't matter how good a particular camera is in the abstract if (a) you can't afford it (including a suitable set of lenses) or (b) you can afford them but can't get them to where you want to take the photo. There's always a trade to be made between these factors and IQ - you know that and have made your own trade, because you use FF and not MF or larger.

There are also less obvious but valuable advantages to smaller formats: (1) tele reach and (ii) greater DOF. Reach first - you can argue that this is just a facet of the size/weight discussion but a 200/2.8 with equivalent reach of a 300/4 (that is, on APS-C) gives almost identical DOF with a full stop of extra light. If you try to argue that FF offers a stop extra light-gathering on the sensor it's true but what this does is bring the two formats back to parity - no advantage either way.

FF advocates like to point out that it gives narrower DOF and therefore tighter control of subject isolation. This is true but the flip side is that smaller formats give wider DOF when it matters - for example, in macro work. I've seen it argued that FF allows the use of smaller apertures but this is back to front - the corollary of having narrower DOF means that you need to use smaller apertures, so once again this comes back to parity.

Of course, at any given stage of technological development a larger sensor will always offer IQ advantages of some sort - but whether those advantages beat the other things I've mentioned is a different matter.
--
---

Gerry

First camera 1953, first Pentax 1983, first DSLR 2006
http://www.pbase.com/gerrywinterbourne

awaldram · Jul 7, 2011

Copiare said:
awaldram said:

Copiare said:

Check the DXO scores

Click to expand...

Whatever !!

Click to expand...

Let's see.

FullFrame sensors that are over three years old versus the latest generation of APS-C sensors.

When the new generation of FullFrame sensors come out this will change.

If wishes were horses, beggars would ride
Any time frame fro these new sensors?
any spec for these new sensors?
any integration schedule for these new sensors.?

I wont hold ny breath

Copiare said:
You're brilliant awaldram!

Well obviously smarter than you but I'm afraid thats scant praise indeed.

Copiare said:
Your posts are complete crap!

My post are the realiity of today your posts are based in the cloud cuckoo land of ifs and buts, with a good dose of maybe.

Copiare said:
A true comparison would be the Sony 6MP APS-C Sensor to the Nikon Renesis 12MP FullFrame Sensor. Both are from the same time frame.

Of cause, thats your reality, not what the real world sees.

You can buy an aps-c camera today that outperforms All FF cameras available today to some degree.

All your baloney wont alter that FACT.

Copiare said:
Quit licking leaded paint chips!

Ha I'll take lead paint over what your smoking anyday.

Copiare said:

Strangely your rreality seems to be stuck in what was true 2 years ago , and seems to come internet browsing rather than actual experience.

Are you sure you shoot FF and APS-c because your comments indicate otherwise.

Maybe you'd like to post some images so we can asses your experience ??

--
My PPG

http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/home#section=ARTIST&subSection=1471087&subSubSection=0&language=EN
My Photo Stream
http://www.flickr.com/photos/awaldram/

moving_comfort · Jul 7, 2011

awaldram said:
...

And as I say today the Sony aps-c sensor outperforms the older tech in the d3 a900 etc in many areas .

What are these 'many areas' besides 1) DR at base ISO?

.

awaldram said:
Hopefully the latest FF sensors rumored from Sony will address this shortcoming.

If you are allowed to define terms that allow you to to call the current FF sensors disadvantaged in any significant way, you can win any argument!

.

--
Here are a few of my favorite things...
---> http://www.flickr.com/photos/95095968@N00/sets/72157626171532197/

moving_comfort · Jul 7, 2011

Gerry Winterbourne said:
Copiare said:

David VL said:

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.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Gerry Winterbourne said:

What advantages? There are none.

Click to expand...

The obvious advantages of smaller-format cameras are (1) size (2) weight (3) cost.

Yes.

Gerry Winterbourne said:
It doesn't matter how good a particular camera is in the abstract if (a) you can't afford it (including a suitable set of lenses) or (b) you can afford them but can't get them to where you want to take the photo . There's always a trade to be made between these factors and IQ - you know that and have made your own trade, because you use FF and not MF or larger.

Well put. (And what if a relatively affordable FF DSLR body existed that was, say, in between the K-5 and D700 in size, and had a series of small excellent primes to go with it?

)

Gerry Winterbourne said:
There are also less obvious but valuable advantages to smaller formats: (1) tele reach and (ii) greater DOF. Reach first - you can argue that this is just a facet of the size/weight discussion but a 200/2.8 with equivalent reach of a 300/4 (that is, on APS-C) gives almost identical DOF with a full stop of extra light. If you try to argue that FF offers a stop extra light-gathering on the sensor it's true but what this does is bring the two formats back to parity - no advantage either way.

Yes, long telephoto this is where equivalence starts to tip in favor of aps-c when you consider lens size. Only real advantage of FF here is if you need world-class AF, tracking, etc, but that's not native to the sensor format, just tends to come with those bodies.

