thats exactly my point! Only the other camp doesnt seem to get it.

why must there be "FF Fanboys or APS fanboys", why cant people come to terms that both formats have their place, and that some people would prefer one format over another, to a greater degree than others.

and why is demanding that pentax, a company deeply rooted in the photography world, make a FF camera is "taboo", damn right they should make one, and cater to a wider customer base.

2000 dollars, no problem! Pro gear, pro prices, i think its fair (even if my wallet doesn't agree)

APS-C is not "the future", its just another format, with its own advantages and limitations.

there is no right answer.

my insults are for the idiots, and my diagrams are to showcase the pro/cons of each format.

Now, since you asked I'll tell you that for me FF as it is today 36x24mm is the pure product of the lens legacy combined with the habits of plenty photographers who used it in the past or present. In a digital world I guess the standard would be made by following some criteria:

- the aspect ratio must be targeted for the final usage (in this class most often than not the target is print in larger formats). Most of those are not 1,5 so MY ideal large sensor would have something like 1.35-1.4 aspect ratio and not 1,5;
- after this first step the second one has to be IMO establishing the maximum geometrical yield from the given waffer used in that moment. I suspect this is the reason we have now APS-C sensors anyway. Also vital is to see what is the biggest sensor a company (let's say Samsung ) is able to make in one pass.
- for me the ideal Pentax range would be something like:

1) APS-C 23.4x15.4 ~ 15 Mp
2) 28x20 mm ~ 16-17Mp - hi ISO & DR camera, but still easy portable;

It will be easier to implement SR, the sensor will still be able to use a portion of the FF lenses for better results and for the given Mp count the fps could be still reasonable.

3) 44x33 mm ~ 30Mp - 645D.

Radu

[Gooshin]

woudlnt the most ideal format then be a square, or dare i say, circle? (to get the most yield out of a wafer)

[GaryM]

I recently reviewed a series of portrait of my lovely wife taken at sundown with a superb light with the K10 + 50-135 and I must confess than with SR, I felt confident enough to let the shutter speed go down to the 1/30s-1/60s territory (ISO was 400): bad idea, in most shots, the subject is significantly blurred. I first thought it was an AF error (I used to get lots of them with my K10) but no, you can clearly see the "directional blur" due to subject motion...

That's strange, I've shot portraits at 1/30, and sometimes slower, with a (mostly) stationary subject without a problem. Your wife must really be moving around for you to get that much motion blur. If you have to stay at 1/125 and above, then clearly IS/Anti-shake is going to be mostly useless for you except at long focal lengths.

woudlnt the most ideal format then be a square, or dare i say, circle? (to get the most yield out of a wafer)

A circle is the optimum area only if the wafer has the same diameter, putting smaller circles into a larger one is probably as (or more) inefficient as any other square figure. I hope that Pentax will bypass C and N models with the future high end just like they did with the K-7 and not confront them in Sony style. And I also hope that 645D will be closer to a FF DSLR than any of us hope right now and only the beginning of a family of cameras that will constantly go lower on price as the time passes by.

Radu

[Gooshin]

the thing about MF cameras though, aside from the bulk, is the shutter and mirror slap that these behemoths exhibit

the 35mm SLR format is a compromise of that, although with todays plastics technology maybe its not so bad.

[Wheatfield]

And why not go to Nikon if they make what you want?

/discussion.
Pentax's law (Godwin's law without the Swastikas) has been invoked.

[robgo2]

That's strange, I've shot portraits at 1/30, and sometimes slower, with a (mostly) stationary subject without a problem. Your wife must really be moving around for you to get that much motion blur. If you have to stay at 1/125 and above, then clearly IS/Anti-shake is going to be mostly useless for you except at long focal lengths.

The effectiveness of image stabilization is inversely related to focal length and proximity of the subject, i.e. it is less effective with longer focal lengths and closer subjects. That is why there is no fixed rule about hand holdability with SR.

Rob

[falconeye]

The effectiveness of image stabilization is inversely related to focal length and proximity of the subject, i.e. it is less effective with longer focal lengths

Upon first inspection, this statement sounds false. Do you have a source or an argument to back it up?

[*isteve]

one's ability to understand is usually a pretty good measure of ones intellect

Yes, compared to you oh mighty artist, we are all blind morons whose opinions are worthless. Nothing we can say could possibly teach you anything, because already you know everything there is to know.

Now I know my place I will put away my cameras and 35 years of experience as I know I will never match your brilliance and take up golf instead.

Or maybe I will just stick around because the fact that other people dont agree with you seems to annoy you so much.

[Gooshin]

Yes, compared to you oh mighty artist, we are all blind morons whose opinions are worthless. Nothing we can say could possibly teach you anything, because already you know everything there is to know.

Now I know my place I will put away my cameras and 35 years of experience as I know I will never match your brilliance and take up golf instead.

Or maybe I will just stick around because the fact that other people dont agree with you seems to annoy you so much.

your 35 years of experience clearly shows.

and where exactly, did i say anything about being a mighty artist?

stop making shit up.

[*isteve]

/discussion.
Pentax's law (Godwin's law without the Swastikas) has been invoked.

