[*isteve]

you cant compare film size vs sensor size, they are not the same thing

its the pixel count

i can make a sensor thats twice the size of a 35mm negative but it will have 3 (thats THREE) pixels on it....... you go and enlarge that... LOL

Its really very sad, Anastigmat campaigns endlessly for FF and yet hasn't actually got a clue why especially if he thinks the sensor's physical size relates to resolution!

[falconeye]

its the pixel count
i can make a sensor thats twice the size of a 35mm negative but it will have 3 (thats THREE) pixels on it....... you go and enlarge that... LOL

I recommend you a 12 MPixel P&S. Should serve you perfectly

[twinda1]

... FF and MF advocates are living in the past. It's 2008! If Pentax/Samsung do release FF or MF cameras, it'll be for marketing reasons, not photographic reasons. You'll soon be stuck with a proverbial, over-sized lemon.
So today, buy APS-C from Pentax as they improve this sensor size, until they replace it with a multiple sensor lens 'system'. FF or MF, if they ever happend will be a short-term dead-end. If you "NEED" FF today, switch companies and stop posting on this forum. Soon, you will ask what kind of processor is in your camera, and how many lenses it has, not what the size of the sensor is. We'll be looking back at DSLRs like we now look at 70's muscle cars. Kids will make fun of you and your non-3D HUGE camera.

Oh, the humanity...

[Matjazz]

Myth? The K10D APS-C sensor measures 23.5mm x 15.7mm. Flip it to "portrait" and put TWO of them side by side and you have 23.5mm x 31.4mm, and you still haven't covered a 35mm frame. APS-C is less than half the size of 35mm. No myth there. The 35mm sensor is 1.5X larger in each of two dimensions, making it (as you indicated) actually 2.25x as large, not 1.5x as large. Sounds more like an APS-C myth than a FF myth.

APS-C is 1.5x scaled down compared to FF. Try scaling up 150% a 240x160 picture and it becomes 360x240. You can also ask any engineer, designer or architect what scale is.

[falconeye]

I herewith provide genuine information from a roundtable discussion.

It was published by German "fotoMAGAZIN 4/2008" and I give the answers to question #1 (out of 9) from participants Pentax and Samsung (from 7, the other 5 were Canon, Leica, Nikon, Olympus, Sony).

Question:
"What sensor format (FourThirds, APS, Full Frame) will play the major role in the years to come?"

Answer Gabriele Remmers, Marketing Communications Manager Imaging systems Division Pentax Europe:
"The APS format has already established as the suitable format for the mass-market. We believe that this format will continue to determine the majority of the SLR market. This is why Pentax will, of course, bed onto sensors of the APS format. On the other hand, the Full Frame format will not be able to establish itself in the mass-market because of reasons of cost."

Answer Ernst Thürnau, Marketing Manager Samsung Opto-Electronics:
"The terms APS and Full Frame have been established in the heads of users since the times of analog film photography. They represent quality, maybe good old quality. In any case they are known terms and have a decisive advantage over the FourThirds format -- and if in people's perception alone."

[Translation: myself]


I see a subtle difference in the two answers: Pentax says no to FF whereas Samsung says both are better than FourThirds.

By this, Samsung admits that the form factor does play a role for market success and that in the future, it may be that only FF stands for "good old quality" (which IMHO is the case already today).


My conclusion: Samsung will urge Pentax into making a FF body.

Disclaimer: both representants may have no clue about what they have been talking about...

BTW, everybody else except Olympus was positive about FF. And you won't want to read Olympus statement



P.S.
Could everybody please refrain from the usual emotions
After all, it is a simple engineering question balancing cost vs. image quality.

[mutley]

Olympus' 70-300mm zoom is a rebadged Sigma. You can get the same lens for less than $350 if it has a Sigma label on it instead of an Olympus label.

Wow, I didn't realize that! The photos I've seen seem so much sharper than anything I've seen the Sigma APO produce including the one I had, (though the Sigma is low on PF - even on the K10D sensor). My Tamron is much sharper, but does have a bit of PF.

Even though the APO Sigma doesn't seem too sharp under the Sigma label (compared to the Tamron, etc.), its lack of PF shows that it is possible to design lenses for Pentax that don't have PF.

Obviously this means that eliminating PF is just not an important consideration to Pentax when designing lenses.

[24X36NOW]

APS-C is 1.5x scaled down compared to FF. Try scaling up 150% a 240x160 picture and it becomes 360x240. You can also ask any engineer, designer or architect what scale is.

I never metioned "scale" and neither did you in your prior posts; you were talking about the relative size, and the size of a 35mm frame is 2.25x the size of an APS-C frame.

[TomE]

With a FF sensor the cost of quality lenses will be extremely high if they are to be sharp all the way to the edge, just ask Canon FF shooters about that. With APS the reverse is true, where lenses that I found to be soft on the edge (Pentax A200mm f/4) is extremely sharp all the way to the edge with my K10D.

Tom

[Matjazz]

I never metioned "scale" and neither did you in your prior posts; you were talking about the relative size, and the size of a 35mm frame is 2.25x the size of an APS-C frame.

