[Aristophanes]

I'm talking about print media....newspapers, magazines. The places where still pictures still rule. Once those are gone, video will replace them and the need for high-quality stills will only be an enthusiast market.

Like the US's most widely watched documentary ever, Ken Burns' The Civil War?

Lots of video footage there.

What next, a song "Video Killed the Photographer"?

One pro photojournalist I rub shoulders with lives in fear of his pixel peeping editor. Less pixels to peep, he won't get paid. higher quality = a check from the paymaster. They want full authenticity in all its glory.

[jsherman999]

In other words - please stop beating this dead, meaningless horse.

It saddens me to think that a horse's death had no meaning.

Or was it meaningless before it died? In other words, did it lead a meaningless life? That's even worse.


.

[Winder]

A couple of points:

FF lenses are not necessarily bigger to get the same performance as APS-C. An f/4 lens on a FF camera will perform better than a f/2.8 lens on an APS-C camera! Because of the 1.3 stop advantage over APS-C. 1.3 stop better noise performance, 1.3 stop less DOF means that an f/4 lens is like a f/2.4 lens on APS-C... Not to mention it's easier to design a good f/4 lens than a f/2.8 one.

Yes they do, and you are only looking at the advantages from one direction. Look at the performance of the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 on a FF 5D and then on a APS-C (SLRgear.com). By stopping the 50mm Sigma down to improve overall IQ I have to give up any speed advantage I gain by using the larger sensor. Since the APS-C is only using the "sweet spot" of the lens you get very good performance from f/1.4 up. If you use the center AF point and then recompose to using the rule of thirds you have positioned the subject in the soft area of the lens on a FF, but on an APS-C your subject would still be sharp.

Yes, it is easier to design an F/4 lens than an F/2.8, but there is no market for for lenses that slow at normal focal lengths. F/2.8 is slow enough as it is. The only advantage of making f/4 glass is cost and size/weight.

You are also assuming the 1.3 stop advantage is a hard rule, and it is not. My 5D has an easy 2 stop advantage over the K-7, but the K-x is probably less than a stop behind my 5D. The K-x has a 1+ stop advantage on the K-7 so we know that even among sensors of the same size there is significant variation. The only place the theoretical 1.3 stop advantage exists is in a lab or computer model where there are no other variables.

[youky63]

Yes they do, and you are only looking at the advantages from one direction. Look at the performance of the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 on a FF 5D and then on a APS-C (SLRgear.com). By stopping the 50mm Sigma down to improve overall IQ I have to give up any speed advantage I gain by using the larger sensor. Since the APS-C is only using the "sweet spot" of the lens you get very good performance from f/1.4 up. If you use the center AF point and then recompose to using the rule of thirds you have positioned the subject in the soft area of the lens on a FF, but on an APS-C your subject would still be sharp.

But a 50mm lens on an APS-C camera does not give you the same view than the same 50mm on a FF camera But will look like a 75mm. So if you want to compose the "same" image (talking about the subject, not the background and FOV), you will have to get closer, so the details will appear bigger and be less impacted by the softness of the lens at full aperture than on the APS-C since you don't use half of the glass possibilities.
So you must compare the 50mm f/1.4 on FF wih a 30mm f/i.4 on APS-C to get (about) the same FOV. But then,DOF at f/1.4 on a 30mm does not look like the same than at f/1.4 on a 50mm, and if you want it to be as short as possible (for example to isolate somebody in the middle of a crowded street), APS-C will not be as efficient as FF is.

[Winder]

But a 50mm lens on an APS-C camera does not give you the same view than the same 50mm on a FF camera But will look like a 75mm. So if you want to compose the "same" image (talking about the subject, not the background and FOV), you will have to get closer, so the details will appear bigger and be less impacted by the softness of the lens at full aperture than on the APS-C since you don't use half of the glass possibilities.
So you must compare the 50mm f/1.4 on FF wih a 30mm f/i.4 on APS-C to get (about) the same FOV. But then,DOF at f/1.4 on a 30mm does not look like the same than at f/1.4 on a 50mm, and if you want it to be as short as possible (for example to isolate somebody in the middle of a crowded street), APS-C will not be as efficient as FF is.

When it come to DoF shallower is not always better. When I first got my 85L I was determined to master f/1.2. Soon you realize the practical advantages are not significant as you think they are. The 85L is my favorite lens, but on my 5D f/2 is really where I spend most of my time. Even at f/2 you have to pay close attention to subject distance and small movements to make it work.

Again the reverse can also be a benefit. Getting closer with a FF to create the same FoV is not always an option. When shooting an event I am often limited in where I can stand or where I can move to.

Canon has considered dumping the APS-H and putting a FF in the 1D series. It adds a good bit of cost to make a sensor that is only used in 1 camera body, and not a body that sells in large volume compared to rebels or 50D series. Canon could save money by putting a FF in the 1D series. So why don't they? Because when they asked the professionals who use the 1D bodies they received an overwhelming response in favor of the ASP-H sensor. The people who buy that body want the added reach they get from the smaller sensor. When shooting subjects that move the added DoF is a benefit.

[creampuff]

...However, Pentax doesn't acknowledge the existence of film shooters or they would still build a film body. The move to eliminate the aperture has opened up a can of
:CanofWorms:
for use of new DA lenses and the 100mm WR on a lot of vintage film bodies including the mighty LX, MX and K2. What I am getting at here is don't expect Pentax to officially address this until if and when they do actually unveil a ff body.

