[paulusje]

When it all comes down to it, I think a rational explanation is that APS-C has an advantage with longer FL lenses (ie a narrower angle of view for the same FL) and, conversely, FF35 has an advantage of a wider angle of view with shorter FL lenses. There are some people who specialise in very narrow DoF, who say that FF35 offers an advantage there and, while there's no doubt that, for the same FL and aperture, the DoF for a FF35 sensor will be less than on an APS-C, I'm left wondering just how far you need to take that argument, when I look at some of my work with an A 50/1.2. Still, whatever makes you happy.

Pixel density or resolution is the other difference. Now that APS-C sensors have equalled, and slightly surpassed the resolution of 35mm Kodachrome, there's probably not much more left to say on that score, until you migrate to the larger formats.

As I've said elsewhere on these Forums, now I have a K-3 I am left wondering why I want a FF35 sensor body, from an image quality viewpoint. The one remaining reason for me is the greater size and brightness of the optical viewfinder that is possible with that format, and that's simply because my eyes aren't getting any better. I think Pentax can fit a 35mm sensor in the K-3 sized body, with the minimum increase in bulk. The viewfinder is the one current reason why I'd think of moving up to one, but you never know what else they'll fit into the package.

There's lots of reasons to want FF!
After having used some of my older pentax lenses on a Full Frame Pentax film camera I began to wish for a digital camera that I could use those lenses on.
I must admit that I am now 'cheating' with an old Canon 1dsmkii which can use the Pentax lenses just fine.
It's nice to be able to use the lens the way it is supposed to be used, the FOV of a 50mm lens on FF is much more usable IMHO, plus you can use it wide open without the CA being as obvious as it is with APS-C camera's.
If Pentax comes out with a FF offering, I'll be buying it for sure because I love their menu system, the ergonomics and the value for money. And those nice lenses deserve to be used on a Pentax body instead of Canikon

[savoche]

There's lots of reasons to want FF!
After having used some of my older pentax lenses on a Full Frame Pentax film camera I began to wish for a digital camera that I could use those lenses on.
I must admit that I am now 'cheating' with an old Canon 1dsmkii which can use the Pentax lenses just fine.
It's nice to be able to use the lens the way it is supposed to be used, the FOV of a 50mm lens on FF is much more usable IMHO, plus you can use it wide open without the CA being as obvious as it is with APS-C camera's.
If Pentax comes out with a FF offering, I'll be buying it for sure because I love their menu system, the ergonomics and the value for money. And those nice lenses deserve to be used on a Pentax body instead of Canikon

I'm with you on the usability of the 50mm lenses, but most of the very vocal full framers here seem to want FF just because. (But without increased cost, mind you!)

As for less CA, I suspect that has more to do with the 1Ds' relatively low pixel density than it being FF. Should there come a Pentax FF with 36mpix (or more) I'd expect CA to be more visible.

[DirkG]

The question for Ricoh is not whether to produce a fullframe DSLR or not, but whether to produce a fullframe mirrorless or a fullframe DSLR (or both, or none at all).

In the same way in which the Sony A7/R is the next step after the NEX line of milcs, Ricoh could produce a mirrorless fullframe as an upgrade to the outstanding GXR (which outdoes the NEX in various respects). In fact, Ricoh realizes very well that they missed a chance there: as the interview says, "We don’t deny that we lost opportunity in the advent of a high-class mirrorless camera."

So, given the increased attraction of mirrorless, will Ricoh cover that segment just with the GR and follow-ups, or are they also considering a fullframe successor to the GXR?

[Kunzite]

A system cannot be supported with only "full frame" (small format) cameras, IMHO; I doubt that's the question. A new large sensor mirrorless system would have to include (and be started with) higher volume APS-C products; just like every other mirrorless system.
And from what I understand, the alternative to not losing that opportunity is considered significantly worse.

[philbaum]

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. ....

Uluru - thank you for a very thoughtful discussion - it needed to be said.

In 2012, it appeared to me that Nikon was posed to take over the photographic world by default. They introduced 4 FF dslrs(counting both the D800e and 800 non-e) and 2 APS dslrs. And i marvelled at what appeared to be a master stroke of combined manufacturing and marketing.

