[24X36NOW]

"Of course they introduced a high end model first"

Yes, of course. That's the point, and that's why the poll is pointless.

[Steelski]

The K-7 is about as high a class as one needs to go IMO, the only things missing from the K-7 are.
low sync speed.
low Dynamic range in highlights.
higher magnification OVF.
modern AF system.

Pentax have never had the fastest cameras. And I think they never will....I hope they never do. Its not a sports camera, its a field camera, its a fashion camera, its a small camera, its comfy to hold. Thats what Pentax is, andy why I stick with the system.
A high end APS-c camera will never happen! At least no higher than the K-7.
I do not want a High end APS-c camera. I would like an improved K-7.
A low end FF camera like the Sony a850 is something to consider. What would you be giving up.
Even a 96% coverage OVF is ok in FF.
the already cheap SAFOX VIII+
the body of the K20D.
Prime II like in the K-x

What I am saying is that the low end FF will never be too low end, and the high end APS-c will never be too high end.
Ofcourse, they could suprise us all.
The massive hit that is the K-x is cheap as chips. And its only real outstanding feature is its sensor. and thats at the $599 mark, with a lens.
If Sony indeed made the D700 sensor, they could soon sell it to others, think of a low end $1200 dollar FF camera like the K-x. with a High Iso chip. Or Samsung, the second largest semi conductor manufacturer in the world could end a hand.

[Art Vandelay II]

I'm a little confused about the $2500 price you chose for full frame. Sony already makes a $2000 basic full frame, and the Nikon D700 is far from basic and it is $2500. You could even make a case that the Sony A850 isn't exactly basic, it does after all have a huge prism, magnesium body, and 24mp sensor. To me a basic FF camera would be something like a $1800 full frame K20D.

[rhodopsin]

My used Canon 5D cost me US$1180 in October 2008. Still going strong; never a problem.

Remember, they are going to shock the world by selling these babies for under $1,000 according to that one unsubstantiated rumor I read on this forum.

[Art Vandelay II]

Sometimes I wonder if people realize what they are giving up with a 35mm "full frame" size sensor, when compared to APS-C:

1) Less DOF at any given aperture...

2) Less reach with telephoto lenses on a per pixel basis...

3) High ISO gains negated by DOF limitations (see #1)- OK, so at ISO 6400 on a 35mm size sensor, we can now freeze motion in dimly lit rooms at f2.0. Unfortunately, everything is bokeh except for the eye of the subject. Which leads to...

4) More demands placed upon AF systems...

I think the choice is obvious, especially given the manufacturing costs- APS-C all the way. We know these things are just going to get better, so why cling to the past? Feel free to disagree.

John

1) Great, I can never have too much DOF control, and yes, I do like to isolate single blades of grass. I have a few pics on Flickr as we speak attempting that very thing.

2) If they stopped making lenses over 135mm I wouldn't care.

3) F/2 in APS-C is pretty damn shallow as well. But what you can do with FF that you can't do with APS-C is shoot at something like ISO 12,800 at f/5.6. Either way, I don't care, if the light is that bad I see no reason to take a photo.

4) I use a manual focus camera 70% of the time. So I think its safe to say AF speed isn't much of a concern for me.

So what is obvious for you may be the exact opposite for me. Everyone has different needs

[gazonk]

1) Great, I can never have too much DOF control, and yes, I do like to isolate single blades of grass. I have a few pics on Flickr as we speak attempting that very thing.

You are a future 645D customer

[Art Vandelay II]

You are a future 645D customer

Sweet, I guess that means Pentax is going to sell me one for under $2000

[ozlizard]

With the second option, you have the benefit of increased DOF, effective larger aperture for the same FOV, smaller lenses for the same FOV from approx 35mm upwards, plus all the advanced pro features that so many have clamoured/are still clamouring for

I don't see how these features are "pro". There seems to be a tendency to define pro as someone who shoots weddings, sports, wildlife (a minority surely) and studio work. There are howver a large and increasing number of pro photographers who shoot for arts sake and sell large fine art prints. They are artists and a FF camera like the 5D M2 or the Sony a900 is what they want. All the features you specify for a compact aps-c are not necessarily useful for this type of photographer. The idiots you see walking around with 3 cameras around their neck are the tradesman of the photography world and when you think about how the word professional applies the many facets of photography the term becomes distorted. Ok rant out of the way. There should have been a third option as others have mentioned. I would be very happy to see a Pentax version of the Sony a850/900 and I think it would sell for about $2,500 initially then drop to almost sub $2,000 within 12-18 months.

