[Mr. The Guy]

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.

What is good for the brand on a long-term basis IS the 'trickle-down' of higher-end sensor R&D. I agree. But, what are the problems that need to be overcome with FF? They're problems related to manufacturing such a large sensor. Pentax/Samsung are concentrating on IMPROVING sensors. IMHO, a far more logical approach with far more 'trickle-down advantages from a technical, not marketing perspective. What will benefit me more? What engineers are working on, or what the marketing department thinks is marketable? I'm a salesperson myself, but want an advanced technical solution, not a marketing gimmick; which FF is. Buying old(-style) lenses for vapour-ware bodies is folly.
Read this article: All About Image Sensors | Digital Photo Pro Magazine
Just to address another point, if money was no object, I'd hire a photographer as part of my posse and say, "Take a picture of that." If the results sucked, I'd fire them.
Also, the long answer advocating FF above did not address SR(IS).

[jeff1101]

With all due respect, that article did not mention anything about FF vs APS-C. It talked mostly about sensor technology CCD vs CMOS vs Foveon so I dont see the point. (with reading it that is as it pertains to this discussion)

Also I dont believe FF is a marketing gimmick. Its just another sensor size. If I follow your line of reasoning I could tout APS-C as a marketing gimmick as well. A very successful marketing gimmick at that... (i.e. oh we "IMPROVED" the FF sensor by shrinking it to less than half its original size. )

PEACE!!!

[txbonds]

Also, the long answer advocating FF above did not address SR(IS).

But Sony addressed it according to the press release yesterday. Someone will eventually release a FF with image stabilization, and if sony does it first so be it. That doesn't mean I'm advocating sony as better or that I'll switch to sony, but once it's out there the rest of the market has to consider it.

Like it or not, it's business and it's a competition. To survive, they all have to address what the others are doing to some degree. I personally want full frame not because I'm a great photographer, and not because I think it will make me better, but because it will allow me to return to what I deem to be normal having grown up with 35mm film.

However, I do think that sensor advancement made on the aps-c level is equally applicable to the full frame level, and vice versa. Who knows, maybe I'm wrong, but I'm really thinking we will start to see more full frame sensors showing up in the market.

[thePiRaTE!!]

Hi Steve, I was reading some of your points and thought I'd comment. No offence meant, just got me thinkin'.

...Sorry, you are missing the issue here. The size of a lens of a given speed is dictated by the size of the front element and the quality of construction. The former is a function of actual focal length not format or image circle. So a 200mm F2.8 lens with quality construction will weigh the same whatever format I use. But on my APS camera I can use a 200mm lens whereas I would need a 300mm lens on the FF camera. Please dont deny this, thats just being silly. Furthermore a 200mm F2.8 lens is faster as well as lighter, smaller and cheaper than a 300mm F4 lens by your own admission...

Certainly in this case, what 24x36NOW said is true. Cropping image real estate only affects the perceived field of view, not the magnification. Thus, a 200mm lens on a K10, shares the _field of view_ of a 300mm on a 35mm, only because the resulting APS-C image is cropped to that equivalent field of view. Its certainly not an advantage in any sense. If you want the actual magnification a 300mm lens provides, you need a 300mm lens no matter the sensor size (except with a larger sensor, you capture more image at the same resolution, or 'field of view' as it isn't cropped).

...Sorry I am going to have to turn this round. FF offers very few practical ADVANTAGES for the extra cost and for most of us is pointless since we dont print at sizes that warrent the pixel level difference. At most, you get a stop more useful high ISO, and a little more DR, and considerably greater outlay. Noone is saying you cant have that if you want it, there is plenty of choice, so how come no-one is really buying into it?

Just wanted to offer a rationale for FF here. It isn't technologically or IQ based - Understanding my previous argument, it is simply that more image is more image. Having the choice of cropping out sections of a larger image to my liking seems like a good idea. Its harder to add image that isn't there. Thats it.

The fact that so much existing and emerging technology is already set to use this extra space, we have only to hurdle the cost barrier to unlock bonus image real estate for the masses. Me and my 35mm compatible lenses await!

...FF will always represent the high end of the SLR style cameras, and APS is a perfectly valid format in its own right and will always remain cheaper, more accessible to the masses and only slightly less decent quality wise. For many uses it is likely to remain the prefered format.

The fact that many accessories and lenses can be shared keeps manufacturers costs down, but the two formats can and will coexist quite happily indefinately and until Pentax decides to build professional grade DSLRs it has no need to build FF cameras to survive, quite the opposite...

Currently, this statement is true. As such, I'm still a happy K10 user, and looking forward to being a happy K20 user too! If the time should come to pass that for similar money, I could buy a Pentax FF offering, I would gladly do so. Until then, I'm enjoying what Pentax puts on my plate

Peace all!