Gerry Winterbourne said:
FF advocates like to point out that it gives narrower DOF and therefore tighter control of subject isolation. This is true but the flip side is that smaller formats give wider DOF when it matters - for example, in macro work. I've seen it argued that FF allows the use of smaller apertures but this is back to front - the corollary of having narrower DOF means that you need to use smaller apertures , so once again this comes back to parity.

This is where some experience shooting FF comes in handy to put this into context - maybe literally 1 out of every 100 shots do I find the need to stop down to match the aps-c DOF - all the other times, I'm enjoying the increased subject isolation at equivalent FOV and aperture.

.

--
Here are a few of my favorite things...
---> http://www.flickr.com/photos/95095968@N00/sets/72157626171532197/

awaldram · Jul 7, 2011

moving_comfort said:
awaldram said:

...

And as I say today the Sony aps-c sensor outperforms the older tech in the d3 a900 etc in many areas .

Click to expand...

What are these 'many areas' besides 1) DR at base ISO?

Ah just noticed your at Base ISO, I suggest you read dxo mark test criteria before guessing details,(or is this what you mean making it up ) all criteria are based across the full iso range.

Well as I gave DR and colour depth that is two out of the 3 main test categories ot DXO mark.

I'm cool with 66% being many or the majority if your not would you like to go halves on a dx3 I'll pay £10 you cover the rest

moving_comfort said:
.

moving_comfort said:

Hopefully the latest FF sensors rumored from Sony will address this shortcoming.

Click to expand...

If you are allowed to define terms that allow you to to call the current FF sensors disadvantaged in any significant way, you can win any argument!

what terms did I define I presented 2 of the three dxo sensor marks with no comment until Copiare started ranting.

Would you have preferred the APS-c sensor is 66% better than any FF sensor in production ??, Which is also true but a bit misleading.

I didn't define any terms DXO mark tested the sensors and defined the test categories.

Maybe their a bunch of blithering idiots too, I mean like me and anybody else that understands the market today not in 18 months time or 2 years ago.

All I did was present their facts with no comments and for some reason your buddies went off on one (again)

This irrational fear of the truth is a scary thing to behold.

.

How would you define sensor quality.?

seems reasonable to me DR/Colour depth/iso capability

moving_comfort said:
.

--
Here are a few of my favorite things...
---> http://www.flickr.com/photos/95095968@N00/sets/72157626171532197/

--
My PPG

http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/home#section=ARTIST&subSection=1471087&subSubSection=0&language=EN
My Photo Stream
http://www.flickr.com/photos/awaldram/

Gerry Winterbourne · Jul 7, 2011

moving_comfort said:
Gerry Winterbourne said:

Copiare said:

David VL said:

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.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

moving_comfort said:

What advantages? There are none.

Click to expand...

The obvious advantages of smaller-format cameras are (1) size (2) weight (3) cost.

Click to expand...

Yes.

moving_comfort said:

It doesn't matter how good a particular camera is in the abstract if (a) you can't afford it (including a suitable set of lenses) or (b) you can afford them but can't get them to where you want to take the photo . There's always a trade to be made between these factors and IQ - you know that and have made your own trade, because you use FF and not MF or larger.

Click to expand...

Well put. (And what if a relatively affordable FF DSLR body existed that was, say, in between the K-5 and D700 in size, and had a series of small excellent primes to go with it? )

The FA limiteds go down to 31mm already and the DFA100 and longer DA*s cover longer lengths, so the gap in the prime line up is wider than 31. I'll ignore UWA because the Sigma 12-24 does that job; what we're looking at is something like 14/15mm and 20/21mm. Going by the 14/2.8 I think small + excellent + affordable is very unlikely.

Whatever size and price a FF body and lenses turned out to be some people would buy them. I very much doubt if I'd be one of them but I've never pretended that what I want should drive Pentax. Pragmatically, though, I can't see the investment paying off.

moving_comfort said:
moving_comfort said:

There are also less obvious but valuable advantages to smaller formats: (1) tele reach and (ii) greater DOF. Reach first - you can argue that this is just a facet of the size/weight discussion but a 200/2.8 with equivalent reach of a 300/4 (that is, on APS-C) gives almost identical DOF with a full stop of extra light. If you try to argue that FF offers a stop extra light-gathering on the sensor it's true but what this does is bring the two formats back to parity - no advantage either way.

Click to expand...

Yes, long telephoto this is where equivalence starts to tip in favor of aps-c when you consider lens size. Only real advantage of FF here is if you need world-class AF, tracking, etc, but that's not native to the sensor format, just tends to come with those bodies.

