[RiceHigh]

orders of magnitude more marketshare, millions of dollars and infrastructure?

I guess Pentax this time can wake up from dying with the K-7, believe me! ;-)

[vinzer]

I always thought ricehigh was chinese, not japanese....

He is, but he either knows some Japanese, too, or he has friends who help him translate. Either way, his translations are still worlds better than the drivel Google translation spouts. God bless Google, I know they try, but language translation with all it's nuances is really something that is hard for machines to do, still.

[sir_bazz]

Wow, you really have it in for Ned today don't you. Since Ned is only passing information on from the Pentax engineering team, I presume you also think you know more than all of them as well. Oh sorry, of course you do.

Hi Steve,
I agree with that poster.

We've seen many images of Pentax glass working as it should on other manufacturers fullframe DSLR's. What's so different about the K mount that would prevent us getting the same result on a Pentax body?

[Yohan Pamudji]

So FF represents a marginal increase in quality in relative terms, and a very limited return on quality in cost-effective terms. Are you going to spend ten thousand $$$ more on an FF system for photos where the quality is only marginally better than APS-C? The return on investment goes both ways for Pentax and the consumer. That is why the FF market is so small. FF is no longer the "normal" size for photography—it's the premium product all the way. The major brands are positioning themselves for this with super-expensive lenses for the duration.

Marginal? To you, maybe. Show me an APS-C crop sensor that can do what the D700, D3, and 5DII can do at high ISO. Not everybody needs that, but the difference is hardly marginal. At low ISOs sure--just about any modern DSLR can competently capture good quality at low ISOs. But that's not exactly pushing the boundaries, is it.

You're right though, that APS-C is very good and FF is a premium product. Right now. FF will always command a higher price over APS-C. More sensor area = more cost. Simple economics. But at some point FF manufacturing will be cheap enough to push FF bodies into the sub-$2K range, which will narrow the gap with APS-C bodies with the same feature set, because there's not much more room for prosmer APS-C bodies to go lower in price. Let's just say FF bodies currently selling for $2700 eventually sell for $1900 at introduction. That's an $800 drop. APS-C bodies don't have that much wiggle room. And $1900 is really a conservative estimate, because the 5D sold for around that (less at some retailers) right before the 5DII was announced. It can and will be done; surpassed, even. So as the gap narrows, FF becomes less of a premium product for a small market and more of an obtainable goal for more and more users.

If APS-C gets you the results you want, by all means stick by it. It's not going to disappear just because FF becomes progressively more affordable, and at least in the Pentax universe it has some real systemic benefits (small and light DA Limited lenses).

[Aristophanes]

Marginal? To you, maybe. Show me an APS-C crop sensor that can do what the D700, D3, and 5DII can do at high ISO. Not everybody needs that, but the difference is hardly marginal. At low ISOs sure--just about any modern DSLR can competently capture good quality at low ISOs. But that's not exactly pushing the boundaries, is it.

You're right though, that APS-C is very good and FF is a premium product. Right now. FF will always command a higher price over APS-C. More sensor area = more cost. Simple economics. But at some point FF manufacturing will be cheap enough to push FF bodies into the sub-$2K range, which will narrow the gap with APS-C bodies with the same feature set, because there's not much more room for prosmer APS-C bodies to go lower in price. Let's just say FF bodies currently selling for $2700 eventually sell for $1900 at introduction. That's an $800 drop. APS-C bodies don't have that much wiggle room. And $1900 is really a conservative estimate, because the 5D sold for around that (less at some retailers) right before the 5DII was announced. It can and will be done; surpassed, even. So as the gap narrows, FF becomes less of a premium product for a small market and more of an obtainable goal for more and more users.

If APS-C gets you the results you want, by all means stick by it. It's not going to disappear just because FF becomes progressively more affordable, and at least in the Pentax universe it has some real systemic benefits (small and light DA Limited lenses).

