[oeriies]

Maybe someone can help me with my confusion about the appeal of full frame. My assumption is that the future of digital photograph is to smaller sensors that can do everything today's full frame sensors can do, with corresponding reductions in the size and weight of good glass. As it is now I come back from birding with sore shoulders as a result of carrying my K5 and DA*300. Shouldn't I expect that in the next few years I'll be able to purchase a prosumer package from Pentax or someone that is smaller, lighter, and as good or better than what I'm using now? If the answer is yes, doesn't that mean that the appeal of full frame should be short-lived?

[Asahiflex]

create a FF line is not that easy, you got to have service centers that crater the needs of FF users.

Now you make the false assumption that the average Canon FF shooter is the same as the average (hypothetical) Pentax FF shooter. Most of us just want a K-5 with a FF sensor, nothing more. I don't expect more service than there's already available for my K-5.

My friend got a 5DM, and he told me that Canon will clean the camera sensor for free (you pay shipping for like $25). No wonder I see Canon user change their lenses without much care about dust (like just 2 days ago seeing two guy just lay their lenses beside the road and changing them there..while car passing by create lots of dust and dirt).

Well, they have to because the 5D MkII is not weather sealed to the same level as the K-5 and its sensor cleaning system is worse too. So such a service is a must for Canon. Pentax does not need it.

[rawr]

doesn't that mean that the appeal of full frame should be short-lived?

You must indeed be new here

The appeal of FF isn't just technical. IMHO, it's as much about brand prestige and tech romance as it is about the tech advantages of FF.

For more on the FF tech pros and cons, this is a good a primer:
Digital Camera Sensor Sizes: How it Influences Your Photography

[LaurenOE]

Maybe someone can help me with my confusion about the appeal of full frame. My assumption is that the future of digital photograph is to smaller sensors that can do everything today's full frame sensors can do, with corresponding reductions in the size and weight of good glass. As it is now I come back from birding with sore shoulders as a result of carrying my K5 and DA*300. Shouldn't I expect that in the next few years I'll be able to purchase a prosumer package from Pentax or someone that is smaller, lighter, and as good or better than what I'm using now? If the answer is yes, doesn't that mean that the appeal of full frame should be short-lived?

There is a physical limit to how small an electronic sensor can become. Conventional film was based on individual silver halide (B&W at least) crystals in an emulsion; electronic image sensors can't get that small. Well, maybe someday with nano-tech.

At whatever concentration an APS sensor can become, having a larger surface area of the same sensor density will yield greater real estate for the final image. Granted, the ratio of size to density will be higher in the smaller sensor, but a FF makes up for that in the magnification.

Also, a FF will allow me to use more of the wide angle lenses I have in "true" wide angle.

[Asahiflex]

Maybe someone can help me with my confusion about the appeal of full frame. My assumption is that the future of digital photograph is to smaller sensors that can do everything today's full frame sensors can do, with corresponding reductions in the size and weight of good glass. As it is now I come back from birding with sore shoulders as a result of carrying my K5 and DA*300. Shouldn't I expect that in the next few years I'll be able to purchase a prosumer package from Pentax or someone that is smaller, lighter, and as good or better than what I'm using now? If the answer is yes, doesn't that mean that the appeal of full frame should be short-lived?

Simple answer: the smaller the sensor gets, the bigger the DOF and the smaller the opportunities to create artistic large-DOF effects (wanted by many). For instance a 35mm f/1.4 lens on FF needs a 23mm f/0,93 lens on APS-C to have the same field of view and DOF; such a lens for APS-C does not exist at all. However I do agree that smaller sensors have their purposes, for instance with longer lenses. The Pentax Q is an example of such a camera with its 5,6x crop factor (a 50mm fullframe lens becomes 280mm on the Q).

[Emacs]

Maybe someone can help me with my confusion about the appeal of full frame. My assumption is that the future of digital photograph is to smaller sensors that can do everything today's full frame sensors can do, with corresponding reductions in the size and weight of good glass. As it is now I come back from birding with sore shoulders as a result of carrying my K5 and DA*300. Shouldn't I expect that in the next few years I'll be able to purchase a prosumer package from Pentax or someone that is smaller, lighter, and as good or better than what I'm using now? If the answer is yes, doesn't that mean that the appeal of full frame should be short-lived?