Oh well DONE!

You effectively invoke Godwins Law yourself and simultaneously misapply it to my original statement.

I think that's a record even for you.

It was not I who suggested that anyone should buy a Nikon, someone ELSE suggested that they should (or that people would) and I simply agreed that it was a valid option if the alternative was waiting perhaps forever to get what you want.

Now, according to Usenet convention, accept that you lost the argument and we can end the thread.

[Gooshin]

"buy nikon" is not a valid answer to the question "why cant pentax make FF"

Wheatfield hasnt lost anything.

and thanks for asserting to us that you did nothing more than jump on the "APS-C is the future, down with the communi-err-full framers!!" bandwagon.

[*isteve]

And where exactly, did i say anything about being a mighty artist?

You mean you just talk like one.... I'm so disappointed.

[Gooshin]

You mean you just talk like one.... I'm so disappointed.

are you, are you really?

btw now that i think about it, i cant recall you ever posting anything worth looking at, not a single personal post in the photo section.

i also noticed you like to follow Ben's links alot...

your 35 years of experience... what are they, exactly?

I have 15 years experience of playing hockey, but you dont see me in the NHL now do you?

And remind me again what does this have to do with the factual truth that there is more depth of field control in a FF camera over an APS-C camera, are you saying that i'm WRONG, and its NOT true?

[jay]

"buy nikon" is not a valid answer to the question "why cant pentax make FF"

Wheatfield hasnt lost anything.

and thanks for asserting to us that you did nothing more than jump on the "APS-C is the future, down with the communi-err-full framers!!" bandwagon.

Firstly, you don't need to refer to me as an idiot. I don't believe the number of posts I've made on this forum has any correlation with my understanding of photography.

My point remains simple: Full-frame makes sense for Nikon and Canon. They have a large line of lenses in production, and can easily support producing two dozen lenses.

Pentax cannot.

Showing me pictures of all your old taks and 3rd party MF lenses doesn't provide a single reason why Pentax should manufacture a FF camera.

Yes -- FA and FA* lenses look great -- but most of them are out of production. Didn't you get that memo? That means Pentax doesn't make a cent for ANY FA* lens sold.

How would you go about marketing that?

It would be like if Canon went to APS-C with their EOS system -- and then years later came out with a full-frame camera that took advantage of full-frame FD lenses.

Sure, lots of people have old full-frame lenses around (and the first line of limiteds are all full-frame, I'm aware)

But, Pentax CANNOT release a full-frame camera unless they are currently producing a line of full-frame lenses! How could ANYONE disagree with that statement?

That's why this argument seems so ridiculous -- it would be SUICIDE for Pentax to produce a full-frame body.

Whenever I picture a fictitious product, I try to figure out how realistic it is by picturing what the product manual would read like.

"The exciting new Pentax K3D features a full-frame* sensor, for the ultimate in image quality...

*full-frame sensor only supports legacy FA lenses."

...Even if the engineers came out with a design, the marketing department would say "oh hell no"

And then you bring up ridiculous statements like, "some of the DA* lenses cover full-frames at narrower apertures and longer focal lengths"

....I was giddy like a little child when I read that. You initially wanted full-frame so you could get less depth of field (because obviously, that's the ultimate mark of a good photograph...?)

...so, you'll get your full-frame camera, slap on a DA* 16-50, and say, "oh, it works great at f/8.0 and above -- and you can't zoom out further than 24mm"

....so, you want a full-frame camera so you can get razor-thin depth of field. But you'll have to shoot at f/8.0 or higher on almost EVERY lens in production?

And, again, how would Pentax explain that in the manual?

"The following DA* lenses may be used in full-frame mode:
300/4 at all apertures (vignetting may occur)
16-50/2.8 at 24.5mm or greater, at f/8.0
50-135/2.8 at f/4.0 or higher
12-24/4 at 19mm or greater, at f/10"

I'm completely making up the numbers -- but that's essentially what it would be like, right?

That is one hell of a hack, if you ask me! Professional photographers wouldn't spend a dime on a camera that requires so much explanation to do anything.

If the situation was different, and they had a full line of full-frame SDM lenses, then obviously, a FF camera would make perfect sense.

Hell, I'd buy one.

But that's not the case. That's why the argument is ridiculous.

You need to look at the situation from a business/marketing point of view -- and not just from the perspective of a photographer who needs even thinner depth-of-field.

By that argument, why shouldn't Pentax make a 90mm f/1.0 lens?

It's POSSIBLE. Companies have made them before. BUT, they're outrageously expensive -- they would sell very few of them, and the R&D costs would be prohibitively expensive.

Now, I *have* advocated for f/2.0 or f/2.2 zooms from Pentax for people who want depth-of-field characteristics similar to film. Falconeye and I have mentioned that as a wonderful solution to the "problem" of too much DoF that you're heavily burdened by.

But, even then, Pentax would have to determine if there's a market for it.

Canon and Nikon have 400/2.8s -- why doesn't Pentax? No market.

It's really that simple.

And stop with the personal attacks. Thanks for your understanding.