[*isteve]

Hi Steve, I was reading some of your points and thought I'd comment. No offence meant, just got me thinkin'.

None taken...

Certainly in this case, what 24x36NOW said is true. Cropping image real estate only affects the perceived field of view, not the magnification. Thus, a 200mm lens on a K10, shares the _field of view_ of a 300mm on a 35mm, only because the resulting APS-C image is cropped to that equivalent field of view.

But there are more pixels in that same field of view on an APS camera. It dowsnt matter what the magnification is, what matters is how many pixels are within the frame.

Lets take a 12MP FF camera with a 300mm lens and a 12MP APSC camera with a 200mm lens. The field of view and perspective of the latter at the same distance is the same as the former. Both cameras produce a more or less identical 12MP image which can be enlarged to the same size.

Now if I did what 24X36 suggested and simply put the 200mm lens on the FF camera and then cropped the image, I would only end up with about 6MP. This would mean I could only enlarge the resulting image half as much.

Why would I want to spend 2X the price to get a 6MP camera?

Its certainly not an advantage in any sense. If you want the actual magnification a 300mm lens provides, you need a 300mm lens no matter the sensor size (except with a larger sensor, you capture more image at the same resolution, or 'field of view' as it isn't cropped).

Just wanted to offer a rationale for FF here. It isn't technologically or IQ based - Understanding my previous argument, it is simply that more image is more image. Having the choice of cropping out sections of a larger image to my liking seems like a good idea. Its harder to add image that isn't there. Thats it.

The fact that so much existing and emerging technology is already set to use this extra space, we have only to hurdle the cost barrier to unlock bonus image real estate for the masses. Me and my 35mm compatible lenses await!

Currently, this statement is true. As such, I'm still a happy K10 user, and looking forward to being a happy K20 user too! If the time should come to pass that for similar money, I could buy a Pentax FF offering, I would gladly do so. Until then, I'm enjoying what Pentax puts on my plate

Peace all!

Im sorry but his statement was totally bogus and so is yours. The focal length of the lens is just its focal length. The field of view has always depended on the focal length AND the size of the film and it still does. Only now the smaller film has as many grains and the larger one, only more tightly packed, and can therefore be enlarged the same amount.

The size of the print no longer relates to the SIZE of the sensor on how many PHOTOSITES it has, assuming of course that the lens could resolve that small.

[ricardobeat]

Certainly in this case, what 24x36NOW said is true. Cropping image real estate only affects the perceived field of view, not the magnification. Thus, a 200mm lens on a K10, shares the _field of view_ of a 300mm on a 35mm, only because the resulting APS-C image is cropped to that equivalent field of view. Its certainly not an advantage in any sense. If you want the actual magnification a 300mm lens provides, you need a 300mm lens no matter the sensor size (except with a larger sensor, you capture more image at the same resolution, or 'field of view' as it isn't cropped).

A DA300 designed for APS-C wouldn't cover full frame, so where is the "actual magnification"? You're still linking lens focal length to the 35mm frame, they are not related! You could have a huge 300mm lens fill a 50cm frame if you wanted. There is no "actual" magnification, it is always related to the sensor size - and no advantages or disadvantages (actually APS-C has some optical advantages which you already know of course, but let's pretend), only different systems!

APS-C only lenses are not wasting any light and are just as good or better than it's FF counterparts, when used within it's system.

[Tbear]

I feel exactly the opposite. Every time FF is brought up, there will be claims that Pentax is doomed without FF, FF is the future, APS-C has no merits, APS-C will be obsolete etc. The FF camp simply cannot accept that APS-C will continue to exist even with FF introduction.



See? This is what I am talking about.
If what you say is true, maybe you can sign off Olympus's/Panasonic's death certificate right now? This type of statement is plain absurd.

I completely agree that APS-C will continue to own dominant market-share even with FF introduction. That does not mean FF is a bad idea.

[TaoMaas]

What about the 645D? Would any of you FF folks be willing to make the jump to a 645D if it could be bought for a price in the neighborhood (or slightly higher) than the Canon or Nikon FF cameras? I'm kinda curious about the criteria for jumping to FF. Does image quality trump price? Is the ability to take advantage of lenses you already own the difference maker?

[SCGushue]

Sony just announced a 24.8MP CMOS FF sensor that will be used in their pro model later this year. Hopefully, Pentax is already working hard with Samsung to develop a FF sensor. With everything else being equal, there can be no doubt that a FF sensor will produce higher IQ and lower noise than an APS-C sensor. Also, I think a FF sensor would benefit Pentax more than any other company. Here is why: Pentax has millions of old 35mm film lenses still in circulation. Can you imagine being able to use these vintage lenses on a state of the art Pentax/Samsung FF sensor? I see some people panicking that because Pentax is making a DA* 30mm, that this will spell the end of lenses like the FA 31mm limited. Hopefully, Pentax will be smarter than that.

