35mm FF digital is totally different from a 35mm film camera economy of 70+ years ago. While the 35mm film was relatively cheap to obtain, and smaller cameras made for it easier to make and carry around, 35mm digital is the opposite of it.
If photography only happened now, and not in the film days, 35mm FF would have zero favours, from manufacturing to marketing, as it would make no sense at all; all very expensive to make, with very little real life benefits.
So we have some kind of reverse logic happening in the current digital camera market, a thought that pushes forward an idea not at all plausible for any other sense than to somehow validate the format from the past. It is not rooted in any economical, technological, informational or ecological benefit — quite the contrary. And is supported by the population group that otherwise also suffers from reverse logic reasoning more than others, finding "justification" and "validation" through the reliance on "past values and heritage" which they pick and choose and then insist upon as a holy relic (men of 45+).
If we analyse the type of cameras most sold today, we see those are the cameras that relish not the past for the sake of it, but are formats which were built with a digital age in mind. Like the 1/1.7" sensor digicams that defined the incredible miniaturisation of the digital photography, and up to APS-C system cameras.
APS-C format had a brief foray in the film age, and then the digital happened almost immediately after it. It was recognised in the beginning of the digital age that the APS-C was a good size to gain a good economy from a standard size wafer (an analogy to the 35mm film obtainable from the film rolls, which was economical back then). Digital APS-C still kept the compatibility with an array of utilities and lenses from the past (3:2 format equipment: lenses, adapters, flashes, etc.).
And then happened a
breaking point in the imaging philosophy too. Pentax soon after took on the APS-C wholeheartedly, and developed a whole eco-system of cameras and all new designed lenses. I must say that of all the companies involved in SLR photography,
Pentax was obedient to the philosophy of the quality of the image, rather than being obedient to a specific format now gone. That elementary difference — which consequentially makes everything else different — is even more pronounced today, when after a decade or so in the age of digital, Pentax is able to squeeze out an incredible image quality out of a digital APS-C format. Do we really believe that is because Pentax is chained to the APS-C format? Or is it because Pentax actually firmly believes in the philosophy of the quality of image and the photographic experience, which they can deliver even with a tiny Q?
There lies the true understanding of this unique brand, and what it stands for.
The other side of that philosophical difference is even more pronounced when we analyse the Sony's foray into the mirrorless FF. I looked the other day at the photograph of the A7's development team, and saw a group of young men in their late 20s. And I wondered, how on Earth such a young group of people can, in any material way, be (1) intimately connected to an old imaging format, (2) abide the requests of some much older men from the management, and (3) design a product that is wholesome and flawless?
And the final product confirms that it cannot be so.
There is a wide gap between the desire for a format that is totally ill-suited for the economies and possibilities of the digital age, and the impeccable image quality and the overall experience that justifies using such a format. The gap is so wide there, and generationally so wholly disconnected, that any product made just "to fit in because few senior managers from Sony, Canon and Nikon are pushing it", will only float into an already groundless reality of the digital FF, and be very little connected with ideas of a wholesome product or an unmatched photographic experience.
As much as the film 35mm format made sense in those days, so much the digital 35mm format doesn't make sense today. The only possible and clear advantage FF had was in the realm of SLRs, where it could grant a well-sized VF for the majority of population to use a camera and obtain a well focused photograph. But that was in times of manual focusing. As soon as the AF came on, the VF was deliberately crippled to save on cost, or, as in the mirrorless A7's case, the EVF used instead, or, the back LCD is used all the time. The 35mm format itself becomes pointless, because the unique experience of it is even lesser than the experience of some other purely digital format.
Because its only distinctive experiential benefit is gone, and is substituted with wishful thinking and pixel peeping at 200% to ascertain that
there may be some theoretical gain from a sensor wrapped in a product package so wholly disconnected from the common sense and practical use.
Now I understand the reluctance on Pentax's behalf, to go and deliver a product that will simply disappear in the same groundless reality of the digital FF — even if done rightly, and if it's an DSLR with a big bright VF.
Pentax knows that it is about being a slave to a wrong format, in the wrong age, and to the wrong population's mindset. But the amount of irrational in that market is so strong, and its gatekeepers so loud, that if Pentax don't try and deliver their own FF, their other parts of business may bear unfavourable consequences.
Or, you must be at good terms even with a village fool who thinks he's a king by flattering his "keen knowledge of world's affairs and good judgment", just to keep him at a comfortable distance and from breaking your kitchen's window, scaring your children, or spitting in your garden for no reason at all.
Only for that purpose I do hope they will release some form of an FF DSLR rather sooner than later, and then sell as many APS-C and compact cameras and lenses as possible.
Last edited by Uluru; 12-27-2013 at 05:10 AM.