Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 2 3 [4]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Pentax K100d  (Read 24058 times)
rlh1138
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 25


« Reply #60 on: June 09, 2006, 03:53:53 PM »
ReplyReply

macqyver,

doesn't the new Alpha claim a 50mm 1.4.  Thought I saw that.
Logged
BJL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5124


« Reply #61 on: June 13, 2006, 06:47:16 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
BJL, do you not think that the price of FF has driven the statistics you quote? I'm sure that if FF were more affordable then we wouldn't be seeing anything of the sort. As MR said in a recent article, no one wanted crop sensors, they were forced on us. Then people started to try justifying them...

As a matter of interest, what kind of 35mm shooting did you do? As a nature photographer can you at all understand the needs of people photographers?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=67572\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Of course price has something to do with it, and the cost ratio is not going down as far as I can tell: when 24x36mm format DSLR's arrived, the 14/n cost 2.5 times as much as entry level DSLRs like the D100 and 10D. Now the 5D costs about 4 or 5 times as much as entry level options like the 350D, D50 and E-500.

But size matters too, and a great proportion of SLR users like to keep their kit as small and light as possible, which favors smaller formats, small photo-sites and shorter focal lengths. That gap has actually increased, since the pixel size of the mainstream DSLR formats has decreased more smaller format than with 24x36 (in other words, the gap in pixel counts has decreased.)

I do not agree with Michael's comment about no-one asking for a smaller format: that is exactly what many photographers did when they changed from medium format to 35mm format, or from large format to medium format in an earlier generation, and it is exactly what is driving the ongoing downsizing of camera formats and pixel sizes today, especially for those who seek good telephoto reach at a convenient size and weight. He did not say "crop sensors", perhaps recognizing that with DX, EF-S or 4/3 lenses, the sensors are not cropping the FOV, and that in normal to telephoto range where 35mm format lenses must sometimes still be used, "FOV cropping" is not a problem, because one can simply use a less long focal length to get the desired FOV.


I have always been mainly an outdoor photographer, dealing with either stationary subjects or small/distant ones, so with little need for extremes of speed or large apertures. I agree that some photographers have interests different from mine, like handling greater extremes of low light at normal to wide angles without flash, or getting highly OOF backgrounds in portraits by buying, carrying and using heavier more expensive lenses rather than with blurring in post-processing. That is why I see 24x36 surviving, holding onto to something like its current 3% market share (unit sales) or even increasing it a bit.
Logged
benInMA
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 186


« Reply #62 on: June 13, 2006, 09:50:03 AM »
ReplyReply

Weren't the 10D and D100 around $1500 when they came out?  (My 10D was $1500)

And at the time the 1Ds Mk 1 and Kodak DC14/n were $8000-12000 weren't they?

It seems like the spread in price has remained the same.

I don't buy your argument about lenses in the least.   You could buy trashy 28-200mm Tamron zooms back in the film era for full frame bodies if you were a clueless consumer going for the longest zoom possible to one-up your buddies.  You got crappy performance and you couldn't handhold the lens unless you used grainy film and shot in harsh daylight.  But you had the biggest zoom range when it came time to bench race your camera.

But for the most part most lenses for APS-C digicams are not substantially smaller.  It's only at the extreme end when you start getting into very expensive "pro" telephoto lenses that you start saving real weight and space.  e.x. 200/2.8 vs. 300/2.8, etc..

Any argument about sales of 35mm sized DSLRs vs APS sized DSLRs is just premature considering there have been 20-30 models of APS cameras and only 4 35mm sized cameras, one of which apparently had some major problems.  It is just too early to make sweeping statements like that.   I bet the majority of people who own a 1Ds/5D had at least one previous Canon APS DSLR.The 35mm cameras haven't even been made in sufficient numbers to claim any market share and as high end cameras they are never going to sell in the same numbers as the low end cameras.   No one ever seems to have trouble selling out their inventory though.

