Win a Pentax Limited lens and more - enter in our 2023 end of year giveaway!

ryan s · 10-20-2009, 02:53 PM

Originally posted by kevinschoenmakers

Isn't the bottom-line what America is all about?

It is...and it's what's killing us.

An oil filter for my car is $7 when I could just as easily get one for $3. I'll gladly pay the premium for the increased reliability. Only a $4 difference, yes...but it's fresh on my mind since the oil and filter are fresh in the car

Edit: Let me put this back on topic. If/when we see FF, will I buy it? If I have the capital, yes. Will I complain about the price? No. If it's out of my budget, I won't switch systems. Even right now, my stuff is more than capable. Just need that F* 300

If we don't see one, K-7 it is...and that's just fine too.

Angevinn · 10-20-2009, 05:48 PM

Bring on the FF DSLR and New FF Glass Pentax! I used to shoot Medium format but most of my work has been done on 35mm film. While medium format has excellent image quality it can be cumbersome to lug around a medium format camera and lenses. The 24x36 (35mm) format is the best compromise for portability and image quality. APS-C is OK but I remember how great a fast 50mm lens is on a 35mm format camera. You just don't get that on APS-C or Micro 4/3.

Patience will pay off. I find the Sony FF DSLRs underwhelming, Canon and Nikon are overated. When Pentax brings their FF camera out I believe it will be a great camera.

Time Will Tell!

richtrav · 10-20-2009, 05:49 PM

Originally posted by Rico

Kodak was or is making the APS-H sensor that is in the Leica M8/.2.

Certainly though Samsung could manufacture an APS-H sensor if this was the direction they chose to go.

I didn't realize that, had to look it up but apparently you're right. I dunno though, I kind of have my doubts Samsung would go for an exotic size like that unless it was assured they could sell a decent number of them. Personally I like the idea, I used a Canon 1D once and thought the size was very nice, way "roomier" than APS-C. Would anyone have a lens-by-lens breakdown of which lenses would perform acceptably on such a camera?

It would all come down to price: if an APS-H sensor would only cost a fraction of a full 35mm sensor then it might be something serious to consider.

FWIW I did find this interesting article from 2007 (never panned out, but still interesting):

Could "K20D" actually be APS-H (1.27x) sized? - Photo.net Pentax Forum

Rico · 10-20-2009, 06:30 PM

Originally posted by ewalk

I would much rather Samsung and Pentax go FF rather than stick with yet another crop sensor.

What advantages would an APS-H sensor even have over a FF Samsung/Pentax project?

It also doesn't make any sense that Pentax would have a complete line of cameras ranging from APS-C to APS-H to FF to MF. I doubt Hoya has the cash to completely revamp the entire line like that.

ewalk

One advantage of APS-H over FF would be the ability to keep the camera size smaller.

I think it makes complete sense that Pentax could set itself apart by having it's entry level cameras have APS-C. Its midrange Semi-Pro rugged outdoors camera have APS-H. And a Pro camera with Full Frame. They are already making different range models so why not design them around sensors that really set them apart from one another.

It certainly would set them apart from their competitors.

Interestingly I was at a Pentax Event that the Outdoor Pro Photographer Kerrick James was speaking whom uses Pentax. When asked about full frame he said he did not need full frame. So if Pentax is listening to Pro's like him we will not see full frame. He did however say he really wants medium format digital.

Rico · 10-20-2009, 06:38 PM

Originally posted by richtrav

I didn't realize that, had to look it up but apparently you're right. I dunno though, I kind of have my doubts Samsung would go for an exotic size like that unless it was assured they could sell a decent number of them. Personally I like the idea, I used a Canon 1D once and thought the size was very nice, way "roomier" than APS-C. Would anyone have a lens-by-lens breakdown of which lenses would perform acceptably on such a camera?

It would all come down to price: if an APS-H sensor would only cost a fraction of a full 35mm sensor then it might be something serious to consider.

FWIW I did find this interesting article from 2007 (never panned out, but still interesting):

Could "K20D" actually be APS-H (1.27x) sized? - Photo.net Pentax Forum

That is interesting to see the speculation after the fact.

I was hoping they might use an APS-H sensor in the K-7. For the same reasons you mentioned the "roomier" viewfinder. Plus an APS-H sensor would have been an overall improvement from the APS-C sensor being used. It would have really appealed to that semi-Pro wedding crowd too.

Ratmagiclady · 10-20-2009, 06:55 PM

Originally posted by smc

I was wondering if I should jettison my current kit to buy the 645d and a couple of lenses....this makes it so much more difficult!

Of course, a rumor like this could be a cheap way for the blogosphere to see the 645D panned when it comes out.

