[thibs]

I'd bet Pentax doesn't take the no flash route, as they've invested a lot in the 360's and 540's wireless abilities.

They can market a transmitter like Canon and make more dollars

[thibs]

Olympus is not based on a 135 format lens mount. Their 4/3 system is using the largest sensor that can be used. You did't "miss" it. Of all the systems, Olympus may never build a FF camera. They would need to introduce yet another mount if they were to go this route.

This is only partly relevant IMO. Yes it is no based on 135 film but as far as sensor size is considered, they are even worse than APS-C and do not have an FF sensor. They have reasons for this and it is up to individuals to like that or not.
It doesn't change the fact that they do not have any FF sensor either.

[RuiC]

Im so tierd of FF threds. there isnt even a lens line up made for FF. Please guys pick a new topic

Well I'm so tired of lack of lens line-up threads for FF if there isn't even a FF. Which one was the first? For some it was the chicken, others say the egg.
Pass on.

Rui

[knoxploration]

Pentax FX-1

Pentax QW-ERT.

/can I play too?

[knoxploration]

Again, none of these cameras use a FF mount for their lenses.

Except for Fuji and Sigma that make DSLR's based on Nikon bodies with specialty sensors. These two could be expected to build a FF eventually. But they really are niche players. You could use these cameras as part of a system that includes a FF camera. Your Fuji "bride and groom" shooter can share the same lenses as your D700.

The Epson is a FF mount (Leica M-mount, introduced with the 35mm Leica M3). The Ricoh can use whatever sensor they want as the lens is fixed to the sensor. Hence the mount is irrelevant. Samsung uses the same mount as Pentax on their DSLRs to date.

That leaves only Olympus and Panasonic. They already cooperated on launching a new lens mount which realistically required all new glass once. They're also stuck with one of the smallest sensor sizes used by any current interchangeable-lens camera. Olympus already has a 35mm mount (OM) from which development could start. If you believe FF is the be-all, end-all then why would you think Olympus and Panasonic couldn't decide to join the party with a new or redeveloped mount again?

[Shingoshi]

Olympus is not based on a 135 format lens mount. Their 4/3 system is using the largest sensor that can be used. You did't "miss" it. Of all the systems, Olympus may never build a FF camera. They would need to introduce yet another mount if they were to go this route.

Olympus already had a mount for FF cameras. And I don't see any reason why they couldn't reintroduce it to accommodate digital cameras. But in retrospect, I agree that Olympus will likely never introduce a FF camera, as they have backed themselves into a corner with their 4:3 & u4:3 systems. So I really don't think they will ever be a professional system again. And that's the point here. Any company which refuses to produce a FF can never attain the status of professional users. Just ask how many medium-format professionals would have been willing to switch to a smaller format. None of them. That's why there's at least 4 different medium-format DSLRs on the market.

Xavian-Anderson Macpherson
ShingoshiDao

[Shingoshi]

Your Fuji "bride and groom" shooter can share the same lenses as your D700.

What other company has the status of having it's mount used by as many others as Nikon does? If that alone doesn't place them into a category of their own, what does? You can even find specialized video equipment made for Nikon lenses. I think Nikon has to be the most ubiquitous of all lens mounts in existence. Simply if for no other reason than it has the longest film registration distance, making the F-mount adaptable to virtually any 35mm or smaller format camera in the world.

Xavian-Anderson Macpherson
ShingoshiDao

[KungPOW]

bunch of hair splitting lawers...

[knoxploration]

Any company which refuses to produce a FF can never attain the status of professional users.

That's a rather curious viewpoint. Just because some pros want FF doesn't mean they all do. There are plenty of pros working on Canon and Nikon APS-C cameras who've never touched (or needed) their FF cameras.

By your logic, once Pentax releases the 645D, then pros will be abandoning Canon and Nikon in droves since neither company offers a sensor as large as that in the 645D.

I somehow doubt that's going to happen, because in the real world pros care about a lot more than just sensor size - and they make their decisions based on what's appropriate to the job at hand, not whether their digicam sensor is identical in size to an arbitrary (albeit popular) film size.

[Kunzite]

I don't understand why people likes to talk about the small format calling it 'full frame'

[ryan s]

That's a rather curious viewpoint. Just because some pros want FF doesn't mean they all do. There are plenty of pros working on Canon and Nikon APS-C cameras who've never touched (or needed) their FF cameras.

By your logic, once Pentax releases the 645D, then pros will be abandoning Canon and Nikon in droves since neither company offers a sensor as large as that in the 645D.

I somehow doubt that's going to happen, because in the real world pros care about a lot more than just sensor size - and they make their decisions based on what's appropriate to the job at hand, not whether their digicam sensor is identical in size to an arbitrary (albeit popular) film size.

Exactly.

I don't understand why people likes to talk about the small format calling it 'full frame'

Exactly.

Why did Pentax offer both a 6 x 4.5 cam and a 6 x 7 cam? 35mm was an "amateur" format, then became a "pro" format due to convenience/cost/etc.

120 film is approximately 4x the size of a 24x36mm frame. If having FF "magically" turns your photography to 11, turn the dials to 35, folks!

[Shingoshi]

Those for whom the quality of the final image is their primary concern will always look for a larger original image size. Because in terms of the comparative quality of original images, the larger format will always be superior to a smaller format. If you're a professional for whom the quality of the image is secondary (requiring only smaller reproduction sizes), the original image format chosen will likely be of little concern to them. But for artists, better will always translate to larger.

Xavian-Anderson Macpherson
ShingoshiDao

[24X36NOW]

I don't understand why people likes to talk about the small format calling it 'full frame'

'Cause we're talking about it being the same FULL size FRAME as the film format the particular lens mount was designed for. None of the current medium format digital cameras are Full Frame, either. They're still being cheap with the sensors even in the larger formats.

[Shingoshi]

Since I've received my tripod and am now shooting with it on a regular basis, I am finding the LCD screen to be much easier to work with. So my perspective about using the LCD has definitely changed. I will likely be using it much more often in the future.

While shooting an old oak in the neighborhood, I was able to tilt my camera up rather high while having the LCD on my Sony H50 positioned in a manner of a waist level finder. Shooting like this was indeed very comfortable. This presents new techniques and opportunities, as I typically only used a tripod with my 4x5 Sinar before. But now, I will always have my tripod with me. Thank God for a Manfrotto 190MF and it's carbon-fiber structure. Complete with head attached, it weighs less than 6 lbs. And fits pleasantly attached to the bottom of my fanny pack.

Xavian-Anderson Macpherson
ShingoshiDao

[ryan s]

'Cause we're talking about it being the same FULL size FRAME as the film format the particular lens mount was designed for. None of the current medium format digital cameras are Full Frame, either. They're still being cheap with the sensors even in the larger formats.

And 35mm is a cropped format as well.

Next.