If Nikon ships a 35mm camera, it's going to sell in massive numbers.  If Canon manages to drop the price enough to put the FF sensor in the successor to the 30D at the same price, it's going to sell.  If they can figure out how to get in the Digital Rebel 5 years from now, it's going to sell.   There is minimal external size difference between the 30D and the 5D, the only reason to go with the APS sensor is price.  The smaller size of the Rebel is nice but I suspect the FF sensor will be able to fit in that camera eventually too considering it's size is/was sufficient for 35mm film.  

BTW please post some of your pictures.  I've seen thousands of your posts about sensors all over every internet site no matter where I go but I've yet to see any of your pictures.  Throw us a few pictures once in a while so you don't seem so negative & belligerent.  You're starting to make me wonder if you're actually a technology evangelist at a sensor manufacturer.
Logged
Ronny Nilsen
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 340


WWW
« Reply #63 on: June 14, 2006, 05:08:44 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I do not agree with Michael's comment about no-one asking for a smaller format: that is exactly what many photographers did when they changed from medium format to 35mm format, or from large format to medium format in an earlier generation, and it is exactly what is driving the ongoing downsizing of camera formats and pixel sizes today, especially for those who seek good telephoto reach at a convenient size and weight. He did not say "crop sensors", perhaps recognizing that with DX, EF-S or 4/3 lenses, the sensors are not cropping the FOV, and that in normal to telephoto range where 35mm format lenses must sometimes still be used, "FOV cropping" is not a problem, because one can simply use a less long focal length to get the desired FOV.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=68074\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

But why did people buy 35mm instead of MF? In my case I never went to MF simply because a MF systems was to big to carry around and use handheld. 35mm was the largest system I felt I could carry with me most of the time. I would have preferd the quality of MF, but realised that I would never carry and use that as much as a 35mm system.

So for me the 35mm system is small enough and I want the most quality I can aford i that size, rather than get the same quality as before in a smaller/lighter system.
Logged

BJL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5124


« Reply #64 on: June 14, 2006, 07:43:54 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
But why did people buy 35mm instead of MF? In my case I never went to MF simply because a MF systems was to big to carry around and use handheld. 35mm was the largest system I felt I could carry with me most of the time. I would have preferd the quality of MF, but realised that I would never carry and use that as much as a 35mm system.

So for me the 35mm system is small enough and I want the most quality I can aford i that size, rather than get the same quality as before in a smaller/lighter system.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=68155\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I was thinking particularly of the transition period, roughly the 1960's. People who a decade earlier were buying and carrying MF gear instead chose the smaller 35mm "miniature" format. Yes, size and weight is probably a major factor, and one that distinctly favors the new smaller DSLR formats with smaller pixels and thus the ability to use smaller, shorter focal length lenses. To go from 4/3 with my 50-200/3.5-4.5 to 35mm would require a heavier lens: 300-400mm, and faster than f/5.6 to match AF performance, so distinctly heavier (AF speed depends on a lens's minimum f-stop, regardless of format or focal length. That is why f/5.6 is the slowest for almost al lenses, in any SLR format.)
« Last Edit: June 14, 2006, 07:44:57 AM by BJL » Logged
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8878


« Reply #65 on: June 14, 2006, 09:13:19 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I was thinking particularly of the transition period, roughly the 1960's. People who a decade earlier were buying and carrying MF gear instead chose the smaller 35mm "miniature" format. Yes, size and weight is probably a major factor, and one that distinctly favors the new smaller DSLR formats with smaller pixels and thus the ability to use smaller, shorter focal length lenses. To go from 4/3 with my 50-200/3.5-4.5 to 35mm would require a heavier lens: 300-400mm, and faster than f/5.6 to match AF performance, so distinctly heavier (AF speed depends on a lens's minimum f-stop, regardless of format or focal length. That is why f/5.6 is the slowest for almost al lenses, in any SLR format.)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=68159\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

BJL,
As I recall, in those days there were significant technology advantages of 35mm such as through-the-lens focussing, through-the-lens metering and fast interchangeability of lenses. MF cameras were not only significantly more expensive, cumbersome and heavy but lacked many of those features.