Still wouldn't be at all surprised to see a FF within a few years, but I'm not seeing any new info here.

Ratmagiclady · 10-20-2009, 07:02 PM

Originally posted by builttospill

From Pentax on Facebook:
"Coming out with a full frame camera would not only involve the expenses of the camera design and production, but also a whole new series of lenses. Due to differences between film and digital sensors, it is not just a simple matter of reproducing old lenses, especially if you want optimal results."

Does give rise to a bit of a question, though, ...the way sensor tech's changing by the year, anyway, why redesign a whole lens line if, perchance, a sensor can be made to perform like film, as far as lenses are concerned?

ogl · 10-20-2009, 09:07 PM

Originally posted by Rico

Ogl I did say DA Limited lenses. Some of the DA wide zooms may not cover APS-H. Possibly the DA 15mm Limited may not cover and the DA 14mm.

Still APS-H would set Pentax apart from the rest of the pack in a semi-Pro camera.

Limited...Yes.

But DA15 can't cover.
But what about DA*16-50, 50-135?

Anyway, to make APS-H instead FF is not good idea.
APS-H sensor is rather expensive. FF is cheaper. Focal range with line of Pentax lenses are rather strange.

I have no ANY info about this strange format in Pentax cameras.

richtrav · 10-20-2009, 10:11 PM

Why would FF be cheaper? APS-H is a smaller sensor, it should cost less if done in any significant quantities

ogl · 10-20-2009, 11:01 PM

Originally posted by richtrav

Why would FF be cheaper? APS-H is a smaller sensor, it should cost less if done in any significant quantities

The cost price is higher than FF sensor, because
the sensor is made only for 1 camera. Limited quantity.
I've also heard that the percent of defective sensor is higher than FF or APS-C.
Anyway, have a look at the price of Mark IV or Leica M8.

Pentaxor · 10-20-2009, 11:16 PM

Originally posted by ogl

The cost price is higher than FF sensor, because
the sensor is made only for 1 camera. Limited quantity.
I've also heard that the percent of defective sensor is higher than FF or APS-C.
Anyway, have a look at the price of Mark IV or Leica M8.

in other words, an APS-H sensor doesn't sound practical given the costs of production and what are you trying to get from the camera and lens altogether. if the APS-H does in fact does better than the FF with regards to FOV and DR and the ability to take advantage of the potentials of FF and APS-C lens, let alone HIGH ISO performance, the cost is all worth it. the question is, is it?

richtrav · 10-21-2009, 01:41 AM

Back in 2001-2002 the cost of FF sensors was extremely high due to, among other reasons, the high number of rejects. Perhaps Sony has refined the process to make the cost more manageable, but if you were starting from scratch (as Samsung would have to do), the APS-H size should be cheaper to make and have fewer rejects simply because of the smaller physical size. How much cheaper is unknown to me. The high price of the Leicas and D1 series probably comes from their expensive bodies and electronics (Canon) or their marketing/boutique pricing strategy and low production volume (Leica), not because of the size of their sensor. Is the new FF Leica cheaper than the previous APS-H model? (it's not a rhetorical question, I honestly don't know the answer). I guess someone here could give Kodak a call and see what they charge for a FF sensor vs the APS-H one (be sure and ask for the volume discount)

falconeye · 10-21-2009, 03:50 AM

Let me bring my cost calculation made in August to your attention:
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/516776-post23.html
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/516744-post21.html
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/517235-post39.html

It is made from available public sources and general engineering wisdom. It never was seriously challenged.

A full frame sensor is 100$ to make.

(if in the same quantity as an APS-C sensor which in case of the K20D sensor isn't that much). Asking price on the market (Kodak and alike) may be much higher though. But if taken seriously enough, a sub 1000$ FF camera could be made (as it would increase the price by 400$: Just add a full frame sensor to a 600$ entry body ...) However, no vendor (yet) is ready to cannibalize its own market this much.

EDIT:
+100$, add x2 for manufacturer margin, add another 2x for sales channel margins => +400$ MSRP.

netuser · 10-21-2009, 04:15 AM

Originally posted by falconeye

............... However, no vendor (yet) is ready to cannibalize its own market this much.

True indeed.

**Ash** · 10-21-2009, 04:22 AM

Good analysis Falk.
Should be economically feasible enough to produce the camera - now come the lenses part...

