[chadvw]

If I see, that people debate the current price of the new K20 and wait for a significant drop before buying, I think, this is enough said about the willingness of people to shell out the money for a FF-camera…
Ben

the k20d does not represent a $700 increase in perceived value over the k10d. But there are those who are willing to pay it. The challenge is finding that right price to performance ratio. That's where pentax really hit the nail on the head with the k10d. They under priced their camera to beat out the nikon/canon group. Canon and Nikon answered back with reducing their prices for their base models, but it still didn't match the performance of the k10d, but now pentax is using that initial success to match the pricing of canon/nikon and straying away what brought a lot of us to pentax in the first place.

Does that show the willingness to pay for a full frame? nope. two different levels of cameras.

So, everybody can make his own choice, no sensor format offers the perfect solution. I think, that the APS-C size offers enough potential to improve in terms of noise and exposure latitude and I even guess, that the K20 can be bettered in this respect with improved firmware. After all, a DSLR is much more, than just the sensor…
Ben

I agree to this wholeheartedly

[Entropy]

I'm not sure I buy this. I haven't seen the progression of technology ever leading to things getting bigger.

Have you looked at the price trends for 47" flatscreen TVs lately?

If you have a specific price point, the amount of TV you can get at that price point is pretty consistently increasing.

Same will likely go for camera sensors. Yes, usually technology progression leads to things becoming smaller, EXCEPT where large size is desirable, such as in TVs and high-quality camera sensors. Yes, APS-C noise performance will consistently improve (at least for a while), but most of those improvements can also be applied to FF sensors, along with improved manufacturing techniques that make the sensors cheaper.

[beaumont]

I believe that I read in one of the threads, a rumor of a full frame digital being released? Assuming that I'm using the correct terminology, does this mean that only the pre-DA lenses would work...or at the very least, would there be an advantage of the pre-DA's? (In other words, would this help justify the purchase of a FA 77 over a DA 70?)

Sorry for bringin this up guys. After reading the responses, I think maybe I'll just keep my 18-55 kit lens and wait for holograms to become mainstream...

[emalvick]

My feelings on the whole FF topic is that if camera companies really wanted to make FF the consumer camera, they would have. While the chips are bigger, I think the right resources, research, etc. could have made FF cameras as affordable as any.

This doesn't mean they won't produce them, eventually... There is possibly a motive to save the next big thing so that people will be inclined to buy a FF dslr when they become more mainstream. It could be that there is more to gain by engineering APS-C sensors to be as good as FF.

Personally, I think camera companies are betting more on the popularity of smaller cameras (e.g. APS-C) as most people (meaning most consumers, not most of us on this forum) would prefer a smaller slr type camera than a FF sensor.

For myself, I already see the APS-C sensors as having made a lot of progress in quality. I am not sure whether the gains of a FF will justify the costs. If they do, then I may get one. Of course just based on the physics, each gain in APS-C technology will probably see a similar improvement in FF. I just figure that if I get to where I think I need and will buy an FF, then I will factor in the need to possibly replace the necessary lenses.

To wrap this up though, I can't help but feel like a few others have suggested. FF seems to me to be more for people whom have a strong 35 mm base to begin with. Why else would one choose that size as the "standard" for FF? If a bigger sensor is better, why not make an FF even bigger than that? Of course, it is because 35 mm was the standard for film for so long.

It just seems that APS-C will become or already is that standard for the digital SLR world and will probably stay that way. Camera companies will have a hard time convincing people that bigger is better when the smaller products are already quite good, especially when most people work with prints 8 x 10 or smaller.

[Entropy]

Is it really that much more expensive to manufacture a FF sensor?

Yes. IC yields always go down with increasing area.

The end result is that an APS-C sensor which has less than half the area of a FF sensor (2/3 squared = 4/9) will have:
1) Less than half the raw materials costs
2) Less waste per silicon wafer
3) Higher yield assuming a fixed number of defects per unit area (safe assumption)

For example, if you had an average of one defect for every 5 FF sensor areas (20% reject rate since one defect kills the entire chip) you'd have one for every 10 APS-C sensors (10% reject rate with each reject being far less of a loss).

Add to this the fact that other parts of the camera have to be designed around the FF sensor, and FF will have a significant price premium until defect rates of the manufacturing processes are so low that the difference in reject rates is negligible despite the increased area. (See flatscreen TVs as an example of the steady march of progress in the defect management arena.)

[Duplo]

What is about a debate about 35mm digital vs. APS-C that gets people to boil over and getting all defensive (goes for either camp btw)

APS-C refers to the old APS-C sized films (roughly), FF or 35mm digital to that of 35mm film. so in way both are formats of the past.

On a personal note I see no reason for the formats not to coexist.
Both formats has advantages and disadvantages. however which format that turns out to be your format of choice should be a mater of shooting preferences.

One thing I do have an issue with though, is people that keeps talking up or down 35mm digital without having actually given it a serious workout. As in rented one for a weekend or a week, evaluated it for their intented purpose.
Kind of required to form an opinion based on fact IMHO and surprisingly few have done that. 35mm digital and 35mm film has a number of differences, even though they are sharing the same format size.

