[wll]

[QUOTE=jay;585323]So they're obviously not going to do that (remember -- who is their target? who are they going after? people who want rugged, small, light D-SLRs they can take anywhere with them.)

My point is -- it's not necessarily wrong to want a full-frame camera. But if that's what you think you need, you're in the wrong camp. Pentax just doesn't have the resources to produce that -- and you haven't offered any shred of evidence suggesting otherwise.

Not to mention, again:

THEY DON'T HAVE THE LENSES.

DA* lenses -- even the telephoto ones -- exhibit unacceptable vignetting. They don't produce FA lenses anymore, and they obviously don't have the resources to bring them back into production.

They already have a DA line, a DA-limited line, a DA* line and a few old FA lenses still around. They're reinvigorating their medium format system -- which should have calmed you down, but apparently hasn't.

So, my question -- how do you expect Pentax to release a full-frame body, plus an entire line of full-frame lenses, in addition to their APS-C system (which they're already sruggling to meet deadlines) AND their medium-format system?

That's THREE systems. Canon and Nikon have two. And these companies are both at least 20 times larger than Pentax and have tremendous market share.

Answer me that, and then we'll talk.
/QUOTE]


Jay,

I agree with you 100%.

Pentax got into the digi game late and they have been playing catch up for the last few years. They have gone under a major company change and were even thought to go under at one point. They have NO FF LENSES as you stated and that change would be HUGE and very costly.

I own a small manufacturing company and every little change we do cost LOTS of money. We try to make systems where a part can be used in several products, I don't see how a Pentax can do that, their (and every camera company) "cost of goods sold" has to be enormous and new product development must be through the roof.

It seems to me Pentax has a niche market ..... small, weather proof, high quality cameras with small high quality lenses to match. Nothing wrong with that, and it is a good solid strategy, you can't be all things to all people.

X years ago I had three Canon F1n's and just about every FD lens they made .... after I got out of film production I sold them and bought a Pentax, as I wanted a small high quality camera, and have never looked back.

There are times when I got frustrated and thought of Nikon, but did I REALLY need that system ...... the answer is no, I just wanted it.

For me, and me alone, the new K-7 seems to be the little camera I've been waiting for (if rumors are to be believed) - Small, weather proofed, good high iso noise reduction, etc, etc.

We have only a little while longer to see what Pentax has in store :-)


wll

[falconeye]

I found this whitepaper from Canon about FF relevant, though it is propaganda heavy:

It is propaganda only.

Meanwhile, I feel insulted by this paper. It says that 200 APS-C, but only 20 FF, sensors fit onto one wafer, so FF must be 10x more expensive.

How brain-damaged does Canon believe its customers are for buying this?

Somewhere on this forum, I have given the respective, correct numbers.

[MMVIII]

Answers inline as list:

Eh, how about, just use the center portion of the FF sensor to act as an APS sensor, that will do all of the APS things you mentioned here.

• Of course you can, you just need a FF-Sensor with the same pixel-pitch as the APS-C, so loosing high-iso advantage

You can use APS lens on FF cameras, to act as APS lens. Sometimes APS lens has a large image circle and also can act as a FF lens. Only Canon APS lens can't use on their FF body.

• Exactly the same. It's a nice addition, to use small fast quality lenses, but at a cost

Campare a FF body with equally featured APS body, its barely one times more expensive.

• General discussion was about the system, right? Say it different: it costs twice as much, same features - your words. The question is if "disadvantages" limit your creativity and shooting ability or if you can just save some money here.

MF body can't use the FF lens. But FF body can use APS lens. This is ultimately the point of the argument. APS system is using a FF mount and FF flange distance. Eventually you will get higher performance to cost ratio with a FF sensor, when the technology is mature enough.

• The bigger mount can be an advantage, for example if the path of light can be optimised for best corner performance on smaller sensors. Pentax is using a moving sensor, so the mount probably is not massively oversized. Adding a FF-stabilized sensor seems to be possible, but a compromise. But I don't know if this could not develop to an advantage for this or that reason in future. And still just a matter of costs. If there will be a FF-cam the same size as the proposed K-7 for the same price - even better. But still there isn't and it's unlikely to be here soon.

A properly designed APS system should be as small as the Olympus Pen F or Pentax 110 cameras. Not the 4/3 cameras with the crazy long flange distance. This is the reason eventually the prosumer class of cameras (50D/D300/A700/K20D) will all move onto FF. It's a matter of who will do it first. I predict Sony will get to sub $1500 first.

