[elkarrde]

That is unless you don't mind just continuing with the older lenses.

the only problem i can see with that is possibly limited availability.

[Jasvox]

Not full frame. And if they did bring out a full frame compatible with all the pentax lenses that you have, those lenses would only be using a fraction of the sensor in a full frame camera. Well thats the story according to Nikons D700 and Nikon lens. Which to me makes it rather senseless having a full frame camera, as your starting all over again to collect the full frame lens selection or only getting the quality you'd get from a d300 sensor wise or any other full frame camera. That is unless you don't mind just continuing with the older lenses.

Unless you aren't counting pretty much every Pentax lens made before the DA series, which you can readily find. Also, the FA series aren't that old some are very current and in some ways superior lenses.

Jason

[Urkeldaedalus]

In this article, a Samsung rep indicates that the company developed its own lens mount for the NX, but will still remain partners with Pentax.

Samsung Developed Lens Mount For New Hybrid - 3/5/2009 7:57:00 AM - TWICE

[vinzer]

The GX20 never sold that well and my guess is marketing and price. Fort some reason, Samsung sells basically a K20D for a higher price (stupid). Last I checked, (today), it was selling for $250 more than the K20D.

Amazon.com: Samsung GX-20 14.6MP Digital SLR Camera with 18-55mm Lens: Camera & Photo

Jason

Wow, that's some screwed pricing there. I thought Samsung wanted to sell the GX20 much cheaper than the K20D, only Pentax slapped them on the wrist for trying that? At least that's how I recall it...

[thibs]

Wow, that's some screwed pricing there. I thought Samsung wanted to sell the GX20 much cheaper than the K20D, only Pentax slapped them on the wrist for trying that? At least that's how I recall it...

It heavily depends on the different markets. In Belgium/France, the Samsung are usualy more expensive but in the UK (at least until recently) the Samsung versions of lenses/flashes/camera were often very good deals (with a few exceptions).

It is like shouting because of the price of the 35 macro limited. In the US it is quite expensive. In Europe it is *very* nice deal.

[Digitalis]

I wish they would bring out a Full frame DSLR, using APS-H as a step toward that goal, the Pentax 16-45mm f/4 ED AL can be used on film providing you stay above 24mm. I also have the FA limiteds and a few older A* FA* lenses which are superb performers on full frame.

additionally, knowing pentax they will probably make a killer viewfinder on the new DLSR...a bit off topic but the pentax 645's viewfinder had to be seen to be belived, it was without equal. and if they make their new Digital 645 with the same technology more than 200 people in america are going to want it.

[vinzer]

It heavily depends on the different markets. In Belgium/France, the Samsung are usualy more expensive but in the UK (at least until recently) the Samsung versions of lenses/flashes/camera were often very good deals (with a few exceptions).

It is like shouting because of the price of the 35 macro limited. In the US it is quite expensive. In Europe it is *very* nice deal.

Oh okay. Thanks for the heads-up.

[whatever7]

Not full frame. And if they did bring out a full frame compatible with all the pentax lenses that you have, those lenses would only be using a fraction of the sensor in a full frame camera. Well thats the story according to Nikons D700 and Nikon lens. Which to me makes it rather senseless having a full frame camera, as your starting all over again to collect the full frame lenses or using the old ones in your collection and only getting the quality you'd get from a d300 sensor wise or any other full frame camera. That is unless you don't mind just continuing with the older lenses.

That's non sense. D700 can take pictures in much darker places that your APS camera can't. What lens you use on the D700 is irrelevent. You can get a 12mp photo with a FF lens, or you can get a 5mp photo with an APS lens. Try to look up "D700 and 6400" on flickr. You can't take those pictures with D300 or K20D. Simple as that.

You can argue that the same sensor technology can be put on an APS body, but until somebody do so in the real world. FF (especially the D700 and D3) has better high ISO performance than Medium Format digital cameras and APS cameras.

[thibs]

Yes because MF point is not to push ISO but to push Mpix.

APS-C sensor IMO are a lot more akin to FF ones and tech used in FF will soon enough take place in APS-C sensors.

[CFWhitman]

The reason why "full frame" sensors tend to have better high ISO performance than APS-C is because the pixel density is usually lower (pixels per square millimeter), so each pixel is larger and picks up more light (simplistically put). Of course other things factor in, like how advanced the technology is at the time of the sensor's design.

