[Richard Day]

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).

Okay, here are some stats from a recognised international market survey comapny (I can't reveal their name, it's supposed to be confidential) for 2005 and 2006, I don't have 2007, probably not available yet.

Europe (Entry = <800 Euro, Mid = 801-2000 Euro, Pro = >2000 Euro)
2005 - E = 62.2%, M = 34.2%, P = 3.6%
2006 - E = 76.4%, M = 21%, P = 2.6%

USA (E = <$800, M = $801-$2600, P = >$2600)
2005 - E = 50.5%, M = 48.4%, P = 1.1%
2006 - E = 50.1%, M = 48.7%, P = 1.2%

From that, I guess you can see why Pentax are doing what they are doing.

There is only one FF body below the Pro rating and though it has a FF sensor, it cannot be considered a Pro spec body at all. I would speculate that the bulk of the pro-spec sales are mainly 1D mkII and D2x, neither of which are FF. From the above I would say that the FF pro market is considerably under 1%.

Anyone thinking that Pentax could make even a semi-pro spec body with a FF sensor (they don't want to make a consumer spec body with a FF sensor) under $2600 is daydreaming.

My money is on it being a pro-grade APS-C body for less than $2600, Yeah baby!

[Edit]
The CIPA forecast for overall DSLR market share for 2008 is - Europe 37.3%, USA+Canada 30.7%, Japan 13.1%, ROW 18.9%.

---

Last edited by Richard Day; 02-02-2008 at 09:52 AM. Reason: Added CIPA forecast

[d.bradley]

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!

Gawd. More flame bait. This is just one example of the kind of abstraction that doesn't make cogent arguments. I enjoyed one piece of candy, so eating a wheelbarrow full would be a great idea.

You've made the same arguments and argumentative fallacies over and over in this thread and in others. It's tiresome.

Here's an idea. Go get an LX and a good film scanner and use your FF lenses to their full capacity. Get a K20D and use the DA lenses to their full capacity.

I don't understand your attachment to Pentax either. If you have nice lenses, they'll sell for a lot these days. I'm sure you can find used nikon or canon gear that would be equally impressive, whatever the lens. Do you have a 600/4 or something that keeps you in this camp, or can you justify your pentax loyalty at all? It's dangerous (and IMHO a waste of everyone's time, including your own) to be BOTH blindly loyal to and hypercritical of a company.

Lets say pentax releases a FF DSLR in 2 years. By my rough estimate, you will have written 6823 posts and roughly 40982342 words arguing with others over the merits of FF. Meanwhile, the rest of us have left pentax forums because of repetitive, meaningless banter and spent our time creating a wonderful portfolio of photographs with whatever size of imaging device makes us happy.

[falconeye]

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?

A circular sensor is the idea. The most economic approximation however is a shape which is able to tile the wafer entirely. One such shape is an 48mm octagon with 4 edges (horizontal, vertical) of 12mm each and 4 edges (at 45 degree) of 25.5mm each. It covers all of the formats 36x24, 24x36, 30x30, 42x18, 18x42 mm. Its area/cost is 192% of FF (36x24).

I agree that turning the cam can be pretty cheap. However, silicon may ultimatively be cheaper.

I only wanted to highlight that current DSLRs carry more legacy thinking from the analogue era than one does commonly realize.

[falconeye]

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 think APS-C will disappear the way 5 1/4" floppies did -- slowly but for sure. Simple reason: FF sensors only have benefits (for a 35mm DSLR) with a single disadvantage: higher cost of manufacture. If sensor cost would be *that* dominant, why not go for 18x12 mm sensors with 2x crop factor in the entry level? Because it never was. The most economic crop factor is a function of time and it will become 1.0 or better, sooner or later. When? I don't know. But not more than 10 years ahead. Will there still be DSLRs then? Yes, because of all those lenses...

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.

Maybe, the term cross shaped sensor is misleading then. What I meant was an overlay of all rectangles giving, in fact, more an octogon shape than a cross shape (see my other reply). It would contain a 30x30 mm crop (using 98% of the circular lens image) which you cannot get from current FF sensors. So, it's actually a best-case scenario if you want square (or near-square) crops. But is also allows for 42x18mm crops (using 106% of the circular lens image). Which is why I called it cross-shaped in the first place.

