[stanleyk]

It absolutely does not. Being able to get fantastic results in FOV/DOF combinations while taking advantage of just pure native sharpness of some of those lenses while doing so is one of the advantages of Full Frame.

Ricoh needs folks to buy the big ticket lenses - but they aren't required for the shooter to take advantage of FF.

.

I stand corrected. Perhaps a more accurate assessment would be that Ricoh/Pentax is highly unlikely to make a $2500+ DSLR just so people can use older K mount lenses. When they do make one, I'm sure it will be a Kmount but for it to be a profitable venture I'd guess they need people to buy new lenses for the camera. However, you can use Nikon Ai and Ai-s lenses on the D700. I managed to get a few of them in a bulk purchase with an old film body that I plan on using. So you may have a good point. I probably wouldn't have bought the camera if I didn't have the lenses. That said, I did buy the 35mm F1.4 and 85mm F1.4 which are really amazing. I'm about to plunk down for the 135mm F2.0 as soon as some other camera equipment I have sells. The only zoom that is interesting to me is the 14-24. I have an Ai 20mm though. It's a great lens. I was really surprised to find out they still manufacture a few of the manual focus lenses. I got the 50mm F1.4 in the manual version. That lens is great.

[Chex]

You also need a really good 35mm. Nikon's is $1300. It really defeats the purpose to buy a $2500+ camera body and only put a $100-$300 lenses on it.

Take a poke around and simply see what people can produce with a 5D Mark II and a $50 SMC Takumar 50mm f 1.7, or 28mm f3.5.. I sure would not be eager to throw $1300 35mm when an FA 35 can be had at a fraction of the price.. some DA's are still FF compatible, even the DA 10-17mm Fisheye could be used at 17mm (messed with it on a Super Program body the other day) so the FA lenses alone there are 42 lenses.. maybe 15-20 worth reproducing as D FA's.. it's not like Pentax is without means.. maybe just without motivation.

[Winder]

Well who doesn't see that such a camera can be a great performer, isn't a pro, he is just a geargeek.

That is calling Canon 1D Mark IV not a pro camera.

When I hear that the APS-H Canon 1DIV is not a real "pro" camera I have to laugh. IT is Canons best selling "pro" camera.

APS-H has a lot of real advantages and is the best compromise between FF and APS-C. It exists for that very reason. Both Leica and Canon have successfully used APS-H.

I doubt we will ever see one from Pentax, but I would love a 4/3 format sensor with 550mm^2 sensor.

Whatever I want FF.
For Pentax's past glory!!!
Also with highest DR!

[Asahiflex]

I stand corrected. Perhaps a more accurate assessment would be that Ricoh/Pentax is highly unlikely to make a $2500+ DSLR just so people can use older K mount lenses.

I don't think so. It's the same Ricoh who has just recently announced a Leica M mount module for the GXR. Now that's what many would call highly unlikely, but they just did it. They might just as well just bring out a FF with a K-mount

[Clavius]

Well who doesn't see that such a camera can be a great performer, isn't a pro, he is just a geargeek.

That is calling Canon 1D Mark IV not a pro camera.

What I meant is, you can crop a FF to APC-H, APC-C and even smaller formats. Not the other way round.

I know a pro probably does better then me with a point and shoot then me with a FF.

But if Pentax doesn't produce a FF, it will still be... Just a brand without FF.

[Emacs]

When I hear that the APS-H Canon 1DIV is not a real "pro" camera I have to laugh. IT is Canons best selling "pro" camera.

APS-H has a lot of real advantages and is the best compromise between FF and APS-C. It exists for that very reason. Both Leica and Canon have successfully used APS-H.

I doubt we will ever see one from Pentax, but I would love a 4/3 format sensor with 550mm^2 sensor.

It DOESN'T exist anymore. Period.
It appeared as the the best compromise between price, not between FF and APS-C.

[Winder]

It DOESN'T exist anymore. Period.
It appeared as the the best compromise between price, not between FF and APS-C.

Leica M-8 does exist and so does the Canon 1DIV. "Period" The 1DX will not be out until next summer.

Canon has sold more APS-H 1D bodies than it has FF 1Ds bodies to professionals. Anyone who does not think APS-H is professional grade does not know what they are talking about.

Kodak just announced and NEW APS-H sensor. I am pretty sure they developed it for a reason.

[Kunzite]

Well I do want a big sensor. Can also be 3:2, but a 4:3 is fine for me. When it's 28x21mm it is 60 % larger then K-5 and with still 16 megapixel, the pixelsize goes from K-5's 4,75 micron to 6 micron, wich would give nice great hi-iso performance. The surface of such a pixel is 60 % larger then K-5.

When bigger pixels are used, like the 7 microns that are on 1Dx then you end up with 12 megapixels on that sensor. Would also be fine by me. They give stunning image quality I guess.

