[thibs]

Well, 645 IS a standard. It is not TH. Standard but it is one of them which came from film era just like FF. The cropped modal sensor from the 645D however is no standard. It is a compromise, just like aps-c is with FF mounts. And people still buy cropped MF.

[ShutterWaster]

135 has the largest market share, it becomes STANDARD for all.
now digital world, APS does, it IS standard for all.
Instead, "FF" is standard in its area, not standard for all (like 120 in film century).

Actuall whether "standard" is not important, whether I need it is important to me, whether Pentax can sell more cameras is important to Pentax. Definitly Pentax is on the right way now.
If Pentax goes on the right way for a long time, you will have what you wish to have. Otherwise, choose the right product you can buy on the market.

For myself, I just wish a smaller, lighter camera has similar image quality as K7 does. I don't care about the sensor size. if 1/2.3' sensor in a I-10 size has similar image quality as K7, I buy one now! even for a K7 price!

[Asahiflex]

For myself, I just wish a smaller, lighter camera has similar image quality as K7 does. I don't care about the sensor size. if 1/2.3' sensor in a I-10 size has similar image quality as K7, I buy one now! even for a K7 price!

Yes, why not! Then you will have all your photos 100% sharp from front to back 100% of the time thanks to the enormous DOF on that tiny sensor. Heck, Pentax could use the worst AF and still get good results

[thibs]

Yes, why not! Then you will have all your photos 100% sharp from front to back 100% of the time thanks to the enormous DOF on that tiny sensor. Heck, Pentax could use the worst AF and still get good results

Which is wh I don't understand this quest for AF performance. Just use a micro sensor like smallest phone sensors with heavy NR and AF is useless. Progress that is. Uhhh NOT !!

[RMabo]

From what I've speculate, the successor of K7 will be released these year...

Well yes the big chief for Pentax Europe has confirmed upgrades to existing models (which means the K-7 and K-x) will be released this year.

The pattern here is 1 year and 5 mounts between releases.

Well I believe you could say that Pentax changed the mount when they introduced the K10D (or at least an enhancement of the mount - SDM support). But that was long ago.

[gazonk]

Yes, why not! Then you will have all your photos 100% sharp from front to back 100% of the time thanks to the enormous DOF on that tiny sensor.

Hah. Even a 1/2.5 " doesn't always give you that. It's just a question of how close you are to your subject ;-)

Sample 1/2.5 " shot - with W10:

[ShutterWaster]

Yes, why not! Then you will have all your photos 100% sharp from front to back 100% of the time thanks to the enormous DOF on that tiny sensor. Heck, Pentax could use the worst AF and still get good results

If it becomes true, I'll be very very happy. DOF is not the problem to me. At least 95% of my photos are taken in a "enormous DOF". If I need DOF, I'll use another camera, not so small and light.

But fantastic small sensor doesn't come true.

[philippe]

Just a quote, but a good one :

Keep it simple:
"What do I truly hate about DSLRs? Menus. Particularly menus I need to consult for ISO settings and/or white balance. Buttons marked ISO and WB with direct access do me fine. But what do I really want? A comfy, rugged, gem-like compact, four-control, digital Leica 1(A). You can leave off all the ornamental stuff. That's not too much to ask, is it?"

(Herbert Keppler in Popular Photography & Imaging, December 2007)

[WMBP]

There's nothing misleading about the term "Full Frame" at all, since APS-C dSLRs are nothing more than 35mm format cameras with undersized sensors.

The term "full-frame" goes way back long before the arrival of digital cameras. It's been carried forward and repurposed somewhat. As someone who rather likes the APS-C format, I object to the term "full-frame" because it's a loaded term, rather like "pro" camera. To a Nikon and Canon photographer, a pro camera is one of the more expensive cameras made by Nikon or Canon. To an advocate of the 36x24 sensor, "full frame" means a camera that uses that sensor. But that leads precisely to the sort of tautology that you commit above, describing APS-C sensors as "undersized." I know the history and motives behind the choice to use smaller sensors, but most users—including quite a few people shooting for money, like me—don't care about that when we're deciding what to buy. An APS-C sensor, used with an APS-C optimized lens, is not "undersized." It's just what it is. A 36x24 sensor isn't "full," it's just bigger. I mean, if 36x24 is full, then what's medium format?

If the words "full frame" were expunged from our discussions by law, and we were forced to talk simply about relative sensor sizes without prejudicial, value-laden terms, I think some people would be less eager to move to 36x24.

Will

[WMBP]

You can't, unless all of your lenses are APS-C lenses. Any 35mm lens that you use on an APS-C body, you're wasting some money buying portion of the lens you are not able to use.

I don't have any authoritative figures handy, but I feel pretty confident that about 98% of the people buying new digital cameras are NOT planning to use old 35mm film camera lenses on them. Compatibility with film SLR lenses was a transitional advantage for DSLRs. I think we are WAY beyond that now.

The APS-C sensor may have been a compromise, to save money. But so was the original idea to let digital SLRs use the same lenses as film SLRs. So at first, we had APS-C sensors being used with old lenses—introducing the crop factor. Then, rather ironically, just about the time that the 36x24 sensor is starting to become a player in the market, so are lenses designed specifically for APS-C.