[Confused]

Hi all

Imagine the following scenario.......it's coming to the end of the monthly meeting and as the MD of Hoya, you are naturally seated at the top of the board-room table, surrounded by your various Heads of Department.

MD: "Gentlemen, is there any other business which we need wish to discuss, before I bring this meeting to a close ?"

Head of Marketing (standing up nervously): "Well Sir, I propose that we go ahead and release our latest Full-Frame DSLR body to the marketplace immediately"

MD: "Forgive me for asking, but precisely what percentage of the gross profit margin is this move likely to contribute to our annual turnover ?"

Head of Marketing: "Oh, I should say roughly about 1.2%, sir"

MD: "Well that sounds like a tremendous idea. I'm sure this will go down well with all the stock markets around the world. We should be able to shift bucket-loads of these Full-Frame cameras to well-heeled Pentax enthusiasts and the other 99.8% of the market will surely follow suit. What did those tourists ever want with all those stupid little point-and-shoots anyway ? May I take this opportunity of proposing an immediate vote on this matter. Those in favour, say aye, those against, say naye. I see, well that appears to be a unanimous decision in favour. So I believe that concludes our business for the day. Thank you Gentlemen".

Hoya's MD exits swiftly from the boardroom, takes the elevator to the top of the building and then hurls himself off the top to save the inevitable embarrassment a year down the line, when the receivers are called in !

Best regards
Richard

[Kunzite]

Falconeye, now the cheapest FF DSLR is 2100$, while the cheapest APS-C DSLRs are around 400-450$. Quite a difference, don't you think?
For now, the APS-C seems to be the best compromise; it's cheap so no point in going for a smaller crop and it has more than enough quality for most people.
Well, I may buy a 2000$ FF DSLR from Pentax instead of a cheaper APS-C, if only for a better viewfinder (side note: if Pentax could put a better/bigger viewfinder on a future APS-C DSLR, that would be great too). But I think a first Pentax FF DSLR will be more expensive than that, probably quite close to 4000$. Are you prepared to pay that kind of money? How many people would do that?

OK, so it's not really a cross. Nice idea, but I'm afraid there are some problems which will prevent us to see such sensor.
First, those sensors must fit on a wafer. It's easy to cut rectangular sensors (no space wasted except for the edge); with a strangely-shaped sensor you'll just waste space. An hexagonal sensor should still work OK.
Then, how will affect this the rest of the camera (I'm only talking about SLRs)? The mirror must be bigger, and I'm not sure it'll be fit within the registration distance; the viewfinder also must be bigger, with some way to show the currently selected crop.
Sorry, I think it's a good idea but a little bit impractical.

[*isteve]

Hi all

Imagine the following scenario.......it's coming to the end of the monthly meeting and as the MD of Hoya, you are naturally seated at the top of the board-room table, surrounded by your various Heads of Department.

MD: "Gentlemen, is there any other business which we need wish to discuss, before I bring this meeting to a close ?"

Head of Marketing (standing up nervously): "Well Sir, I propose that we go ahead and release our latest Full-Frame DSLR body to the marketplace immediately"

MD: "Forgive me for asking, but precisely what percentage of the gross profit margin is this move likely to contribute to our annual turnover ?"

Head of Marketing: "Oh, I should say roughly about 1.2%, sir"

MD: "Well that sounds like a tremendous idea. I'm sure this will go down well with all the stock markets around the world. We should be able to shift bucket-loads of those Full-Frame cameras to well-heeled Pentax enthusiasts and the other 99.8% of the market will surely follow suit. What did those tourists ever want with all those stupid little point-and-shoots anyway ? May I take this opportunity of proposing an immediate vote on this matter. Those in favour, say aye, those against, say naye. I see, well that appears to be a unanimous decision in favour. So I believe that concludes our business for the day. Thank you Gentlemen".

Hoya's MD exits swiftly from the boardroom, takes the elevator to the top of the building and then hurls himself off the top to save the inevitable embarrassment a year down the line, when the receivers are called in !

Best regards
Richard

LOL thats bl**dy funny and right on the nail.

[Confused]

Hi *isteve

One does one's best to keep things in perspective, whilst attempting to maintain a certain sense of humour !