• Not agreeing at all. The size of a camera is also a matter of ergonomics. Pentax making a K-7 definitely smaller than other APS-C cams seems to balance the possibilities, regarding the feedback of complaints for beeing already too small and still to big (your argument) at least en par. The flange distance ist just a minor thing, as long as the general SLR-concept will be used. You have to add a lens and even most pancake ones protrudes more than every camera extension to the front. You could have one centimeter less, but would you really see/feel any difference with the lens on?
  I agree, probably all manufacturers will bring some FF-bodies and lenses soon. It's the best thing to keep people buying new stuff. It's a necessity for marketing, my question is: as a photographer, do you really gain so many advantages or will it just help the manufacturer to keep prices up? Image quality from APS-C-sized bodies does do it for most applications, doesn't it? But you are probably right, they will jump the train, but not because it's a photographic necessity, but because they can sell it, to people using somtimes strange arguments defending their lust for the newest toy. At least my impression from reading threads like this It's just the difference between needing and desiring.

[ManuH]

It is propaganda only.

Meanwhile, I feel insulted by this paper. It says that 200 APS-C, but only 20 FF, sensors fit onto one wafer, so FF must be 10x more expensive.

How brain-damaged does Canon believe its customers are for buying this?

Somewhere on this forum, I have given the respective, correct numbers.

I'd like to see them because this is usually what people say, FF costs about 9-10x APS-C. Of course you can put more FF sensors onto the wafer, but the yield of good ones make this figure (200 APS-C, 20FF) seem correct.

[vinzer]

A properly designed APS system should be as small as the Olympus Pen F or Pentax 110 cameras.

I'll make a spin on your statement: "A *nice* APS system should *ideally* be as small as the Olympus Pen F or Pentax 110 cameras."

Without engineering knowhow, we really can't say how small we can go with DSLRs for now, and thus make categorical statements that every DSLR manufacturer *isn't* properly designing APS-C systems. Advances in technology will allow for further miniaturization, but I cannot castigate the current crop of APS-C cameras for not being Pen F in size, as I'm sure all the smaller APS-C cameras have been worked on in vain by manufacturers to be as small as they can possibly be (thus that's how "properly" they can design their cameras so far).

There are more stuff camera makers have to shoehorn in DSLRs than Olympus did back then with the Pen. AF modules, LCD screens, batteries, memory chips, flash modules, and a whole assortment of electronics all take up space. While I do hope we get to Pen F level someday (maybe Olympus itself with their m4/3 camera will lead the way), it's probably not doable *so far* with DSLRs.

[whatever7]

Eh, how about, just use the center portion of the FF sensor to act as an APS sensor, that will do all of the APS things you mentioned here.

* Of course you can, you just need a FF-Sensor with the same pixel-pitch as the APS-C, so loosing high-iso advantage

Damn you make it very hard to quote.

Well they can keep the pixel pitch, which improve resolution but not sensitivity, like the 5DII, or imcrease the pixel pitch, thus improve the sensitivity but doesn't increase the resolution, like the D700. Depends on which one the designer think is more important. I really ]don't have problem with a an APS image that "only" has 5mp. Frankly I think 35mm film process in consumer outlets produce lower resolution.

You can use APS lens on FF cameras, to act as APS lens. Sometimes APS lens has a large image circle and also can act as a FF lens. Only Canon APS lens can't use on their FF body.

* Exactly the same. It's a nice addition, to use small fast quality lenses, but at a cost

My point was you old APS lens are not crippled on FF, they produce routhly the same image with same IQ as before. You can still use the DA15 on a FF body if Pentax make one. But the FF body open up the upper limit on many top tier lenses, since most of them are still FF.

Campare a FF body with equally featured APS body, its barely one times more expensive.

* General discussion was about the system, right? Say it different: it costs twice as much, same features - your words. The question is if "disadvantages" limit your creativity and shooting ability or if you can just save some money here.

So it's not 3-4X more expensive. Did you see the quote I replied to earlier?

MF body can't use the FF lens. But FF body can use APS lens. This is ultimately the point of the argument. APS system is using a FF mount and FF flange distance. Eventually you will get higher performance to cost ratio with a FF sensor, when the technology is mature enough.

* The bigger mount can be an advantage, for example if the path of light can be optimised for best corner performance on smaller sensors. Pentax is using a moving sensor, so the mount probably is not massively oversized. Adding a FF-stabilized sensor seems to be possible, but a compromise. But I don't know if this could not develop to an advantage for this or that reason in future. And still just a matter of costs. If there will be a FF-cam the same size as the proposed K-7 for the same price - even better. But still there isn't and it's unlikely to be here soon.

Don't care. Crop off the outside 5% of a SR-enabled image if Pentax must; disable SR on a FF image if Pentax must. SR is not nearly as useful as FF.

