> From: Paul Stenquist <[email protected]> > > On Sep 15, 2012, at 9:16 PM, Tom C <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> On 14/09/2012 6:34 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote: >>> I doubt that a lack of a competitive 24 x 36 camera will lead to immediate >>> defections over the holiday buying season, although it >>> might cost Pentax some sales to impressionable newbies. The Nikon >>> certainly wouldn't interest me if it couldn't equal the low- >>> light performance of the K-5. If the K-5 II matches the noise performance >>> of the K-5 with much better autofocus, it will get some >>> excellent reviews, and it will sell. Their are already some preliminary >>> whispers of praise for the filter-free version. Pentaxians have >>> fixated on frame dimension because they don't have a big one. I suspect >>> that much of the rest of the world doesn't care. >> >> Paul, with all due respect this is basically what you've said for the >> past 9 or 10 years. > > And for nine or ten years I've been right.
Right about what? Throughout the history of photography the larger a medium one could record on, given that the density of the medium stayed constant, the larger medium wins in terms of resolution over smaller mediums. You know that. I know that. The world knows that. > >> If Pentax doesn't have it, why would one need it? >> When Pentax does finally come out with it, you're among the first to >> jump on the bandwagon and sing its praises. > > I've been an early adapter on APS-C cameras and lenses. Don't think I'll go > for full frame right away. It will depend a lot on the lens > lineup and > compatibility with the DA* 60-250, my workhorse. > Full frame & larger is already the professional standard in other brands. Not that you can't get great images with smaller formats, we all know one can. I just bought a NEX-7 APS-C camera because it suits my needs for portability when I want to travel light. However, it's got 1 1/2 times the resolution of the K-5. I'm not downing the K-5, I'm just stating the obvious. Pentax is for the most part a straggler, we all know that. >> >> I remember you asking why anyone would need more than a 6MP DSLR when >> I was complaining about the fact that's all Pentax was churning out. > > I don't recall saying that, but there's much I don't recall. Apparently, you > pay more attention to what I've said than i do! IN any > case, Pentax wasn't stuck at 6 for very long. > >From 2003 - 06, it was only 6MP, while Canon had an 8 MP consumer model in 2005, not to mention an 11.4MP FF body in 2002 and a 16.7MP FF body in 2004 (both the full frames were outside of affordable for most people). Nikon ahead as well. That's water under the bridge. In some respects I'm not disappointed that I've waited this long to make the jump. I'm definitely not sorry I skipped the K10D, and got the K20D. I do wish I'd have skipped the K-7, and waited for the K-5. The D800E is a giant leap forward at a somewhat affordable price. $3300 for a 33MP body as compared to it's predecessor, $8000 for a 24MP D3X. >> >> The fact that they don't have a FF DSLR yet has led to my defection, >> and I've been shooting for years. The D800E is expensive but doable at >> less than half the cost of their prior FF DSLR in the category. >> There's a huge selection of lenses, and I'll have double the base >> resolution of anything Pentax has to offer. In addition, the D800/E >> does appear to have excellent low-light capability (I realize you're >> probably referring to the D600), and it'll have the superior AF. > > You've bought a D800E? Or you're just thinking about it. I thought about it > when I had problems with Pentax repair, but they made > it right and sent me a new camera. I just don't want to see APS-C development > abandoned in favor of a format that has little lens > support. It's on order and as soon as it ships, I'll have it. I realize that Pentax doesn't have the resources of Nikon or Canon, but that's to my point. Both Canon and Nikon have had APS-C and FF lines out for many years. It's like Pentax more or less didn't see that advancing sensor technology and lower cost was going to make FF bodies basically within the grasp of many people, or maybe they did and just couldn't compete. They made the 645D however, that still sells for almost $9000 vs. $3300 for a D800E (40MP vs. 33MP). A lot more AF lenses for the D800 as well. >> >> Actually the REST of the world does care. Evidence is the fact that >> the two largest DSLR manufacturers have multiple FF bodies and have >> had for years. > > But Pentax isn't ready to compete on their level. If they can muscle up both > a camera and lens lineup in full frame, more power to > them. But I still > don't see it. I believe they'll have to have a FF body within 12 months if they want to appear somewhat competitive. I've stuck it out with Pentax quite a while. To borrow on the car analogy, if I want a kind of vehicle that X mfr is not producing, and Y mfr produces one at an affordable price, the logic of buying from Y mfr is not hard to grasp. I've said this before but I lie to repeat myself. :-) IMO the APS-C format has always been a bit of a stop-gap. Manufacturers recognized the market for DSLR's but the only way to make them affordable/profitable was to go with a smaller sensor than the standard 24 x 36 frame. In addition they could sell a new smaller, lighter, less expensive to manufacture lens line catering to APS-C, and charge similar prices to what FF lenses cost. They did this, pretty much knowing that down the road FF bodies would become affordable, and that many customers would need/want to upgrade their lenses when purchasing FF bodies. Tom C. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