And then in 2013, we got the news that camera shipments had dropped by 43%, ILC shipments had dropped by 18% and even FF shipments had dropped by 8%. Nikon share prices dropped by 33% And so this Nikon swat phalanx of FF models is a bit tarnished in its reputation when even its retail power was less than expected. Nevertheless, NIkon has continued with their emphasis on FF in 2013, issuing 2 new FF DSLR models and 1 APS model.

When even the 3 biggest camera powerhouses (Canon, Nikon and Sony) are unable to predict the marketplace, whats a poor enthusiast like me to do

I'm a bit less pessimistic about FF than Uluru. I think the APS sales will continue to be more important to revenue than FF, FF numbers in 2014 will continue to be less than 10% of the ILC market. There will be an important role for FF cameras, even though they won't be able to claim the majority unit sales crown for the foreseeable future.

[jon404]

@RobA_Oz -- thanks for the explanation. Now -- about that viewfinder... what I REALLY want is for Pentax to take the one from my old 645N film camera and put it on an APS-C body. Don't you think this would be easier than going to FF -- just to get a marginal viewfinder improvement -- when they could get a HUGE improvement by using their existing MF viewfinder on the K-3?

The 645N has the best ergonomics of ANY camera I have ever used. Ever. If I win the lottery, I'll buy the digital version in a flash. Too big? Hey, once you're past the shirt-pocket size, what does it matter? It's still on a strap over your shoulder. Practically -- if the 645 ever sold at $3000, I'm in line.

And you know what? I don't care about the sensor. You could put a 24 MP K-3 APS-C sensor inside the 645 body and I would be very happy. Just give me that viewfinder -- those perfect controls -- wow! (and I guess an adapter so I can use my smaller-camera lenses).

[Rondec]

Uluru - thank you for a very thoughtful discussion - it needed to be said.

In 2012, it appeared to me that Nikon was posed to take over the photographic world by default. They introduced 4 FF dslrs(counting both the D800e and 800 non-e) and 2 APS dslrs. And i marvelled at what appeared to be a master stroke of combined manufacturing and marketing.

And then in 2013, we got the news that camera shipments had dropped by 43%, ILC shipments had dropped by 18% and even FF shipments had dropped by 8%. Nikon share prices dropped by 33% And so this Nikon swat phalanx of FF models is a bit tarnished in its reputation when even its retail power was less than expected. Nevertheless, NIkon has continued with their emphasis on FF in 2013, issuing 2 new FF DSLR models and 1 APS model.

When even the 3 biggest camera powerhouses (Canon, Nikon and Sony) are unable to predict the marketplace, whats a poor enthusiast like me to do

I'm a bit less pessimistic about FF than Uluru. I think the APS sales will continue to be more important to revenue than FF, FF numbers in 2014 will continue to be less than 10% of the ILC market. There will be an important role for FF cameras, even though they won't be able to claim the majority unit sales crown for the foreseeable future.

The problem is that there is no "one size fits all" camera body. If you shoot with long lenses, or f2.8 zooms, a mirrorless full frame camera is not going to be great. Honestly, anything smaller than a K5/K3 is going to be unwieldy with those sorts of lenses. I feel like as we move forward, we will see more fragmentation of the market -- some folks going with four thirds, some with mirrorless APS-C or full frame and some with traditional SLRs. But overall, I do think SLRs (at least form factor) will tend to dominate the upper end of the market due to ergonomics, if nothing else.

[kenyee]

@RobA_Oz -- thanks for the explanation. Now -- about that viewfinder... what I REALLY want is for Pentax to take the one from my old 645N film camera and put it on an APS-C body.

I'm not sure that can be done w/o a bigger body. I think that's a function of the larger mirror in the 645 and the distance from mirror to your viewfinder. They might be able to it if they add some sort of magnifying mirror, but then viewfinder area would have to be a lot bigger or further away?

p.s., Uluru had a good point, but we could also argue that m4/3 has become the "it's good enough" sensor size. ISO3200 on the latest E-M1 and GX7 isn't bad at all...and 16MP is "enough" for most people and m4/3 lenses are a lot smaller. So why APS-C then?