A properly designed APS system should be as small as the Olympus Pen F or Pentax 110 cameras. Not the 4/3 cameras with the crazy long flange distance. This is the reason eventually the prosumer class of cameras (50D/D300/A700/K20D) will all move onto FF. It's a matter of who will do it first. I predict Sony will get to sub $1500 first.

* Not agreeing at all. The size of a camera is also a matter of ergonomics. Pentax making a K-7 definitely smaller than other APS-C cams seems to balance the possibilities, regarding the feedback of complaints for beeing already too small and still to big (your argument) at least en par. The flange distance ist just a minor thing, as long as the general SLR-concept will be used. You have to add a lens and even most pancake ones protrudes more than every camera extension to the front. You could have one centimeter less, but would you really see/feel any difference with the lens on?
I agree, probably all manufacturers will bring some FF-bodies and lenses soon. It's the best thing to keep people buying new stuff. It's a necessity for marketing, my question is: as a photographer, do you really gain so many advantages or will it just help the manufacturer to keep prices up? Image quality from APS-C-sized bodies does do it for most applications, doesn't it? But you are probably right, they will jump the train, but not because it's a photographic necessity, but because they can sell it, to people using somtimes strange arguments defending their lust for the newest toy. At least my impression from reading threads like this It's just the difference between needing and desiring.

That's your preference, it's not the "correct" preference. It's not even Pentax's preference. Don't you see Pentax already made the last two camera bodies smaller? If they can make a proper OM Pen F sized (APS) DSLR I will jump on it without batting an eye. Being able to put in a jacket pocket is way more useful to me than "ergonomic".

As for improving IQ with FF, being able to handheld at night is good enough reason for me to switch to F mount. And don't ever suggest me to stop whining in this forum. I still have my Pentax gear. As long as I have Pentax equipment, I have just as much right to whine in this forum as the next guy who think the K-7 is "too small" or Pentax "shouldn't move to FF."

[MMVIII]

Damn you make it very hard to quote.

Sorry, just playing around to find a good way for handling this editor

Well they can keep the pixel pitch, which improve resolution but not sensitivity, like the 5DII, or imcrease the pixel pitch, thus improve the sensitivity but doesn't increase the resolution, like the D700. Depends on which one the designer think is more important. I really ]don't have problem with a an APS image that "only" has 5mp. Frankly I think 35mm film process in consumer outlets produce lower resolution.

You see, no advantage without a price

My point was you old APS lens are not crippled on FF, they produce routhly the same image with same IQ as before. You can still use the DA15 on a FF body if Pentax make one. But the FF body open up the upper limit on many top tier lenses, since most of them are still FF.

No problem at all, maybe a weird but interesting idea to eventually even buy DA lenses for a compact variant of a FF cam... why not.

So it's not 3-4X more expensive. Did you see the quote I replied to earlier?

Ehm, yes, so what? I was quoting another user with this numbers and yes, in some systems you have to spent 3-4 times as much alone for the body difference, because you just can't get a APS-C one with the same specs. 100% more with same specs is the best case, well I think this is still significant, isn't it? Also adding some lenses...

Don't care. Crop off the outside 5% of a SR-enabled image if Pentax must; disable SR on a FF image if Pentax must. SR is not nearly as useful as FF.

That's just a personal opinion.

That's your preference, it's not the "correct" preference. It's not even Pentax's preference. Don't you see Pentax already made the last two camera bodies smaller? If they can make a proper OM Pen F sized (APS) DSLR I will jump on it without batting an eye. Being able to put in a jacket pocket is way more useful to me than "ergonomic".

Whohoo, there is a correct opinion? Nice one

As for improving IQ with FF, being able to handheld at night is good enough reason for me to switch to F mount. And don't ever suggest me to stop whining in this forum. I still have my Pentax gear. As long as I have Pentax equipment, I have just as much right to whine in this forum as the next guy who think the K-7 is "too small" or Pentax "shouldn't move to FF."

Calm down, I haven't suggested anything to you, have I? Boy, this FF-thing is really like aggravating hornets just by walking by Whine whereever you want as much as you want. You just don't have to justify yourself for obviously beeing one of those who want to spend this extra money and if you are happy, perfect.

But remember the start? I replied to an argument that said, it wouldn't be possible to do the same compositorial things with APS-C as FF. I questioned that, saying that this is probably a matter of long-learned photographic habit and not necesserily a defined limit of a system. Right? You entangled me on a dialogue which went straight to a topic which you seem to lika alot. I just find it (the topic, not your replies) funny, sometimes silly, but I still haven't heard "the" argument against my assumption. Never mind, I still got my answers, thank you, enjoy

[*isteve]

Come on, it seems you presume it is a necessity to "recreate" the perspective of every single image ever taken with the old film-format. What is photography about?