Why should Pentax continue to provide any legacy support of the camera models you mentioned? These models have long been discontinued and to my knowledge perhaps there might still be spare parts for the MX and LX but on a availability basis. Most companies don't keep spares parts of offer support for more than a couple of years. Certainly Pentax has fully embraced digital photography with no film cameras being offered for sale for many years now. Time to look forward because Pentax or any other camera company doesn't make money pandering to users of legacy gear. I do agree with you that Pentax will only make any announcement for any supposed new camera until they are good and ready.

[TaoMaas]

Like the US's most widely watched documentary ever, Ken Burns' The Civil War?

Lots of video footage there.

I don't know...haven't watched it. How much new photography was in it?

[ManuH]

The only place the theoretical 1.3 stop advantage exists is in a lab or computer model where there are no other variables.

It's true that the 1.3 stop advantage for noise is theorical but it means that FF will always have the edge on high ISO and always have 1.3 stop more DOF flexibility. BTW if you look at the DxO figures the original 5D is still better than the best crop of APS-C cameras to date for high ISO noise.

This thread is becoming a FF vs APS-C again and this horse has been beaten to death. At this point I think everybody is familiar with the DoF differences, noise perfomance, FL, etc. No need to spend too much time on this again.

Things will be more clear after Photokina. Trends will be more visible. Will new FF cameras appear or the rage will be on mirrorless cameras, or both? If no new "prosumer" FF appears then Pentax will have no pressure to release an FF camera soon or a roadmap about it. If on the contrary new cheaper FF cameras appear, then a lot of pressure will be on Pentax to join the party...

[Winder]

It's true that the 1.3 stop advantage for noise is theorical but it means that FF will always have the edge on high ISO and always have 1.3 stop more DOF flexibility. BTW if you look at the DxO figures the original 5D is still better than the best crop of APS-C cameras to date for high ISO noise.

No, it does not mean that. In some circumstances FF will have more of an advantage over APS-C and in some circumstances FF will have less of an advantage. The D3s has a huge advantage over the K-7. Much greater than the theoretical 1.3 stops.

Does FF always offer more DoF flexibility? As MP increase and we see 40MP FF bodies you will loose the ability to stop down to increase DoF. Diffraction will start to degrade the image at f/8.0, and be visible at f/5.6. An f/4 lens on high MP bodies become pretty worthless. This goes back to my statement above about FF bodies needing really good glass. Both Sony and Canon are expected to introduce 30+MP bodies soon, with the new 1Ds expected to be around 32MP.

[deejjjaaaa]

You are also assuming the 1.3 stop advantage is a hard rule, and it is not. My 5D has an easy 2 stop advantage over the K-7, but the K-x is probably less than a stop behind my 5D. The K-x has a 1+ stop advantage on the K-7 so we know that even among sensors of the same size there is significant variation. The only place the theoretical 1.3 stop advantage exists is in a lab or computer model where there are no other variables.

of course it is not, because you are comparing old sensor in 5D w/ quite new in Kx... why don't you take old Kodak FF sensor from 14n and compare it w/ Kx ? or ill fated Phillips FF sensor from MZ-D prototype to exaggerate your point ? the right comparison should be done w/ the best current sensors, so FF should be represented by D3s and APS-C by Sony sensors like Kx or NEX

[ManuH]

Does FF always offer more DoF flexibility?

Of course yes. If you want DOF-like APS-C, one just have to crop to APS-C dimensions... or stop down by about 1.3 stop.

[Aristophanes]

I don't know...haven't watched it. How much new photography was in it?

Your statement was:

"...the need for high-quality stills will only be an enthusiast market...."

Only enthusiasts will take high-quality photos? No typologies? No art photography? No forensic and crime scene photos? Will photojournalism completely die? Dental and medical photos?

All answered with a resounding: No. There are a multitude of reasons and areas where extremely high fidelity images are wanted and necessary.

[TaoMaas]

Only enthusiasts will take high-quality photos? No typologies? No art photography? No forensic and crime scene photos? Will photojournalism completely die? Dental and medical photos?

It's no secret that newspapers and magazines are dying out, at least in their printed versions. And their online versions feature a LOT less still photography than the print versions. So, yeah, that market is going to dry up and take along with it the ads that would have run in those print venues. Which of those remaining categories do you see driving the need for a FF camera?

[stanleyk]

I really enjoyed the photos of Beavers Bend. I'm headed up that way in a little over a month for a vacation.

And you are correct the biggest application for full frame cameras is print ads, et al. There will always be some market I suppose for those cameras, but primarily for people who need to print very large.

[youky63]

I think you are one train late guys.
Since photo camera get digital, print is not anymore the concern about people buying cameras. How many people here print pictures of all the events they shot photos? When you were using films, sure you did, no choice. But now, what is the need for it? Why would you like to print 4X6 pictures will you can enjoy them on your brand new 22" computer screen or even your >30" shiny TV?
Now people buy reflex camera to get pictures that looks nice enough for these nice screen, and the job of marketing people is to make people believe they need a new camera for that. So don't worry for them, they will continue to buy camera with more pixels, and if marketing tell us they need a bigger sensor, they will buy cameras with bigger sensors.