Best regards
Richard

[wasupdoc]

If the market demands it, Pentax/Samsung will produce it, or go out of business. That is beyond debate. Of course, right now, the market clearly is not demanding FF, so the company reps can probably honestly say they have no plans for a FF camera (but I bet they have contingency plans for just such a camera - just in case the market does indeed demand it). Market demand is partially determined by the consumer, partially by the camera makers. Camera makers are still riding the Megapixel myth. It seems too soon to say if any of the other technologies will replace it as the main selling point (live view, video, ?). If Megapixels continue to be the main selling point, then in the dslr world it is inevitable that sensors larger than APSc will move further down the chain, eventually showing up in the entry level segment. Maybe the sensor of the D3 costs $1500 to produce now (I doubt it is that much), but if you had the capacity to make enough to put in the D60x, economies of scale would drive the price down to a few hundred$. A D60 APSc at $699 vs. a D60x FF for $500 more changes the whole debate. Right now the manufacturers don't have the capacity to make enough FF sensors to put in a hypothetical D60x, so it is not possible to reduce the price enough to make it desirable to even the mid-level buyer, but if and when the capacity increases, the price will drop dramatically. Whether or not this will ever happen depends on if consumer demand for dslrs remains strong. Right now much of the demand is from consumers who don't know that they are getting no better photos from their dslr than they would from any competent P&S. If they were to realize this, and demand for dslrs dropped off dramatically, then the likelihood of an entry level or mid-level FF dslr diminishes greatly.

It is silly at this point to try and predict when it will happen, but it seems certain that FF is here to stay, that the highend and some upper mid-level cameras from most manufactures will be FF in the near future, and that those with large investments in APSc lenses need to follow the trends carefully and make their buying and selling decisions with these thoughts in mind. I am still going to buy some APSc glass, but not so much that it makes replacing them with FF equivalents a painful experience.

[Marcus]

Intersting post on the other forum:

Apparantly, Thom Hogan has confirmed that Nikon WILL be using Sony's 24 MP sensor in their new FF camera. He has already obtanied that information.

This may mean nothing for Pentax FF, but just something to chew on.

[falconeye]

Falconeye, now the cheapest FF DSLR is 2100$, while the cheapest APS-C DSLRs are around 400-450$. Quite a difference, don't you think?
For now, the APS-C seems to be the best compromise

Kunzite, thanks for sharing your opinion about my unusual propositions. I actually agree to what you say. However, it applies to now and here rather than than the future. What you say is APS-C seems to be the best compromise today and I do actually agree. What I say is that FF and beyond will be the best compromise at some point in the future.

BTW, may I note that in the early days of DSLR, Olympus with their 4/3 system choose a crop factor of 2.0 rather than 1.5 (separate bajonet, though) but this choice isn't discussed today anymore (except by Olympus, of course).

OK, so it's not really a cross. Nice idea, but I'm afraid there are some problems which will prevent us to see such sensor.
First, those sensors must fit on a wafer. It's easy to cut rectangular sensors (no space wasted except for the edge); with a strangely-shaped sensor you'll just waste space. An hexagonal sensor should still work OK.

This is why I made "my" sensor an octagon close to a hexagon shape. There would be little wasted space.

The mirror must be bigger, and I'm not sure it'll be fit within the registration distance; the viewfinder also must be bigger, with some way to show the currently selected crop.
Sorry, I think it's a good idea but a little bit impractical.

I noticed that. However, I would leave a purely optical mirror / VF as is and only add these features to LiveView and an electronic-assisted VF. Again, I am talking future here where sensor area is cheap compared to the rest of a DSLR...

I probably already discussed this idea too far anyway now. I just wanted to make one single, simple point: DSLRs are not restricted by the restrictions to fit a 35mm film transport anymore and could make better use of the circular lense image than currently shaped sensors, even if they become FF. This is self-evident. The rest was just carrying this evidence a little further, for the sake of entertaining the forum audience.

[falconeye]

but it seems certain that FF is here to stay, that the highend and some upper mid-level cameras from most manufactures will be FF in the near future, and that those with large investments in APSc lenses need to follow the trends carefully and make their buying and selling decisions with these thoughts in mind.

Well said. This is exactly what I wanted to say. Because lenses live long one must not ignore what sensor sizes will be in the future.

This brings up an obvious question:
How much more difficult actually is it to build a DFA lens rather than a DA lens? I easily believe that the difference can be huge for very short lengths but what about tele lenses then? E.g., why does Pentax announce a DA* 300mm f/4.0 rather than a FDA* 300mm f/4.0?