Ted

When we talk of technological advancements in the field of diital SLR's it is always fascinating when one hears of the possibility of full frame sensors. Personally, if cost does not become a limiting factor then fine.

The problem however becomes one of resolution, lens size and the inherent defects and shortcoming that were prevelent even in film imaging. Many fail to understand that even with the very best lenses avaiable there were weakesses present in 35 mm lenses trying to cover the image size of 35mm film. The problems inherent to DSLR images were often worse on film.

In theory, if Pentax's production of their 14.6MP sensor is as good as the images I seen in person are , then I can assure you that we are reaching the limit of resolution in optics. Anything beyond becomes defacto waste.

Over the years I have watched the evolution of cameras move towards "smaller is better" on the consumer end even if the pros don't really care. With the evoltution into full frame sensor imaging come all the inherent problems of size, weight, cost and abberations...especially at the edges... that come with requisite wave of full frame lenses. And the call for full frame sensors seems to fly in the face that most DSLR owners always seem to be complaining about the weight of even the older, smaller full frame lenses that were built to withstand the rigors of their very size. You can't have it both ways

The evolution in sensor noise and cleanliness might well be where the concentration needs to be placed, not necessarily on the size of the sensor (though physics can dictate solutions to smaller sensor sizes over larger areas).

While the prestige of Pros may be important to top producers, the money is made on the masses and their P&S and entry to mid level DSLR's. While Penax clearly has offerings coming in the relatively near future, that will serve high end professional needs, what is currently being offered in the K20D clearly adds to the functional practicality of working Pros and will clearly be seen to be a quantum leap in image quality for all including mid level imagers and advanced amateurs.

You only need to work with and see the output of this camera to understand how truly outstanding the cameras potential will be.

Stephen

[Marcus]

What about the 645D? Would any of you FF folks be willing to make the jump to a 645D if it could be bought for a price in the neighborhood (or slightly higher) than the Canon or Nikon FF cameras?

I'd like to get the answer to that as well. That's interesting.

I guess for many FF people on this board, money is not an object when it comes to Pentax.

[*isteve]

I completely agree that APS-C will continue to own dominant market-share even with FF introduction. That does not mean FF is a bad idea.

Who said it was a bad idea, its a bad idea for Pentax right now is all.

The whole premise of this FF fanaticism is that FF is getting cheaper. Well I see no evidence of this, nor do I see any evicence that Canon are making a profit from it and if they can't no-one can. As holy grails go its a bit thin on success.

Pentax need to focus their tiny investment dollars where the revenue and profit is (APS low and mid-range) until the situation changes. When it changes why should they go full frame anyway? Why not some totally different format? They dont make FF lenses anymore so why bother making an FF camera - why not something bigger?

[wll]

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)

I agree.

wll

[Tbear]

Who said it was a bad idea, its a bad idea for Pentax right now is all.

The whole premise of this FF fanaticism is that FF is getting cheaper. Well I see no evidence of this, nor do I see any evicence that Canon are making a profit from it and if they can't no-one can. As holy grails go its a bit thin on success.

Pentax need to focus their tiny investment dollars where the revenue and profit is (APS low and mid-range) until the situation changes. When it changes why should they go full frame anyway? Why not some totally different format? They dont make FF lenses anymore so why bother making an FF camera - why not something bigger?

Ahh, you touched on an excellent point, namely the issue of investment dollars. Yes, Pentax by itself has meager investment dollars, but how would you characterize the warchest of Samsung? Don't underestimate what this company can do and don't underestimate what Pentax and Samsung can do working together, as they did for the K20D sensor. Samsung DOES have the resources to research and produce a FF sensor in collaboration with Pentax. All that is needed is the desire to by both companies.

[Richard Day]

Who said it was a bad idea, its a bad idea for Pentax right now is all.

The whole premise of this FF fanaticism is that FF is getting cheaper. Well I see no evidence of this, nor do I see any evidence that Canon are making a profit from it and if they can't no-one can. As holy grails go its a bit thin on success.

Pentax need to focus their tiny investment dollars where the revenue and profit is (APS low and mid-range) until the situation changes. When it changes why should they go full frame anyway? Why not some totally different format? They don't make FF lenses anymore so why bother making an FF camera - why not something bigger?

Totally agree with you Steve, on all points.

The decision to stay with APS-C is the only sensible solution for Pentax at the moment. I also suspect it's the sensible solution for the other makers as well, but they seem happy to encourage the FF'wits by happily plunging down that loss leading road, well, good luck to 'em!

I suspect that Pentax are very carefully watching the market trends (you and I both know the internal professionally sourced statistical information that Pentax are basing their future planning on!) and will make the correct decision for the majority of Pentax customers who appreciate that Pentax are making photo equipment that is appropriate to both them and the company.

