[robgo2]

The "rest" of the camera industry, that is, the majority, has always made compact cameras for the masses. The need for FF isn't about those people.
The whole DSLR-sector is a niche.

Yes, and my suspicion is that it an ever-shrinking niche, as smaller sensors and mirrorless cameras get progressively better. One can argue about Pentax entering the FF market, given the trend towards "smaller = better," especially with Nikon and Canon so deeply entrenched as the FF leaders.

Rob

---

Last edited by robgo2; 08-11-2012 at 09:33 AM.

[robgo2]

For people who don't use flash and try to avoid artificial light, ISO 100K is needed. For the longest time I used my 5D (3200 ISO max) with the idea that 3200 was really all I needed. I shot TMAX 3200 for years. With my K-5 I am shooting ISO 4K + quite often with results that are much better than FF film at 3200. Now I find myself wishing for 12K all the time. It is human nature to want to improve. To want to push for better. Let's not stop.

I hope that you realize that your shooting needs are hardly representative. Perhaps about 95% of shooters don't require such high ISOs, except on the rarest of occasions.

Rob

[philbaum]

Recent sensor technology is what has made small cameras like the Q possible. Until BSI CMOS sensors you just could not get good quality from these small cameras at anything other than base ISO. The higher ISO also allows for smaller/cheaper lenses.

You will not see a FF camera the size of the Q. The image circle projected by the lens requires a lens mount that is larger than the Q.

For people who don't use flash and try to avoid artificial light, ISO 100K is needed. For the longest time I used my 5D (3200 ISO max) with the idea that 3200 was really all I needed. I shot TMAX 3200 for years. With my K-5 I am shooting ISO 4K + quite often with results that are much better than FF film at 3200. Now I find myself wishing for 12K all the time. It is human nature to want to improve. To want to push for better. Let's not stop.

Amen to that!

Double amen to that. The opportunities for creativity increase as the low light abilities of our cameras increase. I've printed a 20,000 iso shot of a play that is very impressive, but don't dare print it larger than 12x18" (k5).

[sb in ak]

Don't really understand the niche argument: didn't the amount of DSLRs sold grow last year? I mean, everything is a niche in relative terms, but still.

[LamyTax]

Don't really understand the niche argument: didn't the amount of DSLRs sold grow last year? I mean, everything is a niche in relative terms, but still.

What else do you want to look at if not at the complete market?

Yes, and my suspicion is that it an ever-shrinking niche, as smaller sensors and mirrorless cameras get progressively better. One can argue about Pentax entering the FF market, given the trend of "smaller = better," especially with Nikon and Canon so deeply entrenched as the FF leaders.

Rob

DSLRs will also get a lot better. And there's still a huge headroom. Like I said, we haven't even reached the resolution of film yet.

[Winder]

I hope that you realize that your shooting needs are hardly representative. Perhaps about 1-2% of shooters require such high ISOs, except on the rarest of occasions.

Rob

Actually, I would disagree. I know a couple of professionals who rarely go below 1600. Sports and news tog's push shutter speeds as high as they can. I know a guy who works with a couple of zoo's/wildlife refuges and guides in Africa part of the year who always shoots at 1600 or higher on Canon 1DIVs (loves APS-H). The cleaner the high ISO the better. News togs and people who do surveillance work wont be happy until their cameras have night vision.

Maybe you mean that 1-2% of the casual shooters who run around and blind everyone with the pop-up flash don't need high ISO. There I agree. Most of them don't need anything more than a cell phone camera anyway.

[sb in ak]

What else do you want to look at if not at the complete market?

My incredibly unscientific observations from a roadtrip out to a glacier a few weeks ago...what I saw was not folks using their iphones, 4/3s or the works, it was a literal sea of Canikon DSLRs. These folks probably had a cameraphone in their pocket, but they pulled out the big guns for the great photo ops. Whether real or imagined, big DSLRs are still the best quality for the price if you want sweet photos. I think people like the bigger size too. It makes them feel more confident; it feels like you're shooting something, especially when you hear that big shutter roll across.

[Urkeldaedalus]

For people who don't use flash and try to avoid artificial light, ISO 100K is needed. For the longest time I used my 5D (3200 ISO max) with the idea that 3200 was really all I needed. I shot TMAX 3200 for years. With my K-5 I am shooting ISO 4K + quite often with results that are much better than FF film at 3200. Now I find myself wishing for 12K all the time. It is human nature to want to improve. To want to push for better. Let's not stop.