Indeed. And iIf Pentax can crack the AD comumdrum its solution will work for all formats.

moving_comfort said:
moving_comfort said:

FF advocates like to point out that it gives narrower DOF and therefore tighter control of subject isolation. This is true but the flip side is that smaller formats give wider DOF when it matters - for example, in macro work. I've seen it argued that FF allows the use of smaller apertures but this is back to front - the corollary of having narrower DOF means that you need to use smaller apertures , so once again this comes back to parity.

Click to expand...

This is where some experience shooting FF comes in handy to put this into context - maybe literally 1 out of every 100 shots do I find the need to stop down to match the aps-c DOF - all the other times, I'm enjoying the increased subject isolation at equivalent FOV and aperture.

This is where personal style will always trump theory. My statistics are almost the exact opposite: for the things I typically shoot I almost never stop down that much. The only time, except for portrait work, when I've been bothered by excess DOF is using my DA*200/2.8 for sport. My example about of 300/4 equivalence comes from looking into that. The only solution would be a 300/2.8 and there's no way in the world I'd ever buy or carry one of those.

--
---

Gerry

First camera 1953, first Pentax 1983, first DSLR 2006
http://www.pbase.com/gerrywinterbourne

Oxherder Arts · Jul 7, 2011

+1
Exactly correct below; could not agree more.

DJ

Zvonimir Tosic said:
Or, a DSLR equivalent of the Leica M9. For ultimate picture quality, nothing else.

No video, no gimmicks, reduced size, perhaps no hand grip, sturdy construction, huge pentaprism, barebone DSLR for legacy K glass, like FA31, FA43 and FA77.

In other words, nothing even remotely like today's FF DSLR black dreadnoughts, which people will immediately start comparing with top of line Canons and Nikons. There you lose everything because you must jump, from scratch, over years of joint development of best FF DSLRs on the market.

But that's why M9 sells like hotcakes — because it's totally different from current FF DSLRs.

In any case, it must not be a new system of any kind, because even K-mount must one day give its way to the mirror-less brother, which will most likely be an APS-C one (or even m4/3).

--
DJ @ Oxhderder Arts

awaldram · Jul 7, 2011

Gerry Winterbourne said:
moving_comfort said:

This is where some experience shooting FF comes in handy to put this into context - maybe literally 1 out of every 100 shots do I find the need to stop down to match the aps-c DOF - all the other times, I'm enjoying the increased subject isolation at equivalent FOV and aperture.

Click to expand...

This is where personal style will always trump theory. My statistics are almost the exact opposite: for the things I typically shoot I almost never stop down that much. The only time, except for portrait work, when I've been bothered by excess DOF is using my DA*200/2.8 for sport. My example about of 300/4 equivalence comes from looking into that. The only solution would be a 300/2.8 and there's no way in the world I'd ever buy or carry one of those.

DoF is often miss understood as well the "FF gives more DoF" is an urban myth as it only valid under certain conditions

for example

300 F4 @10Meter aps(c) DoF = 17.2cm (CoC =.02)
300 F4 @10Meter FF DoF = 25.9cm (CoC =.03)

So much for urban myths

But if you bring the object back to the same size the aps-C will increase to 39cm (15M)
SO it depends on how you define DoF

from Greenleaf, Allen R., Photographic Optics, The MacMillan Company, New York, 1950, pp. 25-27

http://www.dofmaster.com/theory.html

Gerry Winterbourne said:
--
---

Gerry

First camera 1953, first Pentax 1983, first DSLR 2006
http://www.pbase.com/gerrywinterbourne

--
My PPG

http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/home#section=ARTIST&subSection=1471087&subSubSection=0&language=EN
My Photo Stream
http://www.flickr.com/photos/awaldram/

JensR · Jul 7, 2011

DagT said:
No more than there ever was a gap between 24x36 and 645 film formats, as the ratio between them and the new APS-C and 645D and is the same.

"645" film: 56 x 41.5 => 70mm diagonal
645D: 44 x 33 => 55mm
135: 24 x 36 => 43.3mm
APS-C: 24 x 16 => 29mm

format factor from APS-C to 645D = 1.9
format factor from 135 to 645 = 1.6

(1.4 would be one stop, 2 would be two stops difference)

DagT said:
Also, I know several professional and semi professional photographers who are leaving their FF cameras because difference is quality does not defend the difference in cost.

And others are switching in the other direction, it just depends on what they shoot.

--

'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

Search

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

Zvonimir Tosic

Senior Member

DagT

Forum Enthusiast

awaldram

Forum Pro

Copiare

Well-known member

awaldram

Forum Pro

Copiare

Well-known member

Gerry Winterbourne

Forum Pro

awaldram

Forum Pro

moving_comfort

Veteran Member

moving_comfort

Veteran Member

awaldram

Forum Pro

Gerry Winterbourne

Forum Pro

Oxherder Arts

Member

awaldram

Forum Pro

JensR

Forum Pro

Keyboard shortcuts