As far as a larger sensor is concerned, I was very surprised at the number of 645 users at last years Focus on Imaging UK expo that are still looking forward to a 645D body, and I'm sure it's the same globally. I also feel that the engineers are much in favour of a 645D body rather than FF'ing stupidity, after all, they already have a bigger mount with existing lens designs (with many in the field already), an up to date digital body design already developed and they won't need to bring a vast range of new lenses (1 to 2 decent zooms and 3 to 4 primes) or accessories to market in order to gain an acceptable ROI. The challenge is the sensor.

We have discussed this personally between ourselves at some length and as some may be aware, the big Kodak sensors originally intended for the 645D have pretty poor high ISO noise (i.e 400 and above) and I suspect that is the reason for the decision not to go ahead with the 645D project at this time.

If Samsung are willing to fabricate a suitable CMOS sensor for Pentax in small numbers rather than decide that they want Pentax to make them a FF'ing body in order to challenge their arch rival Sony, then this could well be a deal breaker.

This whole FF'ing debate is stirred up by a few FF'wits that either crazily believe that by screaming from the rooftops, Pentax will listen to their loony tunes, or they are plants from the competition (probably some junior nerds in their marketing departments told to go cause trouble) in order to wind up the newbies, shallow thinkers and the FF'anatics to a dissenting frenzy in order to propagate a load of FUD!

First we get the FPS issue, then the AF issue and now it's the FF'ing issue. Yes, I am mad about it all. It's crass paranoia and stupidity. Bah! Humbug!

For all you out there who think I'm spouting a line because of NDA's etc., some enlightenment. I don't have an NDA, I just know how to keep my word when I give it and am a free agent, there are many things I have thought would be good for Pentax to do, but I don't slam them in public, I often ask questions of others and I make my representations (and on behalf of many others as well) to them directly and privately. If you don't like what I have to say, ignore it, move on (preferably to another brand and leave this forum alone, it's actually called Pentax Forums you know) and may your God be with you.

For those of you with sensitive dispositions, I apologise in advance if I offend, I just trust you know where I'm directing my rant and why.

[Tbear]

Totally agree with you Steve, on all points.

The decision to stay with APS-C is the only sensible solution for Pentax at the moment. I also suspect it's the sensible solution for the other makers as well, but they seem happy to encourage the FF'wits by happily plunging down that loss leading road, well, good luck to 'em!

I suspect that Pentax are very carefully watching the market trends (you and I both know the internal professionally sourced statistical information that Pentax are basing their future planning on!) and will make the correct decision for the majority of Pentax customers who appreciate that Pentax are making photo equipment that is appropriate to both them and the company.

As far as a larger sensor is concerned, I was very surprised at the number of 645 users at last years Focus on Imaging UK expo that are still looking forward to a 645D body, and I'm sure it's the same globally. I also feel that the engineers are much in favour of a 645D body rather than FF'ing stupidity, after all, they already have a bigger mount with existing lens designs (with many in the field already), an up to date digital body design already developed and they won't need to bring a vast range of new lenses (1 to 2 decent zooms and 3 to 4 primes) or accessories to market in order to gain an acceptable ROI. The challenge is the sensor.

We have discussed this personally between ourselves at some length and as some may be aware, the big Kodak sensors originally intended for the 645D have pretty poor high ISO noise (i.e 400 and above) and I suspect that is the reason for the decision not to go ahead with the 645D project at this time.

If Samsung are willing to fabricate a suitable CMOS sensor for Pentax in small numbers rather than decide that they want Pentax to make them a FF'ing body in order to challenge their arch rival Sony, then this could well be a deal breaker.

This whole FF'ing debate is stirred up by a few FF'wits that either crazily believe that by screaming from the rooftops, Pentax will listen to their loony tunes, or they are plants from the competition (probably some junior nerds in their marketing departments told to go cause trouble) in order to wind up the newbies, shallow thinkers and the FF'anatics to a dissenting frenzy in order to propagate a load of FUD!

First we get the FPS issue, then the AF issue and now it's the FF'ing issue. Yes, I am mad about it all. It's crass paranoia and stupidity. Bah! Humbug!

For all you out there who think I'm spouting a line because of NDA's etc., some enlightenment. I don't have an NDA, I just know how to keep my word when I give it and am a free agent, there are many things I have thought would be good for Pentax to do, but I don't slam them in public, I often ask questions of others and I make my representations (and on behalf of many others as well) to them directly and privately. If you don't like what I have to say, ignore it, move on (preferably to another brand and leave this forum alone, it's actually called Pentax Forums you know) and may your God be with you.

For those of you with sensitive dispositions, I apologise in advance if I offend, I just trust you know where I'm directing my rant and why.

I think you should publish your very own "Dictionary of insulting FF terms". Bound to be a best seller around here.