EDIT.

Just found the following at Pentax Lens/Camera Compatibility - Mark Roberts Photography:

The DA 70mm f/2.4 Limited, DA 40mm f/2.8 Limited, DA*200mm f/2.8, DA*300mm f/4.0 and DA 35mm f/2.8 Macro are full-frame lenses. However, some of the other DA lenses (mostly the shorter focal lengths) are known to produce image circles that are too small to be used with full-frame cameras.

So, does anybody know why, e.g., the new! DA*300mm f/4.0 isn't called D-FA*300mm f/4.0 ?

[thePiRaTE!!]

...

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?

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.

Ironically, aside from assuming the APS-C and a FF sensor would be the equivalent in MP (your assumption) rather than pixel density (my assumption) I think we're both right.

Regarding focal length being the focal length on the lens, thats what I'm saying too. I'm not sure how we're even at odds on this point.

I guess one thing you said I'm not sure about, enlighten me further if I'm off - using a 200mm lens on APS-C gives the _perspective_ of a 300 on FF. However, the picture you take will still only look like a 200mm on a FF, except it will be missing all the peripheral content the larger sensor would have captured. It will not provide the actual magnification that a 300mm lens would have, regardless of the sensor size (as you pointed, sensor size has nothing to do with it.) Simply put, with a larger sensor of equivalent density, you are simply getting more image to work with. If you want the magnification of a 300mm lens, you always need a 300mm lens. reducing the sensor size does not make a 200mm lens into a 300mm lens, it just reduces the amount of image captured by half (thus bring the _perspective_ not performance) on par with a 300. Am I wrong?

If I AM wrong, then I wouldn't bother to change if given the option. It is my understanding that the above is true, that is why I would entertain a FF sensor purchase. Anyone?

THanks!

Kelly.

[falconeye]

Am I wrong?

Hi thePiRaTE,

you are totally right. Of course, we must assume both the same pixel density for the sensor and the same MTF (resolution) for the lenses. Otherwise, we would compare apples with oranges. The very best 35mm lenses (ZEISS, Leica) are able to deliver about >100 MPixels while most lenses in use are inferior to 20MPixels (assuming full frame).

Now take as resolution the smaller of the two measures, (1) lens resolution and, (2) sensor resolution. Then, a 300mm FF image gives you 125% more information (more pixels or whatever) than a 200mm APS-C image. The images will look the same until you need maximum detail. Denying this would mean denying that middle format cameras can deliver better IQ than 35mm.

[*isteve]

Hi thePiRaTE,

you are totally right. Of course, we must assume both the same pixel density for the sensor and the same MTF (resolution) for the lenses. Otherwise, we would compare apples with oranges. The very best 35mm lenses (ZEISS, Leica) are able to deliver about >100 MPixels while most lenses in use are inferior to 20MPixels (assuming full frame).

Now take as resolution the smaller of the two measures, (1) lens resolution and, (2) sensor resolution. Then, a 300mm FF image gives you 125% more information (more pixels or whatever) than a 200mm APS-C image.

No, it will not. If both sensors have 12MP then both images will have 12MP of information.

A five minute search on Google will get you the formula for overall system resolution!

SOny A700 (12MP APSC camera) from DPReview

Absolute res

Hi thePiRaTE,
The images will look the same until you need maximum detail. Denying this would mean denying that middle format cameras can deliver better IQ than 35mm.

MF cameras using FILM yes. Can't you get the difference? A given film emulsion had the SAME grain density whether it was MF of 35mm therefore a MF negative has far more grains overall. But we are talking about 2 sensors with the SAME number of photosites, therefore the smaller sensor has a higher resolution! At the end of the day you still get 12MP from both cameras assuming lenses that are decently sharp.

But even then its not so simple. Lens resolution for an APS dedicated lens can be higher than for a FF lens because it does not have to cover such a wide circle and requires less correction for spherical aberation. Check Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS - Test Report / Review for resolution figures for Canons new APSC kit lens vs one of their top FF primes. Its actually higher even though its a cheap little zoom.

Youll also find the same generally happens if you compare the newer Pentax DA zooms against the older FA zooms. More resolution. Its not because they are higher quality its just easier to design lenses for smaller image circles.

And finally, because the sensor resolution is so much higher, APSC sensors can generally get away with slightly weaker AA filter which makes them sharper on a per-pixel basis.