[jeffkrol]

Hi Substitute

Re your statement:


I realise that this might probably seem like a slightly spurious analogy, but just suppose for a moment that you been an Olympus Pen ½-frame F/FT/FV user back in the 1960's, is it likely that you would have still held the same opposition towards full-frame SLR's ?
I suppose my real question being: if price were NOT the overriding consideration (i.e. for argument's sake APS-C and FF DSLR's cost the same amount), would you still hold the same opinion and if so, why ? Just curious.....

Best regards
Richard

IF (which it would never be) the sensors/cameras were equal, you still have the size issue.. Pick up an old "D" compared to a K200.
It would only get worse w/ FF until an EVF was your only focus aid.

[Adnan EROL]

Samsung will make FF, not Pentax.
Pentax will have APS-C and MF cameras.
Samsung will have FF and microAPS-C.

sounds good

Then I'll buy

1) MF Pentax camera for wide angle

2) FF Samsung camera with a normal standart lens

3) Keep cropped camera and DA tele lenses, instead of holding TC; until new FF sensor surpasses pixel density and resolution of cropped K20D's sensor.

[er1kksen]

Your point is well taken as long as you are limiting the ISO to less than 800. There are always trade offs. The idea of having optimum performance in both resolution and high ISO in one body is rather silly. As good as the K20D sensor is I'm sure you could bump the resolution up to near FF quality by increasing the MP count and stayed below ISO 800. Conversely you could increase high ISO quality substantially by reducing the MP's down to the 10 MP area.

That begs the question does Pentax have the nerve to produce two different bodies optimized for specific markets. Secondly are there enough buyers out there that are willing to purchase two separate cameras to get optimum performance.

That doesn't explain why the K20D sensor is better than any previous pentax sensor at high ISO.

Sensor noise is a function of the area of the sensor. If you take a FF sensor and crop out a portion the size of an APS-C sensor, you have to enlarge that crop more than the FF crop to get the same image size, and the noise is enlarged with that. To take it even further, crop out a portion the size of a compact camera's sensor and you have to enlarge it by a huge amount to get the same resulting image size, magnifying the noise by a huge amount as well. With a given sensor technology, the noise levels per area of sensor are going to remain essentially the same regardless of pixel pitch. The difference is that with higher pixel densities, the noise is divided between smaller and more numerous pixels, which reads in test as "more noise per pixel" and looks worse in 1:1 crops and gets denounced on web forums, even though it looks better in print because the actual noise level of the overall image is the same. With lower pixel densities, it's not that the noise isn't there, you just don't have a high enough level of detail to see its effect. It's like diffraction; it's always there in the same amounts regardless of pixel density, it's just that with higher pixel densities you can see it better. Neither are dependent on pixel density: noise is dependent on area and the type of sensor technology used, the other is dependent on the laws of optical physics.

So why is the K20D sensor's better, and the K10D's sensor a bit worse, and the older 6mp sensor surprisingly good? The difference is in the sensor technology. Advances in sensor technology are what improve the noise performance of a sensor. Pixel density just determines how well we can see the way the sensor performs. The tech used in the K10D sensor is noisier per area than the older 6mp sensor, and the tech used in the new K20D sensor is the best of them at higher ISO and the most detailed at lower ISO.

We're going to see both improved high ISO performance and higher resolution from APS-C sensors as the technology improves. The main tradeoff is file size.

[Samsungian]

I wanted to recover a bit of money out of my two 6mp dslr K Mounts but the sensors are really quite good. Seems stupid to sell them for maybe $200 a piece towards my $1,240 outlay instead of just driving them into the ground until they are useless.

My two 6mp are Samsung GX-1S ,a.k.a. Pentax DS-2 clones. Its never been confirmed that Samsung GX-1S uses a Sony sensor or a Samsung sensor. GX-1S looks like an exact copy of DS2 so if the innards are the same as the outer shell then its a Sony 6mp which performs quite well at 1600 iso.


=

That doesn't explain why the K20D sensor is better than any previous pentax sensor at high ISO.