10-20-2009, 11:16 PM	#56
Pentaxor Veteran Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Vancouver, B.C. Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,513	Originally posted by ogl The cost price is higher than FF sensor, because the sensor is made only for 1 camera. Limited quantity. I've also heard that the percent of defective sensor is higher than FF or APS-C. Anyway, have a look at the price of Mark IV or Leica M8. in other words, an APS-H sensor doesn't sound practical given the costs of production and what are you trying to get from the camera and lens altogether. if the APS-H does in fact does better than the FF with regards to FOV and DR and the ability to take advantage of the potentials of FF and APS-C lens, let alone HIGH ISO performance, the cost is all worth it. the question is, is it? Last edited by Pentaxor; 10-20-2009 at 11:24 PM.

10-21-2009, 03:50 AM	#58
falconeye Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Munich, Alps, Germany Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,871	Cost of a FF CMOS sensor Let me bring my cost calculation made in August to your attention: https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/516776-post23.html https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/516744-post21.html https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/517235-post39.html It is made from available public sources and general engineering wisdom. It never was seriously challenged. A full frame sensor is 100$ to make. (if in the same quantity as an APS-C sensor which in case of the K20D sensor isn't that much). Asking price on the market (Kodak and alike) may be much higher though. But if taken seriously enough, a sub 1000$ FF camera could be made (as it would increase the price by 400$: Just add a full frame sensor to a 600$ entry body ...) However, no vendor (yet) is ready to cannibalize its own market this much. EDIT: +100$, add x2 for manufacturer margin, add another 2x for sales channel margins => +400$ MSRP. Last edited by falconeye; 10-21-2009 at 04:39 AM.

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

10-20-2009, 02:53 PM	#46
ryan s Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Madison, WI Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,383	Originally posted by kevinschoenmakers Isn't the bottom-line what America is all about? It is...and it's what's killing us. An oil filter for my car is $7 when I could just as easily get one for $3. I'll gladly pay the premium for the increased reliability. Only a $4 difference, yes...but it's fresh on my mind since the oil and filter are fresh in the car Edit: Let me put this back on topic. If/when we see FF, will I buy it? If I have the capital, yes. Will I complain about the price? No. If it's out of my budget, I won't switch systems. Even right now, my stuff is more than capable. Just need that F* 300 If we don't see one, K-7 it is...and that's just fine too.

10-20-2009, 05:48 PM	#47
Angevinn Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Chicago, Ill. Posts: 204	Bring on the FF DSLR and New FF Glass Pentax! I used to shoot Medium format but most of my work has been done on 35mm film. While medium format has excellent image quality it can be cumbersome to lug around a medium format camera and lenses. The 24x36 (35mm) format is the best compromise for portability and image quality. APS-C is OK but I remember how great a fast 50mm lens is on a 35mm format camera. You just don't get that on APS-C or Micro 4/3. Patience will pay off. I find the Sony FF DSLRs underwhelming, Canon and Nikon are overated. When Pentax brings their FF camera out I believe it will be a great camera. Time Will Tell!

10-20-2009, 05:49 PM	#48
richtrav Forum Member Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: South Texas Posts: 82	Originally posted by Rico Kodak was or is making the APS-H sensor that is in the Leica M8/.2. Certainly though Samsung could manufacture an APS-H sensor if this was the direction they chose to go. I didn't realize that, had to look it up but apparently you're right. I dunno though, I kind of have my doubts Samsung would go for an exotic size like that unless it was assured they could sell a decent number of them. Personally I like the idea, I used a Canon 1D once and thought the size was very nice, way "roomier" than APS-C. Would anyone have a lens-by-lens breakdown of which lenses would perform acceptably on such a camera? It would all come down to price: if an APS-H sensor would only cost a fraction of a full 35mm sensor then it might be something serious to consider. FWIW I did find this interesting article from 2007 (never panned out, but still interesting): Could "K20D" actually be APS-H (1.27x) sized? - Photo.net Pentax Forum

10-20-2009, 06:30 PM	#49
Rico Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 1,189	Originally posted by ewalk I would much rather Samsung and Pentax go FF rather than stick with yet another crop sensor. What advantages would an APS-H sensor even have over a FF Samsung/Pentax project? It also doesn't make any sense that Pentax would have a complete line of cameras ranging from APS-C to APS-H to FF to MF. I doubt Hoya has the cash to completely revamp the entire line like that. ewalk One advantage of APS-H over FF would be the ability to keep the camera size smaller. I think it makes complete sense that Pentax could set itself apart by having it's entry level cameras have APS-C. Its midrange Semi-Pro rugged outdoors camera have APS-H. And a Pro camera with Full Frame. They are already making different range models so why not design them around sensors that really set them apart from one another. It certainly would set them apart from their competitors. Interestingly I was at a Pentax Event that the Outdoor Pro Photographer Kerrick James was speaking whom uses Pentax. When asked about full frame he said he did not need full frame. So if Pentax is listening to Pro's like him we will not see full frame. He did however say he really wants medium format digital.