Medium format digitals seem to generally have similar pixel density to full frame cameras because the goal of increasing sensor size is to add resolution without sacrificing quality. So there is no reason they shouldn't have similar high ISO performance to full frame cameras of comparable sensor technology. Medium format digitals generally aren't redesigned as often, however, so their sensors are often a generation or two older than the newest DSLRs of smaller sizes, and that could make their ISO performance lag behind at times.

There is nothing stopping an APS-C camera from having the same ISO performance as a full frame camera of similar sensor technology as long as the manufacturer and the customer don't mind having the same pixel density, and thus less than half (Edit: not two thirds, like this said originally) the number of pixels of the full frame camera in question.

[Digitalis]

"Medium format digitals seem to generally have similar pixel density to full frame cameras because the goal of increasing sensor size is to add resolution without sacrificing quality."

correct me if i'm wrong, things may hae changed in recent years. I seem to recall Medium format digital backs don't have microlenses. because when they are used in conjunction with large format systems where camera movements like shift and tilt are used microlenses cause disturbing colour shifts at extreme settings. but Medium format backs don't usually go much higher than ISO 800 because the idea behind medium format is High quality images and ISO 100 is the optimal setting.

[ManuH]

The reason why "full frame" sensors tend to have better high ISO performance than APS-C is because the pixel density is usually lower (pixels per square millimeter), so each pixel is larger and picks up more light (simplistically put).

That's not the actual reason. The reason why FF is better in low-light and always will be by about 1-1/3 stop is because it has more area to collect light. Simple physics.

[24X36NOW]

There is nothing stopping an APS-C camera from having the same ISO performance as a full frame camera of similar sensor technology as long as the manufacturer and the customer don't mind having the same pixel density, and thus two thirds the number of pixels of the full frame camera in question.

The same pixel density in APS-C is not 2/3 of FF; it's about 42% of FF. So for your 12 MP FF D3/D700, the equivalent pixel density in APS-C is about 5 MP, which is (oddly enough) about what you get when you put DX lenses on a FF Nikon.

Now maybe you'd like to start a "5MP is enough" thread, and see how well supported that view is.

[Jonson PL]

That's not the actual reason. The reason why FF is better in low-light and always will be by about 1-1/3 stop is because it has more area to collect light. Simple physics.

Pixel density is what it is all about, and technological advances.

Many preferred the Eos 5D to Eos 1Ds Mark II, as it was felt that it had better high Iso performance.

The Eos 1Ds Mark II had :
16.6 million Effective pixels
Pixel density 1.9 MP/cm²


Eos 5D had :
12.7 million effective pixels
1.5 MP/cm² pixel density

The Canon EOS-1D Mark III had :
10.1 million effective pixels
1.9 MP/cm² pixel density

Though the 1D Mark III had smaller sensor, and higher pixel pitch than Eos 5D, the high Iso was better, due to newer technology and built to higher level performance.

If you cramp a FF sensor with extremely small pixels, then e.g. an APS-H sensor will be better, if it has larger pixels.

This is why 5D Mark II and A900 means nothing to me, since what really interests me in FF is the road that Nikon has gone with D3, D700.
And also the reason many current 5D original users, were disappointed that Canon had gone MP race with the new model.


Of cause if you downsize your high MP camera, then you minimize noise problems. This is why my K10 with 10.0 million effective pixels and 2.7 MP/cm² pixel density, is great; up to a certain size enlargements.

Else I don't really care too much about it. These things have been discussed so many times. As it is mostly theoretical problems.

correct me if i'm wrong, things may hae changed in recent years. I seem to recall Medium format digital backs don't have microlenses. because when they are used in conjunction with large format systems where camera movements like shift and tilt are used microlenses cause disturbing colour shifts at extreme settings.

thanks, very interesting

[whatever7]

The same pixel density in APS-C is not 2/3 of FF; it's about 42% of FF. So for your 12 MP FF D3/D700, the equivalent pixel density in APS-C is about 5 MP, which is (oddly enough) about what you get when you put DX lenses on a FF Nikon.

Now maybe you'd like to start a "5MP is enough" thread, and see how well supported that view is.

I would buy that in a heart beat.

OK I'll pay up to $800 for it, maybe not over 1000. I am talking about a 5mp, ISO 6400 very useable APS body.

If I am in a scenic place, I ll just use a 20-photo panarama to stitch up a high-re picture. CPU cycle is chreap nowadays.