[stanleyk]

Whoa! I don't think anybody actively opposes a FF Pentax. It's just that a lot of us don't think it's a "do or die" situation.

Exactly. I hope they make one for those who want one, but I wouldn't buy a full frame camera. I'm perfectly happy with the K7 and the DA 15-70mm. Plus I use a E-P2.

I have seriously considered buying an E-3. However, I'm not really crazy about Olympus' prime lens selection. They seem to offer mostly zooms. The reason I chose Pentax when I finally got a DSLR was the prime lens choices and cost.

If I really wanted a full frame camera I would buy a Canon or Nikon (the Sony is also a very nice camera). That's what I did when I wanted a mirror-less. Pentax didn't make one so I bought an Olympus. No big deal.

[Winder]

Yes, I cringe each time I see someone talking about APS-H or fancy square sensors. Not only you would still be at disadvantage compared to FF, you would need to rebuild almost a complete new line of lenses and moreover you would not get any third party support. And you would also have a very limited selection of sensors to choose from if any. Canon can do an APS-H camera because they build their own sensors and they have a full line of professional FF cameras.
OTOH, FF sensors could be available from Sony (or even Samsung). The K mount doesn't need any modification. Just bring a couple of wide angle zooms and update some old designs. Not unsurmountable even for a small player.

Why would APS-H require a complete new line of lenses, but FF would not "need any modification". That really does not make any sense.

Unless things have changed APS-H is the largest sensor that can be made without stitching, which make it more cost effective than FF.

If APS-H was not popular among professional photographers Canon would have stopped making them a long time ago. Canon's professional sports photographers would be unhappy if Canon stopped making the APS-H.

Pentax is obviously not Canon, but there is nothing wrong with the APS-H format. I am surprised an other company has not produced an APS-H body since the only competition in that segment is a $5,000 body. Seems like someone could make a lot of money with a $2,000 APS-H body and blow the 7D out of the water.

Pentax would need to redesign a lot of glass regardless. Even on an APS-C sensor the light fall off is pretty sever on some of the FA lenses at wide apertures.

I think the new 16MP Sony sensor is going to be a significant improvement over even the K-x when it comes to higher ISO. Assuming the new Pentax has the new Sony sensor. Rumors coming out of the new A55 testing are very positive. Makes you wonder what Sony is holding back for the A7xx.

[lurchlarson]

The APS-H rumor has come up in previous years as we await the new Pentax cameras. I doubt it'll ever happen. Just like the Square/octagonal/Circle sensor will never happen either.

[Vaikis_]

no APS-H, stop such talks... lol

[ManuH]

Why would APS-H require a complete new line of lenses, but FF would not "need any modification". That really does not make any sense.

Not exactly what I meant. The K mount is a 24x36mm mount from the start so it's very easy to go FF for Pentax. They just need the sensor... and the market. As for lenses, there are still a lot of legacy and third-party lenses that are FF. Even if Pentax doesn't release a D-FA* 24-70 f/2.8 at launch, there are still good f/2.8 zooms available new in K mount from Sigma and Tamron. Yes Pentax has to rebuild a line of FF lenses but in the meantime it's very easy to go 3rd parties for lenses. Many quality choices still available new. APS-H? Do you know about any 24-70mm equivalent for APS-H? a f/2.8 18-50mm zoom covering APS-H?

Unless things have changed APS-H is the largest sensor that can be made without stitching, which make it more cost effective than FF.

Maybe but it's too late. FF is coming too close anyway, nobody wants to be "burned" again by a crop sensor.

The Canon APS-H cameras are specialized cameras. If I'm not mistaken you cannot really find dedicated wide angle lenses for APS-H. These cameras seem to be targeted at sports professional were long lenses is more important.

And as I said, unless Pentax starts to build and produce their own sensors it's not going to happen.

[GeneV]

As I understand APS-H, it might offer some more pixels or other benefits of a larger sensor, but it looks like the corners are far enough in that lenses marked in Falk's FF lens thread as + or ++ might still perform as +++. This may not be a totally crazy idea.

[Staffan]

In my opinion Pentax will have to improve SDM to make it more reliable, increase the high-ISO quality, and further improve AF. And then, add full automatic and manual AF adjustment during filming! That is the only thing that we, the users, lack in this respect.

Just introduce a K-7 with those changes, and we will have the best dslr that we can ever want. Because everything else is perfect with the K-7, and it is a fantastic and intuitive camera, and absolutely pro if these changes are made!

FF is not necessary in my eyes, and not APS-H.

[Aristophanes]

So, today Nikon released 4 new lenses: 1 APS-C (DX), and 3 FF (FX).

Most interesting, 2 FF models are VR stabilized, 28-300 and 24-120. The # of overlapping FL's in their FX array is a statement about growing market size capable of supporting this diversity without incurring redundancy.

Nikon's pouring bucketloads of $$$ into their FF sensor system, their FF lenses, and bodies. That's a strong market signal.

[Winder]

Not exactly what I meant. The K mount is a 24x36mm mount from the start so it's very easy to go FF for Pentax. They just need the sensor... and the market. As for lenses, there are still a lot of legacy and third-party lenses that are FF. Even if Pentax doesn't release a D-FA* 24-70 f/2.8 at launch, there are still good f/2.8 zooms available new in K mount from Sigma and Tamron. Yes Pentax has to rebuild a line of FF lenses but in the meantime it's very easy to go 3rd parties for lenses. Many quality choices still available new. APS-H? Do you know about any 24-70mm equivalent for APS-H? a f/2.8 18-50mm zoom covering APS-H?