A 21" monitor is 1,4x the size, 1,96x the surface and 2,74x the volume of 15" monitor. Size doesn't refer to surface or volume. I used term scale and scaling to point what size and resizing means (for those that don't know). Once again try resizing (actual name of function) a 240x160 pic by 150% and you get 360x240 pic with 2,25x more pixels. The difference in relative size of the two is 1.5x.

[falconeye]

Can Matjazz and 24X36NOW please continue this by PM?

[Matjazz]

Can Matjazz and 24X36NOW please continue this by PM?

Of course

[24X36NOW]

With a FF sensor the cost of quality lenses will be extremely high if they are to be sharp all the way to the edge, just ask Canon FF shooters about that. With APS the reverse is true, where lenses that I found to be soft on the edge (Pentax A200mm f/4) is extremely sharp all the way to the edge with my K10D.

Tom

I think you've been reading too much camera magazine/web propaganda from sources that, at least in part, are always "pushing product," i.e., trying to convince you of the "need" for new lenses. Larger formats are less demanding on lens resolution, not more demanding. The Pentax A200 F4 was designed to cover a much bigger image circle, and that's the only reason you don't see softening of edge sharpness. The edge sharpness won't be any more an issue with FF digital than it was with 35mm film, and stopping down (just as I've always done anyway) will eliminate all of the supposed "issues" anyway; if you had good lenses before, they're not going to be "bad" just because you switched to digital. See the following study that shows how even old film era lenses on a full frame body beat the latest, greatest "made for digital" lens on a crop body:

The Full-Frame Advantage

[falconeye]

Larger formats are less demanding on lens resolution, not more demanding.

I think I made a statement based on manufacturer statements about this in my post #15 in this thread.

In essence it was: larger image circles lead to slightly lower absolute resolution figures (lp/mm) which are far outweigthed by total resolution (effective MPixels).


A good normal length FF lens will be somewhat more expensive because at the same length/aperture it has to project more light onto the sensor surface. But it will probably pay off.

Wide angle lenses (when divided by crop) however are more expensive to build for the smaller sensor (because it is more difficult to bridge the too big mirror cage (12mm APS-C more expensive than 18mm FF).

Tele lenses in turn are normally FF anyway, even if labelled DA...


So, one may prefer FF for wide angle and tele. And a compact APS-C with DA 40mm for the pocket

[PDL]

Look at what happens to a 135 format digital camera. As the sensor gets bigger, the requirement for more power increases. The fps will fall - unless either the number of processors is increased (C*non uses two processors on the latest incarnation, N*kon has better CPU designers). The larger number of pixels requires more processing power (think batteries and heat) more memory (batteries and heat) or slower processors and limited memory --> slower fps and smaller batteries. Remember all the b*tching when the K10D came out (oh boy this thing is too big, too heavy --- oh whoa is me my poor neck === etc. etc.) Now, some users want 135 format sensors, intuitive AF, high fps and they want it for $200 USD. Get a grip.

The D3 is 3 US pounds - with battery and no lens. It sucks power at high fps like a 68 Delta 88, same with the C*non high end model.

The resolution of a sensor is related to the size of the pixels, not the size of the sensor. The C*anon 5D is 12MP - the D3 is also 12MP - the K20D is 14.6MP. Now the 5D and D3 are using 135 format sensors and the K20D is APS-C. More pixels per mm ==> more resolution --- duh!

However, resolution is only part of the equation - and no, I will not get into the argument over linear measurements and the relationship to area.

Ah what the heck.
sensor one = 1 cm square. Area is 1cm squared == 1 square cm
sensor two = 2 cm square. Area is 2cm squared == 4 square cm
sensor three = 4 cm square. Ares is 4cm squared == 16 square cm
Basic math - no 1.5 or 2.35 - just a basic understanding that if you increase the dimensions of an object - the calculations of area (what we are really interested in) is not as simple as multiplying by some magic number pulled out of the ether.

Back in the old days it was much simpler - Plus-X had the same resolution at the sensor level, the halide crystals were the same size (hence resolving power) at 110, 126, 135, 6x6 or 4x5. Digital makes me really worry about the craft of photography - just try spending more time behind the viewfinder and less looking up points of drivel.

The Elitist - formerly known as PDL

[24X36NOW]

The D3 gets more shots per charge that many Crop cameras, according to Mr. Rockwell who recently got one...

Nikon D3 Review

7 times the battery life of the D200, 3 times the battery life of the D300!!

3,000 shots per charge. Hardly a concern!

As for size and weight, let's stop pretending that the top of the line Canon and Nikon cameras are indicative of what the size or weight of a full frame digital must be. I'm sure Pentax, given their propensity to do so, will make THEIR full frame dSLR both smaller and lighter. As for the size/weight of the K10D/K20D, you never heard me complain, nor would you. I don't like cameras that are too small and/or light, because they are poorly balanced with a lens attached and hard to hold comfortably for those of us who don't have tiny hands.

Oh, and the D300 Crop camera weighs 2.9625 pounds with grip, batteries and no lens, just for a meaningful comparison. 6/10 of an ounce (if I've done my arithmetic correctly) is not exactly a big weight difference for Full Frame vs. Crop Frame, now is it? I think my neck can bear the difference