From my experiences there are differences and notisably so, the question is if these differences matters to you and if they suit your style of shooting, not to mention vallet.

[thePiRaTE!!]

...
To wrap this up though, I can't help but feel like a few others have suggested. FF seems to me to be more for people whom have a strong 35 mm base to begin with. Why else would one choose that size as the "standard" for FF? If a bigger sensor is better, why not make an FF even bigger than that? ...

Just wanted to give a perspective of a modern FF wanter. I shot a little film, long ago, but never was a 'photographer' until digital. The APS-C sensor is roughly 18x24. The full 35mm frame is 24x36 and the size of the K-mount housing was designed around the old 35mm format.

I ask, why *wouldn't* you want the extra picture, in your picture? Its actually being done now, I'd gladly pay for the extra moose pasture to work with.

FWIW, there are much larger sensors. Its a cost thing.

What is about a debate about 35mm digital vs. APS-C that gets people to boil over and getting all defensive (goes for either camp btw)

APS-C refers to the old APS-C sized films (roughly), FF or 35mm digital to that of 35mm film. so in way both are formats of the past...

True.

The topic will continue to surface as new users come to similar conclusions, its good to debate and its bound to keep coming up. To defend the others in this instance, as an outsider walking into this conversation, I read only one person posting disrespectfully - Gooshin: there's no need to insult folks for having a mind of their own m8.

[Wheatfield]

Pentax has publicly announced (via the German Marketing manager and one of the Americans, too), that the coming pro-Modell (Kx) will feature a new sensor format, BUT NOT full format. They called it something "new", which leaves space for speculation, as the crop factors of 1.5 - 1.6 - 1.3 are already in use. They have quite clearly stated, that the camera will not be full format, whatever be there reasoning...

Ben

If they go "full frame" they lose in body shake reduction.
In order to keep that, they can't go larger than about a 20mmx30mm sensor, and that presumes lenses that will cover the full 35mm frame.

[thePiRaTE!!]

If they go "full frame" they lose in body shake reduction.
In order to keep that, they can't go larger than about a 20mmx30mm sensor, and that presumes lenses that will cover the full 35mm frame.

I haven't heard this correlation made before. Not doubting you, but I'd be interested to hear why there couldn't be a 24x36mm sensor with in-body SR.

[Duplo]

I haven't heard this correlation made before. Not doubting you, but I'd be interested to hear why there couldn't be a 24x36mm sensor with in-body SR.

Well it has to do with the image circle of the K-mount and I am to be honest not sure whether it is fact or assumption, but it has been discussed before.

the A900 from sony is supposed ot have SR and be full frame, but I do not know if anybody actually knows whether it is possible within the margins the K-mount provides.
I know from looking through the mount of my D3, that there is not much space left around the sensor and the K and F mount seems fairly equal in terms of size.

[Wheatfield]

I haven't heard this correlation made before. Not doubting you, but I'd be interested to hear why there couldn't be a 24x36mm sensor with in-body SR.

Most 35mm camera lenses don't have a usable image circle much bigger than ~45mm, which is the size of the diagonal of the frame, more or less.
Shake reduction would most likely be able to move the edge of the sensor out of the lens' usable image circle.
Now, if this is a compromise that one can live with, then it is very possible to do. It's just bigger components going into the body.
The reason why I doubt Pentax would do it is because they have, traditionally, always been more about image quality than anything else.

[Zewrak]

And they can still theoretically push a APS-C sensor up to 36 megapixels. I would be very happy with that if they could keep the rest of the techology up to par with that.

Imagine the possibilities with 36mp, a bellow, a kickass hires lens and a crop tool.

[chadvw]

And they can still theoretically push a APS-C sensor up to 36 megapixels. I would be very happy with that if they could keep the rest of the techology up to par with that.

Imagine the possibilities with 36mp, a bellow, a kickass hires lens and a crop tool.

See, I'm a strange bird. I really don't want anything about 10mp. I don't need MASSIVE prints, mostly never crop. the majority of my work is for internet purposes. Maybe Pentax should start looking at the nikon/canon model on their professional series.... one high MP count for the studio guys or people who want it, one low MP count for everyone else.

[Zewrak]

See, I'm a strange bird. I really don't want anything about 10mp. I don't need MASSIVE prints, mostly never crop. the majority of my work is for internet purposes. Maybe Pentax should start looking at the nikon/canon model on their professional series.... one high MP count for the studio guys or people who want it, one low MP count for everyone else.

Well, then you really don't need a fullformat either . I can't see a downside to why not have for example 14mpixel when the technology is there, as long as it doesnt come at the expense of something else, noise for example.

The more data you have the better imho.

[Kguru]

A full frame $3000-5000 body is for the rare few ...

It doesn't have to be $3000-5000 permanently. There will come the time when it will mean just the extra costs of the larger sensor & viewfinder; the rest is pretty much the same so just a few hundred $ more than APS-C.

Having said that, as Wheatfield mentioned, I'd prefer 1.2x crop 30x20cm sensor.