We now have a situation where the larger full frame 35mm format, whilst still more expensive than the cropped format, has at least as many features and sometimes more, such as autofocussing at f8 and more accurate autofocussing in general. As already pointed out, the weight and bulk disadvantage is not necessarily as great an issue, the 5D being an example of a body hardly heavier or bulkier than the cheaper cropped format.

If the trend towards greater pixel count continues and lenses improve, to make the greater pixel count meaningful, there's not necessarily even a weight/cost advantage at the long telephoto end. Compare the Zuiko 300/2.8 with the Canon EF 300/2.8. In Australia, the Zuiko is priced at A$11,399 and weighs 3.29Kg. The Canon EF 300L IS, one of the finest and sharpest lenses that Canon make, costs only A$6490, is lighter at just 2.6Kg and has the benefit of IS.

Now it's probably true that at present an Olympus 4/3rds 8mp image from their 300mm lens will be sharper than a cropped 4mp image from the 1Ds2 using a 300mm lens (although I'd like to see some comparisons to see how great the difference is) but there's greater scope for increased pixel count to happen with the larger format. I see no reason why a future 32mp 35mm body would have any resolution disadvantage compared with an 8mp 4/3rds system, both using lenses of the same focal length and of comparable quality.
Logged
BJL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5124


« Reply #66 on: June 15, 2006, 04:07:59 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
BJL,
As I recall, in those days there were significant technology advantages of 35mm such as through-the-lens focussing, through-the-lens metering and fast interchangeability of lenses. MF cameras were not only significantly more expensive, cumbersome and heavy but lacked many of those features.

... such as autofocussing at f8 and more accurate autofocussing in general.

... As already pointed out, the weight and bulk disadvantage is not necessarily as great an issue, the 5D being an example of a body hardly heavier or bulkier than the cheaper cropped format.

... it's probably true that at present an Olympus 4/3rds 8mp image from their 300mm lens will be sharper than a cropped 4mp image from the 1Ds2 using a 300mm lens (although I'd like to see some comparisons to see how great the difference is) but there's greater scope for increased pixel count to happen with the larger format.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=68203\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Ray, I suppose that you are always going to seek reasons other than size and weight advantages for the repeated moves towards smaller formats as film/sensors improved in resolution and sensitivity (all the way from 8"x10" to 15x22.5mm and 13.5x18mm). But for one thing, surely MF SLR's also offered through the lens focusing and interchangeable lenses, and the better established MF makers should have been equally capable of adding those SLR style features if their products were in other ways more desirable.

And about weight, how many times to I have to repeat myself:

1. What counts is the size and weight of the whole functioning camera, including a lens, and of the whole kit including any extra lenses.
2. Smaller formats and their higher resolution (more l/mm from smaller photo-sites and the fundamental optical advantages of downsizing lens designs to shorter focal lengths and smaller image circles) allow the user of smaller, lighter lenses, particularly for telephoto.

So why do you keep looking at body weight only? (And the lightest 35mm DSLR body, the 5D is already considerably bulkier than many smaller format DSLR bodies like the K110D, E-500 or 350D; I hope you are not thinking of that absurd comparison of the newest and lightest FF body to the heaviest and oldest 4/3 body!)

Even if AF at f/8 is marginally possible (but not with your 5D+100-400/5.6+1.4x TC apparently!), format downsizing and using f/5.6 or f/4 to get the same speed and DOF from a lens of similar weight and cost will give better AF. Or the same f/8 AF ability will allow the use of considerably smaller, light super-telephoto lenses or lens/TC combinations.

The current trend is for pixel size ratio between formats to hold steady or increase, not decrease, so if anything the focal length differences (as ratios) needed for equal resolution after cropping are increasing not decreasing. Righty now, we have 8-10MP across a huge format size range, from telephones to every DSLR under $2700! Upper limits on both lens resolution (less l/mm for larger formats, especially when adequate DOF requires use of higher f-stops) and the print resolution needs of most mainstream SLR buyers (good A3 or 11"x14" prints probably more than the great majority of SLR buyers care about, or even that mainstream priced SLR lenses have enough resolution for) seem to work towards rough equality of pixel counts in the mainstream SLR price range.

