Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
11-20-2009, 12:07 PM   #421
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Toronto (for now)
Posts: 1,749
QuoteOriginally posted by Shingoshi Quote
I simply don't have the budget to satisfy anyone's curiosity. Now if curiosity can be translated into cash, I'll certainly accept donations. Until then, I have to make the purchases I can within my means. When I have the funds to buy up to newer technologies, I'll do it. But for now, I simply can't do that and must suffice with what I have. So until anyone's curiosity can put cash in my pocket, live with your curiosity.

Xavian-Anderson Macpherson
ShingoshiDao
If you can't stretch it for a few hundred more $$$ then rerally, you cannot afford the Kodak to begin with.

11-20-2009, 03:06 PM   #422
Inactive Account




Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 83
Declaration of Departure!

For the sake of my own peace of mind, I am terminating my participation on and canceling all further notifications from this forum. This includes all messaging from members as well. My decision has already been made regardless of how many of you think it fickle or ill-advised. I only came here (due to another issue with another camera which I'm also not pursuing) and posted in this thread out of curiosity. I have no further need for the discussion here and am moving on to what satisfies my personal need. Good luck to the rest of you.

Xavian-Anderson Macpherson
ShingoshiDao
11-20-2009, 04:38 PM   #423
Veteran Member
Shashinki's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Norway
Posts: 357
So... What's this I hear about a FF in 2010!

You guys seem like a friendly bunch, please tell me more of this wonderful camera!
11-20-2009, 05:15 PM   #424
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Bridgetown West Australia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 881
Original Poster
I have a strange sense of deja vu...oh didn't I just say that....??

11-20-2009, 05:31 PM   #425
Veteran Member
Shashinki's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Norway
Posts: 357
what a lucky coincidence! maybe our questions will all be answered and this thread grow long and mighty. hehehe
11-20-2009, 06:03 PM   #426
Veteran Member
KungPOW's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,702
QuoteOriginally posted by Shingoshi Quote
For the sake of my own peace of mind, I am terminating my participation on and canceling all further notifications from this forum. This includes all messaging from members as well. My decision has already been made regardless of how many of you think it fickle or ill-advised. I only came here (due to another issue with another camera which I'm also not pursuing) and posted in this thread out of curiosity. I have no further need for the discussion here and am moving on to what satisfies my personal need. Good luck to the rest of you.

Xavian-Anderson Macpherson
ShingoshiDao
I now understand why the used market for FF Kodaks is SO overpriced...
11-20-2009, 07:18 PM   #427
Senior Member
Angevinn's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Chicago, Ill.
Posts: 205
Instant Gratification...

QuoteOriginally posted by KungPOW Quote
I now understand why the used market for FF Kodaks is SO overpriced...
I agree with you KungPOW. I would never spend good money on a Kodak system. There is supposed to be a new wave of affordable FF DSLR's (under $1,500) within the next six to twelve months from Sony, Nikon and possibly Pentax. I've waited this long already and don't think waiting a little longer for a FF Pentax DSLR will kill me.

Why waste $800 on a dead camera system from Kodak when I can put the money to better use toward my LBA! I bet when Pentax launches a FF DSLR there will be some sweet new lenses to go along with the new camera. Now if we could just see a new lens roadmap...
11-21-2009, 12:08 AM   #428
Senior Member
stormcloud's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 235
you know i've never understood why fullframe cameras are so expensive

take he k7 rework the body to fit full frame then slap a new sensor in it and what els needs to be different

14.6mp would be adaquate for entry level so considering that a fullfrme sensor surely should be easier to amke since larger pixels you would think they would be cheaper!!!

do wonder if it aint just all a ploy to make people pay over the odds for things - but hey if it works!!! hell i'm constraining my LBA to lenses that will work on any future pentax ff body =)

11-21-2009, 12:38 AM   #429
Veteran Member




Join Date: May 2009
Location: Knoxville, Tennessee
Photos: Albums
Posts: 842
QuoteOriginally posted by stormcloud Quote
you know i've never understood why fullframe cameras are so expensive

take he k7 rework the body to fit full frame then slap a new sensor in it and what els needs to be different

14.6mp would be adaquate for entry level so considering that a fullfrme sensor surely should be easier to amke since larger pixels you would think they would be cheaper!!!

do wonder if it aint just all a ploy to make people pay over the odds for things - but hey if it works!!! hell i'm constraining my LBA to lenses that will work on any future pentax ff body =)
I can see how it would seem logical, but unfortunately it's the exact opposite way around. The larger you make a sensor, the more expensive it is to make. One of the main reasons for this is that the silicon wafers aren't perfect - they have flaws in them. Wherever there's a flaw, the sensor that contains it won't work, and must be discarded.

