Well, the MZ-S which was Pentax's last K-Mount film flagship is quite a
bit larger than the other MZ/ZX series cameras. It was intended to be
the shared frame for the first Pentax DSLR which was going to be a FF
6MP camera. So it should be plenty big enough for a current DSLR. The
reason for full frame is really in many ways the same as for film. A
bigger sensor allows for less stringent lens design, and cleaner output
from lower magnification. To give a film analogy An 8x10 printed from
Tri-X (ISO 400) shot in a 6x9 camera looks like PAn-X (ISO 32) from a
35mm and it's a lot easier to get that quality all things being equal. I
haven't done the math, and I'm sure someone will immediately point out
if I'm wrong, but I think that the photoreceptor sites on a 24x36mm 24mp
would be at least 20% larger than those on a 16mp 16x24mm sensor. This
implies lower noise at all ISO settings, and given that the Pentax
K-5[xxx] has been DxOMark's top APS-C DSLR for at pretty much the last
three years, I expect that Pentax would be more than able to better than
with a reasonable resolution FF sensor.
I'm not going to be silly and ask who needs 36mp or bigger sensor, but I
will point out that for what most professional photographers do even
24mp is overkill.
On 2/5/2013 4:25 PM, Zos Xavius wrote:
For me the k-5 is about the ideal size. I compared the other day. The k-5 is
quite a bit larger and heavier than my k1000. My zx-7 is a feather in
comparison. Its clear to me that dslrs are going to be larger and heavier than
film cameras for some time. Between my k-5 and the 5dmk2 at my job there isn't
a huge difference in resolution imo. Its there, but with sharp glass on my k-5,
I can get pretty darned close. I'm thinking that the differences are even more
marginal with the k-5 IIs. Personally I have adapted to aps-c and have grown to
appreciate it. A full frame would give me easier access to wa, but that's about
it. I'm quite happy with what I am turning out in terms of iq. A d800 would be
nice, but for the cost in body + glass, I would rather invest in medium format
if I had the disposable cash. There's not a huge difference in terms of size or
weight. Honestly, either camera is too big for me to carry constantly, but the
k-5 never leaves my shoulder.
"P. J. Alling" <webstertwenty...@gmail.com> wrote:
I think the sweet spot for most photographers in a FF camera would be
24mp with 14bit color depth and at least the same capabilities of the
K-5II in most other respects. I think if Pentax managed to put that
into
either a K-5 sized body or a MZ-S style body, and managed to actually
market the damned thing for a change, it would be a winner. However I
don't expect anyone to actually listen to me.
On 2/4/2013 9:03 PM, Mark Roberts wrote:
Darren Addy wrote:
Suggested reading:
http://www.bythom.com/nikond800review.htm
Particularly the section entitled: "Resolution, Diffraction, and To
E
or Not to E"
His entire article seems to be based on resolution, which is only one
possible reason for buying the camera. I'm much more interested in
the
subtle tonal gradation Mike Johnston's been writing about, especially
as it seems to be particularly advantageous in B&W work.
Quite frankly, I'm satisfied with 24 megapixels in full-frame. But if
the D800 did in-body image stabilization I'd probably have bought one
by now, regardless.
http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2012/11/nikon-d800-and-d800e-review.html
http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2012/11/delighted-by-photo-ninja.html
--
Buy a Leica to get the full “Leica Experience”, (a quick reduction of funds in
the bank account).
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
