[Pentaxor]

An adapter would only make them useful as macro lenses

that was exactly my point. :ugh:

[dlacouture]

Hummm... An EVIL MF sensor within a DSLR-sized body (thus with a PK-compatible registration distance), with converters for either FF PK lenses or 645 lenses, that would be cool...

[bollicina31]

Hello everyone.
I would be a good APS-C sensor
The important works better at high ISO, which creates less noise at ISO 100 is as 1600.
and especially that all'arghi dynamic range, so it would be best Hdr, that a wider range of colors and faithful to reality.
(A bit as it was for the introduction of Velvia film )

How come no one bets on APS-H?

I forgot, even a best time of my AF K20 would be a good thing

[Pentaxor]

Hello everyone.
I would be a good APS-C sensor
The important works better at high ISO, which creates less noise at ISO 100 is as 1600.
and especially that all'arghi dynamic range, so it would be best Hdr, that a wider range of colors and faithful to reality.
(A bit as it was for the introduction of Velvia film )

How come no one bets on APS-H?

I forgot, even a best time of my AF K20 would be a good thing

probably because APS-H are more expensive than FF.

[lithos]

25mp aps-c? No way.
Better 15mp with less noise, faster and maybe 1080p, why not?
No more than 18mp IMO.

Amen.

I say draw the line at 15MP for APS-C, and 24MP for 36x24. Upper limits, of course.

I'd say low noise is much, much more useful to most photog than being able to print a 45x30".

[ManuH]

How come no one bets on APS-H?

Because that would make absolutely no sense at all. More expensive than APS-C, lower performance than FF, new lens line, you get the picture... Besides, no one make APS-H sensors but Canon. And they don't share their sensors.

[mtroute]

Blah, Sony Will give nikon 6 to 12 months exclusivity so don't hold your breath for that Sony sensor.

Why would Sony not give themselves a 12 month exclusive? Seems silly when you are trying to grow market share and you have some good momentum that you would give a competitor and exclusive on your latest tech.

[aliquis]

Hello Pentaxians, I just wanted to throw something in the pot in passing.

I've been emailing someone from Pentax Canada over the past year which all started with a product support purchase that eventually got me in touch with a product/hardware manager down the line. And so I've had the privilege and opportunity of asking this person various technical questions along the way. Though one of the most recent discussions turned out to be quite exciting to hear...

The question came in part from a quick comment I made regarding a wedding shoot I have coming up in a few weeks with a D700. To which I said, I wish my K20's could of done the job because they are the ones with the glass to make it happen.

To which the Pentax technician said "John, hang on to your seat, there's something coming-up that will give your FF a run for its money".

So there you have it. - I don't know if he was just plugging in a marketing response, but.... it certainly has put a little excitement in my day, because I really can't afford a Nikon kit.

Not unreasonable:

Sensors of Nikon D90 and Pentax k-x are very similar, and seem to have the best pixels there is on APS-C today:
Compare cameras

Compare the APS-C D90 as in the best APS-C/pixel performance with an older full-frame sensor such as the one in the 5D and then throw in the best one with the D700:
Compare cameras

Low-light iso is much better on the D700 than both, and still the 5D got better low-light iso than the D90.

Color depth is just ahead on the D700 but when it comes to dynamic range the D90 is actually slight ahead.


So add 1.5-2 years of sensor development on top of that ...

Doubt it will really beat the D700 in all scenarios, especially low-light ISO. But maybe in color, dynamic range and resolution.

[FullertonImages]

Faster, more video, AF, ISO - it's no any sense for me. It's marketing.
I'm amateur and happy with K200D with shooting at ISO100-200. Sometimes at ISO400-800.


I'd prefer K-7's AF with 18-24 MP FF sensor in compact body (like K20D). With features of K-7. It's ALL.

I don't care about ISO higher than ISO1000, video with a lot of settings, huge RAW buffer, Wi-Fi, LV, fast contrast AF and 8 fps.

Pentax won't make reportage camera. IMO. No any sense for such niche.

Ogl. You don't make any sense. You're effectively saying that as an amateur, you have no need for a camera with high end professional features, and that therefore, it's doesn't make any sense for a camera to ever have those.

