[MikePerham]

Which means folks that Pentax are the only people likely to make quality glass for APSC cameras while N, C and S are forced to hang on their their expensive legacy lenses and their customers are forced to pay for them even if they use a cropped sensor camera.

Hence: If your budget for a new camera is $1000 or less, Pentax offers the best overall solution in that price bracket.

Precisely, and the market for 35mm style cameras is dominated by the APS format. FF is still a very small market by comparison.

Mike.

[feronovak]

I agree that FF will become the standard for "serious" cameras, probably within the next 18 months and that the entry point will be in the $1200 range.

I guess that leaves Pentax keeping company with the low-end toys. (No offense intended to buyers in that price bracket, I do truly appreciate the current bang-for-the-buck of the current Pentax line.)

Now you have ask, why the move to FF for the "serious" cameras? The answer is easy...better performance match to existing optical technology. Just take a look at any recent lens review for FF lenses at dpreview.com. They test these both for APS-C and FF. The FF results generally blow the APS-C results away. The reason? You need more than just higher pixel density on the detector to produce results equivalent to even 35mm film. You need lenses capable of resolving to the APS-C format that are relatively free of aberration and distortion. Resolving to the APS-C format means resolution 1.5 times the historical standard set for film.

Good as the current crop of cropped-sensor lenses are, they really are no competition with what you can do on film with FF glass of similar quality and design. This is particularly true at the wide-angle end of the spectrum. With the development of high-resolution FF and larger sensors, the APS-C format may truly become somewhat of a dead-end except to support smaller lighter cameras.

Before everyone starts picking up rocks to hurl...

I would not be speaking so strongly except that I took some time this week to take a good look at a 11x14 black and white print that I made in the mid-1980's. The print was made from a 35mm Kodak Technical Pan negative on a LPL medium format enlarger sporting a Schneider Componon-S. The taking lens was a Tamron Adaptall-2 28/2.5, the exact same lens as is listed in my signature.

Now, I can take a loupe and scan that print and see extreme detail in the wooden door and rusted hardware of the subject (an old barn door). (I guess that is the old school equivalent to pixel peeping.) There is NO WAY that lens will provide an equivalent level of performance on my K10D. I know that for sure, I have tried!

So, why did I choose that particular print for comparison? It is because of the Technical Pan negative. The film is widely acknowledged to have had the ability to out-resolve the best optics that were put in front of it due to its virtually grainless thin emulsion. (Very, very difficult to use a grain focusing aid with, BTW.) There truly is nothing that compares in the current crop of consumer digital detectors or film, for that matter.

So, we have a middling lens, superb capture medium, and really, really good results. What, I now ask, would have been my results if I had cropped the subject to a 1.5 factor? I would have 2/3rds the detail based solely on the resolution of the lens. Simply put.

Now to muddy the waters further, what if I were to attempt the same shot today (the barn is still there) with my K10D? I would not be able to do it with my Tamron 28/2.5. Instead I would have to use a 18mm ultra-wide costing 2-3 times the inflation-adjusted price of the Tamron. It will likely not offer the low-distortion, rectilinear view of the Tamron, nor will it likely offer the center to edge sharpness. Do I need to mention the image degradation due to CA that characterizes this class of lens?

Now, that is the end of my rant. I could say quite a bit more, but the central issue of image quality remains.

Steve

Excellent post. I have to agree on this with you, if you want same wide angle for APS-C as for FF you have to pay more and resolution is worse. Excellent 31mm or 43mm become much longer with worse resolution on APS-C.

It simply is much more difficult to make excellent APS-C lens than FF lens, you have to correct result a lot to remove CA and distortion and you lose this soul of the lens like 31mm, 43mm lenses ... Which of new lenses is same quality ? Answer: None.

If Pentax decides to ignore FF market I might change brand next few years for brand which will offer under $1700 FF body.

The only way to stay with Pentax is if Pentax pulls gem of DSLR, something really marvellous and working 100%. I mean quick focusing, high iso , more FPS and legendary Pentax ergonomy (which they have already)

That's my opinion.

[Pål Jensen]

Which means folks that Pentax are the only people likely to make quality glass for APSC cameras while N, C and S are forced to hang on their their expensive legacy lenses and their customers are forced to pay for them even if they use a cropped sensor camera.

Hence: If your budget for a new camera is $1000 or less, Pentax offers the best overall solution in that price bracket.

..but it doesn't help them much...
One could be tempted to say that Pentax strategy is a failure. Pentax is nowehere near to meet their targets that should be around ~12-15% marketshare by now; so far their strategy has given them 4,4% - less than anyone with a different strategy. One can argue that Pentax does't have a strategy at all and that is the problem. They started the DSLR history with a FF strategy which they subsequently dropped while spending $20 000 000. Then they made a small DSLR at the same price level as the Nikon F5 at a time where DSLR's were high-end items and the market wasn't ready for cutish smallness but more into big show-off. When the market matured they made big DSLR's when many wanted them small. They switched from FF to MF digital but then suddenly dropped that idea. Now they have aparently resurected it. Now their latest entry is essentially a an *istD with image stabilization. The original *istD's where all marketing falures....
The upper end segment is currently going FF while Pentax is locked in the APS system due to the lens line based on earlier strategies (that failed BTW).
Whats worringly is that according to Pentax, a 10% marketshare is what is sustainable in the long run. Their current one isn't. I doubt the K-m can do more than stope the downward slide of their marketshare.

