[Blue]

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

I was think along the lines of the 480,000. Just because they set a goal of 1 million doesn't mean they haven't been successful. It also depends on what a unit is.

[Aristophanes]

I disagree; this argument is repeatedly made, but rarely on a "like kind and quality" basis. The sensor size does not have to result in big size/weight gains at all. If you compare the Nikon D700 and D300, you'll see there is very little difference, and the main growth is the bigger prism.

BUt they are BOTH big cameras. That's the point. The FF cannot get any smaller. APS-C definitely can, as we're starting to see. The larger you go in size (and price) the smaller your market becomes. Much, much smaller.

Most mags (and clients) accept only JPEGs already. So the IQ issues are esoteric. APS-C is "good enough" for a majority of real world applications. Therefore the client base also diminishes, and with it the need for FF.

[Pål Jensen]

BUt they are BOTH big cameras. That's the point. The FF cannot get any smaller. .

Of course an FF camera can get smaller. An FF camera can get as small as a Pentax ME. APS size is defined by the FF lens mount. The only thing that can get saller is the prism but not by much...

[Blue]

Of course an FF camera can get smaller. An FF camera can get as small as a Pentax ME. APS size is defined by the FF lens mount. The only thing that can get saller is the prism but not by much...

They could always do a digital SLR 110.

[nakey]

Of course an FF camera can get smaller. An FF camera can get as small as a Pentax ME. APS size is defined by the FF lens mount. The only thing that can get saller is the prism but not by much...

in film, yeah

Remember, behind the sensor is all the other crap that comes with digital. batteries, larger AF sensors, circuit boards, lcds, etc.

all of which the ME didn't have. no AF, no Auto Aperture. a much simpler exposure control, much smaller batteries, etc. Now, i'm sure this forum would drop their collective pants at a digital ME with only the sensor replacing the film and a tiny modicum of electronics (with no LCD, as that adds weight and bulk) but for people used to the luxuries of auto mode, it'll convince them to move away from pentax.

the argument that FF digital can be made the same size as FF film isn't taking into account the stuff that comes with Digital.

[Alfisti]

Exactly.

It's also for this reason that I have been miffed that pentax went away from small APS DSLR's for a while and only come back to them after Canikon flogged millions to the customer base pentax should have taken advantag eof.

in film, yeah

Remember, behind the sensor is all the other crap that comes with digital. batteries, larger AF sensors, circuit boards, lcds, etc.

all of which the ME didn't have. no AF, no Auto Aperture. a much simpler exposure control, much smaller batteries, etc. Now, i'm sure this forum would drop their collective pants at a digital ME with only the sensor replacing the film and a tiny modicum of electronics (with no LCD, as that adds weight and bulk) but for people used to the luxuries of auto mode, it'll convince them to move away from pentax.

the argument that FF digital can be made the same size as FF film isn't taking into account the stuff that comes with Digital.

[Anastigmat]

Someone must have noticed this already, but I cannot find the thread. An interview with the Pentax Manager of Business Development. It sets out the future of Pentax quite clearly. Interview in Japanese. Google translation. (Quite entertaining.) Discussion thread at dpreview.

The highlights (Japanese speakers please debate these interpretations):

1. Updates to K200D and K20D next summer with improved ASP-C sensor to rival full-frame image quality.

That is simply not possible. No matter what is done to the APS-C sensor, it cannot rival full frame image quality. The K20D already outresolves a vast majority of lenses, adding more pixels to the sensor will not deliver more resolution to the prints, only more noise. Not adding pixels mean that it is easily outclassed by the Sony A900 and Canon 5DMKII in the market place.

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?)

That would be a mistake. The future of DSLR cameras is full frame, and Pentax would not have much of a future if it does not have a full frame model. Even Sony has a full frame DSLR.

My opinion: this is brilliant news. Rather than playing in the already crowded FF sandbox, Pentax will leap-frog to medium format, leveraging the skill and lens availability they already have in this area. Meanwhile their concentrated focus on APS-C will be developed to the max.

The full frame market is expanding. It is far from crowded. True, there are now 5 full frame models from 3 different manufacturers, but Nikon alone has 4 different APS-C models: the D40, D60, D90, and D300. The APS-C market is even more crowded, and the profit margins are slimmer because of all that competition.

[Pål Jensen]

in film, yeah

Remember, behind the sensor is all the other crap that comes with digital. batteries, larger AF sensors, circuit boards, lcds, etc. .

But APS has all of that too and no smaller. Only the sensor is smaller but it doesn't take up much volume.

[lithos]

Crazy thought - Pentax re-releases the LX.

As a film camera.

[Anastigmat]

And presumably, Sony, Canon, and Nikon are going to aim at full frame for their "serious" offerings and leave cropped sensors for the low-end.

That leaves Pentax alone in a pretty sweet niche of 1.5× crop advanced cameras.

Nikon has not discontinued the D300. It has just introduced the D90, which has some nice features from the pro bodies, such as GPS connectivity and of course the gimmick of HD movies. Canon has just announced the 50D. Sony is still selling the A700. The APS-C market is crowded and there is no sign that any of these 3 companies is going to abandon the APS-C market soon. In fact, they have priced their full frames at $3K or near it to make sure both a higher margin for the full frames they sell and to make sure they will be able to charge a bunch for the APS-C models.

Pentax has a way to go to even catch up to the D90, 50D and A700, since all of these cameras can shoot faster than the lethargic 3fps of the K20D. That means it would have trouble selling any DSLR camera for more than the D90's $999 price, even if it improves the speed of the K20D successor to 5fps. Not an enviable position to be in for anybody.

[nakey]

But APS has all of that too and no smaller. Only the sensor is smaller but it doesn't take up much volume.

So what you're advocating is an FF sensor in something like the K-M, with it's entry level AF, and entry level processing engine, and all the stuff that makes the K-M an entry level camera? As it is, look at what's missing on the K-M to make it smaller than the K200D.

Not everyone buys an FF camera for the FF sensor. there's more inside there than just an FF sensor.

and even with an FF sensor equipped K-M, you're still not making it ME sized. you won't get smaller, until you reduce the size of the sensor. there is a reason the Oly E420 is damn small.

[Blue]

Crazy thought - Pentax re-releases the LX.

As a film camera.

That would be cool.

That is simply not possible. No matter what is done to the APS-C sensor, it cannot rival full frame image quality. The K20D already outresolves a vast majority of lenses, adding more pixels to the sensor will not deliver more resolution to the prints, only more noise. Not adding pixels mean that it is easily outclassed by the Sony A900 and Canon 5DMKII in the market place.

Don't flame me because I'm not technical but I have heard in the past that the shape of the pixels and the pattern they form can make a big difference. Maybe a new sensor has been produced with a more efficient pixel pattern.

[thibs]

That is simply not possible. No matter what is done to the APS-C sensor, it cannot rival full frame image quality. The K20D already outresolves a vast majority of lenses, adding more pixels to the sensor will not deliver more resolution to the prints, only more noise.

Prove it unless it is BS.

[regken]

The K20D already outresolves a vast majority of lenses, adding more pixels to the sensor will not deliver more resolution to the prints, only more noise.

Yet another post of misinformation. I understand your wants/needs for FF but that is no excuse for stating inaccurate info like this. Stick to the facts.