Does Canon offer a 24-70mm equiv for and APS-H? NO, and they are not going to. The people who buy the 1D series like the extra reach they get from FF glass on a crop sensor.

Maybe but it's too late. FF is coming too close anyway, nobody wants to be "burned" again by a crop sensor.

Exactly who has been burned by crop sensors?

The Canon APS-H cameras are specialized cameras. If I'm not mistaken you cannot really find dedicated wide angle lenses for APS-H. These cameras seem to be targeted at sports professional were long lenses is more important.

And as I said, unless Pentax starts to build and produce their own sensors it's not going to happen.

APS-H is only a 1.3 crop so you do not lose a whole lot on the wide side, and you do not gain a whole lot on the long side. It is actually a pretty good compromise. No Pentax is never going to do it, but that does not make it a bad format. APS-H would be an improvement over APS-C.

[thibs]

APS-H is only a 1.3 crop so you do not lose a whole lot on the wide side, and you do not gain a whole lot on the long side. It is actually a pretty good compromise. No Pentax is never going to do it, but that does not make it a bad format. APS-H would be an improvement over APS-C.

No, it is the opposite: you don't gain much but you mess with your users habits with FOV, need to redo your standard zooms, primes and WA.
FF would ask the exactly the same thing. So why bother, do FF then.

Moreover, no one will do custom sensors at good enough price just for Pentax APS-H marketshare. That would end more expensive than FF. Stupid.

[ogl]

The cost in manufacture of APS-H sensor is higher than FF. APS-H has no future IMO.
Maybe in one more model of Canon cameras. But I think 16 MP APS-H is the last Canon APS-H sensor.

Or maybe Canon will make one more DSLR APS-H and end this direction.

[Winder]

No, it is the opposite: you don't gain much but you mess with your users habits with FOV, need to redo your standard zooms, primes and WA.
FF would ask the exactly the same thing. So why bother, do FF then.

Moreover, no one will do custom sensors at good enough price just for Pentax APS-H marketshare. That would end more expensive than FF. Stupid.

Then Canon has screwed up all of their users habits.... They do not offer special glass for the APS-H and it has not hurt them.

APS-H has an advantage over FF when it comes to designing glass.

If you actually read my post I said Pentax will never offer an APS-H, but that does not make it a bad sensor. Since the only other body on the market is a $5,000 pro unit, there is room in the market for a $2,000 APS-H body. I kind of expect Canon to release a 3D which will be a 1D light in the same way the 5D was a 1Ds in a different package, and a huge success.

[ghelary]

Then Canon has screwed up all of their users habits.... They do not offer special glass for the APS-H and it has not hurt them.

APS-H has an advantage over FF when it comes to designing glass.

If you actually read my post I said Pentax will never offer an APS-H, but that does not make it a bad sensor. Since the only other body on the market is a $5,000 pro unit, there is room in the market for a $2,000 APS-H body. I kind of expect Canon to release a 3D which will be a 1D light in the same way the 5D was a 1Ds in a different package, and a huge success.

And yet, when I read a cross-comparison between sport photographer (one using Canon system and on Nikon) they were considering that Canon had the hedge because of APS-H, the sensor had more pixels (16Mpx vs 12Mpx) while having a better reach and a better frame rate, the iso performance was good enough.

Canon's APS-H system was developped for a very specific population. Weither or not that population will move to FF is not obvious IMO.

[TaoMaas]

No, it is the opposite: you don't gain much but you mess with your users habits with FOV, need to redo your standard zooms, primes and WA.

It's not the manufacturers who need to redo their thinking, it's the consumers who are locked into a '35mm' way of seeing things. If the manufacturers can't change that way of thinking, then they have no choice but to offer FF cameras. But if they CAN change that mindset, then the only boundaries on sensor size are technical. Changing sensor size isn't like changing film formats. If the lens covers the sensor, then who cares whether it's APS-C, APS-H, or FF? It makes no difference.

[ManuH]

Does Canon offer a 24-70mm equiv for and APS-H? NO, and they are not going to. The people who buy the 1D series like the extra reach they get from FF glass on a crop sensor.

Exactly and this means that APS-H is relegated to specialized uses. Those who needs more reach and more speed than FF and getting better performance than APS-C (1.6x). And like Ogl I think Canon will abandon APS-H at one point.

Exactly who has been burned by crop sensors?

Those who have bought a lot into APS-C and who will switch to FF. With all the FF being so close now, I don't think they would settle on an intermediary format yet again.

APS-H is only a 1.3 crop so you do not lose a whole lot on the wide side, and you do not gain a whole lot on the long side.

It's the same 3:2 ratio. It's a crop that is closer to APS-C 1.5x than FF.

It is actually a pretty good compromise. No Pentax is never going to do it, but that does not make it a bad format. APS-H would be an improvement over APS-C.

It's a good compromise maybe for Canon because their APS-C is a 1.6x crop. For Sony/Pentax/Canon going from 1.5x to 1.3x would not bring much enough.