Larger sensor puts lesser demand on glass with the same FOV (with the exception of edges, of course, they are another story) to achieve the same details. This means your images will look sharper on FF than on APS-C (and this causes the pop effect).

[maxfield_photo]

Like many others, I could care less about FF, but it is nice that they responded. Seriously I hope they don't waste the time developing one, I can think of many many other areas that could use improvement, preditive AF, flash, better video, etc etc etc

NaCl(FF is a waste of time and resources)H2O

Perhaps you feel the Q was money better spent?

People don't seem to understand, there is very little to "develop" in creating a FF body. The lenses already exist, the mount already exists, the technologies like SR and weather sealing already exist, the image engine already exists. The R&D is done and paid for. Now look at the Q, it basically had to be built from scratch from the ground up with the exception of the software, lenses and all.

But I agree, better AF and better flash options are sorely needed (I don't know about, nor do I care about video, but I'll take your word for it) What better place to debut these new innovations than a new professional model? Those features could also trickle down into the K-5's successor.

Also full frame glass means better pictures for every K mount camera, regardless of sensor size. A wider image circle means sharper corners, less CA, less vignetting, and faster AF acquisition for APS-C users. Pentax should have never gotten away from the 35mm image circle.

---

Last edited by maxfield_photo; 10-19-2011 at 07:56 AM.

[Mistral75]

[Mistral75]

I think I see a lot of wishful interpretation of Pentax Statement. It actually doesn't mean much other than the company "plans on" expanding its Advanced Amateur and Professional product lines. It's just an intent, that remains to be firmed up into a concrete product development map, which could just as well be a mirror-less aimed at advanced-amateurs; never actually said FF. Nice though that Pentax took the time to respond.

"The cameras we make may be small, but we have big hopes (...)".

Hmm, quite interesting...

[Kunzite]

People don't seem to understand, there is very little to "develop" in creating a FF body. The lenses already exist, the mount already exists, the technologies like SR and weather sealing already exist, the image engine already exists. The R&D is done and paid for. Now look at the Q, it basically had to be built from scratch from the ground up with the exception of the software, lenses and all.

Wrong on every account.
- We (I?) understand very well.
- There are only few lenses available - several more will have to be developed. e-bay is irrelevant, by the way.
- SR must be adapted for the larger sensor.
- A new body will have to be made (optionally weather sealed).
- Most likely a new (faster) image engine will be needed.
- R&D for things that doesn't exist can't be "done and paid for"

[RonHendriks1966]

- Most likely a new (faster) image engine will be needed.

This we also need for K-3 and 645D-II. PRIME II isn't up for it's task anymore.

[cali92rs]

Urk! If that happens, I'm going to have to go with Peyton Manning and his Sony Olympus, I guess.

Oh, believe me, I hate Tim Tebow, I bleed Silver and Black....but he has such a cult following that some people will buy whatever he talls them too.

[jsherman999]

....

And saying that FX is an upgrade path is a bit weird...The whole concept is hobbyist driven.

How are those two things mutually exclusive?


.

[jsherman999]

perhaps you feel the q was money better spent?

People don't seem to understand, there is very little to "develop" in creating a ff body. The lenses already exist, the mount already exists, the technologies like sr and weather sealing already exist, the image engine already exists. The r&d is done and paid for. Now look at the q, it basically had to be built from scratch from the ground up with the exception of the software, lenses and all.

But i agree, better af and better flash options are sorely needed (i don't know about, nor do i care about video, but i'll take your word for it) what better place to debut these new innovations than a new professional model? Those features could also trickle down into the k-5's successor.

Also full frame glass means better pictures for every k mount camera, regardless of sensor size. A wider image circle means sharper corners, less ca, less vignetting, and faster af acquisition for aps-c users. Pentax should have never gotten away from the 35mm image circle.

+1

.

[jsherman999]

The Canon 7D and 5D Mark II are advanced amateur cameras too. As in: the 5D is deliberately crippled as to not to eat into the 1D series' sales. That's why Pentax could easily take the FF market by storm, as there's no professional camera line to protect. A Pentax FF model will always be better than the entry-level FF from Canon/Nikon. Because it will never eat into the sales of 645D's as they don't share the same lens mount.

.

Superb insight.

.