10-20-2009, 06:38 PM	#50
Rico Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 1,189	Originally posted by richtrav I didn't realize that, had to look it up but apparently you're right. I dunno though, I kind of have my doubts Samsung would go for an exotic size like that unless it was assured they could sell a decent number of them. Personally I like the idea, I used a Canon 1D once and thought the size was very nice, way "roomier" than APS-C. Would anyone have a lens-by-lens breakdown of which lenses would perform acceptably on such a camera? It would all come down to price: if an APS-H sensor would only cost a fraction of a full 35mm sensor then it might be something serious to consider. FWIW I did find this interesting article from 2007 (never panned out, but still interesting): Could "K20D" actually be APS-H (1.27x) sized? - Photo.net Pentax Forum That is interesting to see the speculation after the fact. I was hoping they might use an APS-H sensor in the K-7. For the same reasons you mentioned the "roomier" viewfinder. Plus an APS-H sensor would have been an overall improvement from the APS-C sensor being used. It would have really appealed to that semi-Pro wedding crowd too.

10-20-2009, 06:55 PM	#51
Ratmagiclady Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: GA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 13,563	Originally posted by smc I was wondering if I should jettison my current kit to buy the 645d and a couple of lenses....this makes it so much more difficult! Of course, a rumor like this could be a cheap way for the blogosphere to see the 645D panned when it comes out. Still wouldn't be at all surprised to see a FF within a few years, but I'm not seeing any new info here.

10-20-2009, 07:02 PM	#52
Ratmagiclady Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: GA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 13,563	Originally posted by builttospill From Pentax on Facebook: "Coming out with a full frame camera would not only involve the expenses of the camera design and production, but also a whole new series of lenses. Due to differences between film and digital sensors, it is not just a simple matter of reproducing old lenses, especially if you want optimal results." Does give rise to a bit of a question, though, ...the way sensor tech's changing by the year, anyway, why redesign a whole lens line if, perchance, a sensor can be made to perform like film, as far as lenses are concerned?

10-20-2009, 09:07 PM	#53
ogl Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Sankt Peterburg Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 8,382	Originally posted by Rico Ogl I did say DA Limited lenses. Some of the DA wide zooms may not cover APS-H. Possibly the DA 15mm Limited may not cover and the DA 14mm. Still APS-H would set Pentax apart from the rest of the pack in a semi-Pro camera. Limited...Yes. But DA15 can't cover. But what about DA*16-50, 50-135? Anyway, to make APS-H instead FF is not good idea. APS-H sensor is rather expensive. FF is cheaper. Focal range with line of Pentax lenses are rather strange. I have no ANY info about this strange format in Pentax cameras.

10-20-2009, 10:11 PM	#54
richtrav Forum Member Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: South Texas Posts: 82	Why would FF be cheaper? APS-H is a smaller sensor, it should cost less if done in any significant quantities

10-20-2009, 11:01 PM	#55
ogl Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Sankt Peterburg Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 8,382	Originally posted by richtrav Why would FF be cheaper? APS-H is a smaller sensor, it should cost less if done in any significant quantities The cost price is higher than FF sensor, because the sensor is made only for 1 camera. Limited quantity. I've also heard that the percent of defective sensor is higher than FF or APS-C. Anyway, have a look at the price of Mark IV or Leica M8.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-21-2009, 01:41 AM	#57
richtrav Forum Member Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: South Texas Posts: 82	Back in 2001-2002 the cost of FF sensors was extremely high due to, among other reasons, the high number of rejects. Perhaps Sony has refined the process to make the cost more manageable, but if you were starting from scratch (as Samsung would have to do), the APS-H size should be cheaper to make and have fewer rejects simply because of the smaller physical size. How much cheaper is unknown to me. The high price of the Leicas and D1 series probably comes from their expensive bodies and electronics (Canon) or their marketing/boutique pricing strategy and low production volume (Leica), not because of the size of their sensor. Is the new FF Leica cheaper than the previous APS-H model? (it's not a rhetorical question, I honestly don't know the answer). I guess someone here could give Kodak a call and see what they charge for a FF sensor vs the APS-H one (be sure and ask for the volume discount)

10-21-2009, 04:15 AM	#59
netuser Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Azores Islands, Portugal Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,236	Originally posted by falconeye ............... However, no vendor (yet) is ready to cannibalize its own market this much. True indeed.

10-21-2009, 04:22 AM	#60
Ash Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Toowoomba, Queensland Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 23,914	Good analysis Falk. Should be economically feasible enough to produce the camera - now come the lenses part...

FF in 2010?

Win a Pentax Limited lens and more - enter in our 2023 end of year giveaway!