Olympus, with the four-thirds idea, actually had the courage to ask, "What if we redesign the digital, interchangeable-lens camera from scratch, without concern for the past?" I understand that 4/3 and micro 4/3 hasn't perhaps been a huge success, yet, and may never be. But I give 'em credit for originality.

Medium format is not a standard, not by any measure. I'd say currently the standards are APS-C and 36x24.

I never said medium format was a standard.

Advantage is advantage - all advantages are comparative advantages, and all comparative advantages are advantages. There is no such a thing called "absolute" advantage in the world. So just call it advantage.

Well, "absolute advantage" isn't a technical term, but I thought what I meant was clear. Apparently not, so let me clarify. BY "absolute advantage," I simply mean an advantage that doesn't just make something better (faster, easier, etc) but rather an advantage that makes something possible that simply isn't possible without it. An interchangeable lens body can change lenses; that is what I'm calling an "absolute advantage" over fixed-lens cameras. A Pentax waterproof camera like the W90 can be used underwater; my K20D can't. The K-7 and K-x can shoot video; my K20D (or somebody else's old Canon 5D) can't. A lens that supports auto-focus has an absolute advantage, at least in that one respect (and assuming you care about autofocus) over an old manual-focus lens.

My point was, that 36x24 cameras have no absolute advantages over APS-C cameras.

To say this doesn't mean that 36x24 doesn't have ANY advantages. But absolute advantages make certain buying decisions easy. Relative advantages make buying decisions hard. If I am buying a new camera, and I know that I absolutely need to generate 25+ MP files to submit to my editor, well, that limits my buying options. (Here the sensor resolution, which I think is usually a relative advantage, has become an absolute advantage due to some external requirement.) But if I'm buying a new camera and my choices are, say, K-x or K-7, I'd have to think about it for a bit. I can do all the same things with both cameras. The K-7 may have a relative advantage here or there, but the K-x has some relative advantages of its own (lower price, slightly better high-ISO performance).

If a whole lot of people ABSOLUTELY NEEDED the advantages of 36x24 sensors, then we'd never have wasted a decade with APS-C cameras. Pros didn't switch to digital until cameras acquired sufficient resolution to make medium-to-large prints, which pros absolutely required. Nowadays, as digital publication (via Facebook etc) becomes the default method of distribution of photographs (much to my dismay), the advantages of full-frame cameras are needed less than ever by the majority of people taking photographs. Sheesh, I know a LOT of people who think their 6-8MP phone camera is GREAT!

Will

[junyo]

My point was, that 36x24 cameras have no absolute advantages over APS-C cameras.

I'm agnostic as to FF (I'd probably think about it if one where available, but I don't think it's crucial). But objectively, there are some absolute advantages to FF:
- DOF at a given FOV and F stop
- Lower noise with a given sensor technology
- More pixels to work with so cropping leaves a better quality image

How crucial/big of an advantage those points represent is up to a particular user, but they do exist.

[mattdm]

I'm agnostic as to FF (I'd probably think about it if one where available, but I don't think it's crucial). But objectively, there are some absolute advantages to FF:
- DOF at a given FOV and F stop
- Lower noise with a given sensor technology
- More pixels to work with so cropping leaves a better quality image

How crucial/big of an advantage those points represent is up to a particular user, but they do exist.

Yeah, um, read the post you're replying to!

[junyo]

Yeah, um, read the post you're replying to!

The post said that "36x24 cameras have no absolute advantages over APS-C cameras." The poster defines "absolute advantage" as "an advantage that makes something possible that simply isn't possible without it". I pointed out that FF cameras have some features that APSC cameras are incapable of at the same level of technology, and thus should meet his criteria. What's your point?

[RMabo]

This thing about more megapixels could be questioned.
You can make more Mp on a 24x36 yes, because you have the surface area to do it - this doesn't automatically mean that the sensors makers will make as many Mp's in as possible

Not long time ago, high end APS-C had more Mp's than 24x36.
Now 24x36 leads, but it can change fast.
So amount of Mp is not an "absolute advantage" in my interpretation of the word, since it depends on the decision made by the sensor manufacturer and not an automatic effect of the 24x36 format.

[slocant]

The post said that "36x24 cameras have no absolute advantages over APS-C cameras." The poster defines "absolute advantage" as "an advantage that makes something possible that simply isn't possible without it". I pointed out that FF cameras have some features that APSC cameras are incapable of at the same level of technology, and thus should meet his criteria. What's your point?

The number of pixels doesn't depend on the size of the sensor. There are 14Mp APS-C sensors and there are 12Mp 36x24mm sensors.

Sensor technology isn't the only factor when considering image qualities related to the size of a sensor. Pixel pitch size also counts, yet it varies with the pixel count (and pixel count is an implementation choice, not related to sensor technology or sensor size).

Last, but not least, less DOF can be an advantage or a disadvantage, depending on your goals. Sometimes I want a larger aperture because I'm in low light, but want increased DOF. In such situations an APS-C sensor would have an advantage over a 36x24mm sensor.

Cheers,