If you increase the size of the image sensor, you increase the likelihood that any one sensor will happen to include one of the flaws. You also increase the amount of your wafer that's thrown away with each bad sensor, and wasted around the edges. This isn't a linear relationship, either - the more size increases, the faster the cost increases.

This is a gross oversimplification, but imagine a wafer with two tiny flaws near the center. Now imagine you are considering making either 1 gigantic sensor, or 100 much smaller sensors. With the gigantic sensor, there's a 100% chance that the flaws are in the sensor, and that it is useless. With the tiny sensors, even if you're unlucky and each of the flaws are right on the boundary between four sensors, that's a maximum of eight useless sensors out of 100 - 92 are still just fine.

One of the other main issues relates to waste around the edge of the wafer. It's a bit like trying to fit your regular furniture into a circular room. If you imagine the circular wafer filled with tiny rectangular sensors, there's a small area at the edge where there's left over wafer which can't fit a whole sensor. Now if you make just one gigantic sensor, you have a much larger area at the edges which must be wasted because it can't fit another sensor.

These two problems go a long way to determining what's referred to as the yield, and are a significant part of the story of why smaller sensors are generally cheaper (if you assume they all use the same process technology for the sake of simplicity).

The tiny postage-stamp sized sensors in compact cameras are hence dirt-cheap compared to the APS-C sensors in DSLRs, which is why the first DSLR prices took much longer to come down to affordable levels, even when compared to extremely feature-rich, high-res compact cameras. FF sensors are an order of magnitude more expensive than APS-C sensors even today, and are among the most expensive components in an FF camera. Move up to medium-format cameras and backs, and their even bigger sensors are a large part of prices that can be into the tens of thousands of dollars for one camera or camera back.
11-21-2009, 08:02 AM   #430
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Borås, Sweden
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,165
knoxploration: don't forget that if you are making a 24x36 sensor most everyone has to "stitch" more than one exposure together when creating the sensor. That adds a fair amount of complexity since you can imagine the precision required for this. (Some say Canon has a full frame imager since their FF sensors don't show evidence of stitching, but..)
11-21-2009, 08:23 AM   #431
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Charlotte, NC
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 886
QuoteOriginally posted by knoxploration Quote
I can see how it would seem logical, but unfortunately it's the exact opposite way around. The larger you make a sensor, the more expensive it is to make. One of the main reasons for this...

...part of prices that can be into the tens of thousands of dollars for one camera or camera back.
Wow, that was a lot of words. All that is true, but I still say the only reason we don't have $1500 full frame DSLR's is due to marketing decisions. Let's take Nikon for example. The D300 can be had for $2600 USD (and cheaper on eBay). The D300 is basically the same camera with an APS-C sensor, it sells for $1700. So that is a $900 difference. Nikon could easily build a full frame D90 if they wanted to. The D90 sells for $800. Add $900 to that and you get a $1700 full frame D90. A full frame D90 vs an APS-C D300 is a no brainier for me; give me the D90 FX.

Now, lets take Pentax, the K7 sells for $1100, $600 cheaper than the D300s, if pentax wanted to sale a full frame K7 (or K20D to make it even cheaper) then I really don't see why they couldn't do it for around $1500.

My theory is marketing departments just want to sell everyone APS-C lenses now so when they do release a $1000 Canon full frame Rebel (and you know they will) those people will have to buy all new lenses because the Best Buy clerk says so.
11-21-2009, 08:47 AM   #432
Veteran Member
jeffkrol's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Wisconsin USA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,435
Marketing yes but...

Has more to do with selling x number of units at Y percent profit......
FF for Pentax would sell in small quantities especially at the percent markup Hoya would want.... Doesn't matter what everyone else does except as their price goes down it's even harder for Pentax to justify......
A FF at $1000 will already be squeezing the APS market even harder...
No FF makes little sense especially w/ a 645d developed (maybe) and ready for release (maybe) with new lenses (maybe)........
11-21-2009, 11:16 AM   #433
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Charlotte, NC
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 886
QuoteOriginally posted by jeffkrol Quote
No FF makes little sense especially w/ a 645d developed (maybe)
To me the 645D makes even less sense. I simply don't understand the benefits of a bulky medium format camera in the digital era. If Pentax wants to make a medium format camera then fine, but they need to re-think it from the ground up like Leica has done with their S2.

