[Confused]

Hi all

JanG makes a very telling point, which I've raised myself on a number of previous threads:

You obviously don't know how sensors are made and how expensive large high resolution chips are. Even today there is a lot of waste in the production due to spoiled circuitry.

It's refreshing to read a contribution from someone with a firm grip on reality ! In John Cleese's immortal words (and at the risk of stating the 'bleedin' obvious' !), waste = lost profits = higher manufacturing costs = expensive DSLR'S. I genuinely mean no disrespect, but does anyone on this forum have the faintest idea of the resources required to build and operate a clean-room chip fabrication plant ? (inserting sufficient $$$$$$$$$.....to accommodate the requisite finance). It's BIG BUCKS, believe me !
I'm old enough to recall the good old days when digital cameras were first mooted and remember the idea at the time was that photographers would simply unclip their existing backplate from their SLR and slot-in a digital replacement. The naivety at the time was touching, but things certainly turned out different in the long run !
In an ideal world and at some time in the forseeable future I'd love the prospect of owning a full-frame DSLR, BUT NOT if it
a) weighs as much as a 1DS MkII/D3/5D does
b) is as bulky as a 1DS MkII/D3/5D and
c) costs what a 1DS MkII/D3/5D currently does.
Ask yourselves a final question: How many FF DSLR's do you think that Pentax could realistically expect to shift as a percentage of their annual turnover.....I reckon it must add up to peanuts, because despite what some diehard enthusiasts would like to imagine, the sums just don't add up ! Dream on.......

Best regards
Richard

---

Last edited by Confused; 02-01-2008 at 04:30 PM.

[Tbear]

Hi all

JanG makes a very telling point, which I've raised myself on a number of previous threads:



It's refreshing to read a contribution from someone with a firm grip on reality ! In John Cleese's immortal words (and at the risk of stating the 'bleedin' obvious' !), waste = lost profits = higher manufacturing costs = expensive DSLR'S. I genuinely mean no disrespect, but does anyone on this forum have the faintest idea of the resources required to build and operate a clean-room chip fabrication plant ? (inserting sufficient $$$$$$$$$.....to accommodate the requisite finance). It's BIG BUCKS, believe me !
I'm old enough to recall the good old days when digital cameras were first mooted and remember the idea at the time was that photographers would simply unclip their existing backplate from their SLR and slot-in a digital replacement. The naivety at the time was touching, but things certainly turned out different in the long run !
In an ideal world and at some time in the forseeable future I'd love the prospect of owning a full-frame DSLR, BUT NOT if it
a) weighs as much as a 1DS MkII/D3/5D does
b) is as bulky as a 1DS MkII/D3/5D and
c) costs what a 1DS MkII/D3/5D currently does.
Ask yourselves a final question: How many FF DSLR's do you think that Pentax could realistically expect to shift as a percentage of their annual turnover.....I reckon it must add up to peanuts, because despite what some diehard enthusiasts would like to imagine, the sums just don't add up ! Dream on.......

Best regards
Richard

Hmmmmm. It seems someone else in this forum thinks FF is possible in Pentax's future: "I personally think that Pentax will adopt the FF format." -Benjikan.
Succinct and to the point. I like it.

[JanG]

Hmmmmm. It seems someone else in this forum thinks FF is possible in Pentax's future: "I personally think that Pentax will adopt the FF format." -Benjikan.
Succinct and to the point. I like it.

True - but Ben also posted also, he would use the K20D for all of his work, unless he can't soothe his customers about its qualities or a very extraordinary print size (read: not for "normal" photogs as most of us are, but extraordinary for a pro) demanded for the Hassy.
I understand this as 90% of his work could and will be done with the K20D (sorry, Ben, should I have misunderstood you).

Best wishes,
Jan

[distudio]

FYI - The Canon EOS 1D MK III is all too often refered to as a FF camera but it is only 10.1MP APS-H size sensor, and although everyone refers to the Nikon D3 as being FF, Nikon themselves call it an 12MP FX sensor - not quite 35mm..

The D3 has a 36.0mm x 23.9mm sensor, thats significantly closer to traditional FF than Pentax DSLRs are to APS.

KODAK: About the Advanced Photo System

"The Advanced Photo System's image frame size is 16.7mm x 30.2mm"

Pentax DSLRs have active sensor dimensions of 23.5mm x 15.7mm for all DSLRs prior to the K20D and 23.4mm x 15.6mm for the K20D.

