[stevebrot]

I agree that all these FF postings are unnecessary.

Which part of aps-c does it not serve you?

I won't go into a long discussion to repeat what has been stated above and on many, many other threads except to say that I only had my K10D for about two weeks before I was seriously aware of the short-comings of APS-C.

Full frame is a lot of money and that's just to gain that one stop. Just look at how aps-c is serving you. It does everything you need.

I am talking about non-pro's. If pro's need full frame they can justify it easily.

Ummm...I don't know what you mean by "one stop".

What I do know is that APS-C does fails to meet my needs. I am not a pro and I am not alone in this opinion. At least one member of this forum (Gooshin) is shooting film in preference to digital in order to have a larger format Pentax option. I personally have returned to 35mm film for some subjects. I have a coworker that bought a Nikon D300 a little over a year ago, used it for a few months and replaced it with the D700 as soon as it became available. When I asked him why he made such a costly switch, he said simply, "The sensor was too small."

Steve

[redpigeons]

I thought about it and figured it out.

FF is important BC Canon and Nikon have it and Pentax don't.

And when people (myself included) thinks about a first DSLR and see that Pentax don't have "pro" model that "you can grow into" that makes you think.

At least that is what people made me feel when I was looking and asking questions... obviously I got a Pentax at the end

I know we all know that FF isnot important but million of others include all the 5D users thinks it does

As for me right now what is important is the glass I need to know that I can build in time a good lens collection that I could use for the next 20 years at least with any Pentax camera to come.

So if Pentax say they will stick with crop sensor I hope they will stick with it and if not please let us know.

[stevebrot]

APS-C could very well eventually have the same DR. As far as having the same FOV or same DOF at same aperture... I have to ask: so what?

The paradigms change, as do the lenses you use. There is nothing magical (or un-reproduceable) about the FOV/FL or DOF/aperture ratios of Full Frame.



.

Jay,
What you have said here is very, very true. There is truly nothing magical about FF.

On the other hand...

Historically, the 35mm film format represented the smallest size that could consistently produce quality images from available optics. And even at that, the consensus was that it represented a compromise. Attempts were made with film to move people towards a smaller format, but even with quality optics half-frame, 110 and APS (film) never really cut it.

Now the argument might be made that modern optics for APS-C have overcome the problem. If that were the case, I would like someone to point me to the APS-C equivalent of my Tamron 28/2.5. When I bought this lens in the early 1980s, it cost about $75 and provided sharp, contrasty, distortion-free images with almost no vignette or CA. Might I also mention that it has a fairly fast maximum aperture?

That is all I am asking for, a wide-angle prime with the following features:

• Moderate price
• Sharp
• Fast aperture
• 75-85 degree FOV
• True rectilinear without barrel distortion
• No vignette
• Low CA

A lens with these features was easy to make for 35mm, why is it absent for APS-C if the format is strictly equivalent?

Steve

(Link to a description of my Tammy)

[vinzer]

you're not taking the more telecentric needs of a digital sensor over film into account.
it's why the Leica M8 is thicker than it's analog counterpart and is still forced to use a smaller sensor. they had to do tricks like tilting the microlenses on the edges of the sensor up to get that off-angle light that film took for granted. it's why we don't all have 35mm point&shoots.

You're probably right regarding why the Leica digital 'finders being thicker than their analog counterparts, but the bigger reason why we don't have 35mm P&S digital cameras would still be the cost to produce a 35mm sensor.

If 35mm sensors can be made cheaply (as cheap as current digicam sensors), I don't see why some Taiwan/Chinese company wouldn't make their own generic FF digicam. I'm pretty sure those firms don't care about telecentricity and all that.

[65535]

i want ff so my fa limiteds are the "right" focal length.

clear enough?

[Angevinn]

I don't see why APS-C DA lens owners are so against a FF DSLR. Nikon, Canon and Sony support more than one format (FF and APS-C) . I don't see that as a problem for Samsung/Pentax. Even on a FF camera from Nikon, Canon or Sony you can still use your APS-C lenses, just in crop mode to match the output of the lens. There is an obvious market for FF, the FF sensor also has its advantages.

If others are interested in purchasing such a camera it's their perogative. I used to shoot medium format, since I don't shoot medium format anymore should I be telling Pentax not to produce such a camera? I see the upcoming Pentax medium format camera as a good move to broaden their market share. The company will produce what the market will support and what will be profitable.

That being said, Samsung/Pentax bring on a FF DSLR!

But with 645D coming out next year, are they going to eventually support APS-C and MF and FF? Not likely for company that size.

[cpopham]

People who need/want larger sensors don't want them for resolution (usually) but for FOV and more importantly DoF control. It is simply an impossibility for one to take a photo like this:

This is true - however, sometimes it can be nice to have a deeper depth of field, especially when using faster lenses in low light - when you need to open them up purely to obtain a sane shutter speed.

