Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
02-05-2008, 08:23 AM   #1
Veteran Member
Nesster's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: NJ USA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 13,047
MF APS = 35mm FF?

Just throwing the thought out there - why not combine two speculations, that of the 35mm FF sensor, and the MF camera.

A 35mm full size sensor (in a different aspect ratio) is roughly equivalent to an 'APS' size medium format sensor. So why not bring out such a camera?

(I know, I know, there's more demand and equipment out there for 35mm)

02-05-2008, 08:55 AM   #2
Pentaxian
thibs's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Belgium
Photos: Albums
Posts: 5,161
QuoteOriginally posted by Nesster Quote
Just throwing the thought out there - why not combine two speculations, that of the 35mm FF sensor, and the MF camera.

A 35mm full size sensor (in a different aspect ratio) is roughly equivalent to an 'APS' size medium format sensor. So why not bring out such a camera?

(I know, I know, there's more demand and equipment out there for 35mm)
I don't understand what you mean. If you refer to a camera using MF format (645 I suppose) but using a sensor slightly smaller than the plain 645 Format, well this is exactly what the 645D is supposed to be.
02-05-2008, 09:44 AM   #3
Veteran Member
eurostar's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Albareto, Italy
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 813
Maybe he means a camera with 24x36 sensor and 645 bayonet.
02-05-2008, 10:14 AM   #4
Veteran Member
Nesster's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: NJ USA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 13,047
Original Poster
yeah, something like that... As soon as I wrote it I realized it's a silly idea, most likely.

02-05-2008, 10:19 AM   #5
Pentaxian
thibs's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Belgium
Photos: Albums
Posts: 5,161
QuoteOriginally posted by Nesster Quote
yeah, something like that... As soon as I wrote it I realized it's a silly idea, most likely.
Happens to everyone
02-06-2008, 07:27 AM   #6
Veteran Member
eurostar's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Albareto, Italy
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 813
I don't think it's a silly idea.

So called "full frame" sensors are said to be able to reach, today, the quality of medium format films.

Sensors need large bayonet for the design of telecentric lenses.

Full frame digital cameras are very expensive and most of them are bought and used by professionals.

There are much more professionals that owns 645-mount Pentax lenses than k-mount ones.

So, I think a 24x36 sensor camera with 645 mount wouldn't be a silly idea.
02-06-2008, 07:57 AM   #7
Pentaxian




Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Bay Village, Ohio USA
Posts: 1,027
Full Frame / Medium Format

I've watched the full frame frenzy lately, and I've wondered if FF digital cameras might become the new "medium format". By that, I don't mean any particular change in the aspect ratio or lens mount, or anything like that. I mean that, just as 35mm film captured the amateur and some types of professional markets, while 120/220 cameras, such as Hasselblad and Pentax 67 and 645 were used almost exclusively by pros, might not 24 x 36 digital become the new format of choice for studio pros, with APS-C cameras continuing to dominate the amateur market?

In this scenario, APS-C would continue to be made in huge numbers, while FF would remain a low-volume, high-price market. Some of the FF fanatics have predicted that APS-C would die out, to be replaced by FF digital. I don't think that will happen. I think that FF will continue to be developed and the price will come down, but that FF will always cost 2 - 3 times what a typical APS-C SLR costs.

Full frame cameras will probably always be more expensive that apsc cameras. Given that today's cameras are largely computerized electronic devices, rather than the mechanical ones of the past, the lion's share of the production costs are in the design and testing of the circuitry and software. The actual materials cost that goes into building the camera is a much smaller part. In this world, deleting a feature doesn't lower the cost of production by much. It probably doesn't physically change the camera at all, since it is probably just a matter of deleting a menu item and the software that supports it. The problem is that the cost to develop that software has already been spent, so there's no saving there, either. So, those who have called for the digital equivalent of a K1000, are probably doomed to disappointment. Likewise, a bare-bones FF camera won't cost much less to manufacture than a full-featured one.

Paul Noble
02-06-2008, 11:25 AM   #8
Pentaxian
thibs's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Belgium
Photos: Albums
Posts: 5,161
QuoteOriginally posted by eurostar Quote
I don't think it's a silly idea.

So called "full frame" sensors are said to be able to reach, today, the quality of medium format films.

Sensors need large bayonet for the design of telecentric lenses.

Full frame digital cameras are very expensive and most of them are bought and used by professionals.

There are much more professionals that owns 645-mount Pentax lenses than k-mount ones.

So, I think a 24x36 sensor camera with 645 mount wouldn't be a silly idea.
I think that using a 24x36 sensor without gaining the lens compatitiblity of K-mount is suicide.
Also, if using a smaller than bayonet allows sensor is not stupid, the projected 645D already did that, it used a smaller sensor than 645 film format size.

It may be cool for those owning 645 lenses. But it immediately excludes anyone owning K-mount lenses the envy of upgrading...