[distudio]

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.

Huh, did you get out of the wrong side of the bed or something?

[24X36NOW]

I keep hearing that Full Frame is a bad idea for Pentax, and that introducing a Full Frame dSLR will kill the company or consume all of its resources, because it will be too expensive and the market isn't big enough, etc. The same naysayers often assert that instead of introducing a Full Frame dSLR, Pentax should introduce a medium format digital camera. The market for medium format is far smaller than the 35mm format last I looked, and medium format has its own established players. A medium format digital camera would be MUCH more expensive than a Full Frame 35mm format as well, so, adding it all up, it doesn't seem like this is going to be a huge seller either - if anything, far less so than a full frame 35mm. I don't get the logic. If you honestly believe that Full Frame 35mm is a mistake for Pentax, it would follow that you should think that a medium format digital is a colossal mistake.

As for whether I would go for a medium format as an upgrade from APS-C, no I would not. I have an extensive 35mm outfit and simply want to get full use of it (i.e., I'd like my digital SLR to be in the same format as my film bodies). Why would I want to start from scratch? Ditto for all of the comments regarding the suggestion that I just go to Canon or Nikon (or now Sony, I suppose). I have been a Pentax shooter since my first SLR camera, and I don't want somebody else's. I'd rather have Pentax make one.

Point that I (and others) have made is that Samsung is the company that has the resources for this. The large sensor doesn't have to be sourced on Pentax's dime at all. If you think Samsung is going to let Sony get a leg up, you don't understand the aggressiveness of this company. They invest tons into R&D and technology. Not to worry, Pentax stands to gain, not lose, by introducing its own Full Frame dSLR. The key is reducing the chip cost. Sony is supposedly going to "mass produce" their new 24x36 sensor, so I imagine they have some manufacturing improvements/cost reductions in the works as respects the sensors. Time will tell. My bet is on Samsung working hard on the same thing.

In any event, a big part of the reason for the high price of Full Frame dSLRs and the lack of price reductions over time was that there was no competition. You could have Canon or you could have...Canon. Now with Nikon and Sony pushing their way in, Canon won't be able to keep their prices in the stratosphere any more. Competition heats up, technology advances, prices are reduced, WE benefit. That is, as soon as we get one from PENTAX

Finally, if cropped formats are so advantageous (what with all of the equipment size/weight whining that goes on in support of APS-C), why aren't you folks running with open arms to Four Thirds? You would seem to be exactly what the target market is for that whole concept. If 42% of a 35mm frame is nirvana, then 26% of it should be heaven on earth!

[falconeye]

Browsing thru this thread I must say that I am a bit confused now.

I thought and actually I am still thinking that things are extremely simple:

• DSLRs are 35mm cameras, they are as large, heavy and expensive as they are because of size of bajonet, distance of bajonet from sensor, mirror swing area etc. I may add the note that a DSLR should be minimally smaller than an otherwise equal SLR. Size of sensor has virtually no impact on size of camera (VF and mirror will be slightly larger, thats all).
• DSLRs sould have FF sensors but havent for a single reason: cost of maufacture.
• DSLRs are 35mm even with 50% sensors because they had to start this way to pull people over from the SLR camp.
• If engineers would not believe that not every DSLR will become FF there would be an emerging segment of smaller "24mm" DSLRs with different bajonet. There will be no such segment, just 35mm DSLRs with FF sensors, Leica M8 type cameras with possibly smaller sensors and compacts.
• FF sensors have much better IQ, of course. Esp. in future with true 16+ bit/colour channel.
• Why the talk about 645D in here? A 645D *only* makes sense with a FF in turn which is a 240% 35mm sensor. A 645D with crop factor is ridiculous as then you are better off with a FF DSLR. The Hasselblad digital back has a crop factor of 1.2 which gives it a 200% 35mm FF sensor.
• Summary: Every DSLR will sooner or later feature FF or will have disappeared by then.

Another side note. As soon as cost of manufacture has decreased enough to not care about the sensor surface that much anymore, another legacy feature of analog cameras should disappear: the rectangular shape of the sensor. After all, the lens image is circular.

