[ManuH]

Nothing. I'm getting sick of typing: FF is not a panacea. APS-C has so many advantages, the primary ones being camera size and cost; with picture quality that is MORE than acceptable. Old FILM lenses will be cr*p on FF DIGITAL sensors. No one at Pentax cares about old lenses. Finally, the future is multiple small sensor, with the results combined digitally. This will give 3-D, and stunning dynamic range at a very cost-effective price. Why on earth would Pentax want to look backwards to a format standardized before everyone on this forum was born? My calendar says 2008.

Because there are no real disadvantages for FF but cost. In short FF gives 1 stop more ISO performance, 1 stop less DOF and costs about 10x to manufacture. With the same pixel density, you just have to crop to get your APS-C picture. Thus FF can do APS-C but not vice-versa.

There is also another simple reason: the K-mount has been designed for FF from the start. You cannot do MF with it, but it will take FF without any problem.

Personally I think FF is nice and better but I don't think there is any emergency right now to get it. If the cost makes it viable I'll be interested. My APS-C lenses will still work with it, I'll just have to crop. For Pentax, it's simply too early to do any FF camera. Meanwhile, as you said, APS-C gives plenty of good IQ.

[Mr. The Guy]

Because there are no real disadvantages for FF but cost.

Also camera size, and 'long' lens size. The cost issue of the sensor will always be there because of manufacturing yields. So, even if as you say, the only issue is cost, the repercussions reverberate throughout the chain, and are significant. For one stop? Not worth it...

[ManuH]

For one stop? Not worth it...

For you and I maybe. But it's a bit the same thing when some people pay double the price to get a f/2.8 rather than a f/4.0 lens. Sometimes you just want or need that stop and if you can afford it, why not?

[24X36NOW]

Also camera size, and 'long' lens size. The cost issue of the sensor will always be there because of manufacturing yields. So, even if as you say, the only issue is cost, the repercussions reverberate throughout the chain, and are significant. For one stop? Not worth it...

Camera size/weight is a non-issue, when you compare "like kind and quality," since with a FF sized lens mount you're basically already dealing with a camera big enough to support FF.

D300 vs D700 - size compared - Nikon D700

As for "long" lens size, there's little made in "long" lenses (i.e., generally nothing beyond 300mm) that isn't FF anyway, so what you get is the same big lens but less than half of what it is capable of capturing, the remainder of it being chopped off in camera. Sort of like having a car with an engine compartment sized for a V8 that you refuse to put anything bigger than a 4 cylinder in.

Absent the cost issue regarding the sensors, which is now beginning to fade as a barrier to entry given some competition (at last) into the FF market, APS-C dSLRs wouldn't even exist. Smaller photographic formats will always be at an optical disadvantage to larger formats, and nothing will change that basic rule of optics.

[Pål Jensen]

Nothing. I'm getting sick of typing: FF is not a panacea. APS-C has so many advantages, the primary ones being camera size and cost; with picture quality that is MORE than acceptable. Old FILM lenses will be cr*p on FF DIGITAL sensors. No one at Pentax cares about old lenses. Finally, the future is multiple small sensor, with the results combined digitally. This will give 3-D, and stunning dynamic range at a very cost-effective price. Why on earth would Pentax want to look backwards to a format standardized before everyone on this forum was born? My calendar says 2008.

1. Whats acceptable image quality is in the eye of the beholder. I find it unaceptable so far.
2. Many old lenses are excellent on digital; FF or APS. Many Canon users use Pentax lenses on their FF camera with great results. In fact, many new APS lenses are not that good and often no better than many old lenses.
3. All manufacturers cares about old lenses. Thats why Sony bought Minolta to access to the user pool. If older lenses are non-compatible the risk is higher for their user to buy another brand instead. This is why Pentax have the best compatibility in business.
4. The smaller sensors makes it much harder to design lenses because all imperfections gets magnified more. Thats why we have all the whining about color fringing and sample to sample variation (which importance gets magnified as well).
5. Pentax is indeed using an old standard for their APS cameras. Their are not just using that standard to its fullest potential.

[stevebrot]

In regards to APS-C, I trust that some members of this forum remember when this format was primarily a film technology. Although Kodak still manufacturers cartridges, the system as a whole was a hard sell. From the Wikipedia article on APS:

...Despite the added features, APS never really caught on with professional photographers because the film area was just too small. The APS film surface area is only 56% of 135 film, and many professionals consider even 135 film to be small...

Advanced Photo System - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Steve

[24X36NOW]

In regards to APS-C, I trust that some members of this forum remember when this format was primarily a film technology. Although Kodak still manufacturers cartridges, the system as a whole was a hard sell. From the Wikipedia article on APS:



Advanced Photo System - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Steve

Yes, and what is referred to as "APS-C" in the digital world is even smaller (less than 50% of 35mm film).

[sewebster]

Sensor/film areas:
Full frame: 864 mm^2
APS film: 504 mm^2
APS-C Pentax sensor: 369 mm^2

[Art Vandelay II]

As for "long" lens size, there's little made in "long" lenses (i.e., generally nothing beyond 300mm) that isn't FF anyway, so what you get is the same big lens but less than half of what it is capable of capturing, the remainder of it being chopped off in camera. Sort of like having a car with an engine compartment sized for a V8 that you refuse to put anything bigger than a 4 cylinder in.