1. By emphasizing the high ISO qualities you're changing the yardstick. High ISO resolution is not necessarily a feature of the FF sensor itself. Current MF cameras often don't go over ISO 400 for a variety of reasons. Sensor gain is a technical advancement that relies a lot on software interpretation.

2. Virtually all APS-C cameras sold in 2009 are capable of stunning results that place the format well beyond most 35mm film cameras. So the relative value of APS-C is already proven in a smaller form factor than FF. That's critical to widespread sales. APS-C satisfies 99% of the DSLR market in terms of quality, and it's only going to get better.

3. Prosumer APS-C bodies can go substantially lower in price. In fact, I expect they will as they are in the "feature addition" phase right now with HD video come into into vogue. You will likely see APS-C bodies drop into the sub-$400 range, with older models below that. The bodies are not the cost issue (EVF replacing mirrors/prisms). The optics are. That's the FF rub.

4. As with most premium products, manufacturers can go a long way to retaining the margins by elevating pricing. In such a small market segment such as FF, there is less incentive to compete on price. Look to the MF market for an example of that dynamic. Again, the optics are the key.



Remember: Nikon's press photos showing the D3 were shot using a Phase One P45!

[kenyee]

1. By emphasizing the high ISO qualities you're changing the yardstick. High ISO resolution is not necessarily a feature of the FF sensor itself. Current MF cameras often don't go over ISO 400 for a variety of reasons.

MF doesn't go over ISO400 probably because people don't need it in the studios or landscape photos you usually see them used in. I'm sure they could do much better than that if they wanted to...

High ISO capability is generally a direct function of photosite size...we saw this in the P&S megapixel race where ISO capability dropped significantly after 4-6Mpix but the crazy manufacturers kept cramming pixels into the chips until they were pretty crappy in even semi low light...

[hopey]

Marginal? To you, maybe. Show me an APS-C crop sensor that can do what the D700, D3, and 5DII can do at high ISO.

The Online Photographer: High ISO vs. Image Stabilization

Nikon D700:


Pentax K20D:

[jeffkrol]

I see my pet troll has found me again.

I don't know who knows more about what, but it seems to me that if Nikon and Canon can make full frame work, and they seem to be doing a pretty good job of it, then there must be something to it.
What this says about Pentax's engineering team, whether good or bad, I'll leave up to the people who think they know more about what I know than I do to decide.

What's cheaper? Building a 645D or a complete re-design for FF? What's better, trying to capture 1% of 10% w/ a high margin product (in theory) or 1% of 10% of a low margin product? Canon and Nikon can afford to do this. There is yet to be proof that they are actually making any money on the low level FF. Look at the cost of Nikons FF flagship. This will give you an idea of what it really takes to make a profit in FF ($4349 at amazon). Pentax can barely sell anything at the $1000 price point (late to market ect.). As they stated, no can do at this time (and make money). Heck anyone can build an OS for a computer. Just try to sell it.
Get a 645D to market, attract some prestige, then FF. I really see no other way (and haven't for a few years).
All that FF glass out there can easily be stuck onto a 645....you can always crop to FF w/ a big sensor.. Oh I see, everyone wants a $1000 FF from Pentax...

[vinzer]

I can't believe this thread devolved to another "FF is better" slapfest.

Anyway, all I have to say is that I'm no better than the K20D I'm using and being that I make zero money out of photography, it's highly dubious for me to spend thousands of dollars for a FF body. I think Pentax, though part of their reluctance to enter the FF fray is because of possibly prohibitive sensor costs and a much smaller R&D budget, I think they also understand that most people buying DSLRs today (mostly enthusiasts rather than high art producers and working photographers) are still okay with APS-C, and have limited funds to splurge on FF bodies and capable lenses for it (at least to maximize the benefits of the FF body).

