[Kim]

http://www.endostech.net/photos/A900.jpg

Propably fake, but if not then things might get interesting.

[ftpaddict]

http://www.endostech.net/photos/A900.jpg

Propably fake, but if not then things might get interesting.

If it's a fake, it is a very good one.

[Kim]

Yeah it looks very real except for the number 9 in the logo.

[jscoby05]

Well the folks over on the DPReview Sony SLR forum aren't buying it...

[ftpaddict]

There'll always be believers and sceptics. I choose to wait for when it goes on sale.

[vinzer]

Okay, maybe I'm just dumb, but why is a 645D such a big deal to everyone? I mean, it isn't going to use our existing 35mm lenses, and is basically going to be just another of the multitude of other MF bodies/backs out there, right? Or is it solely because it is the only way to use the existing pentax MF lenses on digital or something?

Again, maybe a dumb question, but not having a background with pentax MF, I don't see why this is a big deal to warrant such press releases and what not, when it would seem to me that 35mm is where all the general public interest is these days.

Well, the perceived upgrade path is big for those looking to tie themselves to a system, even though they won't buy that in the future. It shows commitment from the manufacturer, as well. Finally, professionals may be lured in by those higher-level offerings, which in turn would entice more entry-level buyers to see the camera system as "serious" or "prestige", since the pros trust that system for their work.

There's a reason why Canon, Nikon, Olympus, and Pentax sponsor pro photographers, and that's for the prestigious image those professionals can lend to the system.

Just my two cents.

[jeffkrol]

Well, the perceived upgrade path is big for those looking to tie themselves to a system, even though they won't buy that in the future. It shows commitment from the manufacturer, as well. Finally, professionals may be lured in by those higher-level offerings, which in turn would entice more entry-level buyers to see the camera system as "serious" or "prestige", since the pros trust that system for their work.

There's a reason why Canon, Nikon, Olympus, and Pentax sponsor pro photographers, and that's for the prestigious image those professionals can lend to the system.

Just my two cents.

You also can recoup the r&d cost here (the products are sold at a premium of course) and then trickle the tech down to consumer models over time...that and the pr as you mentioned is what
makes it fundamentally sound and goes beyond the "profit" you can derive from those big boy toys....
Now we have 4 cents worth

[ZaphodB]

So tell me why the MF didn't overtake the 35mm film format?

Medium format can be surprisingly small, I have a 6x10 camera that is approximately 2x smaller than my K10 + grip.

While medium format can be surprisingly small, it usually isn't. Especially for dSLR systems. Plus consider that the 35mm format allowed for more shots on a single roll. Simply 35mm has a convenience advantage over medium format, which APS-C does not have over "Full Frame".

You left out the most important side of it: price of a given lens for a given FoV.

One could argue for example that the DA*50-135 is 1/2 the bulk and cost than a 70-200f2.8 would be or compare a 50mmf1.4 to a 85f1.4...

And one could also point out that a decent 12-24mm costs a lot more than a decent 19-35mm did. Or wonder where is the equivalent to the fast 35mm and 50mm lenses we used on the 135 format. Yes the 50mm f/1.4 can be compared to an 85mm f/1.4... so where is our 35mm f/1.4 to replace the FOV the 50mm gave us!? Well I guess there's always the 31mm f/1.8 Limited... still want to talk about price?

My point being that with the APS-C format some lenses seem cheaper (longer ones), some not, and some seem more expensive (wider ones). I'm not seeing a huge advantage one way or the other.

Another thing is that the quality advantage we see in FF cameras might vanish as technology progresses.

It could go two ways: the APS-C could improve (we'll see about that in the next few month) or the FF quality could "decrease" (as in "cram" 22Mpix+ in a FF sensor and compare to a 10-12MP APS-C sensor: the pixel size is about the same so what you get is more resolution, everything else being the same, but how much more resolution can your optics resolve and how much more resolution do 99% of the photographers need?)

At one point, you'll reach a resolution limit (in close relation with the lens design) where the sole advantage with FF over APS-C will be to have the choice between a few more pixels or a slight increase in high ISO quality, both of which will be utterly unimportant for 99% of photographers because differences will be visible on 4x3m size prints when inspected with a magnifier, but you'll remain with the larger/more expensive FF lenses for a given field of view.

What will drive the market won't be size or weight, heck it won't even be IQ when differences will be so minute you'll need to go 100% pixel peeping to see them, it will be price and I don't see how FF is ever going to be cheaper than APS-C.

