[Alizarine]

Hmm I see. I guess it's also hard to compare with different systems...

[Medium FormatPro]

I can shoot my 70-200 VRII at 1/13th sec at 200mm with no visible shake. The Pentax SR is not in the same league unfortunately

I can shoot with a Pentax K-01 with either the Pentax 60-250 (at the 250 mm focal length) or even using a Sigma 300 f2.8; either one typically at about 1/25th or 1/30th; simply by hand holding the lens tripod socket.

[Rondec]

why can an APS-C camera be appreciably smaller than a FF?

There are a number of things, particularly if Pentax decided to try stabilize a full frame sensor. Also, lenses specifically designed for APS-C (Pentax only has a few) should be smaller than those designed for full frame. This would have been more significant a difference if Pentax had decided to use a different mount with a shorter registration distance (this is why the Sony 16mm f2.8 is so small).

Still, I have no doubt that Pentax could fit a full frame sensor in a K10/20 body size without too much problem.

[gazonk]

I can shoot my 70-200 VRII at 1/13th sec at 200mm with no visible shake. The Pentax SR is not in the same league unfortunately.

I would like a specification of that. I'm sure you'll have some misses even at 1/250th, so the question is what you mean by "visible shake" and what hit rate "can shoot" means. I don't think I'm far away from that when shooting with my K-5 @ 135mm with the 55-300, but of course I try to avoid it, so I can't say much about hit rate.

[sb in ak]

Look and Pentax film cameras like MZ series. They are even smaller than K-5. Yes, digital will add some size (DSLR will always be thicker because of electronics behind the sensor and back LCD) but end result shouldn't much larger than K-5. Let's wait and see what size Nikon D600 will be, I'm sure that it will be only slightly larger than D7000 and smaller than D300.

I am no expert on the subject, but I would assume that if FF can be made smaller, so can APS-C.

[Pioneer]

I am no expert on the subject, but I would assume that if FF can be made smaller, so can APS-C.

Certainly. And they have. It is the mirror box that typically takes up the most space in an SLR of any kind. Rangefinders, or mirrorless cameras, can install an APS-C or even a FF sensor in a much smaller space. I am not sure it could be done with all the electronics that is now part of the digital design, but it would be nice if they could shoe horn a full frame sensor into an LX size body. But I suspect that is not possible because the sensor and associated circuitry are almost certainly deeper than the strip of film and the back.

[ElJamoquio]

I am no expert on the subject, but I would assume that if FF can be made smaller, so can APS-C.

The room that the sensor takes up is marginal.

If we went from mini-SD cards to micro-SD cards, how much smaller would the camera be?

The thing that would really make the camera 'bigger' is the larger viewfinder that most people want (but of course isn't required). I'm willing to have a few mm larger 'hump' to get a 1.3x larger viewfinder, personally.

[eddie1960]

The room that the sensor takes up is marginal.

If we went from mini-SD cards to micro-SD cards, how much smaller would the camera be?

The thing that would really make the camera 'bigger' is the larger viewfinder that most people want (but of course isn't required). I'm willing to have a few mm larger 'hump' to get a 1.3x larger viewfinder, personally.

the hump really doesn't need to be larger
look at the MX, or the Old Om1/2/3/4
all have very tiny humps and the best viewfinders ever made pretty much
allowing for some electronics maybe it needs to grow but i don't think so.
Odds are they can build a Ff the size of the K5
certainly no bigger than the k10/20 which are large in comparison to the current cameras

[ElJamoquio]

It needs to be a few mm larger. I'd be 150% willing to give up the on-camera flash, I've never used it 'seriously' other than to trigger another flash. Even that was just screwing around.

[24X36NOW]

I just want to state on record, that this rumor is false. And I want to reaffirm this by saying that I say this with the greatest of confidence.
That being said, the K-3 will follow in the K'5 footsteps in the sense that it will give current FF's a run for their money. And that includes the D800 also.
So hold you breath and watch as Pentax takes its rightful place(again) as having the worlds best APS-C camera.

Sorry John, but the K5 doesn't even give a circa-2007 Nikon D3 a run for its money, much less a D800.