You have a good point, but in fact you can exactly recreate the same perspective on APSC and FF as long as you stand the same distance from the subject and use the correct focal length.

A picture taken on APSC with a 55mm lens will be indistinguishable in composition and perspective from an FF image taken with an 85mm lens from the same place. Or for that matter the same FF image taken with a 55mm lens and cropped to the same size as the APSC image.

Visible perspective is simply the ratio of subject distances relative to the view angle. The format is irrelevant if these quantities are maintained.

Arguing FF vs APSC is one thing, but often the information spread around is misunderstood.

[falconeye]

I'd like to see them because this is usually what people say, FF costs about 9-10x APS-C. Of course you can put more FF sensors onto the wafer, but the yield of good ones make this figure (200 APS-C, 20FF) seem correct.

Please, look it up and if you have questions, ask them in that thread. I don't remember anymore what the thread title was. I didn't start it. And yes, I made precise yield calculations as well, from best public sources available. The figures remain wrong. But I don't want to high-jack this thread with this topic again.

Just wanted to let you know that "we" are far beyond the paper you cited...

[ManuH]

Please, look it up and if you have questions, ask them in that thread. I don't remember anymore what the thread title was. I didn't start it. And yes, I made precise yield calculations as well, from best public sources available. The figures remain wrong. But I don't want to high-jack this thread with this topic again.

Just wanted to let you know that "we" are far beyond the paper you cited...

You mean this one?
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-news-rumors/53108-pentax-645d-revived-2.html

Interesting read.

People will always post about FF, no matter how good APS-C is… It’s their problem posting unhappy posts about not having FF instead of going and enjoying great camera they have…

Do not enjoy waiting, enjoy taking pics

[Wheatfield]

People will always post about FF, no matter how good APS-C is… It’s their problem posting unhappy posts about not having FF instead of going and enjoying great camera they have…

Do not enjoy waiting, enjoy taking pics

This attitude ignores the very real advantages of a full frame sensor. Pentax makes a pretty decent camera body, I really don't understand why there is this infantile resistance towards people who would like to see them make a better Pentax.

If the entire world had your attitude, we'd still be living in caves and would be wearing animal hides for clothing.
Instead of living in a nice, warm house, why not just enjoy the cave that you have?

[jeffkrol]

This attitude ignores the very real advantages of a full frame sensor. Pentax makes a pretty decent camera body, I really don't understand why there is this infantile resistance towards people who would like to see them make a better Pentax.

If the entire world had your attitude, we'd still be living in caves and would be wearing animal hides for clothing.
Instead of living in a nice, warm house, why not just enjoy the cave that you have?

I just want them to make a great 645 ( for bragging rights, respect, ect.) and a pixel packed APS-C(50mp is a good start, don't go into the urban legends because the only thing stopping this is probably processing power not quality).
The "very real" advantage part is what causes a lot of problems...
To most there really is no "very real" advantage, just currently, very much more expensive and lens complications to boot....
To some there are "very real" advantages. They are not the majority.
Now "want" is a completely different category all together.
Everything in the world is going to miniaturization BUT cameras "must" get larger?????
It's de-evolutionary... Sensor researchers are looking and studying smaller and smaller pixels (ask yourself where this will benefit FF in the near term) .

[jeffkrol]

Please, look it up and if you have questions, ask them in that thread. I don't remember anymore what the thread title was. I didn't start it. And yes, I made precise yield calculations as well, from best public sources available. The figures remain wrong. But I don't want to high-jack this thread with this topic again.

Just wanted to let you know that "we" are far beyond the paper you cited...

"we"??????

[Wheatfield]

The "very real" advantage part is what causes a lot of problems...
To most there really is no "very real" advantage, just currently, very much more expensive and lens complications to boot....
To some there are "very real" advantages. They are not the majority.

Surely anyone who has picked up a 35mm film camera can see the advantage of the viewfinder.
Surely anyone who has fought with noise from a 1600iso or higher image can see the advantage of a moderate pixel count full frame sensor.
Or is the majority just fooling themselves into thinking that looking into tunnel like viewfinders and being noise limited to lower usable ISOs is the best that there is?

Now "want" is a completely different category all together.
Everything in the world is going to miniaturization BUT cameras "must" get larger?????
It's de-evolutionary... Sensor researchers are looking and studying smaller and smaller pixels (ask yourself where this will benefit FF in the near term) .

Let me guess, even higher pixel counts? Anything that provides an advantage to APS-C sensors will benefit full frame sensors as well.