FF will not become cheaper than APS-C. But it will get cheaper than it is now; significantly cheaper in time (as will APS-C); and if it retains a noticeable advantage in "IQ" then a fair number of people will still consider it worthwhile spending the extra.

As for IQ, of course APS-C will improve, but what makes you so certain that APS-C quality can only get better while FF quality can only get worse? The issue of pixel "cramming" applies to both. As the technology of APS-C sensors improve, so will that of 35x24mm sensors.

I continue to use the APS-C format because it does most of what I want (but not 99%), and because I can't afford any current FF cameras. When FF cameras become available for the price of current APS-C cameras, then I will most likely buy a FF camera, not buy an APS-C one simply because it's even cheaper.

Of course, if Pentax can make an APS-C camera that is 99% as good as the then-current FF cameras, including being 99% as good at high ISO performance, then I will certainly consider it... but currently the advantage FF cameras have in that area is more than 1%, and I expect that to continue. We will of course have to wait and see, but I have no reason to believe that APS-C technology will continue to improve yet FF technology will not.

[TaoMaas]

We will of course have to wait and see, but I have no reason to believe that APS-C technology will continue to improve yet FF technology will not.

No reason except history, I guess. Research follows the money. Look at what happened in audio...cassette tape got the bulk of the R&D money thrown at it, instead of 8-track or reel-to--reel, because it's what the general public was buying. Likewise, print film got the lion's share of the research money instead of slide film because print film was what the public was using. So it's reasonable to assume that there will be a greater emphasis on improving APS-C technology rather than FF. Sure, FF will come along for the ride, just as slide film did when improvements were made in print film, but history says it's highly unlikely that FF cameras will ever become the norm.

[anomaly]

No reason except history, I guess. Research follows the money. Look at what happened in audio...cassette tape got the bulk of the R&D money thrown at it, instead of 8-track or reel-to--reel, because it's what the general public was buying. Likewise, print film got the lion's share of the research money instead of slide film because print film was what the public was using. So it's reasonable to assume that there will be a greater emphasis on improving APS-C technology rather than FF. Sure, FF will come along for the ride, just as slide film did when improvements were made in print film, but history says it's highly unlikely that FF cameras will ever become the norm.

I think that the logic will always follow that an improvement in aps-c would be an improvement in full frame. Full frame is the same chip, same electronics, same everything. It is just bigger.

[ZaphodB]

TaoMaas... A very good point, except for one thing... the general public is not buying APS-C cameras. They are buying compact cameras with tiny sensors, or camera-phones with even smaller ones. So if your theory is correct, why is there not more emphasis on genuinely improving very-small-sensor technology rather than just running the megapixel race? Because it's not simply a case of research following what the general public is buying.

We could all use "history" to prove our theories one way or another, but full-frame is not to APS-C as slide film is to print film. It is a larger sensor, not a completely different technology.

[nosnoop]

TaoMaas... A very good point, except for one thing... the general public is not buying APS-C cameras. They are buying compact cameras with tiny sensors, or camera-phones with even smaller ones. So if your theory is correct, why is there not more emphasis on genuinely improving very-small-sensor technology rather than just running the megapixel race? Because it's not simply a case of research following what the general public is buying.

Actually, it is the case of research following where the money is.
DSLR especially APS-C market is currently growing at a furious pace. The profit margin is still good, and that's where the research money is going.

Compact cameras are still sold in large volume, but the profit margin for entry models has collapsed. So there is no money to be made there. In addition, most P&S buyers don't care about noise, they only care about the mega pixel count. If noise were the priorities, Fujifilm F Series would have topped all sales chart - but it didn't; this shows you how much people care about small sensor improvement technology.

[benjikan]

If it's a fake, it is a very good one.

I don't think it is a Fake...

[ftpaddict]

I tend to agree, but I can't be 100% certain until an official release.

[Jesus]

TaoMaas... A very good point, except for one thing... the general public is not buying APS-C cameras. They are buying compact cameras with tiny sensors, or camera-phones with even smaller ones. So if your theory is correct, why is there not more emphasis on genuinely improving very-small-sensor technology rather than just running the megapixel race? Because it's not simply a case of research following what the general public is buying.

We could all use "history" to prove our theories one way or another, but full-frame is not to APS-C as slide film is to print film. It is a larger sensor, not a completely different technology.

Wonder why Pentax does not put a phone built into their camera