Sensor noise is a function of the area of the sensor. If you take a FF sensor and crop out a portion the size of an APS-C sensor, you have to enlarge that crop more than the FF crop to get the same image size, and the noise is enlarged with that. To take it even further, crop out a portion the size of a compact camera's sensor and you have to enlarge it by a huge amount to get the same resulting image size, magnifying the noise by a huge amount as well. With a given sensor technology, the noise levels per area of sensor are going to remain essentially the same regardless of pixel pitch. The difference is that with higher pixel densities, the noise is divided between smaller and more numerous pixels, which reads in test as "more noise per pixel" and looks worse in 1:1 crops and gets denounced on web forums, even though it looks better in print because the actual noise level of the overall image is the same. With lower pixel densities, it's not that the noise isn't there, you just don't have a high enough level of detail to see its effect. It's like diffraction; it's always there in the same amounts regardless of pixel density, it's just that with higher pixel densities you can see it better. Neither are dependent on pixel density: noise is dependent on area and the type of sensor technology used, the other is dependent on the laws of optical physics.

So why is the K20D sensor's better, and the K10D's sensor a bit worse, and the older 6mp sensor surprisingly good? The difference is in the sensor technology. Advances in sensor technology are what improve the noise performance of a sensor. Pixel density just determines how well we can see the way the sensor performs. The tech used in the K10D sensor is noisier per area than the older 6mp sensor, and the tech used in the new K20D sensor is the best of them at higher ISO and the most detailed at lower ISO.

We're going to see both improved high ISO performance and higher resolution from APS-C sensors as the technology improves. The main tradeoff is file size.

[regken]

That doesn't explain why the K20D sensor is better than any previous pentax sensor at high ISO.

We're going to see both improved high ISO performance and higher resolution from APS-C sensors as the technology improves. The main tradeoff is file size.

What you say makes sense when talking about different sized sensors. My point is prints of the same size shot from the same size sensor will have different levels of noise depending on pixel density if both sensors have the latest technology. I can't prove this and I may be completely wrong but it makes sense to me.

I agree APS-C sensors are going to get but but I also think there can be significant differences within the same sensor based on pixel density.

[er1kksen]

What you say makes sense when talking about different sized sensors. My point is prints of the same size shot from the same size sensor will have different levels of noise depending on pixel density if both sensors have the latest technology. I can't prove this and I may be completely wrong but it makes sense to me.

I agree APS-C sensors are going to get but but I also think there can be significant differences within the same sensor based on pixel density.

That's the thing though; it's not dependent on the pixel density. It's dependent on the tech used in the sensor and the area of the sensor. A high-pixel density APS-C chip with advanced sensor tech is going to have lower noise per area than a low-pixel density APS-C chip with older tech (though the lower-density chip might still look better in the usual noise tests because they usually test noise-per-pixel, which is far less relevant). Chips with an equal area and an equally advanced sensor tech would, in theory, have identical noise per area, with noise in the higher-density chip being finer grained and noise in the lower-density chip being less apparent in a 1:1 view because it's magnified less to view at a 1:1 level.

The differences in that case would be possibly higher DR (better highlight retainment) with the lower-density chip, and higher resolution on the higher-density chip. Again, dependent on the type of sensor tech used.

[Substitute]

Hi Substitute

Re your statement:


I realise that this might probably seem like a slightly spurious analogy, but just suppose for a moment that you been an Olympus Pen ½-frame F/FT/FV user back in the 1960's, is it likely that you would have still held the same opposition towards full-frame SLR's ?
I suppose my real question being: if price were NOT the overriding consideration (i.e. for argument's sake APS-C and FF DSLR's cost the same amount), would you still hold the same opinion and if so, why ? Just curious.....

Best regards
Richard

WHy? Because I have a film RF set up, that it is light, sturdy, very low tech, can be carried anywhere and doesn't require me to take a huge bag when on trips!That's full frame enough for me.
Plus I mostly use DSLR for concerts shots/portraits and I need the extra stretch of the teles on APS-C.
But that's just me, not a rule at all. But most people I know, either went back to their film/FF set up or never left it for the same reasons.
Now frankly, if a D700 were at the same price as the K20D, I guess I'll stick with the K20D for size, ergonomics and weather sealed reasons.
Since, for me, the smaller the better!

[whatever7]

WHy? Because I have a film RF set up, that it is light, sturdy, very low tech, can be carried anywhere and doesn't require me to take a huge bag when on trips!That's full frame enough for me.
Plus I mostly use DSLR for concerts shots/portraits and I need the extra stretch of the teles on APS-C.
But that's just me, not a rule at all. But most people I know, either went back to their film/FF set up or never left it for the same reasons.
Now frankly, if a D700 were at the same price as the K20D, I guess I'll stick with the K20D for size, ergonomics and weather sealed reasons.
Since, for me, the smaller the better!

In an ideal world, if the FF sensor cost as little as the APS sensor then my ideal body won't be the D700, it would be the most compact the lightest FF body Pentax can make. It would be something in the size of ZX5n with low FPS and slow AF.