And since this is a thread about the 16x24mm format Pentax DSLR's, why do you persist in doing so many of your price/performance comparisons based on 4/3 and the Olympus 300/2.8? Why not compare to either Pentax lenses, or to Canon FF's most direct competitor, the Nikon DX system? Try Nikon 200/2 or 300/2.8 vs Canon 300/2.8, or 400/2.8 or 600/4 vs Canon 600/4. (My guess: you compare so often to the Olympus 300/2.8 because it is a very expensive, highly specialized, rarely used, special order item that allows you to make an extremely unfavorable but also extremely atypical comparison to the far more widely used and better selling 300/2.8 lenses for 35mm format.)
Logged
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8878


« Reply #67 on: June 15, 2006, 11:17:07 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
What counts is the size and weight of the whole functioning camera, including a lens, and of the whole kit including any extra lenses.


BJL,
I suppose you know already I can't let you get away with these illogicalities and non sequiturs   .

What counts for many of us (perhaps most of us passionate about photography) is functionality, ease of use, and high image quality. Size and weight is of secondary concern unless the size and weight difference is very substantial and taxes our muscles and causes us to get exhausted. Since I'm not suffering from muscular dystrophy or any similar disease, I'm prepared to carry a bit of extra weight for the sake of better image quality.

But this is my personal view, which is however backed up by my own behaviour with cameras. I own a range of cameras from a tiny 5mp Sony T1 which literally fits into a shirt pocket, to a very heavy Mamiya RB67 nicknamed 'the tank'.

I no longer use film cameras for reasons of their limited functionality and ease of use. Weight is not a major consideration. Of the 4 digital cameras I own, by far the lightest, the T1, is the one I have least used. The next lightest combination of body and lens would be the 20D with EF-S 10-22mm lens. Do I use this in preference to my 5D with Sigma 15-30mm lens? No I don't. A clear advantage in image quality plus slightly greater functionality (bigger LCD screen, for example) means more to me than a weight saving of a few ounces.

Quote
Smaller formats and their higher resolution (more l/mm from smaller photo-sites and the fundamental optical advantages of downsizing lens designs to shorter focal lengths and smaller image circles) allow the user of smaller, lighter lenses, particularly for telephoto.


Same counterpoint as above applies. If the lighter lens does not also provide equal image quality, including equally low noise, there's no over all advantage for me.

Quote
So why do you keep looking at body weight only?


I clearly haven't. I specifically compared the weight of two lenses of equal focal length and equal maximum aperture, designed for different formats.

Quote
The current trend is for pixel size ratio between formats to hold steady or increase, not decrease, so if anything the focal length differences (as ratios) needed for equal resolution after cropping are increasing not decreasing.


Non of us have crystal balls in these matters. As I recall, the first 8mp cameras were P&S, followed by the DSLRs such as the 20D. The next generation of Canon 1 series cameras is likely to be 22mp, but who knows. Whatever technology goes into the small format cameras, is likely to be applicable to the larger format, thus maintaining the quality gap.

Quote
And since this is a thread about the 16x24mm format Pentax DSLR's, why do you persist in doing so many of your price/performance comparisons based on 4/3 and the Olympus 300/2.8? Why not compare to either Pentax lenses, or to Canon FF's most direct competitor, the Nikon DX system? Try Nikon 200/2 or 300/2.8 vs Canon 300/2.8, or 400/2.8 or 600/4 vs Canon 600/4.


I was responding to your comment in your previous post, ie..... "To go from 4/3 with my 50-200/3.5-4.5 to 35mm would require a heavier lens: 300-400mm, and faster than f/5.6 to match AF performance, so distinctly heavier (AF speed depends on a lens's minimum f-stop, regardless of format or focal length. That is why f/5.6 is the slowest for almost al lenses, in any SLR format.)"....

I use the example of the Zuiko 300/2.8 rather than the Nikkor 300/2.8 because I don't believe there's a Nikkor DX 300mm lens. Having checked on the net, the Nikkor 300/2.8 is slightly heavier than the Canon, probably of no better quality than the Canon EF 300/2.8 and, since Nikon doesn't have an FF body, what's the point of such a comparison.