[derekkite]

Why not 4/3? Because owners of that format got abandoned. I had an e420 and was looking for something better. I'm glad I didn't buy any lenses other than the kit. Now I could use them with an adapter on a micro 4/3. Bah.

That is why it isn't good enough, and why, no matter how good the A7 is, having to start all over again with a new mount is almost a non starter.

A GR ff makes great sense in that market. Put good glass on it, some Pentax pixie dust, and forget about mounts. They obviously are throw away anyways.

[DirkG]

no matter how good the A7 is, having to start all over again with a new mount is almost a non starter.

But one of the big attractions of the A7/R (like the Ricoh GXR, and like the NEX) is precisely that you don't have to start all over, but that it can be used with a wide spectrum of legacy glass. Just have a look at the A7R pictures posted on Flickr: a majority is taken with non-proprietary lenses.

And yes, using adapters is the price to pay, but apparently, there is a sizeable group of amateur photographers who don't object to that.
That is why GR's won't fill the gap if the GXR line is not continued: photographers who now use the GXR with M-mount lenses or legacy glass will move to Sony, or Leica (if the rumors are correct that Leica will be producing a non-rangefinder mirrorless with interchangebale lenses).

[NickLarsson]

Seems the guy also said that FF is dead in this interview (according to RH), could someone confirm the translation ?

1. The K-3 is a very strong APS-C DSLR as a result of extensive and special R&D;

2. APS-C is the mainstream of DSLR cameras;

3. The market share of 135 FF is only from 10 to 20%, versus the 80 to 90% of the APS-C market;

4. For that 10 to 20% small market segment, there are already a number of choices in the market. While they are able to make such a similar 135 FF body, it will not be of anything special. As such, they opted not to make one! :-[

5. The new 645D replacement project is now undergoing. It must happen before any RP 135 FF comes! (But isn't it that he has just said a RP 135 FF is not viable marketing wise?!)

6. They will not get rid of the name "Pentax", as "Ricoh" is a far larger company with far more businesses than Pentax and that they have no interest to make Ricoh becoming a sole camera brand!

RiceHigh's Pentax Blog: One More Official Interview: No 135 FF in Near Future, Not Before 645D is Replaced! :-o

[RobA_Oz]

@RobA_Oz -- thanks for the explanation. Now -- about that viewfinder... what I REALLY want is for Pentax to take the one from my old 645N film camera and put it on an APS-C body. Don't you think this would be easier than going to FF -- just to get a marginal viewfinder improvement -- when they could get a HUGE improvement by using their existing MF viewfinder on the K-3?

Unhappily, the laws of optics don't care for what we would like, so I'm afraid your 645N viewfinder graft would produce no better image than the best already available in APS-C. Have you ever looked through an LX viewfinder, especially with the FC-1 Action Eyepiece? Now there's a viewfinder!

[monochrome]

Seems the guy also said that FF is dead in this interview (according to RH), could someone confirm the translation ?



RiceHigh's Pentax Blog: One More Official Interview: No 135 FF in Near Future, Not Before 645D is Replaced! :-o

The controlling operand being "according to RH".

They're doing a FF. Ity will be released when they get the technology right. It will be different - we already have CaNikon, we don't need another.

It probably will be after the 645D - but that could be next month. It will be sooner than you think and later than you'd like.

Photokina happens in 2014, I believe.

[philbaum]

The perfect viewfinder for Pentax :-)



Seriously, thats the advantage of a video viewfinder - you can do a lot of things to the signal, enlarge it, show focus peaking, magnify it, ad nauseum.

Major disadvantage to me is the battery drain.

To the younger generations - of which i'm not one - i think there will less adverse reactions to video finders than among older generations. For sports shooting and event photography, evfs aren't as desirable because of the blackout time, but for landscapes - not a problem, IMO.

Alas - no perfect solution to VF issue. I would note that the tons of people using smart phones don't seem to object to the blackout time.

[monochrome]

Seriously, thats the advantage of a video viewfinder - you can do a lot of things to the signal, enlarge it, show focus peaking, magnify it, ad nauseum.

Flucard for PENTAX in February!!