02-07-2008, 07:31 AM   #9
Veteran Member
eurostar's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Albareto, Italy
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 813
Sure, but my question is if a 3000$ camera interests most to 645lens owners or K-lens owners.

Also, since Pentax has been able to squeeze 14megapixel in an APS-C sensors, with a better quality than a 10MP one, wouldn't be better to have a high quality, relatively cheap 24x36 sensor than a 36x48 from Kodak VERY expensive in the professional camera with 645mount.
02-07-2008, 08:00 AM   #10
Veteran Member
mattdm's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Boston, MA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,964
QuoteOriginally posted by thibs Quote
I think that using a 24x36 sensor without gaining the lens compatitiblity of K-mount is suicide.
Also, if using a smaller than bayonet allows sensor is not stupid, the projected 645D already did that, it used a smaller sensor than 645 film format size.

It may be cool for those owning 645 lenses. But it immediately excludes anyone owning K-mount lenses the envy of upgrading...
So, they could make a K-mount adapter.
02-07-2008, 09:02 AM   #11
Pentaxian
thibs's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Belgium
Photos: Albums
Posts: 5,161
QuoteOriginally posted by eurostar Quote
Sure, but my question is if a 3000$ camera interests most to 645lens owners or K-lens owners.

Also, since Pentax has been able to squeeze 14megapixel in an APS-C sensors, with a better quality than a 10MP one, wouldn't be better to have a high quality, relatively cheap 24x36 sensor than a 36x48 from Kodak VERY expensive in the professional camera with 645mount.
Or make themselves the needed "645" sensor but then Samsung has no interest at all in this and would be reluctant (or be nicely paid for it).
But maybe Samsung will have interest for 'FF' in a couple months/years...
02-07-2008, 09:03 AM   #12
Pentaxian
thibs's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Belgium
Photos: Albums
Posts: 5,161
QuoteOriginally posted by mattdm Quote
So, they could make a K-mount adapter.
Not sure it is easily doable.
645 and 67 lenses are inter operable but if you can't use a 645 lens on a K mount body with any sort of electrical or mchenical linkage, I do not see why iy would be easier to do the opposite ...
02-07-2008, 09:50 AM   #13
Pentaxian
falconeye's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Munich, Alps, Germany
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,862
QuoteOriginally posted by thibs Quote
Not sure it is easily doable.
645 and 67 lenses are inter operable but if you can't use a 645 lens on a K mount body with any sort of electrical or mchenical linkage, I do not see why iy would be easier to do the opposite ...
For a 645-to-K adaptor, no optical element is needed for the 645 image circle is larger and the flange to film distance longer. This does not hold true in the opposite sense.

So, if Pentax would care about 645 in combination with a 24x36 sensor, at all, they would build a 645-to-K adaptor with electrical and mechanical linkage to make them function like FA rather than M lenses. A 645D with a 24x36 sensor is silly indeed.
02-07-2008, 10:18 AM   #14
Senior Member




Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Sweden
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 182
QuoteOriginally posted by falconeye Quote
For a 645-to-K adaptor, no optical element is needed for the 645 image circle is larger and the flange to film distance longer. This does not hold true in the opposite sense.

So, if Pentax would care about 645 in combination with a 24x36 sensor, at all, they would build a 645-to-K adaptor with electrical and mechanical linkage to make them function like FA rather than M lenses. A 645D with a 24x36 sensor is silly indeed.
They could sort out the compatibility by having a moving sensor that moves forward when using K-lenses. Issue is with the mirror. BUt if they decide not to use the mirror for one of the lense types, it could be done. Only live view if you use K-mount, full SLR if you use 645....
02-07-2008, 10:38 AM   #15
Senior Member




Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Kansas City, MO
Posts: 174
Not sure it makes sense.

It is my understanding that modern medium format digital cameras are designed to surpass medium format film in resolution as well as being able to handle a wider scene contrast range than even the best APS-C or 24x36 digital cameras (but less high ISO capability and speed). This is the new expectation for professionals that want the best image quality and can spend the money.

Not sure that a 24x36 sensor could compete in this arena. If Pentax eventually does a 24x36 digital with K-mount I would guess adapters would be available for Pentax medium format lenses. This would probably make more sense.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
35mm, camera, mf, pentax news, pentax rumors, sensor, size
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
35mm / APS-C - sophotec Troubleshooting and Beginner Help 20 05-23-2010 01:07 PM
Question regarding 35mm vs APS-C boodiespost Troubleshooting and Beginner Help 7 12-10-2009 11:02 AM
Comparison: 35mm, APS-C (lots of pics) zplus Pentax DSLR Discussion 36 09-08-2009 10:20 AM
Comparison - APS-C, 35mm, 645MedFmt architorture Pentax DSLR Discussion 13 06-01-2009 04:04 AM
Good, fast, 35mm... is it not there yet for the APS-C? Andi Lo Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 14 04-17-2009 04:28 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:14 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top