The camera body sizes may indeed have very minor size differences, but telephoto lenses are not. Yes, APS-C has a crop factor, that is not exactly news, but what people are really after is FOV. Every size sensor is going to have a crop factor depending on your reference point. 35mm isn't "full frame" at all when comparing it to medium format now is it? Let's say you want a 300mm "FF" field of view, which of these lenses would you rather carry (and pay for):

Option 1: Pentax DA 200mm f/2.8 - 3.3x5.3" 825g
Option 2: Nikon 300mm f/2.8 - 4.9x10.6" 2870g

Now I don't know about you, but I tend to like to hike and carry my gear with me, and that type of weight/size makes a difference. True, you could just mount a 200mm on the FF camera then crop it in the post processing, but to me that defies the whole purpose of "full frame".

I have no problems with APS-C (or even 4/3's to save even more weight). The IQ differences are just too minimal for me to worry about spending the extra cash on FF. On an 11x14 print how many people do you honestly think could tell which image is shot on FF and which was APS-C? If IQ and huge printing is your ultimate goal you should skip over the tiny FF sensors and go straight to medium format.

[Pål Jensen]

The camera body sizes may indeed have very minor size differences, but telephoto lenses are not. .

This is a non issue if the FF camera have a high density sensor at 24mp+. Then you just crop the image to APS size....

[Art Vandelay II]

This is a non issue if the FF camera have a high density sensor at 24mp+. Then you just crop the image to APS size....

I said that same thing in my 3rd paragraph, and as I said...if you are cropping 21 megapixels down to 14mp APS-C sizes then you might as well just use APS-C from the beginning because the defies the entire purpose of FF.

The bottom line is as much as people bitch about FF very few people actually buy them. That could just be because of price, and if they come down closer to APS-C prices then maybe more people will buy them, but I see no way that they'll ever be as cheap or cheaper that APS-C (if FF prices drop, so will APS-C). For 99% of all photographers APS-C is all the resolution they will ever need. How many prints do you or anyone else you know make that are larger than 16x20"? I've made one my entire life; and that was from a 6 megapixel K100D. It looked fine.

So even if FF does come within a few hundred dollars of APS-C it will still be a waste of money for most. People can argue about depth of field all they want, but I only see one real advantage for most people not shooting billboards...and that is low light. A 12 megapixel FF camera has incredible low light abilities. However, I'm guessing if you want a 12 megapixel FF camera you better act fast because they will all be well above 20mp within 2 years and suffer from the same ISO1600+ issues APS-C has now.

[Pål Jensen]

I said that same thing in my 3rd paragraph, and as I said...if you are cropping 21 megapixels down to 14mp APS-C sizes then you might as well just use APS-C from the beginning because the defies the entire purpose of FF.

The bottom line is as much as people bitch about FF very few people actually buy them. .

With an FF camera you get options. You can have reach (eg cropped) when you want to and high resolution when you want that. I can't see how that defies the point of FF. In fact, I find this the greatest assets with FF over APS and MF digital.
It is too early to say how many buy FF because the FF market have been totally transformed the last month. Time will tell how these new cameras fare....

[thibs]

With an FF camera you get options.

People want free options, not expensive ones (!)

[nakey]

With an FF camera you get options. You can have reach (eg cropped) when you want to and high resolution when you want that. I can't see how that defies the point of FF. In fact, I find this the greatest assets with FF over APS and MF digital.

hold on, if FF sensor is bigger than APS-C, which then gives you both the ability to crop to APS-C for longer distance, and for high res, how is it advantageous over MF digital, which, given it has a bigger sensor than FF, means you can crop to FF for reach?

Price factor not withstanding

[creampuff]

The camera body sizes may indeed have very minor size differences, but telephoto lenses are not. Yes, APS-C has a crop factor, that is not exactly news, but what people are really after is FOV. Every size sensor is going to have a crop factor depending on your reference point. 35mm isn't "full frame" at all when comparing it to medium format now is it? Let's say you want a 300mm "FF" field of view, which of these lenses would you rather carry (and pay for):

Option 1: Pentax DA 200mm f/2.8 - 3.3x5.3" 825g
Option 2: Nikon 300mm f/2.8 - 4.9x10.6" 2870g

I find it absurd that you are comparing a Pentax 200mm f/2.8 versus a Nikon 300mm f/2.8? There is obviously going to be a noticeable difference in size and weight(not to mention price) when making the jump between a 200mm and a 300mm lens.

To compare like with like, the Pentax FA* 300mm f/2.8 weighs 2680 grams, which is close to the weight of the Nikon 300mm.

Want to know another fact? The discontinued Pentax FA* 200mm f/2.8 is actually lighter that the new DA* 200mm f/2.8 at 785 grams. That's 40 grams lighter in favour of the FA* and both lenses are of the same size.

While we can probably account for the weight increase in the DA* to the SDM motor, nonetheless it debunks your argument on size and weight variation of tele lenses between cropped and FF capable lenses.