I agree with you to a point, although since APS-C has progressed to a point where ISO6400 is pretty decent, I have a hard time imagining wanting too much more if they can improve even further on that. I'm sure just as you state in your example that I would use more on occasion, but it gets to a certain point where good photos need good light, period. For example, you can't expect your camera to make night time look like golden hour, but you can have the camera let you extend that golden hour just a little bit longer-- that's where high ISO is really useful. Low light wedding or play examples as have been mentioned are also good uses for high ISO, but even these need at least some light to make them reasonable photos. My point is areas and situations where that level of low light performance would be useful to most people for taking good photos is becoming less and less. At some point it becomes a better idea to just bust out the flash.

If APS-C gets to a point where it catches up to where FF is now at 6400-12800 (pretty damn clean), then it will be hard to complain about more. With the K-5 I have already been able to shoot a meeting of Occupy protestors lit only by park lamplight at f/1.8, and that photo was good enough to run with my web story for the event. All that we really need is the ability to shoot scenes like that for larger prints if we wanted.

After that, all I'd want from FF is what I've always wanted-- DOF control, a bump in resolution and dynamic range, and using my FA Limiteds on a full frame camera. Not really anything to do with high ISO. I still think APS-C has some room to grow, though.

As to the original poster's rumor, I was just thinking as I was playing around with my new K-30 that a K-5 matched with the K-30's improvements would be a great camera. Maybe they'll do that along with something else added in to surprise us. Priced reasonably ($1100-$1200?) it could sell somewhat well.

[Winder]

If APS-C gets to a point where it catches up to where FF is now at 6400-12800 (pretty damn clean), then it will be hard to complain about more. With the K-5 I have already been able to shoot a meeting of Occupy protestors lit only by park lamplight at f/1.8, and that photo was good enough to run with my web story for the event. All that we really need is the ability to shoot scenes like that for larger prints if we wanted.

When I had my 5D I said the same thing many times. I only need 3200.

And good enough for a web story is one thing. I print 13x19 regularly on my Canon 9500 II and do posters for bands. Shooting in a music venue ISO 3200 is pretty much as low as it goes, and I don't own any slow glass. I don't mind grain and I actually convert a lot to B&W and add grain for a 60's Rollingstone kinda look where I can deal with noise.

If my work does not look crisp at 13x19 then I'm not happy. Shoot 6400 under stage lighting and blow it up to 13x19 and see how it looks. I'm not as skilled as JohnBee is when it comes to noise and image processing. I can clean it up pretty well with Topaz and LR4, but I still need more. I am hoping Pentax goes FF or I might check out the new Sony A99. The AF accuracy and new sensor might be worth dealing with SLT. I wish Sony would adopt DNG support. If Pentax will take a big step forward with AF and a FF body I will be pretty happy.

[PPPPPP42]

IQ and DOF don't really interest me at all, I just want my full field of view back. To re-buy everything I have now in equal speed but with crop sensor focal ranges would cost so many times more than a new FF body that its not even an option, plus then I would have to have a full set of lenses for my film cameras and a full set for my DSLR. I'd go Canikon and get just 2 good zooms to cover everything first.
Just because a camera CAN go to 6 digit ISO doesn't mean it should be forced to every time you need a shot of something moving indoors without a flash or in low lighting.
Being forced into the sub 24mm focal length range for so many of the lenses is a limiting factor for the engineers that design lenses, its simply more expensive to make a low mm focal range lens fast and you have to compensate so it doesn't fisheye.

Someday we will agree to disagree rather than stubbornly defending our opinions and deciding what other people need past the point of logic.

[ElJamoquio]

We're not even close to what film was able to deliver resolution wise, btw.

Are you talking 8x10 film, or 135 film, or APS film, or?

[gtl]

Just let me use my FA limiteds on FF! I think it's as close as one can get to Leica in a reasonably priced and sized package. Still waiting for the eventual Pentax FF. But I doubt it would be the K5's replacement though. A high end APS-C to go up against the 7D and D300 would be it.

[LamyTax]

Are you talking 8x10 film, or 135 film, or APS film, or?

Really good 35mm film can achieve >70mpix.

A high end APS-C to go up against the 7D and D300 would be it.

That's why I'm saying there will by two K5 successors. A K5n or II, and something above that.

[WerTicus]

I cannot see a reason to delay the K-5 replacement for 6 months.

It is already 4-5 months late right now :-(

[LamyTax]

It is already 4-5 months late right now :-(

That's due to the transition from Hoya to Ricoh. Be assured, you wouldn't have wanted a K5-successor five months ago .