Therefore, a cross-shaped sensor (overlay shape of two rectangles and a square) is a much better choice for a sensor of a DSLR. You determine the mode (portrait/landscape) and aspect ratio (1:1, 4:3, 3:2, 16:9, 12:5) as one parameter when developping the raw image and you will have a software preselect/preview on the back.

DISCLAIMER: Should any camera maker file the cross-shaped sensor for patent I hereby declare that there was prior art as published by this very forum contribution ;-)

Eagerly awaiting my K3D with cross-shaped FF sensor

[distudio]

Finally, if cropped formats are so advantageous (what with all of the equipment size/weight whining that goes on in support of APS-C), why aren't you folks running with open arms to Four Thirds? You would seem to be exactly what the target market is for that whole concept. If 42% of a 35mm frame is nirvana, then 26% of it should be heaven on earth!

Touché ;-)

[kenyee]

Therefore, a cross-shaped sensor (overlay shape of two rectangles and a square) is a much better choice for a sensor of a DSLR. You determine the mode (portrait/landscape) and aspect ratio (1:1, 4:3, 3:2, 16:9, 12:5) as one parameter when developping the raw image and you will have a software preselect/preview on the back.

Interesting. A + shaped sensor is something I've never thought about but that does make sense that they're headed that way.

[Kunzite]

I would buy a ~2000euro FF Pentax DSLR even only for a bigger, better viewfinder. The problem is, I really don't think they could launch a 2000 euro FF DSLR; probably it would be much more expensive.
Falconeye, are you trying to say that APS-C will disappear? Because it won't. APS-C will always be cheaper, while FF sensors will still cost quite a lot.
I don't like the idea of a cross shaped sensor either. It's the worst case scenario if you want square (or near-square) crops.

[Richard Day]

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

Steve Jacob has beaten me to it in his excellent post on the other "channel"

FF demographics - marketing brief!!: Pentax SLR Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review

Maybe he should post it here?

[Richard Day]

Huh, did you get out of the wrong side of the bed or something?

Probably. Sometimes the incessent blather just over-rides my patience.

But I'm over it now!

[kenyee]

FF demographics - marketing brief!!: Pentax SLR Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review

lol.
I was hoping he might have found a real Pentax FF market analysis because I was curious what the number of users was :-P

It'll all boil down to when Pentax thinks Nikon/Canon will add FF to their D300/40D lineups (the "enthusiast" segment) because they'll try to release a competitive product 6-9 months afterwards (look at the LiveView addition for an example).
Working back from that, it takes roughly 2 years to get it to market (among other things, 1-2 months for FCC testing, 6-9 months for body development, 1yr for sensor development, 3-6 months of in-field testing, etc. for a typical consumer product).

[TaoMaas]

The reason I brought up the 645D is because a FF Pentax DSLR may or may not be somewhere down the road in Pentax's future, but Pentax has said the 645D was ready to go YESTERDAY. They were just trying to sort out the distribution details when the Hoya merger occured. So it's not like Pentax has to decide whether to invest research dollars in a FF DSLR or to develop a digital medium format. They crossed that line several years back. That's why I was asking what the criteria was for wanting a FF DSLR. If it's image quality, regardless of the price, then Pentax already has a product ready to go. But if the desire is for a DSLR that takes full advantage of the FF film lenses someone already has, as 24X36NOW has stated, then I can understand wanting a FF DSLR. For me, I don't think FF is enough of a quality jump to get all worked up over even though every lens I own except one would work with a FF DSLR. For me, the crop factor of the APS-C sensors work to may advantage as I tend to shoot more telephoto than wide angle subjects. Adjusting to APS-C is only a matter of adding one extra lens at the short end to get back into the range of the angles of view I used in 35mm film.

[JanG]

Therefore, a cross-shaped sensor (overlay shape of two rectangles and a square) is a much better choice for a sensor of a DSLR. You determine the mode (portrait/landscape) and aspect ratio (1:1, 4:3, 3:2, 16:9, 12:5) as one parameter when developping the raw image and you will have a software preselect/preview on the back.

Eagerly awaiting my K3D with cross-shaped FF sensor

I fear you might be waiting until turning the cam by 90 degrees gets more expensive than those sensors.
BTW: any objections against circular sensors? You could crop any direction you want.

Now let's leave the Hogwarts of photography and better go out shoot something with our pathetic reality cams.

Jan