The bottom line is, the smaller format cameras such as the 4/3rds, and the high pixel count cropped format cameras such as the Nikon D2X, have sacrificed noise performance for the sake of extra resolution (lp/mm). The D30 has lower noise at ISO 1600 than the D2X. The smaller format cameras are forced into this position in order to maintain an edge, but ultimately the only edge they have is a modest reduction in size and weight offset by an inherent image quality advantage of the larger FF 35mm format.

If you wish to make the argument that most people will sacrifice image quality for a modest reduction in weight, then that's a fair comment and probably true. What I'm suggesting is that most people who are passionate about photography, the sort of people who read this forum, will not sacrifice quality for a modest or slight  reduction in weight if the price is right.

Quote
But for one thing, surely MF SLR's also offered through the lens focusing and interchangeable lenses, and the better established MF makers should have been equally capable of adding those SLR style features if their products were in other ways more desirable.


Here I'm addressing your previous comment, ..."I was thinking particularly of the transition period, roughly the 1960's. People who a decade earlier were buying and carrying MF gear instead chose the smaller 35mm "miniature" format. Yes, size and weight is probably a major factor"......

The first camera that I was really excited about was the Pentax Spotmatic which I bought in the early 60's. A friend bought a Rolleiflex twin lens reflex with Planar 80mm f2.8 lens about the same time. We used to go out shooting together. As I recall, his camera had a fixed lens and no through-the-lens metering. I used my camera much more frequently. I had a 50mm and 135mm lens, the advantage of rolls of 36 exposures and basically what I would describe as greater functionality and ease of use. There's no doubt that the 6x6 Rolliflex produced better quality images, but the penalty was not only greater weight and greater expenses, but more awkwardness of use, greater continuing expense of film and processing, lack of interchangeables lenses and so on. I believe it was quite common in those days for MF cameras to lack many of the features of the then modern 35mm camera. This is not the case whaen comparing cropped format DSLRs with FF DSLRs. That's the point i'm making.

Quote
(My guess: you compare so often to the Olympus 300/2.8 because it is a very expensive, highly specialized, rarely used, special order item that allows you to make an extremely unfavorable but also extremely atypical comparison to the far more widely used and better selling 300/2.8 lenses for 35mm format.)


By the way, the last time I visited my local camera store in Brisbane, I saw this Zuiko 300mm lens sitting behind a glass case. It was in stock and on display. No special order required. I would say that generally I'm interested in photographic gear if it can do something for me that I can't already do and provided it's affordable. If this lens was less expensive, then the promise of equivalent 600mm performance on 35mm would be a reason to buy into the 4/3rds system. However, I doubt that one would ever achieve the image quality of a 1Ds2, or even a 5D coupled to a 600/f4, although there is no denying that the 600/4 is a heavier lens, but not necessarily much more expensive.
Logged
Ronny Nilsen
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 340


WWW
« Reply #68 on: June 16, 2006, 06:53:20 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
What counts for many of us (perhaps most of us passionate about photography) is functionality, ease of use, and high image quality. Size and weight is of secondary concern unless the size and weight difference is very substantial and taxes our muscles and causes us to get exhausted. Since I'm not suffering from muscular dystrophy or any similar disease, I'm prepared to carry a bit of extra weight for the sake of better image quality.

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=68244\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Ray,
I guess I see this the same way as you. If I can't carry with me a full DSLR system (with the possibilty of leving some lenses at home), then the reduction in size/weigth of a reduced frame is not going to make any difference. I will then simply bring a P&S or no camera at all.
Logged

BJL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5124


« Reply #69 on: June 16, 2006, 12:48:30 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
BJL,
I suppose you know already I can't let you get away with these illogicalities and non sequiturs   .

What counts for many of us (perhaps most of us passionate about photography) is functionality, ease of use, and high image quality. Size and weight is of secondary concern ...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=68244\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Talk about non sequiters: I was talking about overall patterns in the interchangeble lens camera market, where size and weight (and cost) are often significant in choices of format, not your particular willingness to buy and carry heavier, more expensive equipment than most interchangeable lens camera kits.