[ogl]

Ogl. You don't make any sense. You're effectively saying that as an amateur, you have no need for a camera with high end professional features, and that therefore, it's doesn't make any sense for a camera to ever have those.

my post is answer for the man who wants HIGH-END HIGH-SPEED APS-C model with VIDEO, LV and a lot of features.
if you understand it, my post will be clear for you.

[asw66]

Because that would make absolutely no sense at all. More expensive than APS-C, lower performance than FF, new lens line, you get the picture... Besides, no one make APS-H sensors but Canon. And they don't share their sensors.

I've been wondering about APS-H as well. While I doubt that Pentax will go down this path, it's not obvious to me that this format is such a non-starter as you depict it.

More expensive than APS-C? Sure, but better performance too.
Lower performance than FF? Sure, but considerably cheaper to manufacture.
New lens line? Not necessarily. FF lenses would be entirely suitable, and some APS-C lenses might be OK as well.
Besides, no one make APS-H sensors but Canon. If Pentax approached either Samsung or Sony with a firm order, it would almost certainly be possible. My understanding is that APS-H sensors can be manufactured using the same processes as APS-C -- they just divide the sensor wafer a little differently. FF sensors, however, are considerably more expensive to manufacture.

As many other people have suggested, $1500 is the magic price point where significant numbers of people feel that they can afford a DSLR body. FF bodies will eventually be available at that price point, but not now. In the meantime, APS-H may well be a perfectly feasible intermediate format that can be delivered at that price point.

If APS-H is to be adopted as an intermediate format on the road to affordable FF, there's no need to develop specialised APS-H lenses. Instead, Pentax could steadily develop FF lenses that users would happily buy, secure in the knowledge that these same lenses will still be viable if and when they migrated to FF bodies.

[Pentaxor]

I've been wondering about APS-H as well. While I doubt that Pentax will go down this path, it's not obvious to me that this format is such a non-starter as you depict it.

More expensive than APS-C? Sure, but better performance too.
Lower performance than FF? Sure, but considerably cheaper to manufacture.
New lens line? Not necessarily. FF lenses would be entirely suitable, and some APS-C lenses might be OK as well.
Besides, no one make APS-H sensors but Canon. If Pentax approached either Samsung or Sony with a firm order, it would almost certainly be possible. My understanding is that APS-H sensors can be manufactured using the same processes as APS-C -- they just divide the sensor wafer a little differently. FF sensors, however, are considerably more expensive to manufacture.

As many other people have suggested, $1500 is the magic price point where significant numbers of people feel that they can afford a DSLR body. FF bodies will eventually be available at that price point, but not now. In the meantime, APS-H may well be a perfectly feasible intermediate format that can be delivered at that price point.

this is a misconception. the APS-H is not cheaper than the FF. the pricepoint speaks for itself. the 5DMkII, D700, Sony A900/850 are way cheaper than the 1D series.

[eigelb]

Besides, no one make APS-H sensors but Canon. And they don't share their sensors.

Kodak also made a APS-H Sensors - Leica M8 - 27 x 18 mm CCD sensor (Kodak KAF-10500) 1.33x FOV crop

[Kunzite]

this is a misconception. the APS-H is not cheaper than the FF. the pricepoint speaks for itself. the 5DMkII, D700, Sony A900/850 are way cheaper than the 1D series.

But you're not comparing "APS-H" with "FF" this way; instead, the only thing you can prove is that there is no cheap "APS-H" camera.
Pentax could make an APS-H camera (and I would probably be very tempted, better sensor/bigger viewfinder than APS-C but not as expensive as an "FF") - provided they can get high quality, cheap (enough) sensors. Quite unlikely, IMO.
Kodak... I have my doubts about them, they're not exactly great on (insanely high) ISO. And this (high ISO) is one of the areas a new camera is expected to behave well.

[asw66]

I just priced the 1Ds Mark III (FF) against the 1D Mark III (APS-H) ... the 1D is considerably cheaper.

The Wikipedia page on sensor sizes has a nice explanation of the fabrication differences between APS-H and FF. The cited whitepaper from Canon is even more explicit about the cost differential between the two formats.