I appreciate what FF can bring (high ISO performance is what tickles my fancy), but I surely wouldn't pay current prices for FF bodies just to get good ISO 6400 performance, higher MP count, or better DOF control. I suspect more than 90% of the market won't either, regardless of brand they own. Telling are Nikon and Sony's plans to release more made-for-APS-C lenses. If APS-C is that much of a dead end, why bother releasing such new lenses? They simply could've slowly killed off their existing APS-C lens line and concentrated solely on FF lenses.

For all the negativity espoused by the smaller 4/3 sensor in non-4/3 users, at least there are far less grumbles from Olympus and Panasonic users about FF. They accept that it has flaws, but they work around those flaws and are still upbeat about future sensor tech being able to improve what they have.

Feel free to paint me as a weak photographer for not being able to make much use of FF, but I do know and accept my own limitations, artistry-wise and financial-wise.

[dopeytree]

Why would you want to buy a full frame camera to just get lots of problems with old lenses yes some may be acceptable but wouldn't it make much more sense to just buy the 645D? if your really a pro and sell your glass...

[*isteve]

Hi Steve,
I agree with that poster.

We've seen many images of Pentax glass working as it should on other manufacturers fullframe DSLR's. What's so different about the K mount that would prevent us getting the same result on a Pentax body?

Really? Of course, everyone is entitled to believe what that want, but I have not seen anything printed on an A3 or A2 prints, or any 100% crops, that would enable me to make any such judgement.

I would be pretty sceptical too. The corner performance of most Pentax FF lenses wide open is not that good even on APSC. Check out Photozone for the following

FA*24, FA43LTD, FA50F1.4, FA77LTD, FA*80-200.

In their day, some of the best lenses made but simply not telecentric enough to work well on digital, especially FF (or even APSC). If I have to stop down even ONE STOP more to get decent edge performance on FF, I lose all the advantages (noise, DOF etc) that everyone blathers on about.

So, Pentax WOULD have to rework many of their existing FF designs to work with FF, and contrary to what anyone sais, they are unlikely to make a FF camera with only 7 production FF lenses, all primes.

In the meantime, anyone is welcome to read through some of the Canon forums where its clear not all is well in Canon land with some of their wide angle zooms....looking at these reviews from Klaus at Photozone I'm not massively surprised.....

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4 USM L (full format) - Test Report / Review

[ManuH]

R
In the meantime, anyone is welcome to read through some of the Canon forums where its clear not all is well in Canon land with some of their wide angle zooms....looking at these reviews from Klaus at Photozone I'm not massively surprised.....

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4 USM L (full format) - Test Report / Review

OK But if you crop it and stop it down, you'll actually get good results. Wait a minute... Is this not what we call APS-C?

[blende8]

The corner performance of most Pentax FF lenses wide open is not that good

Doesn't matter, you will not see that because the corners are dark.

[RiceHigh]

OK But if you crop it and stop it down, you'll actually get good results. Wait a minute... Is this not what we call APS-C?

No need to crop, just stop down a bit (one to two stops) and then the evils are gone:

RiceHigh's Pentax Blog: Some Sample Photos with FAJ 18-35 on 5D (Full Frame)

As you see, the IQ produced by the above combo is amazing.

Of course, the lens should be good enough or at least not too bad!

[*isteve]

I see my pet troll has found me again.

I don't know who knows more about what, but it seems to me that if Nikon and Canon can make full frame work, and they seem to be doing a pretty good job of it, then there must be something to it.
What this says about Pentax's engineering team, whether good or bad, I'll leave up to the people who think they know more about what I know than I do to decide.

Perhaps you should change your name to Ricefield? You both have a similar approach to a debate. Even agreeing with you is strangely disagreeable.

Please look up the definition of "Troll", and perhaps your other favourite epithet, "Fanboy", and try an use them in their correct context. As a hint....

Troll is not someone who disagrees with your manners.
Fanboy is not someone who disagrees with your opinion.

As to your point about FF, what can I say that you havent said yourself, albeit about another topic.