And it was not I who raised the topic of weight: ronnynil raised it with the comment
"a MF systems was to big to carry around and use handheld."
and you continued on that topic:
"MF cameras were not only significantly more expensive, cumbersome and heavy ..."
"the weight and bulk disadvantage is not necessarily as great an issue, the 5D being an example of a body hardly heavier or bulkier than the cheaper cropped format."
"the Zuiko ... weighs 3.29Kg. The Canon EF 300L IS ... is lighter at just 2.6Kg"

So do not contradict yourself now by declaring weight to be of little relevance to the discussion that we were having, or try to change the topic from overall patterns of the interchangeable lens camera market to your personal priorities.


Some other points:
- if you raised 4/3 lenses because of my example, why not go with my example: the relatively affordable 50-200 zoom, rather than jumping to rarely used exotica like the 300/2.8?

- and since we agree about not having crystal balls when it comes to future pixel sizes, why not do comparisons relevant to current realities, which is that 35mm format DSLR's (the 5D in particular) have significantly lower resolution (lp/mm) so that the relevant lens comparisons involve using longer focal lengths with than than with 4/3 or DX: about 50% longer, so 300mm with the DX compared to 200mm with recent 4/3 models or the D2X, like Nikon 200/2 vs Canon 300/2.8. Or the Olympus 300/2.8 to a roughly 450mm Canon lens.
Comparing lenses of equal focal length seems to be relying on your previous crystal ball gazing where you predicted rough equalization of pixel counts.

- you know very well that there is a perfectly good Nikon 300/2.8 for use with DX format; lenses at that focal length do not need to be modified for the smaller than 35mm formats. At most, a DX-only version would have anti-flare baffles with smaller openings, having no significant effect on cost or weight. So ignoring that lens on the basis of not being usable only with DX format is a cop-out.
Logged
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8878


« Reply #70 on: June 16, 2006, 08:10:31 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
- you know very well that there is a perfectly good Nikon 300/2.8 for use with DX format; lenses at that focal length do not need to be modified for the smaller than 35mm formats. At most, a DX-only version would have anti-flare baffles with smaller openings, having no significant effect on cost or weight. So ignoring that lens on the basis of not being usable only with DX format is a cop-out.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=68326\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

BJL,
I'm a Canon guy. I only prick up my ears when Nikon produces a quality advantage in either price or weight, which Canon does not offer. The D2X is such a camera, which I recognized at the time in many of my posts on this forum. In fact I was initially disappointed when the 5D was announced that it was a 12mp full frame instead of a direct competitor to the D2X. However, having experienced how useful good image quality at ISO 1600 can be, I have no D2X envy.

The general thrust of my argument is that once the pixel count race has settled down and all prosumer and professional cameras have settled on a 5 micron pixel pitch, the larger format will always retain an image quality advantage at sometimes (hopefully) just a modest increase in price and weight.

Incidentally, having just checked the specs of the D2X and Nikkor 300/2.8 combination, it weighs in at almost half a kilogram heavier than the 5D/300mm combination.

I think this comparison deserves further comment. I find it ironic that, with the most exact match of components comparing the cropped format with 'full frame', where there's a definite image quality advantage in favour of the smaller format (that is, capitalising on the longer telephoto effect), we find that the smaller format is not only heavier, but also considerably more expensive. In Australia I'm finding prices of A$10,000 plus for the Nikkor 300/2.8 VR as opposed to A$6000 plus for the Canon 300/2.8 IS.

Don't you find this significant?  It sort of undermines your argument, doesn't it? If we step back from use of the longest telephoto lens we are carrying, the smaller format simply allows us to use a shorter and lighter lens for the job, with usually lower image quality, the D2X being the exception where image quality might be on a par if we exclude noise issues. If we compare most cropped formats with FF using our longest lens, we get a fairly marginal increase in quality, simply because pixel desity in the larger format has not caught up. I'm thinking of the D60 compared with the 1Ds and the 20D or 30D compared with the 1Ds2.

