[johnmflores]

So medium format film is practical and financially feasible for everyone to go to except for John who would not have room in his motorcycle bag for a Fuji GX680

We're going to need a bIgger bike, lol!

[ElJamoquio]

That has nothing to do with the original issue.

Format has an effect on outocomes but cannot be used to compare optics.

Forgive me. I thought we were comparing the capability of optics to produce pictures.

[sunkissedmanila]

this is the one... =)

[rawr]

this is the one... =)

It there meant to be a link there, or is that merely an underline for emphasis?

[sunkissedmanila]

emphasis. hehehehehe. as far as my "trusted" source is concerned.
"RICOH" on Lcd part is visible.

[Rondec]

Having both formats (APS-C and FF), I don't understand people who try to make out that FF is somehow better in every respect. All cameras are a set of compromises, and APS-C has some positives over FF, particularly for macro and telephoto work. Personally, I don't see a move from APS-C to FF as an upgrade, but as a change of format, with its particular advantages and disadvantages.

Let's not forget that we have the so-called "FF" format because Oskar Barnack hit on the idea of using movie film to fashion a small camera with good enough IQ. And the 3:2 format he chose did not fit any standard photographic paper sizes (though these may have come later). I usually find myself cropping to 4:3 because I find it more aesthetically pleasing. If photography had started not with film, but with sensors, I wonder what size would be regarded as optimum? If bigger is always better, why aren't we all using 10 x 8s?

Having let off a little steam, I really do hope that Pentax makes a FF in the not-too-distant future because I think this is the way the market is heading!

I think that people use equivalency as a club, to beat APS-C users into submission. If your desire is to make photos that are exactly equivalent to a D800 shooting, say a 35mm f1.4 lens, shot at f2. But photography is about image creation and for an awful lot of people, APS-C is "good enough." A good compromise that allows for narrow depth of field, wide angles, relatively small camera bodies -- albeit without the ability to shoot as narrow depth of field as with full frame and with a stop worse noise control.

[MouLaG Ôfr]

emphasis. hehehehehe. as far as my "trusted" source is concerned.
"RICOH" on Lcd part is visible.

Do you mean "PENTAX" on the prism and "RICOH" on the back LCD ?

[Mistral75]

The back LCD screen is sourced by Pentax from Ricoh .

[MouLaG Ôfr]

Yes, I know, it's the LCD screen from the Ricoh GR, but I had liked to keep my Pentax on it

[Digitalis]

It always strikes me as funny that all the "leaked" images of cameras are nearly always terrible quality..it is as if the veracity of the rumors are enhanced by how bad the images are.

[sunkissedmanila]

well if we dont want ricoh on it cover it with framed-glass protector.
hate it or love it. it's "ricohnized" welcome to change. imagine?
dual sd slots on the way baby. think of 645d IQ on an aps-c body. how's that for a early christmas gift.
spoiler alert: 20mp not 24. all of yada-yada and trolling for the coming body, one thing is for sure. majority of the pentax owners cannot afford the FF or even the old K5.
you dont need a new body. all you need is to improve your skills. FF can wait just keep on improving.

[Mistral75]

It always strikes me as funny that all the "leaked" images of cameras are nearly always terrible quality..it is as if the veracity of the rumors are enhanced by how bad the images are.

Same with paparazzi photographs: all grainy and blurry to make them look more appealing since "obviously" stolen.

[Alizarine]

now if I can just astral-project myself into the Cebu plant... to verify sunkissedmanila's claims.

...but nah that would kill the suspense

[ElJamoquio]

I think that people use equivalency as a club, to beat APS-C users into submission. If your desire is to make photos that are exactly equivalent to a D800 shooting, say a 35mm f1.4 lens, shot at f2. But photography is about image creation and for an awful lot of people, APS-C is "good enough."

100% agree.

A good compromise that allows for narrow depth of field, wide angles, relatively small camera bodies -- albeit without the ability to shoot as narrow depth of field as with full frame and with a stop worse noise control.

In practice it doesn't allow for more depth of field, it doesn't allow for wider angles. I think we'll find in the next six month that the camera bodies aren't much smaller, either.

The bottom line in my view is that APS-C is a cheaper camera with cheaper lenses, if your image quality requirement is X.
APS-C is a cheaper camera with more expensive lenses, if your image quality requirement is Y.
FF is a more expensive camera with cheaper lenses, if your image quality requirement is Y.

[supertrac]

awesome!
Not much difference! WIFE WON'T NOTICE!!

No but she'll smell it!!