And that, pretty much, is how I feel about FF. My photo course starts up again on Friday (another three years to go for us part timers) and I still don't have the unbearable itch to go FF even as my classmates look at 5D III and D600s. There is so much that I can do that doesn't require FF that I can wait another year or two. I waited long enough for the *ist-D, I can do it again. It would be nice to have tethering software but that is the only thing I couldn't do that my Nikon and Canon classmates could (I am the only non Nikon or Canon shooter).
Sent from my iPhone On 06/02/2013, at 7:17 PM, Larry Colen <[email protected]> wrote: > I'd guess that my raw technical skill and ability to get a clear, sharp, > photograph is likely in the upper half of people who own DSLRs and three or > more lenses for them. I choose three to distinguish from the people who buy a > DSLR kit with one or two lenses and use them as an expensive point and shoot. > > If Pentax were to make a full frame version of the K-5, i.e. same pixel > density and performance on a 24x36 sensor, and the same performance and > features otherwise, I expect that I would see two advantages: > 1) I would effectively have nearly twice the number of lenses, because most > of my glass would work without vignetting, and I'd get 1.5x wider AOVs on all > of my lenses. Mind you, my 50 on APS would be the same AOV as my 77 on FF, so > the actual difference is probably closer to 1.5 times the lens choices rather > than 2 times. > > 2) Due to the physics limitations of registration distance, I'd see a > substantial improvement in performance at the wide end, particularly in low > light. > > I would, however, be surprised to find a huge difference in the sharpness, > clarity, technical excellence, whatever in the vast majority of my photos. > I'm pretty good at pushing the limits of performance of my gear in stupid low > light, but landscapes and such, in good light. First, I'll need to spend a > lot of money on a much better tripod and head than I have. And then there > are all of the physical limitations as mentioned in other posts in this and > the sister thread on the topic. > > I think that it would be accurate to say that for the vast majority of people > that might buy a camera, the only two things that a full frame DSLR Pentax > would give them over an APS equivalent are bragging rights and less money in > their bank account. So, in a reality based market, Pentax would be a little > foolish to bring out a FF DSLR. > > The market, however, is not reality based. There are a tremendous number of > people that won't buy Pentax, or are considering changing to another brand > because Pentax doesn't have a FF option. Never mind that in most respects > the K-5 will outperform a large percentage of FF DSLRs, and we can probably > expect a significant improvement in the next generation of body. > > If the goal of Pentax were to produce a camera system with the absolute best > possible image performance they would (cue wailing and moaning and gnashing > of teeth) abandon the DSLR format and develop a mirrorless system that uses a > 24x36, or larger, sensor. The physical limitations of a mirrorbox, combined > with the jarring and vibration of a 24x36 mirror bouncing around every time > that you take a photo are direct impediments to the imaging system. As soon > as you have to add lenses for retrofocus you lose speed and sharpness of your > lens. If the mirror bouncing around weren't a problem, there wouldn't be so > much attention paid to mirror lockup, and two second delays. I'm sorry, but > physics is simply an unforgiving bitch. > > I suppose that Pentax could try some sort of crazy end run and keep the > K-mount and registration distance by doing something like putting a 645D > (36x48) sensor in something like a K-01. A medium format sensor and a 35mm > registration distance, and you have at least the theoretical potential for > wider AOV without the retrofocus elements, but I don't think that even > Pentax's pet mad scientists are quite that crazy. Hell, I don't think that > even I'm that crazy. > > Yes, in good light, optical viewfinders have all sorts of advantages over > electronic. But in lousy light electronic viewfinders work better, and in my > opinion the quality of the final image is more important than the quality of > the image in the viewfinder. If an optical viewfinder were that important, I > could just buy an optical viewfinder to slip in the hot shoe. > > But, no matter what path they take, I'm fairly sure it will be one that will > allow me to use most of my existing lenses, at least with an adapter, and > that if the full frame body costs less than $3,000, and I'm still employed, > I'll probably buy one. > > -- > Larry Colen [email protected] sent from i4est > > > > > > -- > 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. -- 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.
