Originally posted by er1kksen Of course, resolution isn't dependent entirely on pixel count. Things like the strength or weakness (or lack) of an AA filter also have a large impact on actual resolution (in terms of detail captured).
True enough; it's also true they have yet to pass a law against making a 35mm FF dSLR with a weak AA Filter, or without one.
Originally posted by gazonk No. You can't compare American and Japanese prices. Japanese D3x prices are very close to 645d prices.
Originally posted by Rondec I'd say that this is selling against the D3x, not the D3s.
The D3X price isn't really the issue anyway. If you're going to look at the FF dSLR that most closely would be considered by those interested in high resolution, low speed subject matter, then you would be more likely be looking at the Sony A850 or Canon 5d Mk II, one of which is less than 1/4 the price and the other of which is less than 1/3 the price. (NO, I'm not quoting Japanese prices, and I really could care less; even with a significant discount IF the 645D ever makes it to the US market, it will STILL sell for multiples of the price of most FF cameras, especially those that are more in line in other areas like frame rates and autofocus - though the Sony doesn't give you the Canon discount AF performance to try to "force" you to go for their overpriced 1DS series.)
Originally posted by konraDarnok You could apply this exact same logic to the never ending APS-C vs. FF debate -- it would be even more true. There's nothing particularly "full" about a full frame. It's just another format that's marginally different.
I can't be the only one that's tired of reading this stuff.
Moderators need to come up with a filter that automatically changes "FF" or "full frame" to something witty, like "ponies" . . .or maybe automatically moved to a whole different forum called "sour grapes" or "greener fields" under the off-topic header.
As tired as you might be of listening to the APS-C vs. FF debate, I'm ten times as tired of hearing all of the ridiculous arguments about why Pentax shouldn't make a FF dSLR, and find it particularly irritating how the same arguments that those individuals make concerning why a Pentax FF dSLR is supposedly a bad idea get conveniently forgotten when they chest beat about the 645D (that they'll
never buy, with VERY few exceptions), a camera which magnifies every supposed issue that's supposed to make a FF dSLR a business catastrophe for Pentax (including, but not limited to, the cost, the small market, the fact that they can't compete with the established players, etc. ad nauseum.) Oh, and the difference bwtween FF 35mm format and APS-C is bigger than the difference between the cropped 645D and FF 35mm format, not to mention that there's a lot more people that have FF 35mm Pentax mount glass then there are people with 645 glass.
Originally posted by gazonk Why do you guys keep comparing japanese oranges with american apples?
645D: ¥848,000
????.com-????-??????????4000???????????????645D?
D3x: ¥832,000
????.com- ??? D3X [???]
The difference gets a little bigger if you have a card from Yodobashi (you need to be resident in Japan), you get 10% bonus points on the 645D and 14% on the D3x. So you end up with the following prices with current exchange rates:
645D: USD 8422
D3x: USD 7896
So, if you compare in the same shop in the market where you actually can order the 645D, AND you're able to use the yodobashi card, the difference is still less than 600 $.
Again, see the comment above. The slow, low frame rate, low ISO range 645D is competing more with FF dSLRs like the slow, lower ISO range A850, which is 1/4 the price. I'm sure even your Japanese prices aren't going to narrow THAT gap to "competitive."