[mattdm]

There are howver a large and increasing number of pro photographers who shoot for arts sake and sell large fine art prints. They are artists and a FF camera like the 5D M2 or the Sony a900 is what they want.

I'm sure there are. However, how many of those are actually making their full income that way. (I.e., are doing it as a profession)? I'd be surprised if the answer is more than a handful of hundreds worldwide -- and it's not really a winning business proposition to fight tooth-and-nail for a fragment of that tiny market.

If one can make a general-market camera that also appeals to that segment, then that's something.

[juu]

In manufacturing these days, material cost to final price ratios are around 10%. i.e. $150 worth of bits = $1500 retail. (The remainder of manufacturing costs that build up the ex-factory price are made up of all the other usual business overheads, this usually is 3 to 4 times the material costs)

The estimated cost for an APC sensor is around $40, this leaves about $90 for the rest of the materials for a K20D, if you fitted a FF sensor at $200 + $90 for the other bits you get a resale cost of $2900.

I agree with the overall premise, but I don't quite understand why the math should work that way.

Why should the manufacturing costs (material costs excluded) be $455 for the APS-C camera and $1015 for the FF camera? What if we could buy some APS-Csuper-sensor for $200 and put it in a camera leaving every other component the same? Would the manufacturing costs of that camera suddenly go up more than twice?

You also don't necessarily need nor want to run the same margins for both high-end and low-end cameras, so I have this nagging feeling the 10% rule from parts costs to retail price is a gross oversimplification.

[ma318]

All technology based companies, if they want to survive in the long run, must be mindful of possible up and coming "disruptive technology" that could completely undermine their current business model. For example, the film SLR decimated the film rangefinder market. The aps-c DSLR decimated the film SLR market, etc...

If someone can make a $200 24MP FF sensor in 2008, surely some day, someone could make it for $40 if they can figure out how to improve the yeild per silicon wafer. Improving the yeild is the only remaining obstacle.

Instead of worrying how to compete by moving up-market. I think aps-c camera makers need to worry about FF camera makers competing with them by going down-market (i.e. making progressively cheaper FF camera). A 24MP FF camera can be used as 9.2MP aps-c camera as well as a 24MP FF. FF and aps-c do not necessary have to be two mutually exclusive choices. A high enough megapixel FF camera can be used as a good enough aps-c camera.

[davidvcd]

In the near futur (read this year before summer) I would be happy with a refined and boosted K7 (like the d300 and d300s or k10/k20 but a few more differences) with a newer sensor (liquidating old K7 stocks and manufacturing the "K7s") .

This makes me want to ask how hard would it be to say... transform a current aps-c camera into a FF camera ? I know it needs to fit a bigger pentaprism and FF sensor to which it needs SR (from what I ve read is tricky).


would it be worthwhile to build up to a FF camera by briefly going through the aps-h route ?

This poll was made 2 years ago folks.

[asw66]

I didn't vote, because I think that APS-H is the sweet spot when it comes to SLR sensor sizes, in terms of price vs performance.

I know, tangential responses like this are perhaps a little irritating, so I'll offer something that might be a little closer to the OP's desired response. I personally prefer wide angle shooting with shallow DOF, so I suppose that that makes me a FF fanboy.

Having said that, I think that Pentax's strategy of occupying the high ground (MF), middle ground (APS-C) and low ground (compacts) is a smart one for a company with limited resources.

[PaddyB]

Funny how two years changes a technological landscape. In the Post-Sony A850 camera world I can now whole heartedly say "low end FF, please".

I'm sticking with the K10D and a small lens line up until Pentax releases such a thing, preferably in a 35mm sized body (enough paenis-extensions already!).

It's time that landscape photographers are able to fully enjoy the Pentax lens legacy (without having to break the bank for a 645D).

Bring on the long-awaited digital LX!!!!