So it doesn't necessarily cut only one way - sometimes it's a bonus!

I don't see why APS-C DA lens owners are so against a FF DSLR. Nikon, Canon and Sony support more than one format (FF and APS-C) . I don't see that as a problem for Samsung/Pentax. Even on a FF camera from Nikon, Canon or Sony you can still use your APS-C lenses, just in crop mode to match the output of the lens.

Um, unless these people are wrong... then you can't necessarily... seems like Canon users get the shaft again...

[ltdstar]

But with 645D coming out next year, are they going to eventually support APS-C and MF and FF? Not likely for company that size.

I'll save up for a 645D, i've got all the lenses i want, both for k-mount and 645 just need that 645D i'll be set...

I'll save up for a 645D, i've got all the lenses i want, both for k-mount and 645 just need that 645D i'll be set...

Around 8G I hear. You ok with no shake reduction?

[robgo2]

I personally want a small and maneuverable system ..... that's why I went to Pentax in the first place.

You said it, brother. This past weekend, I went shooting with a friend who has a Nikon D700 with a 24-70/2.8 Nikkor lens. Unquestionably, it takes great photos, but perhaps only slightly better than my K10D, which, with a DA*16-50/2.8, covers a slightly greater angle of view and weighs a whole lot less. If it came down to a contest of low light, high ISO shooting, no doubt the D700 would win, but its advantage is counterbalanced by the fact that the K10D is image stabilized and can be hand held at 2 stops slower shutter speed, which translates into 2 stops lower ISO. The K20D probably has 3 stops greater hand holdability, and the K7, possibly even more.

As long as APS-C can deliver great IQ and keeps improving, I see no reason to jump on the FF bandwagon. Give me small size and light weight anyday.

Rob

[jsherman999]

Jay,
What you have said here is very, very true. There is truly nothing magical about FF.

On the other hand...

...

Now the argument might be made that modern optics for APS-C have overcome the problem. If that were the case, I would like someone to point me to the APS-C equivalent of my Tamron 28/2.5. When I bought this lens in the early 1980s, it cost about $75 and provided sharp, contrasty, distortion-free images with almost no vignette or CA. Might I also mention that it has a fairly fast maximum aperture?

That is all I am asking for, a wide-angle prime with the following features:

• Moderate price
• Sharp
• Fast aperture
• 75-85 degree FOV
• True rectilinear without barrel distortion
• No vignette
• Low CA

A lens with these features was easy to make for 35mm, why is it absent for APS-C if the format is strictly equivalent?

Steve

(Link to a description of my Tammy)

Steve, is the difference in results between that Tamron 28mm and, say, the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 at 18mm so significant that you'd buy a FF camera just to get it?

That Tamron may have been $75 in early-80's $, but it was fully manual, and frankly from what I see in that link may not have been as good as you remembered (unless you still have it and can prove me wrong )

I'm not saying that FF doesn't bring some unique things to the table in regards to lenses, it's just that... so what, again. Another format, another set of ratios to work with.

I'd like to see a FF Pentax body, but even more so I want to see Pentax do well without endangering themselves by over-extending into small markets...


.

[robgo2]

I love the "look" of the samsung sensor, I just always wish for more resolution.

Why do you lust after more resolution? Is 15MP truly insufficient for the type of work that you do? If you want more detail from the K20D, try using DxO Optics Pro for RAW conversion. It puts every other RAW converter to shame in this regard.

That said, I may end up buying the K7 myself to replace my K10D, but it would be for features other than resolution. Ten MP with DxO is more than enough.

Rob

[stevebrot]

...its advantage is counterbalanced by the fact that the K10D is image stabilized and can be hand held at 2 stops slower shutter speed, which translates into 2 stops lower ISO. The K20D probably has 3 stops greater hand holdability...

My experience has been that the smaller sensor is more sensitive to camera motion. My Canon G2 is difficult to hand-hold at less than 1/125 second and I would not attempt to hand-hold my K10D with any lens at less than 1/60 second without SR. By way of contrast, I have no trouble hand-holding my 35mm film cameras down to 1/15 second with lenses 50mm and shorter. I believe that SR pretty much evens it up between my K10D and my film SLRs.

Steve

My experience has been that the smaller sensor is more sensitive to camera motion. My Canon G2 is difficult to hand-hold at less than 1/125 second and I would not attempt to hand-hold my K10D with any lens at less than 1/60 second without SR. By way of contrast, I have no trouble hand-holding my 35mm film cameras down to 1/15 second with lenses 50mm and shorter. I believe that SR pretty much evens it up between my K10D and my film SLRs.

Steve

This may explain why K20D's SR seems better than K10D with certain lenses....