Back in the film days, yes medium format made a lot of sense because bigger film was the only way to get the resolution pros needed. However, that is not the case with digital. Canon, Nikon, or Sony could easily make a full frame camera with 40+ megapixels that will be perfectly usable up to ISO 640 or so; which is all that is needed for a studio camera. Obviously opinions vary, but if I needed that kind of resolution I'd much rather use a 40 megapixel Nikon D3 or D700 then I would something like a Pentax 645D. Especially if the specs on the 645D are anything like the specs on the 645N. That camera only has a flash sync of 1/60th a sec and auto focuses slower than entry level DSLR's.
11-21-2009, 03:09 PM   #434
Veteran Member




Join Date: May 2009
Location: Knoxville, Tennessee
Photos: Albums
Posts: 842
QuoteOriginally posted by pingflood Quote
knoxploration: don't forget that if you are making a 24x36 sensor most everyone has to "stitch" more than one exposure together when creating the sensor. That adds a fair amount of complexity since you can imagine the precision required for this. (Some say Canon has a full frame imager since their FF sensors don't show evidence of stitching, but..)
I'm aware that at least some sensors have to be stitched, but I don't have any concrete information to hand on which do or don't. Figured that was also beyond the level of the question asked, in much the same way as the chosen process technologies will affect pricing but are rather complex to explain.

QuoteOriginally posted by Art Vandelay II Quote
Wow, that was a lot of words. All that is true, but I still say the only reason we don't have $1500 full frame DSLR's is due to marketing decisions.

My theory is marketing departments just want to sell everyone APS-C lenses now so when they do release a $1000 Canon full frame Rebel (and you know they will) those people will have to buy all new lenses because the Best Buy clerk says so.
I rather doubt this one, because if it were possible to be selling an FF camera for vastly less, one of the camera manufacturers would break lockstep and do it for the publicity and converts from other mounts it would generate.

The real reason is a combination of the cost of the sensor, and the fact that any design has to be amortized (meaning the cost of development, tooling for production, creating marketing materials, training support and sales staff, etc. has to be spread across all of the product sold before you can be considered to have made a profit). FF cameras so far sell in much lower numbers, so the cost has to be amortized across much fewer products - meaning much higher development and tooling etc. costs per product. Add in the fact that the sensors themselves are still very expensive, and you end up with a much more expensive camera design.
11-21-2009, 04:55 PM   #435
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Borås, Sweden
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,165
QuoteOriginally posted by knoxploration Quote
I'm aware that at least some sensors have to be stitched, but I don't have any concrete information to hand on which do or don't. Figured that was also beyond the level of the question asked, in much the same way as the chosen process technologies will affect pricing but are rather complex to explain.
As it stands today, last I heard "officially" all sensors past a certain size are stitched, though some argue that Canon has a full frame imager they use for theirs. I presume that nobody can tell for sure if a sensor was stitched or not, so we can only go on speculation here. One fun tidbit is that the 1.3x crop sensor used on the 1D series is the largest one regular imagers can create if you take the surrounding stuff into account. No coincidence that particular crop ended up being used in the original 1D.

QuoteQuote:
I rather doubt this one, because if it were possible to be selling an FF camera for vastly less, one of the camera manufacturers would break lockstep and do it for the publicity and converts from other mounts it would generate.

The real reason is a combination of the cost of the sensor, and the fact that any design has to be amortized (meaning the cost of development, tooling for production, creating marketing materials, training support and sales staff, etc. has to be spread across all of the product sold before you can be considered to have made a profit). FF cameras so far sell in much lower numbers, so the cost has to be amortized across much fewer products - meaning much higher development and tooling etc. costs per product. Add in the fact that the sensors themselves are still very expensive, and you end up with a much more expensive camera design.
There was a pretty good discussion on here a while back about sensor cost, where some people much smarter than I am arrived at the FF sensor cost not being anywhere NEAR the difference in cost between a basic FF and a basic crop sensor body. I seriously doubt any of the FF bodies today do not include a big, fat profit margin, and nobody wants to be the one to take all the profit out of that market -- especially with the consumers mindlessly clamoring for FF bodies even though they don't know why they "need' them.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
pentax, pentax news, pentax rumors
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Its 2010 now. Reportage General Talk 4 11-02-2010 10:18 AM
Picture of the Week 103: February 21, 2010 to March 7, 2010 Tamia Weekly Photo Challenges 55 03-07-2010 05:50 AM
Picture of the Week 102: February 14, 2010 to February 28, 2010 photolady95 Weekly Photo Challenges 57 02-27-2010 08:28 PM
Picture of the Week 101: February 7, 2010 to February 21, 2010 netuser Weekly Photo Challenges 63 02-24-2010 08:15 AM
Picture of the Week 100: January 31, 2010 to February 14, 2010 Peter Zack Weekly Photo Challenges 93 02-14-2010 12:43 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:50 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top