John brings up an excellent point. There is a cost factor at play here. There are some who, because of earning a living in photography, and others who are in favorable economic circumstances that would be very comfortable buying the best possible body, but others need to weigh the benefit and need vs the cost.
Case in point: I have been somewhat keeping up with Pentax upgrades - as I can justify it. I have been stuck on the K20D because I have not been able to justify the K7. Now, because of a different need I have picked up a K-x. And you know what, there is very little that I need that the K20/K7 provide that the K-x doesn't. And the K-x body is much less expensive. -- Best regards, Bruce Monday, February 22, 2010, 8:51:04 PM, you wrote: JF> Don't know about Paul, but I cvertainly would. If I were shooting JF> Nikon I wouldn't feel the need for a D3x; for Canon I wouldn't see JF> any point in paying through the nose for a 1Ds Mark whatever. JF> I buy cameras that will do the job I need, not because they are the JF> (current) top-of-the-line. And 14Mp is more pixels than I need; JF> in fact the K10D (and, occasionally, the good old *ist-D) have more JF> than enough pixels for nearly anything I want. Buying a camera just JF> because somebody has stuck a "flagship" label on it is ridiculous. JF> On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 09:29:16PM -0700, Tom C wrote: >> Paul, >> >> Respectfully, if Pentax came out with a 21MP or 24MP digital body in >> FF similar to a Canon EOS 5D MKII or Nikon D3x in basic >> specifications, are you saying you would not find or suspect it to be >> a superior product to their current 14.6MP flagship? And that given >> the option to go with what would likely be viewed as their top of the >> line in the size factor, that you would choose a lesser model? >> >> Tom C. >> >> >> On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 8:02 PM, paul stenquist <pnstenqu...@comcast.net> >> wrote: >> > I have not intention of going FF. With my DA* lenses, the K7 delivers all >> > the quality I need. I've been selling some 24 x 30 prints, and the detail >> > and sharpness are excellent. I hope Pentax continues to play a lead role >> > in APS format. Their lens development strategy indicates that this exactly >> > what is planned. >> > Paul >> > On Feb 22, 2010, at 8:37 PM, Tom C wrote: >> > >> >> I understand exactly what Boris is saying. ?If a 35mm sensor is 1.5x >> >> that of an APS-C sensor, then given the same pixel density, one can >> >> expect a significant increase in resolution using a FF 35mm sensor >> >> over an APS-C sensor. Many people already have the 35mm lenses. >> >> >> >> I don't buy the digital lens superiority over those that were made for >> >> 35mm film systems. ?Maybe there are some benefits here and there, at >> >> certain f-stops but I've been getting great results with FF lenses on >> >> digital bodies. Yes I know it's with the sweet spot of the lens, and >> >> yes I know about chromatic aberration and vignetting with FF, and of >> >> course the noise issue with increased pixel count overall. ?As far as >> >> I'm concerned those all are excuses made when when one doesn't have a >> >> full FF body to offer to go along with a complement of FF lenses. >> >> >> >> There's a good reason why other mfrs have a FF body in their lineup. >> >> Specifically, Nikon, Canon and Sony do not have a sensor to offer that >> >> is > 35mm FF format. ?So the 35mm FF format allows their user base to >> >> realize an increase in resolution over APS-C that is significant and >> >> detectable in tests, using their existing lenses and presumed >> >> purchases of new FF lenses. Those mfrs have not been unsuccessful with >> >> these products. >> >> >> >> I wager if Pentax came out with a FF 35mm format body, virtually every >> >> single person claiming they were perfectly satisfied with APS-C and >> >> could afford it, would jump to FF, in much the same manner that many >> >> did not need anything greater than a 6MP DSLR before there was >> >> anything better offered by Pentax. >> >> >> >> Tom C. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 6:05 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi <gdigio...@gmail.com> >> >> wrote: >> >>> Nothing wrong with a bigger sensor and more pixels. >> >>> >> >>> That said, I have no urge to change from what I'm using now. At all. >> >>> It's working fine for my photography. >> >>> >> >>> -- >> >>> Godfrey >> >>> godfreydigiorgi.posterous.com >> >>> >> >>> -- >> >>> 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. >> >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> 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. >> > >> > >> > -- >> > 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. >> > >> >> -- >> 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. -- 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.