The two shining examples where any increase in image quality with long telephotos might be dramatic and very worthwhile, the Olympus/300mm combination and the D2X/300mm combination, we find that both systems are not only significantly more expensive than the cheapest full frame combination (5D/300mm) but also heavier.
« Last Edit: June 16, 2006, 09:06:48 PM by Ray » Logged
BJL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5124


« Reply #71 on: June 17, 2006, 04:22:44 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
The general thrust of my argument is that once the pixel count race has settled down and all prosumer and professional cameras have settled on a 5 micron pixel pitch, the larger format will always retain an image quality advantage at sometimes (hopefully) just a modest increase in price and weight.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=68359\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Back the crystal ball gazing? There is not the slightest evidence that all SLR formats are going to settle on the same pixel pitch, or that the price difference well ever be "modest". Your comparisons between lenses of equal focal length have no relevance until those radical changes from the present situation occurs, or at least until you provide good evidence that it is likely to happen.

If anything, the trend is in the opposite direction: a closing of the gap in pixel counts across a wide array of formats, and thus an increase in the ratio of pixel sizes and thus of focal lengths needed. (As an extreme case, the 5D has only 27% more pixels than several recently announced 10MP compact digicams!)
Logged
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8878


« Reply #72 on: June 17, 2006, 09:20:04 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Back the crystal ball gazing? There is not the slightest evidence that all SLR formats are going to settle on the same pixel pitch, or that the price difference well ever be "modest". Your comparisons between lenses of equal focal length have no relevance until those radical changes from the present situation occurs, or at least until you provide good evidence that it is likely to happen.

If anything, the trend is in the opposite direction: a closing of the gap in pixel counts across a wide array of formats, and thus an increase in the ratio of pixel sizes and thus of focal lengths needed. (As an extreme case, the 5D has only 27% more pixels than several recently announced 10MP compact digicams!)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=68382\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

BJL,
Okay! We'll just have to wait and see. If we are both still around in 5 years time, I'm sure we shall continue with these discussions, if not before   .
Logged
Adrian D.
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2


« Reply #73 on: June 19, 2006, 09:26:17 AM »
ReplyReply

The only thing that scares me about the new Pentax equipment is the fiability.

 The K100 seems to be a very nice camera, although still not so differrent from the DS or D versions. But if the so-called K10 turns out to be a camera that uses the Sony 10mp sensor with SR and a shutter guaranteed to work up to 100 000+good backwards compatibility, it will most certainly be a serious competitor for the Canon 30d and even nikon d200.
Al that within a price range of 1000-2000$ and i'll never consider the canon/nikon alternatives.
I live in Eastern Europe where the market for old pentax mf lenses is quite vast, and i wouldn't mind 2-3 stops off my old Pentax MF system.

Anyway , as Ray told, we'll just have to  wait (untill Photokina?) and see.
Logged
BJL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5124


« Reply #74 on: June 22, 2006, 04:34:43 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
If we are both still around in 5 years time, I'm sure we shall continue with these discussions, if not before.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=68393\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Yep, five years should be enough to see the trends clearly, and I doubt either of us will be able to keep silent until then! I expect a lot of new information this year alone, between Photokina and the round of "gift suggestions" later in the year. Will Canon and FourThirds follow Nikon, Sony, Pentax and Samsung in the rush to 10M+ in mainstream priced SLR's? (Of course, Sigma and Fuji already have 10MP, with their special methods of pixel counting!)
Logged
BJL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5124


« Reply #75 on: June 22, 2006, 04:39:37 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
macqyver,

doesn't the new Alpha claim a 50mm 1.4.  Thought I saw that.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=67794\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Yes: Sony is re-releasing almost all the Minolta lenses, rebranded as Sony, and this includes the 50/1.4 and an update of the very expensive Minolta 35/1.4 (a 35mm format fast wide, so far more expensive than if it were designed only as a "normal" for the "Alpha format" of about 16x24mm.) Sony is even reviving a few that K.-M. had discontinued, like 70-200/2.8 and 300/2.8.
Logged
Pages: « 1 2 3 [4]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad