Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
01-31-2008, 08:43 AM   #46
Senior Member




Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Berlin, Germany
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 151
QuoteOriginally posted by Tbear Quote
Very cogent and logical arguments in favor of full frame. I knew of most advantages, but I for one had no idea that the "benefit" of the lens multiplication factor of APS-C over FF is bunk. Also very interesting to see real numbers showing that FF lenses do not have to weigh more than their APS-C counterparts. Bravo!
I am not sure about the lenses. We don't know how the current FF lenses would behave on a FF sensor. On APS-C vignetting is very low. But I guess this would change with a FF sensor. There is a reason why Pentax and other brans redesigned their lenses for digital. So we probably needed redisigned FF lenses. And - concluding from DA design and weight - the FF lenses might get heavier as well.

Addressing APS-C vs. FF I'd probably choose APS-C. I don't need more than the K20D offers, and I prefer lighter cams. K10D / K20D certainly is my upper limit. I'd rather like a K20D in a K100 D body.
Final sentences: FF will never get in the price range of APS-C, no chance regarding the dimensions of the sensor and the dimensions of the glas (if you take the crop factor into account). Sometimes these FF-APS-C-discussions remind me of certain enlargement offers I sometimes find in my spam folder

01-31-2008, 10:12 AM   #47
Forum Member




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: New York, NY
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 75
QuoteOriginally posted by 24X36NOW Quote
Maybe the question needs to be framed this way: If you had a choice between APS-C and Full Frame, and the prices of those two cameras allowed you to afford either one, which would you buy? It's a no-brainer. Full Frame wins hands down. There's so much speculation about how expensive such a camera "has" to be, when I don't think we've got anyone from the Pentax BOD on here lol.

Pentax NEEDS to make a Full Frame dSLR, because it is being left behind in the marketplace. Whether people "NEED" more IQ is not the point. People will WANT more IQ if it is available, regardless of their "needs." Unless you are a professional photographer, you don't "need" a digital SLR at all. You buy one because you WANT one. APS-C is an inferior format, because it is smaller than 24 x 36 (with all of the inherent disadvantages of a smaller format) without providing any equipment size/weight reduction of any significance and in fact uses a lens mount designed to support 24 x 36. It is a compromise that did not arise from any quality/convenince balancing act (which is what made 35mm popular) but to reduce COST. That is the ONLY reason APS-C format dSLRs exist - COST. If the technology for sensor chips allowed 24 x 36 sensor chips to be cheaper from the start, you would have never seen an APS-C dSLR, period. However, technology marches on. All you need do is look at the relative prices for dSLRs and the sophistication/feature levels of those products over the last 5 - 7 years and you can see it clearly. I paid $1800 for an *istD with a mere 6 megapixels just a few years ago. In April, I'll be able to buy a K20D with 14.6 megapixels for at least $500 LESS (it'll be more than that once a "street" price is established). The advance toward Full Frame is inevitable, because of the inherent compromise of APS-C and because the cost will keep getting more reasonable until more and more people are willing to pay the extra fare to get better cameras.

There's tons of talk here about how APS-C format is "good enough," but I suspect that this is much the same as people who said that a digital point and shoot was "good enough" until they could afford a digital SLR. THEN, suddenly the digital point and shoot wasn't "good enough" any more. :ugh: When Full Frame digital SLRs are more affordable, all the "I have no interest" crowd will be buying them, guaranteed.

I'm sure there will be plenty of defensive comments regarding those who will defend the compromised APS-C format to the death since they have invested in it and don't feel comfortable with "their" cameras being criticized, so let's examine some of the so-called "advantages" in the harsh light of reality:

FIRST, the much-worshipped "telephoto advantage:" This one is pure agricultural commodity (read: BS) cooked up by camera maker marketing departments and swallowed hook, line and sinker by many who are going a long way towards proving P.T. Barnum right. The focal length of a lens does NOT increase when you put it on a smaller format camera. The magnification of a lens does NOT increase when you put it on a smaller format camera. You do NOT NEED A LONGER FOCAL LENGTH LENS ON A FULL FRAME CAMERA TO TAKE THE SAME PICTURE WITH THE SAME MAGNIFICATION AS YOU CAN TAKE ON A SMALLER FORMAT CAMERA - all you need to do to get the EXACT SAME picture on a Full Frame camera is CROP the Full Frame picture down to the size of the smaller format. You DO NOT GAIN A THING - YOU ONLY LOSE SOMETHING - 58% of your image size.

SECOND, the supposed "size/weight reduction" of (in particular) "digital only" lenses designed to cover a smaller image circle rather than the full 24 x 36 frame. More agricultural commodity! Let's see how the specs of the two new "digital only" tele primes recently announced compare with their predecessors:

DA* 200 F 2.8 - 83mm wide x 134 mm long; 825 grams
FA 200 F 2.8 - 83mm wide x 134mm long; 785 grams
A 200 F 2.8 - 91mm wide x 138mm long; 850 grams

DA* 300 F 4.0 - 83mm wide x 184mm long; 1,070 grams
FA 300 F 4.5 - 73mm wide x 160mm long; 935 grams (no F 4.0 available)
A 300 F 4.0 - 84mm wide x 132mm long; 850 grams

The APS-C "digital only" lenses not only are not smaller and lighter by any significant amount, THEY ARE ACTUALLY LARGER AND HEAVIER than some comparable 24 x 36 format lenses. Certainly there is NOT sufficient downsizing of size OR weight to justify LOSING 58% OF YOUR ORIGINAL IMAGE SIZE! However, once again defenders of the compromise "crop cameras" tout this non-existent "advantage." You've been sold a bill of goods again!

THIRD, the "size doesn't matter, only image quality matters" argument. This I'm sorry to say is self-contradictory. LARGER FORMAT PHOTOS HAVE SUPERIOR IMAGE QUALITY TO SMALLER FORMAT PHOTOS, BECAUSE LESS ENLARGEMENT (MAGNIFICATION) IS REQUIRED TO PRODUCE ANY GIVEN PRINT SIZE. This is why large format is better than medium format, medium format is better than 35mm, 35mm is better than APS, and APS is better than 110. THIS WILL NOT CHANGE REGARDLESS OF TECHNOLOGY ADVANCES, since any such advances will be applied to sensor chips of both formats. Further, Full Frame sensor chips can reduce pixel density and thus noise as compared with APS-C sensor chips while maintaining superior image quality. Even at equivalent pixel density, Full Frame provides less amplification of existing noise (again, due to reduced magnification) and thus superior IQ. (It's the same reason thumbnail sensors with similar megapixels produce inferior IQ as compared with the larger sensors in dSLRs.)

FOURTH, the "file size is too big" non-issue. Memory has gotten amazingly cheap and amazingly compact. Buffer sizes, etc. can be increased as necessary to accommodate ever larger files without any problem (20+ megapixel cameras already offer 5fps, which is more than adequate for ANY photographer; until late in the film-only years, 5 fps was the most you got with motor drives even on "professional" cameras). Technology will continue to enable faster processing and greater storage, so this is a meaningless "issue."

In short, APS-C offers NO operational advantages, NO appreciable size/weight advantages, and inferior IQ. The ONLY "advantage" about APS-C is that it is CHEAPER. And as the old saying goes, "you get what you pay for." So please, stop rationalizing about APS-C format as being a replacement for 24 x 36. It's not. Rather, it's just a stop-gap whose coffin is (albeit, slowly) being constructed as Full Frame inexorably becomes more mainstream (which will bring prices down). Full Frame is the future, and Pentax needs to get with the program. Once it becomes more affordable (and it will, because that is the nature of technological advance), nobody in their right mind will want a camera of similar size and weight in a smaller image format, because aside from cost differential there is NO BENEFIT (highly successful marketing BS notwithstanding lol).
24X36NOW:

Up until yesterday I had been a complete agnostic on the Full Frame vs. APS-C issue.

You may now count me among the ranks of the Full Frame faithful.

-XM
01-31-2008, 10:22 AM   #48
Inactive Account




Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Calgary, AB
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 942
QuoteOriginally posted by 24X36NOW Quote
...In short, APS-C offers NO operational advantages, NO appreciable size/weight advantages, and inferior IQ. The ONLY "advantage" about APS-C is that it is CHEAPER. And as the old saying goes, "you get what you pay for." So please, stop rationalizing about APS-C format as being a replacement for 24 x 36. It's not. Rather, it's just a stop-gap whose coffin is (albeit, slowly) being constructed as Full Frame inexorably becomes more mainstream (which will bring prices down). Full Frame is the future, and Pentax needs to get with the program. Once it becomes more affordable (and it will, because that is the nature of technological advance), nobody in their right mind will want a camera of similar size and weight in a smaller image format, because aside from cost differential there is NO BENEFIT (highly successful marketing BS notwithstanding lol).
Being new to SLR photography, when I entered in, I invested a lot of time in researching my brand. It became apparent the K10D was a great value for money. Pentax in general in fact, not only in its current products but the availability of older ones, readily and cheaply to test/learn and grow with seemed like a fertile start point. Just below the surface however lurked the FF debate. It became clear I needed to learn more before I invested in new glass.

What I slowly garnered was what 24x36NOW has now assembled into a neat little (?) package (well written, sir). As such, all the lenses I've purchased until now (12 in total) are 35mm compatible in anticipation of _possible_ FF bodies. Even if this never comes to pass for Pentax, I figured these lenses still represent some of the finer moments in their history, and I'll always have the choice, either way the future goes.

Now, from the outside looking in, it seems to me Pentax has and is creating powerful (and reliable) tools, priced at a point that allows the curious to come in instead of standing outside and wondering. In doing so they have made (in me) a loyal fan, and if it took APS-C to create that price point, I thank them for that. BUT it does seem to me they are creating a limitation for themselves by not simply allowing their lenses to have a few mm more glass to accomodate for the possibility at least of a FF body option. The only logical solution is that they can resell you the lenses all over again if they do a 35mm sensor. Maybe they know something I don't, I've considered this too (heh) but my cross-compatible purchase choice remains (hence my love of the new Cosina Voigtlanders, but I digress).

These are just my thoughts, my perception of the whole FF debate. Some of you have me nearly convinced that I should just enjoy some of the current DA glass, but I do have my nagging doubts on the longevity of the format (certainly, in the lessened versatility of the cropped glass). The view put forth by 24x36NOW neatly outlines why the 35mm format is dominant (and I concur) but I AM a loyal and happy Pentaxian. They've done right by me and I really enjoy the cameras for what they are right now and simply remain ready for a possible full format sensor in future. Short term, I look forward to enjoying the K20D (and most likely breaking my own rule by purchasing the DA*60-250 to go with it, even if it means reselling it later on for a discount.) Its good to be ready for the future, but I gotta live in the now and Pentax is still making great cameras, APS-C, FF or otherwise.
01-31-2008, 10:34 AM   #49
Senior Member




Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 195
Thanks 24x36Now. I posted some stuff earlier this week about Full Frame and was pretty much roasted for it on here and on dpreview. Guess it took more eloquent writing than mine to make people stop and think about it for a moment.

Full Frame is the way to go and aps-c doesn't offer any of the advantages claimed. The only thing you get is a higher pixel density on the cropped view from your telephoto lens. Otherwise, full frame meaning 24x36 should be the future.

Forget all the MF 645 talk too, as that is an entirely different format and has nothing to do with 24x36 sensors being put into our current aps-c type cameras. Drives me nuts when everyone throws out the 645D talk as being a replacement for 24x36 sensor needs in pentax slr's. Just not the same. We may need both, but the 645 is not a replacemetn for a full frame slr.

01-31-2008, 10:35 AM   #50
Pentaxian
MRRiley's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Sterling, VA, USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 6,276
Forget 35mm FF. Go 645D!!!

QuoteOriginally posted by JanG Quote
(This is what I posted in another thread) I think improving the sensor has much more potential than building FF cams that are heavy, bulky, extremely expensive and required a completely new line up of heavy, bulky, extremely expensive lenses.
<snip>

Jan
Therin lies the beauty of the 645D. HUGE sensor that puts FF to shame, potentially astronomic resolution and a proven, existing range of pro quality lens already in the marketplace or easily spun up from existing designs for the 654 or even 67 format cameras.

Pentax should skip FF in a 35mm style body and blow the market away with a 645D than puts canon and nikon's FF pro models in the dust. This is one area where Pentax has an undisputable advantage. When was the last time you saw a medium format canon or nikon? NEVER!

(and for the Hassy fans... a comparable Hassy would cost 3-4 times what a 645D will... so Pentax will hold a significant price-point advantage)

Last edited by MRRiley; 01-31-2008 at 10:55 AM.
01-31-2008, 10:57 AM   #51
Veteran Member




Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,299
QuoteOriginally posted by Tbear Quote
QuoteOriginally posted by 24X36NOW:
SECOND, the supposed "size/weight reduction" of (in particular) "digital only" lenses designed to cover a smaller image circle rather than the full 24 x 36 frame. More agricultural commodity! Let's see how the specs of the two new "digital only" tele primes recently announced compare with their predecessors:
DA* 200 F 2.8 - 83mm wide x 134 mm long; 825 grams
FA 200 F 2.8 - 83mm wide x 134mm long; 785 grams
A 200 F 2.8 - 91mm wide x 138mm long; 850 grams
Very cogent and logical arguments in favor of full frame. I knew of most advantages, but I for one had no idea that the "benefit" of the lens multiplication factor of APS-C over FF is bunk. Also very interesting to see real numbers showing that FF lenses do not have to weigh more than their APS-C counterparts. Bravo!
Well, that of course is due to an unfair comparison. The advantage of small crop circle lens is much less in long telephoto range - even then, you really should be comparing a APS-C 135mm lens vs a FF 200mm lens for similar FOV!

Let's look at another focal length for comparison, how about the Pentax DA 18-250mm. Now let's look at the FF equivalent.... Oops! None available... And that's because 18-250mm is one of those lens made possible by the APS-C sensor. It would be very difficult, if not impossible, to design an equivalent FF lens with reasonable size and weight.

Another comparison would be DA 50-200mm vs FAJ 75-300mm.
The former weighs 255g with a 52mm filter; the 75-300mm weighs 385g with a 58mm filter.
01-31-2008, 11:12 AM   #52
Veteran Member




Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Bangor, Maine
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,382
QuoteOriginally posted by MRRiley Quote
Pentax should skip FF in a 35mm style body and blow the market away with a 645D than puts canon and nikon's FF pro models in the dust. This is one area where Pentax has an undisputable advantage. When was the last time you saw a medium format canon or nikon? NEVER!
Mike,
As I stated before, the size of the body does matter. I can see squeezing a FF sensor in a K10d size body but not a MF sensor. There are a lot of MF lenses floating around but nothing compared to the amount of FF lenses. One of the reason a pro like Ben has opted for the K10D is body size, easy to work with all day. Considering the quality of some of his poster sized photos now, I wonder what you would do with more than a FF sensor.
01-31-2008, 11:14 AM   #53
Senior Member




Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 195
In case this hasn't been posted yet, the new sony with 24x36 will also have Super Steady Shot Stabilization.

From today's announcement on dpreview regarding Sony PMA press conference: "

Key points: No high end DLSR announced today, but a little more detail: It's going to be a full frame 24.6MP CMOS model with Super Steady Shot stabilization, and it's coming this year.

09:22: Now here's the breaking news. We revealed last year that we would be announcing a high end Alpha. Development is continuing. Here's some detail of the sensor it will be built around. 24.6MP Full Frame CMOS sensor. It will be available by the end of this year (we're guessing a Photokina announcement).

09:23: Guy from DSLR development has taken the stage. Talking about Sony's image sensor ('Exmor'). They're working on the development of the new CMOS full frame (for the flagship model) and he's talking about the new CCD sensor developed for the A350.

09:27: Super Steady Shot for the Full Frame sensor is confirmed. Apparently there's a prototype here we can see in action."

Supposed pic of new sony prototype FF: Sony : Download High Resolution Image


Last edited by txbonds; 01-31-2008 at 11:25 AM.
01-31-2008, 11:50 AM   #54
Veteran Member




Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,299
QuoteOriginally posted by 24X36NOW Quote
Maybe the question needs to be framed this way: If you had a choice between APS-C and Full Frame, and the prices of those two cameras allowed you to afford either one, which would you buy? It's a no-brainer. Full Frame wins hands down.
I am not so sure. I would weigh the features of the two cameras carefully before I make a decision. You statement "prices... allowed you to afford either one" is a bit vague. Actual price difference and perceived money worth is the key determining factor. I can afford to buy D3 if I want to, but I simply don't see the value of it, and that's why I won't even consider it.

QuoteQuote:
People will WANT more IQ if it is available, regardless of their "needs."
This is NOT true for the majority of the consumers. Some of the forum members here like you may think this way, but this in no way applies to the buying public. People wants more features, they want convenience, they want ease of use, they want more pixels, they want mega zooms.... If you tell them that they need to pay 2 to 3x the money to get a slightly improve IQ, many would be scared away. Sure, they want more IQ, only if they don't need to pay a lot more for it.

QuoteQuote:
APS-C is an inferior format, because it is smaller than 24 x 36... without providing any equipment size/weight reduction of any significance and in fact uses a lens mount designed to support 24 x 36.
This is absolutely not true - give me an equivalent 18-250mm lens in FF... You can't! And the 18-200mm and 18-250mm lenses are two of the most popular lenses for DSLR. You simply cannot have a FF equivalent with a reasonable size and weight.

QuoteQuote:
It is a compromise that did not arise from any quality/convenince balancing act (which is what made 35mm popular) but to reduce COST.That is the ONLY reason APS-C format dSLRs exist - COST.
True, and this SINGLE reason is HUGE, and enough to override all other reasons.
And the same reason why people with FF don't upgrade to Medium Format, which gives superior quality.

QuoteQuote:
When Full Frame digital SLRs are more affordable, all the "I have no interest" crowd will be buying them, guaranteed.
Define "affordable" Don't you think Canon 5D is quite affordable now? It is not being priced much more than D300, you know? People who can afford the D300 surely can afford the 5D. But why is it not selling? How about your guarantee?

QuoteQuote:
all you need to do to get the EXACT SAME picture on a Full Frame camera is CROP the Full Frame picture down to the size of the smaller format.
But that's not how consumer uses their camera. Are you asking them to crop every pictures? Most do not do post processing.

QuoteQuote:
The APS-C "digital only" lenses not only are not smaller and lighter by any significant amount, THEY ARE ACTUALLY LARGER AND HEAVIER than some comparable 24 x 36 format lenses.
Your comparison is flawed, please check my post above.

QuoteQuote:
This is why large format is better than medium format, medium format is better than 35mm, 35mm is better than APS, and APS is better than 110.
By your argument, why stop at FF? Why not Medium Format?
Reason - COST!!!

QuoteQuote:
FOURTH, the "file size is too big" non-issue.
But do we really need 24MP? Do you want 24MP now?
I know I don't. All it does is to fill up my SD card and hard drive faster. So this is not at all a meaningless issue.

QuoteQuote:
In short, APS-C offers NO operational advantages, NO appreciable size/weight advantages, and inferior IQ. The ONLY "advantage" about APS-C is that it is CHEAPER.
You are wrong, the size and weight advantage of most commonly used focal length is considerable. My best example is the popular 18-250mm lens. If you go to extreme wide and long tele, the advantage would disappear. Smaller camera body weight is also an advantage.

And of course, CHEAPER is the best advantage of all, and as I said, it could be the single factor which negates all other factors for most people. The same reason why people are not buying Medium Format digital, which has amazing IQ. K20D is about the most price I would pay for a digicam.

QuoteQuote:
Rather, it's just a stop-gap whose coffin is (albeit, slowly) being constructed as Full Frame inexorably becomes more mainstream (which will bring prices down). Full Frame is the future, and Pentax needs to get with the program.
FF camera is a niche market now, and it may be a bigger niche market in the future, but it will not become mainstream. The trend of the DSLR direction is clear, even from PMA. Development of consumer DSLR will be towards features and gimmicks such as Live View, HD movie, smaller bodies etc instead of ultimate IQ, which will be left to the pro (FF) market segment. Very soon, we will have electronic viewfinder with interchangeable lens (EVIL), and this is what the public (outside this forum, of course ) want....
Not FF.
01-31-2008, 12:45 PM   #55
Pentaxian
TaoMaas's Avatar

Join Date: May 2007
Location: Oklahoma City
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,195
QuoteOriginally posted by 24X36NOW Quote
It is a compromise that did not arise from any quality/convenince balancing act (which is what made 35mm popular) but to reduce COST. That is the ONLY reason APS-C format dSLRs exist - COST.

Most folks who are stepping up from point-and-shoot cameras don't want to make that leap from a $200 camera to a $5000 camera w/o lens. Like it or not, these decisions are often made based on what will appeal to the largest group of people. Right now, we can't even get the majority of folks who already own APS-C DSLR's to agree to fork over 3-4 times the cost of their present camera in order to step up to a FF camera, so why would the average consumer make that leap?
01-31-2008, 12:56 PM   #56
Senior Member




Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 195
QuoteOriginally posted by TaoMaas Quote
Most folks who are stepping up from point-and-shoot cameras don't want to make that leap from a $200 camera to a $5000 camera w/o lens. Like it or not, these decisions are often made based on what will appeal to the largest group of people. Right now, we can't even get the majority of folks who already own APS-C DSLR's to agree to fork over 3-4 times the cost of their present camera in order to step up to a FF camera, so why would the average consumer make that leap?


Lets also put this into the perspective of other arena's. Car companies build race cars and the technology learned during that process eventually trickles down to the cars that you and I buy. The regular consumer eventually benefits from high end, high performance units and R&D put into those items.

In the camera world, that high end unit is the pro body flagship model. The R&D put into developing the no stops, bar none camera, eventually finds it's way down to us. Regular consumers are heavily swayed by market perception, advertising, what they see the "pro's" using, etc.

If you don't personally see a benefit in there being a full frame camera, surely you can see these things as being good for the brand on a long term basis.
01-31-2008, 01:06 PM   #57
Veteran Member
Pentaxke's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Belgium
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 368
QuoteOriginally posted by 24X36NOW Quote
THIRD, the "size doesn't matter, only image quality matters" argument. This I'm sorry to say is self-contradictory. LARGER FORMAT PHOTOS HAVE SUPERIOR IMAGE QUALITY TO SMALLER FORMAT PHOTOS, BECAUSE LESS ENLARGEMENT (MAGNIFICATION) IS REQUIRED TO PRODUCE ANY GIVEN PRINT SIZE. This is why large format is better than medium format, medium format is better than 35mm, 35mm is better than APS, and APS is better than 110. THIS WILL NOT CHANGE REGARDLESS OF TECHNOLOGY ADVANCES, since any such advances will be applied to sensor chips of both formats. Further, Full Frame sensor chips can reduce pixel density and thus noise as compared with APS-C sensor chips while maintaining superior image quality. Even at equivalent pixel density, Full Frame provides less amplification of existing noise (again, due to reduced magnification) and thus superior IQ. (It's the same reason thumbnail sensors with similar megapixels produce inferior IQ as compared with the larger sensors in dSLRs.)
There's more to IQ than just noise. Full frame has far more problems with light fall off, CA and image softness, especially in the corners. Just read the EOS 5D review on dpreview... But even then the new Sony ff will be 24 MP which has the same pixel pitch as the 10 MP on the K10D (even less if you take into account that in a CMOS there also has to be room for chips which can't receive light. So as far as noise goes, that sensor will not be significant better than the K10D.

As far as I'm concerned, full frame is a mere marketing hype. But even then, I don't know why you should shout so loud. My head hurts...
01-31-2008, 01:08 PM   #58
Senior Member




Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Berlin, Germany
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 151
QuoteOriginally posted by txbonds Quote
Lets also put this into the perspective of other arena's. Car companies build race cars and the technology learned during that process eventually trickles down to the cars that you and I buy. The regular consumer eventually benefits from high end, high performance units and R&D put into those items.
Well, that's what they claim, at least. It sounds like Teflon(R) as justification for flying to the moon to me, an urban legend. Actually Teflon was discovered by chance in 1938, long before the space age started, and there are many excellent car builders that do not engage in racing. Porsche for example - they stopped that many years ago because there was no spin of.
Maybe it's the other way round: APS-C requires much more sensor knowledge because you have to make use of every little bit of light you capture. Look at C****'s sensor development: the FFs never are the first cams to take the next step.

Jan
01-31-2008, 01:34 PM   #59
Veteran Member




Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,299
QuoteOriginally posted by txbonds Quote
If you don't personally see a benefit in there being a full frame camera, surely you can see these things as being good for the brand on a long term basis.
Not if the money going into FF development would derail the company. Sony may be able to absorb the cost of a A900 flop, but not Pentax. Even with a FF flagship, Pentax can still implement state-of-the-art technology in a APS-C flagship, and filter down the technology to lesser models. So you don't need FF to have a high end flagship (actually it would be a more affordable flagship without FF).
01-31-2008, 01:39 PM   #60
Pentaxian
TaoMaas's Avatar

Join Date: May 2007
Location: Oklahoma City
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,195
QuoteOriginally posted by txbonds Quote
Lets also put this into the perspective of other arena's. Car companies build race cars and the technology learned during that process eventually trickles down to the cars that you and I buy. The regular consumer eventually benefits from high end, high performance units and R&D put into those items.

In the camera world, that high end unit is the pro body flagship model. The R&D put into developing the no stops, bar none camera, eventually finds it's way down to us. Regular consumers are heavily swayed by market perception, advertising, what they see the "pro's" using, etc.

If you don't personally see a benefit in there being a full frame camera, surely you can see these things as being good for the brand on a long term basis.

You're right. But (using your analogy) 24X36NOW is making the argument that the car companies shouldn't even be selling models for the technology to trickle down to. Everyone ought to just buy a race car.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
ff, lenses, pentax, pentax news, pentax rumors, pentax/samsung, sensor, sony
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
K-x Sony Sensor vs K-7 Samsung Sensor karl79 Video and Pentax HDSLRs 9 09-23-2010 09:35 AM
Size of Samsung NX-10 compared to Pentax K20D, Samsung GX-20 Clone Samsungian Non-Pentax Cameras: Canon, Nikon, etc. 11 01-21-2010 12:26 PM
Now Sony will release a new EVIL system... where is Samsung? Xian Non-Pentax Cameras: Canon, Nikon, etc. 4 11-11-2009 10:23 PM
The White House joins the 21st century, but not with a Pentax konraDarnok General Talk 13 01-15-2009 10:05 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:26 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top