[gazonk]

FF also have a future but as an relatively expensive niche for those who want to pay premium for resolution the main market doesn't need or even want.

Larger formats surely give more than just higher resolution - or do you view that as the only point of the 645d as well?
Otherwise I agree with you - aps-c DSLRs certainly still aren't a dead end.

[Blue]

RiceHigh's Pentax Blog: P-Q BCN Sales Results have Only been Good for One Week!? :-o

citing Rice Low isn't going to prove or disprove anything including whether or not the Earth is flat.

[thibs]

IMO, citing RH in this way is more like bringing anybodys reputation down.

[froeschle]

[...] But the 5D Mk II is almost a 3 years old model! [...]

Rumors:

A New Entry Level Full Frame Camera? [CR1] Canon Rumors

[...] Canon could be readying a new entry level full frame camera. It would sit below any sort of 5D Mark III. It would not be the “mythical’ 3D.

The camera would be lower megapixel than the 5D Mark III. A Canon rep recently told the BBC that “fewer megapixels are better”. [...]

More New Full Frame Rumors [CR1] Canon Rumors

[...] Canon will be launching a new camera later in October. Already in production and described internally as a “Nikon-killer”, it is reportedly a camera with lower megapixels than might be expected for a new release, but with excellent dynamic range and ISO performance. [...]

[Emacs]

So, cheap full frame at the price about of top APS-C? Nice move. No reason for hobbyists to buy bulky APS-C DSLRs anymore.

[Kunzite]

A Canon rep recently told the BBC that “fewer megapixels are better”

Yep, the rumor is fake... move on, people, nothing to see...

[Asahiflex]

Actually this is good news for all of us. We don't need more megapixels, but more detail and less noise. Finally the MP war is over

[falconeye]

Finally the MP war is over

I don't think so.

It is probably over in the class of mirrorless cameras or the dying class of entry-level dSLRs. Simply because it is too expensive to record decent video with a high MP sensor (you either have to skip too many lines or need too expensive processing power and heat dissipation).

However, I see it continue in the class of enthusiast dSLRs which will soon become full frame and 50MP+. Full frame lenses have enough center resolution for this. If only to make a difference to the (soon) cheaper mirrorless cameras which need much less mechanical production steps.

[Asahiflex]

However, I see it continue in the class of enthusiast dSLRs which will soon become full frame and 50MP+. Full frame lenses have enough center resolution for this. If only to make a difference to the (soon) cheaper mirrorless cameras which need much less mechanical production steps.

If that's true then I'm not overly happy. The problem is that I lack the processing power for 50MP+ files. It just doesn't fit into my workflow. Even 25MP would be a bit too much. I see no real gain for the semi-pro and amateur market. Of course, from a marketing point of view it makes sense, but more MP's are highly impractical for many of us.

[Rondec]

If that's true then I'm not overly happy. The problem is that I lack the processing power for 50MP+ files. It just doesn't fit into my workflow. Even 25MP would be a bit too much. I see no real gain for the semi-pro and amateur market. Of course, from a marketing point of view it makes sense, but more MP's are highly impractical for many of us.

I agree. Nikon has had only 12 megapixels in most of their full frame cameras for ages and for most things, it is more than adequate. Certainly they will up date these models, but getting over 25 megapixels on full frame doesn't seem particularly beneficial.

[gazonk]

If that's true then I'm not overly happy. The problem is that I lack the processing power for 50MP+ files. It just doesn't fit into my workflow. Even 25MP would be a bit too much. I see no real gain for the semi-pro and amateur market. Of course, from a marketing point of view it makes sense, but more MP's are highly impractical for many of us.

If your current computer is relatively new, why not keep your current camera until the computer needs upgrading anyway? My work machine is a 17" quad core i7 iMac w/ 16GB RAM, currently maybe a luxury, but these specs will soon be mainstream. I just tried editing a 645D DNG file in Aperture on the iMac, felt just as snappy as K10D PEF files on my (also fast and quite recent) laptop...

[falconeye]

The problem is that I lack the processing power for 50MP+ files. It just doesn't fit into my workflow.

50MP is an important threshold. Because you then can sample 4 Bayer pixels into one preprocessed color pixel without loosing on any potential 12MP resolution.

