[Spag]

aside from the wides there would be no vignetting on H, most will work on ff for that matter. but 21 and wider will be problematic (including wider than 21 on the zooms) solvable by an auto crop function in camera as it would be on FF

I know some DA lenses are FF compatible therefore most of (if not quasi all) DA lenses should work on APS-H, but the border quality will probably be very low anyway..

[eddie1960]

given one of the things people are looking for on a bigger format is thinner DOF and bokeh i'm not sure edge to edge sharpness is the primary need. sharpness in the center OTOH is still required. mainly i think the issue whether FF or APSH is a system that allows you to take your DA lenses forward while you grow a FF collection (like the auto masking function on the Nikon).
The only DA i own aside from a couple of kit lenses is My DA14 bought when I bought my ds as I wanted wide and there was no alternative aside from an even more expensive A15 3.5 (which is still more expensive)

[ogl]

Just remember that OGL's track record in the rumor department is not spotless

I find 24mp to be more realistic for the next APS model; the K-3 perhaps?

What about Pete Fang?

[ogl]

I don't know, of course...But I think new 24 MP FF sensor from SONY is true.
First of all, 24 MP FF sensor technology is proven already...I think SONY will just improve 24 MP sensor in terms of DR and signal/noise. Maybe speed of readout.
It means - Pentax FF camera could be at the price level $2000-2500.

Just my 2 cents

[RonHendriks1966]

You have 16 MP APS-C, why do you want APS-H?

Well I would even prefer a large 4/3th sensor at the size of 28x21mm with 12 megapixel wiht large pixels (that is the size of the new Canon 1Dx) to get excellent hi-iso performance. So main goal is better hi-iso performance for me and keeping some crop to benefit with when using telelenses. And I guess that a lot of other things get better with it.

For auto-vignetting on all DA lenses

Well from my lensset only 14mm and 21mm would have to go. The rest is good to use. For my sigma I'm not to shure it will performe well enough on a FF.

Go back through the thread he's stated it a few times. for everyone except Ron this is a FF thread, for Ron it's an APSH thread

16mp h should out resolve c and provide closer to the true FOV on ff lenses. should be better noise wise as well. I doubt it will ever happen though despite the new Kodak sensor being made. It is the biggest you can make without complex tech like FF requires so there is a good arguement for it

You hit the nail

Almost... you'll need a 36 MP FF camera will give a 1.5 crop area of 16MP - but isn't 36MP exactly what rumors say about the new Sony FF sensors? A cool feature would be to implement some fancy mask in the viewfinder (lcd overlay?) which crops each DA lens to its individually recommended maximum image circle.

Maybe they are even the same wafer cuts as current K-5 is?

Sony is rumoured to have 2 new Ff sensors in the pipeline a 24mp and a 36mp.

From these choices I would vote for the 24 megapixel sensor.

I know some DA lenses are FF compatible therefore most of (if not quasi all) DA lenses should work on APS-H, but the border quality will probably be very low anyway.

Well I guess that from my lenses the sigma 70-200 won't be a winner in the edges of FF. My other lenses would need more stopped down I guess to get better edge performance. Probably the DA 40mm/f2.8 Ltd. would be the best performer wide open. One off the reasons why I would want an APS-H and after we all bought a Full Frame camera we will all know that that APS-H was a smart thing to do.

Still in favor for having a body like K-5 with integrated grip to give room to all electronics and have a nice and comfortable camera to hold in our hands.

[Asahiflex]

If it's too good to be true, it probably is.

[jsherman999]

if it's too good to be true, it probably is.

.

[markku55]

I'm lowing Pentax FF lenses, most of them would be ok in FF digital DSLR frame, so I do not understand in where there is any problem to introduce soon a range of FF lenses for a new FF dslr frame?
Most of the present FA lenses are actually very good if not exeptional lenses, why should those not be able to be in same quality in FF digital size?

[Emacs]

Most of the present FA lenses are actually very good if not exeptional lenses, why should those not be able to be in same quality in FF digital size?

In reality they would be MUCH better on FF camera.

[Pål Jensen]

really!

Actually it's one of the benefits of the larger format. You can always stop down to match the aps-c DOF if you need to, you can't always go the other way. This is why it's more accurately described as 'more DOF control', not 'less DOF'.

.

This is complete bogus argument. 99.99% of all photography is not shot at F:1.4 or wider apertures; just look at any newspaper, magazine or art gallery. Those images that are actually shot at F:1.4, most of them are due to getting fast enough shutterspeed not for shallow DOF. 99.99% of all images that indeed have shallow DOF can be shot on any format used for DSLR's.
The main problem with photography; ie in 99.99% of cases, is getting enough DOF. In fact, larger format provides a limitation; there are images I simply cannot shoot with the 645 system because I can't get enough DOF - whereas 35mm, not to mention APS can. Thats why many photographers used LF over MF due to the DOF issue.

