[Aristophanes]

It's a Cold War now. Then a wall will fall.

[Macario]

I think we will all fall again for the marketing of the companies. The D600 is a affordable FF camera, much better than APS-C, also much pricier for many of us. And they are now probably laughing: we can make it cheaper, but why should we. We already made them think they need it, and this is as low as the price will be. Much lower than the pro cameras, but still higher than the best APS-C cameras.

[Clavius]

I agree with the others in this thread that the pixel war is far from over. Honestly, I don't even think it ever will be over. Comparing it to computers is very tempting. It was once said: "640kb should be enough memory for everybody", but my laptop currently runs on 32gb of memory, with a 2gb videocard and 1tb HD.

And because that pixel-war is not over an APS-H sensored body with a very high pixelcount will sell very well. The general public still assumes that >MP equals >IQ.

On a different note: I saw somebody use a photography app on an Iphone a few weeks ago. And I thought... Why can't my expensive high quality DSLR (K5) do that?!?! He was holding his Iphone in front of him, and as he moved the phone in circles it snapped away and instantly stiched the images together. You could see it overlapping the pictures on the display, and when the pics didn't match well enough he would just swipe his phone over that part again to correct it. I saw such apps before and they didn't impress me, but the images this one outputted were of very high quality pictures. It was amazing. Why can't I do that EVEN BETTER with a highly featured dedicated camera? And when the time comes that our cameras can eventually do that, what impact will that have on the need for larger formats?

[illdefined]

And because that pixel-war is not over an APS-H sensored body with a very high pixelcount will sell very well. The general public still assumes that >MP equals >IQ.

why APS-H? still won't work with many DA lenses, and just another Pentax compromise short of FF. Canon did away with APS-H as soon as it could and never looked back.

[psychdoc]

Long term the writing is on the wall IMHO, if Pentax want to survive they need to rethink their direction Compacts will migrate to --> 1 inch sensors Mirrorless (small system) --> m4/3's Mirrorless (larger system) --> APSC --> FF DSLR's --> FF.

"Long term" the writing will change more differently than we can imagine ...

Film has been replaced with sensors.

'Glass' lenses will be replaced with something else. Something really compact.

The question is how soon? Not soon enough I fear. [There is too much money made on lenses]. But not as late as we think. It will be third parties that will make the breakthrough

You can use the lens your grandfather used on newer camera. But your grandchildren will not use these monsters. Lugging these monsters lenses on FF cameras will be as funny as this:

[Clavius]

'Glass' lenses will be replaced with something else. Something really compact.

Holga is way ahead of you...

[Clavius]

why APS-H?

Because we're sick and tired of hearing and reading anything about FF?

still won't work with many DA lenses, and just another Pentax compromise short of FF.

I was learned here on this forum that all DA's will work on APSH.

Canon did away with APS-H as soon as it could and never looked back.

If a 36mp FF sensor is being labelled as "as good as MF", and being compared with the 645D, then why would an APS-H with 36?mp not be able to do the same?

[illdefined]

Because we're sick and tired of hearing and reading anything about FF?

umm, yeah not a good reason. that's called market demand

I was learned here on this forum that all DA's will work on APSH.

Is that a fact? with SR? Interesting. why didnt they adopt it long ago then? could make sense for an advanced DA mirrorless..and at least better justify the size...

But how much more sensor area is APS-H over APS-C exactly? Barely sounds worth the cost and effort of contracting custom sensors since everyone else has abandoned the format. Canon used to make their own.

If a 36mp FF sensor is being labelled as "as good as MF", and being compared with the 645D, then why would an APS-H with 36?mp not be able to do the same?

Same reason nobody is calling the Nokia808 "as good as MF", its not just the mp or the sensor size, it's both. FF is over 2x the size of APS-C, what's APS-H?

Seems like just another baby-step like removing the AA filter was. Pentax will never catchup if it keeps on taking baby-steps.