In other words: 50MP cameras can provide for perfect 12MP workflows which, I do agree, suffice for many applications.

A preprocessed 12MP raw file from such a camera would be very similar (a bit better because of much better noise characteristics and DR) than a raw file from a true 12MP Foveon sensor w/o AA filter. So, it would be sharper than a native 12MP raw.

Therefore, we all will feel the buying addiction when those beasts come out
Nobody then will want to buy a 12MP camera anymore. And lesser pixels equal less noise is a false myth. Personally, I believe 2012 will be the year of 35MP FF cameras and 50MP+ then is only one more generation ahead (if Sony would have scaled their 24MP APSC sensor it would happen already now; but I hear they use the pixel pitch of their 16MP APSC sensors rather than their 24MP sensors for their pending FF offerings).

[gazonk]

Personally, I believe 2012 will be the year of 35MP FF cameras and 50MP+ then is only one more generation ahead

Pentax better get a new version of 645D out quite soon... (80mp full frame 56x41 sensor?)!

[PentaxFirst]

I have been fortunate to be able to indulge my hobby for photography and cameras and in the past 6 years I have owned from 6 mp to 40 mp SLR type cameras. Currently I use the GH2, Canon 7D, Leica M9, Canon 5DII and now the fantastic Pentax 645D. I would like to add my 2 cents worth.

1. Unless you are going to print larger than a 20" wide print, you probably don't need more than around 15 megapixels.

2. More pixels generally equal better picture quality and generally mean the photograph looks less digital. I believe this because the diffraction limit is larger than the pixel size. When pixel peeping the photos may look soft but in reality they do capture more detail than (say) 12 mp. More pixels probably mean one can get rid of the AA filter because the image sharpness is limited by the lens and moire isn't a problem.

3. Larger sensors means less noise and more dynamic range. The trade off, is larger, heavier glass to get the same f-stop for an equivilent view.

4. Depth of field is narrower for any given f-stop and equivilent view in larger sensors. A large DOF on larger sensors can lead to problems of slow shutter speeds, if you want narrow DOF this is great, but you have to be concerned with accurate focus. This means larger sensors are more demanding on technical technique. Additionally it means medium format often needs a tripod and is useless for moving subjects because shutter speed is too low and DOF is too narrow.

5. Optics plays a big role in IQ - large sensors and their lenses look different than small sensors and their lenses. However, a very fast lens (say f1-f2.0) small sensor lens can do a pretty good job of looking like a larger sensor and "normal" speed lens. That said, my 645 lenses just seem to have more pleasing bokeh. I believe this is due to how optics changes with sensor size. MFT with the Nokton 25mm or the Panasonic 20mm give excellent bokeh and good photos even in low light, but they are noticablly "edgier" than less expensive lenses for larger sensors. Essentially, small sensors magnify lens defects, large sensors make defects seem smaller.

The Pentax 645D is the best handling camera I have and produces the best image quality, however I pick up the 5D Mark II most of the time because it offers the best compromise in size and image look (larger sensor, bokeh, dynamic range) and useable shutter speeds. I actually prefer the 7D as a camera to the 5D (and have been looking seriously at the K-5), but the extra IQ and look of the FF means I haven't used the 7D very much.

So......

I would love to see a 24-30 megapixel FF Pentax that handles like the P645D. That, a few good primes and a range of f2.8 zooms from 16-200mm. I'll use the P645 for portraits and landscapes.

[Class A]

However, I see it continue in the class of enthusiast dSLRs which will soon become full frame and 50MP+. Full frame lenses have enough center resolution for this. If only to make a difference to the (soon) cheaper mirrorless cameras which need much less mechanical production steps.

Or if only to provide photographers with a "software TC". I'd rather crop than "tele-convert" optically.

Certainly they will up date these models, but getting over 25 megapixels on full frame doesn't seem particularly beneficial.

If you like 16.3MP on APS-C, an FF offering should have at least 37MP to allow you to use your APS-C lenses on the FF sensor without sacrificing resolution / "reach".

I fully see the point against unwieldy file sizes and I still do get along with 6MP only but I look forward to higher MP sensors as they will allow softer AA filters and provide the resolution in situations where you really want it. As Falk said, it is possible to (optionally) provide smaller RAW files from high MP sensors, so one really can get the best of both worlds.