That should give a boost to image quality.

Only if they can find a very good sensor; otherwise, the IQ could be the same or worse. Limiting themselves to a sensor format nobody else is using - that's exactly what 4/3 did.
FF sensors are more readily available.

I quite don't get the argument that 1D MkIV is a professional camera, so Pentax should go APS-H; there is absolutely no relation between those two.
Kodak's sensor - does it have live view? How about video? Or the insanely high ISO figures everyone are expecting, from a (slightly) larger format?

[Clavius]

It DOESN'T exist anymore. Period.

Actually they've made new one...

It appeared as the the best compromise between price, not between FF and APS-C.

I sure have to agree with you there.

Most people who are eagurly awaiting a FF body from Pentax will still be asking for FF when Pentax throws a APS-H body at them. It's a slap in the face. Those loyal patiently waiting customers will not be patient forever. If Pentax serves them a APS-H, and another brand come with a FF + K-mount adapter, those customers will be gone.

APS-H would be a nice move when a FF body is well established. That's wat canon did, they introduced APS-H as an experiment at a moment their customers weren't screaming for something else. (Yes, seen the amount of FF threads, Pentaxian customers are screaming for FF.)

This APS-H experiment could be done at a safer moment, when people start using the term canitax.

[stanleyk]

I don't think so. It's the same Ricoh who has just recently announced a Leica M mount module for the GXR. Now that's what many would call highly unlikely, but they just did it. They might just as well just bring out a FF with a K-mount

No doubt. I have a GXR. I love that camera. But that is a bit different. I think Ricoh will be great for Pentax and will release a Full Frame camera at some point. If they would release a Kmount module for the GXR I would definitely buy it.

[Rondec]

Take a poke around and simply see what people can produce with a 5D Mark II and a $50 SMC Takumar 50mm f 1.7, or 28mm f3.5.. I sure would not be eager to throw $1300 35mm when an FA 35 can be had at a fraction of the price.. some DA's are still FF compatible, even the DA 10-17mm Fisheye could be used at 17mm (messed with it on a Super Program body the other day) so the FA lenses alone there are 42 lenses.. maybe 15-20 worth reproducing as D FA's.. it's not like Pentax is without means.. maybe just without motivation.

You could say the same thing about these lenses on the K5, or any other APS-C body. The FA 35 isn't that great a lens either. Has to be stopped down to f2.8 before it starts getting sharp.

Whether or not you can get great results with full frame and old cheap lenses, most of the benefit seems to come in the wide angle department, a place where Pentax doesn't/hasn't had a whole lot of lenses. Seems like 28mm is the widest commonly sold prime that Pentax had (FA* 24 is pretty pricey) and that's not particularly wide in today's climate.

[MMVIII]

Well, I wouldn't see the slightest problem with finding arguments PRO APS-H, just call it "FF with SR". Because I think, that's the point: you get some mm of the circle of illumination of the old "FF" lenses as a bonus and insurance against vignetting and corner problems/falloffs of these and can still use most APS-lenses without cropping. You really use the lenses at their best, their sweet spot.

The arguments pro FF like better noise levels and depht of field control might still be there, but somehow be so small that they sound pathetic.

Other arguments on an emotional and psychological basis will have to be seen as what they are: nostalgia, not ratio. YMMV but I would follow this idea as beeing exceptionally suitable for this company and it's portfolio.

[Clavius]

Well, I wouldn't see the slightest problem with finding arguments PRO APS-H, just call it "FF with SR".

I didn't know SR was impossible with FF?! Please elaborate...

[MMVIII]

I didn't know SR was impossible with FF?! Please elaborate...

I didn't know either??? And that's why I didn't claim it.

On the other hand, corner problems with 35mm lenses are more or less unavoidable. Even if they cover the old 35 FF (I use it as 35mm Film Format ) its up to everybody's imagination what you get if the sensor moves even some mm further. It might be ok for some, new lenses can even be optimized for that, most old telelenses probably have no problems, Sony showed, that for some good money you can sell well corrected Zeiss lenses which handle this quite well.

But the telelenses are not the Achilles-heel of APS-C anyway, but rather the wideangles. I would really like to have morw options in this area than APS-C offers, I don't want light-falloff of up to 2EV, which makes iso equivalent of two stops less in corners, I dont want resolution reduction of up to 50%, just have a look at the tests at photozone! It doesn't matter to me at which format I can get this, just seems that APS-H might deliver also an advantage here, while still avoiding the problems of the next step, especially with old tools.

Why not go 35FF and crop? Well, if it's the same price as H, no problem, but I think here they could bring a professional system, and still attract former users, having APS-C lenses or 35FF and thus hold the cost down. Come on, would you really shout for old Film Frame if they bring a system camera based on APS-H for around or under 2k?