Originally posted by ricardobeat Going from f4 to f3.5 surely wouldn't make me go "Wow"...
...maybe "wow that's expensive"!
I think it sort of depends on where pentax is headed with ISO If they cough with a sensor
that works as well at ISO 6400 as it does as IS) 100, whadda I care about whether the glass is f/3.5 or f/4.
by now Pentax R & D should already know what the K30D is going to look like. they should know if major improvements in the ISO performance are likely in the next couple of generations.
In turn this trajectory can feed back into what the lens family needs to look like.
One opportunity by being late to market with the lens family is that they can balance
the cost/f stop against the need for fast lenses based on the expected technological advances in sensors.
We all dream of having a 600 mm F4 lens but few of us will have them in our bags because they cost $8-12,000 dollars. If improved sensor technology will allow us to obtain the performance we expects of an $8,000 lens with a $1000 lens we all win. Pentax sells a boat load of them, and we all get one for our bags and likely it will actually fit in the bag....
One of the things that suddenly becomes possible when sensors have ISO to burn
and megapixles to burn, is that there can be dynamically adjustable 'sensor size'
allowing the use of half frame and even .25% frame lenses, with f stops say starting at f16 or f32. why have monster glass if the computer can manage the sensor to work with much less light.
Similarly we may have zoom lenses that zoom the foot print on the sensor in order to
manage their size and complexity while zooming other things. If the sensor is 20 or 40 mps
who cares. the output is standardized in the developing and life is good. IT's really just a variation of digital zooming that is already being used in the P & S world.
My point is this---either the cost structure of the SLR's has to get closer to
that of the P & S, or someday somebody will build a P & S that takes photos as well
as the SLR (if they haven't all ready) and the entire SLR market will collapse to the tune of 'why pay thousands or an SLR when I can get the same photo on $250 P & S.
It hasn't happened yet because the SLR's have managed to stay ahead of the P & S in quality and flexibility, but they are gaining.