Originally posted by falconeye Samsung aims for two-digit market shares in their key markets, like mobiles or photo (10%). With the declining sector of P&S, Samsung must succeed in the higher than P&S markets. In that respect, the cooperation with Pentax was nothing but a complete failure for Samsung (1% DSLR market share).
Samsung is making great money everytime a Pentax is sold with Samsung sensor inside. Besides they own the market in their own country, a country of 45 million people. The deal was with Pentax, to split up markets, as to not compete directly, and put negative pressure.
But I do agree that with the business model Samsung has of conquering markets, it is a good partner. They have done well in the extremely competitive digicam market.
Originally posted by brucestrange That doesn't make any sense. You said the tele-factor advantage was what made you prefer APS-C. I said a FF sensor with the same pixel density as an APS-C sensor makes it possible to keep the tele-factor advantage that you like. Then you said that you only want a FF sensor that would make you lose the tele-factor advantage. Maybe something is getting lost in translation.
I have a preference for APS-C, as I generally like a lighter weight package, since it can be used for mountain ascents, or others times where I do not want the bulk of FF.
What would lean me towards FF, is the remarkable high Iso of e.g. Nikon 700. When e.g. on safari at night, it could really come in handy. Hence a Eos 5DmarkII or A900 doesn’t really interest me, as I hardly get what I would like from a FF; the great high Iso.
35mm was perfect for SLR. When it comes to DSLR, the APS-C pretty much captured the market, and has provided very good IQ. Plus, as wildlife photography interests me, a 200 mm lens, acts like a 300 mm.
So with same pixel density, and the ability to crop a FF image; then FF is too expensive and too bulky. Here I will remain with crop sensor.
Should the FF cam be with more reasonable MP, then I will be tempted; as it brings great high Iso. Still it will not change APS-C crop as being my preferred choice, since it gives great weight vs, IQ ratio.
FF would be a second choice for me, a back-up for special application.
I do not want to hijack the thread, or change direction. People are allowed to want FF. But my opinion is that the telefactor cannot truly be neutralized; without extreme cost.
A 200 mm lens on FF, when taking photos of animals in a distance, present the animals in just a small percentage of the ViewFinder. You’re way more up close and personal with a 200 mm on APS-C DSLR. The Field of View is narrower, and it is easier to see when would be the right moment to grab the shots.
Though I later can crop the FF to fit APS-C, I cannot see with same certainty when exactly to hit the trigger on FF. Though the Viewfinder is bigger, the animal is just a small dot in the bigger Viewfinder, whereas a 200 on crop, though not as good Viewfinder, I can make it more fill the frame and know when to squeeze the trigger and use the precious RAW buffer.
Besides, e.g. the Eos 5D only has 0.71x magnification, and 96% frame coverage.
Whereas the D2Xs has Viewfinder magnification of 0.86x, and 100 % frame coverage.
And the D300 has 0.94x Viewfinder magnification, and 100% frame coverage.
(And the Eos 1D Mark II is 0.72x magnification, and 100 % frame coverage.)
The new Eos 5D Mark II has magnification of 0.71x, and 98% frame coverage.
An increase in VF magnification on FF and that it is some mm bigger, does not help the more limited Field of View reproduction.
(This is not against FF per se, as I would also welcome the wide-angle ability; but FF will not replace APS-C for me. But would just be an add-on instead. And primarily for low light action, where the higher Iso would come in handy).