[bossa]

Looks like I have to eat my words: I was only able to find 1/2 a dozen shots in the 1/13 to 1/30 ball park that were keepers and most of those were at less than 200mm. The Sigma 150 OS Macro does seem to keep up with the Nikon VR system though as I have a few shots from that lens at around 1/25 that work. I don't have my D800E for the moment so I can't really do a side by side comparison with my K-5. The D800E was handed over to the local service centre 2 weeks ago to pass on to Nikon Australia to calibrate focus... NA only received it yesterday so I suppose I won't see it for yet another 2 weeks. Either the local tech was enjoying playing with my camera for over a week or they use camels to deliver them. I'm pretty angry.

[24X36NOW]

Well, the problem is that world is moving away from high end APS-C DSLRs, leaving this format to mirrorless and entry level DSLRs, which are going to be phased out quite soon too, leaving mirrorless only... I really would hate to see that Pentax realises that too late, as it happend with film to digital transition.

Well said. Pentax either gets out of their APS-C-only funk or they shrivel up and die. The third party lens makers already smell the stink of death, which is why none of the top-line third party lenses are being made in PK mount any more.

[24X36NOW]

why can an APS-C camera be appreciably smaller than a FF?

It can't (if you're talking about dSLR cameras in legacy mounts), because it's based on the same lens mount and register distance.

[24X36NOW]

Frankly, the D800 produces levels of detail I never expected to see in a DSLR. It's like opening a door into reality by comparison to what I'd been using prior - it's 'scary'. Any camera that can give that one a "run for its money" might well be worth waiting for in the short term but I suspect the wait to be awhile yet.

Any camera that will give the D800 a run for its money will have to be a FF camera (or a larger format). You'll probably never see that level of detail in the less-than-half-frame format, unless some stupendous breakthrough in sensor tech is made - at which point, of course, such breakthrough would be applied to FF sensors, and you'll be back to square one. The smaller format will always be at a huge disadvantage, because it will always require that the lenses can resolve the same details at less than half the size just to stay even, and that's not happening (nor is it likely to).

[Uluru]

Well said. Pentax either gets out of their APS-C-only funk or they shrivel up and die.

You mean they will die like Olympus, Panasonic, Samsung and Fuji, who all use APS-C sensor size or smaller?

The third party lens makers already smell the stink of death, which is why none of the top-line third party lenses are being made in PK mount any more.

Rather smelling a fear of death of their own. Their decisions have nothing to do with Pentax being APS-C at the moment, because the glass they produce is optically same for all mounts, and only mounts differ. What they do is what all companies who face deadly effects of the financial crisis and swiftly changing product landscapes do: they cut all the unnecessary "cost", cut overheads based on vague economic prognosis, explore new products, shift into new markets altogether.

However, supporting extra mounts in the long run for them would mean lower overall cost and better margins, but not in short term analysis of the MBAs, who often jump on board, scare the hell out of engineers and production and lead them to a new merger, a new promised land, or some new tightening of the belt until they die out of starvation.

Do you believe camera manufacturers love the idea that people are buying lenses branded with third party supplier's name? The whole wealth of money in the interchangeable lens camera business is in lenses. Cameras don't make money — lenses do. What will camera manufacturers do then is flood the market with their own cheaper versions of everything, or endless new iterations of the same, or slightly improved optical recipes (sounds familiar?). In the mind of the average customer who buys into a Nikon, or a Canon system, Nikon's or Canon's lens must be better anyway, because they are loyal to camera brand.

Thus it's not difficult to understand that a third party lens business is inevitably very difficult, and perhaps a futile one. You will se how "far-sighted" their decisions were as soon as Pentax issues an FF DSLR, the most anticipated thing since sliced bread: for example, all Zeiss' manual lenses will magically reappear, although in reality, it did cost them close to nil to have them supported all this time.

But in reality, it might have been that all this lack of third party support so far in fact helped Pentax to establish a better income coming from their own lenses — which would otherwise go in third part supplier's pockets — and invested that money into new products development.

Funny thing that lack of third party support, in fact. Maybe you can even thank them for not supporting.