[alexfoto]

It is estimated that an APS sensor cost is around 20% that of a FF sensor

I think the actual price of the FF have no sense at all even in the case the product paid 40 % (there isn't only a sensor more big, but also a viewfinder more big, while the rest i don't think there are other major change on the camera so i don't think the question must be between a basic FF and a super aps-c. The electronics is the same.).

For my needs i would like more a FF rather then an aps-c because even with a 1.5x for me isn't sufficient for nature without using a big (heavy and expensive) long lens (or opt for olypmus with a 2.x).
With a crop in many cases (even if there are exceptions) is possible overcame this problem.
While if you can'use flash (unfortunately this happen in many circumstances) it isn't useful have a super aps-c.

Clearly i speak about print large quality photo.

[Art Vandelay II]

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".

Not only that we currently have thee full frame cameras all at or under $2500; and neither the 5D Mk II or D700 are hardly what I would classify as low end. In my mind a low end full frame camera would be something like either a full frame Nikon D90 or a K20D. Something like that would have to be $1500-1800 in the post-A850 world. Further, a full frame camera like that would put a real hurting on a $1400 APS-C camera even if the APS-C is better spec'd.

[artemapei]

nikon d700 is almost a top level pro cam with ff - under $2500. why couldn't pentax do the same?
I think FF camera will be $300-400 more expencive that the same level crop in some years...

[the swede]

I voted APS-C, because: I think the base of buyers is bigger within the amateur/enthousiast/hobbyist area. I am one of those. Lets call them "we".

We, probably have children, daily jobs, loans on house and car, and a wife that just wouldnt agree to buying a Pro camera. We are the bigger mass of buyers.

Ging FF is starting all over, and probably cutting down on the APS-C side and the DA lenses side.

"Starting over"
Ok, there is old lenses for FA....but new buyers and pros dont want to buy old lenses. The want 3 new pro spec lenses to go with their new FF, and they want it NOW in the package.

And why the hell should they make a cheaper FF camera??? People going FF have high demands on the gear and i can not see Pentax building a competitive FF camera in the same level as Canikon already have.

Pentax IS acctually on the path to be the best in APS-C, and i would strongly recomend them continuing on that path.

This solutions is good.
One entry level line (K-x)
One mid range line (K-7, Limited DA lenses, better DA* lenses)
One "enthousiast" line like 645 MF, wich will be a small quantity line with pro spec lenses.

And i also want them to make the mid range line more advanced!

PS. im not a very loyal Pentaxian realy. I have changed systems before and wouldnt hesitate to do it again whatever brand. Pentax lured me over from Canon with the K-7.

I havent seen another brand coming up with such a good package yet though
I guess im stuck with Pentax

[Blue]

You should have included APS-H in your poll to keep things interesting.

[16N64]

First some basic facts.

In manufacturing these days, material cost to final price ratios are around 10%. i.e. $150 worth of bits = $1500 retail.

where did you get the numbers from?

My company also builds consumer electronics, so I don't believe this ratio.

Stefan

[robgo2]

Richard,

Do you or anyone else have information regarding the profitability of medium format digital cameras and camera backs? I participate in the Capture One forum, and a sizable proportion of the members shoot with Phase One backs. Of course, this is what one might expect, given that Phase One owns Capture One, but I still wonder what the current and potential market is for MF digital cameras.

Rob

[Nass]

Richard,

Do you or anyone else have information regarding the profitability of medium format digital cameras and camera backs? I participate in the Capture One forum, and a sizable proportion of the members shoot with Phase One backs. Of course, this is what one might expect, given that Phase One owns Capture One, but I still wonder what the current and potential market is for MF digital cameras.

Rob

Basic rule of thumb is the higher spec the camera the more profitability. P&S are just commodities with very little margin. Toplevel Dslr has I think 20-30% margin. I believe 645 is even higher but I have no facts to base it on.

Also, I don't agree with this 10:1 assertion either.

[Mohawk]

You should have included APS-H in your poll to keep things interesting.

I was thinking the same thing.

But are DA/DA* image circles large enough for APS-H (and free from associated vignetting)?

[asdf]

I was thinking the same thing.

But are DA/DA* image circles large enough for APS-H (and free from associated vignetting)?

For the billionth time, the image circles cover 35mm film, in the case of DA* 55, 200, 300, 60-250. Corner performance and vignetting will be worse, but it is also worse with FA lenses.

[ghelary]

For the billionth time, the image circles cover 35mm film, in the case of DA* 55, 200, 300, 60-250. Corner performance and vignetting will be worse, but it is also worse with FA lenses.

DA/DA* are rated for APSC, that's it, no APS-H of any sort. Tests have been made on film. As a rule of thumb any lens above 50mm will do fine, any lens under is already showing heavy vigneting.

My guess is that when Pentax will release a FF (no speculation on when here), they will release a compatibility matrix, no worse than Nikon or Leica here.

Regards,
Guillaume

[farfisa]

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.

This thread is over 2 years old, that should explain a lot!

[Blue]

For the billionth time, the image circles cover 35mm film, in the case of DA* 55, 200, 300, 60-250. Corner performance and vignetting will be worse, but it is also worse with FA lenses.

My comment was some what joking and somewhat serious (hence the). However, why do you think the DA lenses will be worse on an aps-h than full frame sensor? Why can't a compatibility matrix not work on an aps-h the same as a full frame? Frankly, I think the DA lenses wold all perform better on an h sensor than a ff one. Then again, maybe they should just pop 2 aps-c sensors in there. Or better yet, put out a body that can have the sensor replace regardless of size!

Edit: BTW, FA lenses were made for full frame so why would they vignett on an H when the don't on a C?

This thread is over 2 years old, that should explain a lot!

But why start another one of these threads?

[Blue]

I was thinking the same thing.

But are DA/DA* image circles large enough for APS-H (and free from associated vignetting)?

No, that was just wishful thinking on my part. Here is a good discussion over on Dip.com

APS-H clarifications and a comment: Pentax SLR Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review

I think it would have been a good strategy if the Pentax engineers had thought this through with the DA series when they designed them.
Remember their have been rumors of Pentax using an H all the way back to just prior to the release of the K20d.

[ghelary]

No, that was just wishful thinking on my part. Here is a good discussion over on Dip.com

APS-H clarifications and a comment: Pentax SLR Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review

I think it would have been a good strategy if the Pentax engineers had thought this through with the DA series when they designed them.
Remember their have been rumors of Pentax using an H all the way back to just prior to the release of the K20d.

Well, I can agree that standardized size of sensor don't make much sense apart from lens design. Funny enough, Canon seems to stick to FF for their "pro" line. I guess the crop factor is not that important for their customer base (sport, journalists, fashion)

Anyway, I'm pretty certain that APS-H would be a stupid move for Pentax (if they even find a sensor available) on a marketing side, people dream about FF not "bigger than APSC" so APS-H would still be "smaller than FF", whatever is the performance of the sensor.

Regards,
Guillaume