[stevebrot]

Have some problems with the film vs sensor comparison. 1st Tech Pan (TP) is an incredible film. Have shot a fair amount of it and developed it in Dick Delagi's custom developer. It probably does resolve more than an APS c camera. There is more information to be recorded than resolution. TP records in b&w. Not what I see when I look at a scene. Your K10D kills TP in this regard! It records much more color info. Would also consider a color pic with some ca closer to what I see than a b&w one.
There is a way to have K10/20D give the TP a run for its money in resolution. It requires a still subject. Your barn would work well. Merely take a stacked pano of it. With enough shots the digital will have more res than a single TP image. This doesn't require more res from the lens. Use some thing like a 50mm lens (not anymore expensive than your 28mm).
Could also get very close to the non grain of TP. Use Barts method of 9 multi exposures in one pic. This gives an approx. ISO noise of 12! We are lucky our Pentax cameras do this. No one elses do.
TP also has terrible gradation for B&W film. It really wants to do black or white and nothing in between (any other normal B&W film beats it at this). Probably also beat by K10/20D. Couple this with the new inkjet papers that have more D max than silver paper and digital might win this competition.

Darkroom Photography mag had a pro who shot nothing 4x5 film try an expensive digital back. Surprised that anything he shot was won by the digital! Didn't matter what film he tried.

If you want to do this comparison in B&W you could remove the rgb filter. Your blades of grass will then be very competitive vs film. WE will probably see B&W digital bodies one day. Great thing about digital is we have perfect "film flatness". Something the thin TP can't say.

Digital is capable of more than most imagine. It may take many shots of one subject but its doable for still subjects.
thanks
barondla
Check out POINT & SHOOT CONTEST #10 IN P&S forum. Enter #11. Ends soon. Enter now.

Thanks for the discussion.

I guess I was not clear in my post. I was not comparing film to digital. I was comparing 35mm format to APS-C. I chose the TP print because in that case the lens is the limiting factor, not the medium.

Given a larger format, even a middling optic can give real good results. Conversely, shrink the format and even the best optics may yield middling results. Put another way, my contention is that even with a 100 Mega pixel detector, the small size of the APS-C sensor presents a significant challenge for the optics that you might put in front of it.

Steve

[Pål Jensen]

2. There are no plans for 35mm full-size sensor but instead development of superior 645 digital is ongoing, the result targeted to serious amateurs. (Therefore cheaper than rival systems?)
ax.

The interview I've seen say something different. Neither 645D or FF will be released until Pentax see them as finacially viable. Both seem to be on the agenda. 645D will have shorter developing times as much of the deveoping work has already been done. The 645D will have 40-50mp. Pentax will neither make the the 645D or an FF camera for prestige reasons.

[deejjjaaaa]

The 645D will have 40-50mp.

who will manufacture the sensor ?

[vizjerei]

Pentax and Samsung Partnership Not Perfect - PhotographyBLOG

[rparmar]

One could be tempted to say that Pentax strategy is a failure. Pentax is nowehere near to meet their targets that should be around ~12-15% marketshare by now; so far their strategy has given them 4,4% - less than anyone with a different strategy.

That target was so utterly incredible that I cannot believe any self-respecting board member would have let it pass.

The Pentax strategy, in respect to which models and sensors they are targeting, is not necessarily what is at fault. What might be at fault is their unrealistic income expectations given their marketing and retail presence. (Which, as we know, is near nil.)

[regken]

Pentax is nowehere near to meet their targets that should be around ~12-15% marketshare by now; where all marketing falures....

Whats worringly is that according to Pentax, a 10% marketshare is what is sustainable in the long run. Their current one isn't. I doubt the K-m can do more than stope the downward slide of their marketshare.

Hang on there pardner. With all the money Sony has thrown at this market they haven't reached a 12-15% market share. What makes you think lil ol Pentax can out do Sony? Please sight source saying that Pentax/Hoya has ever said they need a 10% market share to be sustainable. Their goal this year is less than 500,000 units and that will be less than 5% of the market. reaching goal will put them in a very good position to become a nice second tier player.

[Pål Jensen]

Hang on there pardner. With all the money Sony has thrown at this market they haven't reached a 12-15% market share. What makes you think lil ol Pentax can out do Sony? Please sight source saying that Pentax/Hoya has ever said they need a 10% market share to be sustainable. Their goal this year is less than 500,000 units and that will be less than 5% of the market. reaching goal will put them in a very good position to become a nice second tier player.

It wasn't me who said that. It was Pentax.
It was said 2-3 years years back before the Hoya takeover. I believe 12% share was said. An engineer said 20%(!) in another interview. Torigoe said that 10% was the sustainable volume and that Pentax aimed for a million units a year. I'm pretty sure their tragets have changed since then...

[regken]

It wasn't me who said that. It was Pentax.
It was said 2-3 years years back before the Hoya takeover. I believe 12% share was said. An engineer said 20%(!) in another interview. Torigoe said that 10% was the sustainable volume and that Pentax aimed for a million units a year. I'm pretty sure their tragets have changed since then...

Both those statements were made long before Hoya came in and hit the Pentax folk up the side of the head with a bat and beat some sense into them. This years projection is 480,000 units which is attainable.

[Pål Jensen]

Both those statements were made long before Hoya came in and hit the Pentax folk up the side of the head with a bat and beat some sense into them. This years projection is 480,000 units which is attainable.

My point was that they haven't met their targets and have to make new targets. Hence, their strategy wasn't sucessful....

[regken]

My point was that they haven't met their targets and have to make new targets. Hence, their strategy wasn't sucessful....

You are right and that is one of the reasons they were bought. The new goal is 480,000 units with 3 models. Can you live with that plan?

[Blue]

My point was that they haven't met their targets and have to make new targets. Hence, their strategy wasn't sucessful....

How many units have they sold? There is still a entire quarter left including the Holidays.

[Pål Jensen]

How many units have they sold? There is still a entire quarter left including the Holidays.

No idea. But one thing is certain; they aren't even close to one million!