[Pål Jensen]

And with APS-C also pushing 30MP with 1/2 the sensor size they will need even sharper lenses than those FF 30MP cameras to achieve the same result. There is no free lunch. You are better off taking a 32MP FF and cropping it in post to achieve the results of a 16MP APS-C because then you have the best of both worlds.

You will not get the same result with a cropped FF file if the lenses are not good enough. And it is more expensive to make a good FF lens than a lens for a smaller system.
Besides, what is the point with FF if you are going to crop it it APS size? A costly, circumstancial route to the same end result.

[RonHendriks1966]

This is complete bogus argument. 99.99% of all photography is not shot at F:1.4 or wider apertures; just look at any newspaper, magazine or art gallery. Those images that are actually shot at F:1.4, most of them are due to getting fast enough shutterspeed not for shallow DOF. 99.99% of all images that indeed have shallow DOF can be shot on any format used for DSLR's.

You are absolutely right (for 99,99 %)

Shot with FA*85mm at F1.4, iso160 and 1/8000th

[Emacs]

You will not get the same result with a cropped FF file if the lenses are not good enough. And it is more expensive to make a good FF lens than a lens for a smaller system.

Wrong. For example the only lens that can match 77Ltd@FF with APS-C IQ-wise is leica summilux 50/f1.4 asph. And it will cost me about $4000. Other 50mm lenses I've found are inferior to 77Ltd on 5d mk ii.
Just check samples here: Contax 85 F2.8 sonnar T*MM - ?????? ?????-????? - ???????? 2
It's CZ Sonnar 85/2.8 at 5d mk II.
It's not particularly cheap, but they are only leica 50mm lenses that are able to match this quality with APS-C sensor (lux and cron, of course). And they are much more expensive.
It's typical delusion to think FF lenses must be more expensive. It's only case withing long tele (and still 1200mm is better than 800mm on APS-C IQ-wise). In general it's easier to achieve some IQ level with FF lenses and thus lens can be cheaper.

[Anvh]

Wrong. For example the only lens that can match 77Ltd@FF with APS-C IQ-wise is leica summilux 50/f1.4 asph. And it will cost me about $4000. Other 50mm lenses I've found are inferior to 77Ltd on 5d mk ii.
Just check samples here: Contax 85 F2.8 sonnar T*MM - ?????? ?????-????? - ???????? 2
It's CZ Sonnar 85/2.8 at 5d mk II.
It's not particularly cheap, but they are only leica 50mm lenses that are able to match this quality with APS-C sensor (lux and cron, of course). And they are much more expensive.
It's typical delusion to think FF lenses must be more expensive. It's only case withing long tele (and still 1200mm is better than 800mm on APS-C IQ-wise). In general it's easier to achieve some IQ level with FF lenses and thus lens can be cheaper.

The leica summilux 50/f1.4 is still a better investment though.
What will a FF camera cost these days, let's take the 5D mkII for the price so that will be $2200.
What do you think will happen with the value of the Leica and 5D over lets say... 4 or 6 years.
The Leica might even rise in value where as the 5D value would be halfed most likely.

Lets stretch it over 20 years, surely the Leica lens will last that long and probably even longer... what will be left of the 5D then?

So the price difference is not essential in this case, in the long run lenses will last you must longer and will hold their value much better.

[eddie1960]

The leica summilux 50/f1.4 is still a better investment though.
What will a FF camera cost these days, let's take the 5D mkII for the price so that will be $2200.
What do you think will happen with the value of the Leica and 5D over lets say... 4 or 6 years.
The Leica might even rise in value where as the 5D value would be halfed most likely.

Lets stretch it over 20 years, surely the Leica lens will last that long and probably even longer... what will be left of the 5D then?

So the price difference is not essential in this case, in the long run lenses will last you must longer and will hold their value much better.

Not sure the value of the m9 will hold forever (it has limitations and when the next gen comes out it will suffer a bit. Leica lenses on the other hand have the best cost of ownership of any lens. they mostly gain in value. If you were lucky enough to buy the early release 50 f0.95 you paid 8-9000. the last one sold on ebay wend for a little over 14000. pretty close to a free m9. of course if you decide you want the lens back you'll pay the going market rate. Mainly the reason for the increasing value is leica's inability (or lack of desire) to manufacture to meet demand. Many of the best lenses have waiting lists so do the cameras
Certainly as a product they are mostly over priced. but they are excellent products