[Clavius]

Same reason nobody is calling the Nokia808 "as good as MF"

We can only wish Pentax would use a APS-H sized Nokia Pureview sensor. If 1/1.2 Nokia sensor accounts for 41MP, with 5MP effictively, then an APS-H sized one would have 693MP with 84MP effectively. (Would still be too much for my taste, but you get the picture...)

Seems like just another baby-step like removing the AA filter was. Pentax will never catchup if it keeps on taking baby-steps.

I've bought a Canon 5D, only because some of my customers demanded that I shoot FF. Because I was following the hype on this very forum I was expecting a huge quality-difference. Sadly, it's just not there. The AF is very good, the viewfinder is nice, but there it ends. The only BIG difference between the formats is the hype: A junior-high-type fad. It's not even marketing, it's photography "enthusiasts" making each other crazy.

[illdefined]

We can only wish Pentax would use a APS-H sized Nokia Pureview sensor. If 1/1.2 Nokia sensor accounts for 41MP, with 5MP effictively, then an APS-H sized one would have 693MP with 84MP effectively. (Would still be too much for my taste, but you get the picture...)

and why wouldn't an FF version be even better than that? you're sidestepping the issue..

I've bought a Canon 5D, only because some of my customers demanded that I shoot FF. Because I was following the hype on this very forum I was expecting a huge quality-difference. Sadly, it's just not there. The AF is very good, the viewfinder is nice, but there it ends. The only BIG difference between the formats is the hype: A junior-high-type fad. It's not even marketing, it's "photography enthusiasts" making each other crazy.

maybe you should try a digital camera that's not almost 7 years old, there's been two generations of the 5D since. why dont you compare your 5D with whatever Pentax had in 2005?

and btw, for better or worse a bunch of photography "enthusiasts making each other crazy" is exactly what the market is. you can refuse to participate if you wish, but Pentax cannot.

[RonHendriks1966]

Originally posted by illdefined But how much more sensor area is APS-H over APS-C exactly? Barely sounds worth the cost and effort of contracting custom sensors since everyone else has abandoned the format. Canon used to make their own.

Well since I'm the biggest fan for aps-h I might even talk about it.

There are some advantages:

• With an APS-H sized sensor in a top tier Pentax camera, Pentax would have a unique marketpoint.
• More DA-lenses would perform good on this sensor compared to FF (Don't know about wide-angle and zooms).
• More old lenses would perform good on this sensor, since cornerperformance is less stressing.
• Depending on the cropfactor (anything from 1.2-1.3) giving advantage on the telesite compared to FF. Long lenses are more expensive to carry around and instead of 400mm on FF you could use 300mm on a 1.3x crop aps-H.
• Choosing for a 4:3 sized sensor (like 645D) would make this camera different and to a lot of people more usefull.

What to design:

• A new body, that is hopefully like the K-5, small and rugget with all new technics that Pentax has.
• Faster processor then K-5/K-30 with a new processor or a dual one.
• New sensor designed for Pentax, makes it more expensive, but unique (Sony does these things).
• Some new lenses, and that means new wide-angle and normalzoom with priority, since there are some primes available (like FA31mm, 43mm, 77mm).

Sensor options:

• There are a lot of options on this one, since you start ordering something new. But this doesn't mean that you couldn't start with ready technics, since there are wafers made where sensors are being cut from, and from those you can make a new sized sensor.
• Pentax could make one body and make it a multi-sensor platform. Even if it isn't from the start, this could be an add-on in a later stadium. So different megapixelcount on different sensors that have the same size APS-H. No changing off the sensor, but like a car with a different engine inside from the factory.
• The following examples of three different pixelcounts on the sensor size are based upon a sensor 3:2 size of 29,6 x 19,6 mm that is 60 % larger then APS-C and 2/3th of a full frame sensor.
• Starting from K-5's pixelcount: Making a 16mp aps-H sensor with D600 6x6u pixels would make a very well performing hi-iso camera.
• Starting from K-5's wafer: putting the same pixels on the bigger sensor, is giving more pixels up to 25,8 megapixel.
• Starting from Nex 7 wafer: putting those small pixels on a bigger sensor is giving you even more pixels up to 38,3 megapixel for all that studio work.
• Changing the size from the sensor or making it different into 4:3th gives different numbers, but the matches are about the same.
• I guess that 16mp is a low count in these days, and thus making the size off the sensor somehow big.