The way I look at it, I want weather proof and fast shooting and fast AF on a FF body only because its so expensive. If its cheap to make then I would not sacrifice portibility for rebustness. I don't even need SR since the high ISO on the FF sensor can get me back a stop or two. I can put on a APS zoom like 18-250mm for a lazy travel such as a cruise ride but most of the time I would be rocking the FA 43mm and maybe the new Voigtlander 20mm and that's all I ever need.

[24X36NOW]

IF (which it would never be) the sensors/cameras were equal, you still have the size issue.. Pick up an old "D" compared to a K200.
It would only get worse w/ FF until an EVF was your only focus aid.

C'mon, this tired argument is such nonsense. When you compare cameras of similar construction and features, the difference in size and weight is negligible. APS-C cameras are built on a chassis that essentially is sized for FF, since it's designed for lenses made for FF, so what you have with APS-C is a camera bigger and heavier than it has to be, due to its design compromises that were necessitated by the need for backward compatibility with legacy lenses.

See an apples to apples comparison (Nikon D300 (APS-C) vs. Nikon D700 (FF)) here:

D300 vs D700 - size compared - Nikon D700

The main difference is the bigger prism, with which you get the big, beautiful viewfinder. A Pentax FF dSLR with construction similar to the K20D would be similar in size and weight, it wouldn't balloon into an EOS-1DS III size just because they gave it a full sized sensor.

[lol101]

C'mon, this tired argument is such nonsense. When you compare cameras of similar construction and features, the difference in size and weight is negligible. APS-C cameras are built on a chassis that essentially is sized for FF, since it's designed for lenses made for FF, so what you have with APS-C is a camera bigger and heavier than it has to be, due to its design compromises that were necessitated by the need for backward compatibility with legacy lenses.

See an apples to apples comparison (Nikon D300 (APS-C) vs. Nikon D700 (FF)) here:

D300 vs D700 - size compared - Nikon D700

The main difference is the bigger prism, with which you get the big, beautiful viewfinder. A Pentax FF dSLR with construction similar to the K20D would be similar in size and weight, it wouldn't balloon into an EOS-1DS III size just because they gave it a full sized sensor.

Exactly what I have always said: if Pentax decided to make a (relatively) compact FF DSLR, like they did in the MZ era, why wouldn't they be able to do it?

FF doesn't HAVE to be big, it's just that Canikon have always produced big cameras, be it film, APS-C or FF.

On a side note, even though cameras like the D700 or 5D are bigger than the K20, it's not really like you could fit a K20 in your rear pocket anyway...

[stan8331]

I'm most interested in improvements in dynamic range and high-iso performance. Not so much interested in a $3000+ 30MP FF D30. If Pentax can deliver a FF camera with great dynamic range and high-iso for around $2000, I'll bite.

[phenri]

I already have a number of "full-frame" analog Pentax cameras and therefore I don't need a digital one.

Actually I shoot less and less digital. This perpetual race to upgrade digital bodies has left me unenthusiastic, I'll keep my old K10D when digital is preferable (night exposures, macros, and action shots).

[tigrebleu]

Yes. I'd love it.

As long as it's not over 25 Mpix and that it's got a good sensor and a good A/D converter with low noise and high dynamic range. But if it's a 30+ Mpix with a limit of ISO 3200 and a 9-stops DR, than why bother? I'd rather keep my K10D and buy more lenses.

But my bet is no... at least for 2009. Economical situation just doesn't allow for such expensive developpements right now. 2010-2011 could be better, maybe.

I'm pretty sure we'll see a 645D and a micro APS-C EVIL camera before we see any FF Pentax DSLR (with so many resources spent on the 645D, they have to do something with it, don't they?). Hoya is in charge now and it's clear they aim at profitability. And profitable probably means large public, not only the enthusiast photographers anymore. More APS-C DSLR and EVIL cameras to come, I guess...

[Adnan EROL]

[QUOTE=phenri;515858]I already have a number of "full-frame" analog Pentax cameras ...QUOTE]

which Pentax analog SLR has MLU (mirror lock up)?

[infoomatic]

I'm pretty sure we'll see a 645D and a micro APS-C EVIL camera before we see any FF Pentax DSLR (with so many resources spent on the 645D, they have to do something with it, don't they?).

I completely agree with you. However, MF is not an option for me (and probably some others who want do go more professional), so I'll stick to APS-C ... hoping Pentax will launch a FF DSLR within the next 3 years.