How to market it:

• Pentax could market it as the best camera one can buy on a budget. It would be cheaper then FF camera's, but offering more then APS-C.
• The rugget camera that can go anywhere, since this would be the small camera.
• Market against Canon 7D and the Nikon equivalent (probably D400 by then).
• Making it an affordable system with a few new lenses that are cheap compared to the competition. Some new zoomlenses to go with it that combine IQ and portability (20-80mm/f4 and 80-200mm/f4 would be a great team of kitlenses (just examples)).

For those who think that APS-H is dead, who knows what Canon will put into 7D Mark II.

[Blue]

For those who think that APS-H is dead, who knows what Canon will put into 7D Mark II.

Ron, do you have reason to believe that Canon would choose an aps-h over the small aps-c 1.6x sensor size?

[illdefined]

Well since I'm the biggest fan for aps-h I might even talk about it.

...

For those who think that APS-H is dead, who knows what Canon will put into 7D Mark II.

This is all assuming there even will be a 7DmkII and D400. many people think APS-C has been permanently demoted to the upcoming D8000 and 70D lines, with used and discounted FF now filling the $1600+ price range. The 5D MKII is already selling new on Amazon for $1,799.

APS-H on a DSLR will never be considered "top tier" vs. the competition, not with FF sensors now taking full advantage of their mounts already changing the market, and the perception of what a high-end DSLR really is (again see what Canon did with APS-H).

that said, if APS-H really would work with all DA lenses (is this confirmed true?), then I would definitely use it for a serious (non-K-01) K-Mount mirrorless system in the ergonomic vein of the GXR. at least then the APS-H advantage could better justify the size of the K-Mount sized box vs. the svelte APS-C NEX and Fuji-X mounts.

[Clavius]

maybe you should try a digital camera that's not almost 7 years old, there's been two generations of the 5D since. why dont you compare your 5D with whatever Pentax had in 2005?

Before aquiring my 5D I used to rent the mark III. Same thing, my computer took longer to process the photos. But the difference in IQ is was not THAT impressive. It's there, absolutely, but absolutely not worth the extra $$$$ for such a small gain. Or maybe I'm just very spoiled by the excellent performance of my K5?

and btw, for better or worse a bunch of photography "enthusiasts making each other crazy" is exactly what the market is. you can refuse to participate if you wish, but Pentax cannot.

Really? That is the reason I bought into Pentax in the first place. They were different, I could continue being a black sheep. If they ever do issue a FF, I surely hope is very much unlike the competitors cameras.

[Clavius]

What I don't understand is why they would even call it APSH in the first place. Look at Canon's APSC, it's a 1.62 crop factor, while the "normal" APSC is 1.52. A different format, but nobody talks about that. Most don't even know that Canon APSC is even smaller then the other APSC cameras. So why shouldn't Pentax just lable their tiny-bit-smaller-then-FF-sensor "FF" instead of APSH. I can hardly see the difference between APSC and FF, the difference between APSH and FF should be non-existent.

Back to the topic: The fact that an FF camera with 36mp is seen as "just as good" or "almost as good" as 40mp Medium Format, clearly indicates that format still isn't important at all. And that it's all still about MP's. The pixel war is far from over. That's why I say, from a marketing perspective, it's still much more profitable to issue a camera with a smaller sensor but high pixel count. Most people will see a ~36mp APS-? camera as "just as good" or "almost as good" as the 36 FF equivalent. Absurd? Yes, just as absurd as comparing FF to MF. Doesn't matter at all though, because I learned a few posts ago that it's much more important to just do exactly what the the market wants.