[Aristophanes]

APS-H is @ 1/6th the cost of FF.
APS-C is @ 1/10th the cost of FF.

Canon invented the APS-H format specifically because of the cost saving over the FF sensor. It was not just a random size they decided to make.

It's still a $5000 camera:

Canon EOS 1D Mark IV SLR Digital Camera (Body Only) 3822B002 B&H

If you're going to make a camera that expensive, then you might as well go FF and make a D700 clone. The cost savings, as the D700 and A900 indicate, are marginal between APS-H and FF.

Then there's a supply problem. Canon makes APS-H and Kodak used to make the M8 in CCD. Sony does not make APS-H. Maybe they could, but you'd have to pay a steep engineering premium (much more cost) to get it to market, wiping out the cost advantage.

What's needed is FF to be a price war between Canon, Nikon, and Sony, with Leica in the mix as well. That will drive down the price enabling a Pentax version. The economic rationale behind APS-H is probably history.

And on the note about the Fuji X100. This product is innovative, fore sure; but it treads on well-worn markets. It's the iteration of very popular rangefinders such as the Canonets, Yashica GSN's, and Olympus RC's (I own all 3). There was a lot of pent-up demand for these products remade in digital format. But price and lens restrictions make this a very difficult camera to compensate for the vastly superior flexibility of the SLR design. For what it does, I find it quite expensive.

[Winder]

It's still a $5000 camera:

Canon EOS 1D Mark IV SLR Digital Camera (Body Only) 3822B002 B&H

If you're going to make a camera that expensive, then you might as well go FF and make a D700 clone. The cost savings, as the D700 and A900 indicate, are marginal between APS-H and FF.

You are comparing the Canon flagship Sports camera to to the entry level price point for a FF from Nikon and Sony? Really? Canon just changed the 1DIV APS-H to the 1DX FF and the price went up $3,000. It looks like there is a $3,000 difference between APS-H and FF from Canon. Let me repeat that...... The 1D series went up $3,000 when Canon moved it to full frame.

Then there's a supply problem. Canon makes APS-H and Kodak used to make the M8 in CCD. Sony does not make APS-H. Maybe they could, but you'd have to pay a steep engineering premium (much more cost) to get it to market, wiping out the cost advantage.

There is no "engineering premium". Once you have the wafers and the mask you can go a lot of different places and set up shop. Sony just relocated it sensor facility from Thailand (flooding) to a facility in Japan in about one month.

What's needed is FF to be a price war between Canon, Nikon, and Sony, with Leica in the mix as well. That will drive down the price enabling a Pentax version. The economic rationale behind APS-H is probably history.

Since Pentax does not have sensor fab capabilities they are the fist loser in the your price war. Leica doesn't do "price wars". Sony has been trying to drive down the price of FF the A850 was just that. Not exactly a success story. Pentax needs the price of FF cameras to go up so that there is enough margin in that segment to justify the investment. Price wars weed out companies, not make them stronger.

And on the note about the Fuji X100. This product is innovative, fore sure; but it treads on well-worn markets. It's the iteration of very popular rangefinders such as the Canonets, Yashica GSN's, and Olympus RC's (I own all 3). There was a lot of pent-up demand for these products remade in digital format. But price and lens restrictions make this a very difficult camera to compensate for the vastly superior flexibility of the SLR design. For what it does, I find it quite expensive.

And it has been selling extremely well. Now someone needs to give the market a MF EVIL with some serious glass.

[noser]

This whole OVF / EVF thing is a stupid discussion.

Yes, OVF's, especially larger FF/MF ones look fantastic. I notice the difference between shooting my old film Pentax bodies and digital.

And Yes, EVF's will probably replace OVF's, because it's going to be the next big marketing gimmick, since the megapixel race is getting a bit old.

So the next 'megapixel race' will be with EVF's, measured in MP, ms of lag, DR, whatever, and we'll all be the victims of it.

One day, maybe in 5 years, EVF's will be great; they will look 'big', they'll be color-correct, they'll have natural DR, and no lag. And maybe power efficient, so I can look thru the EVF for 6-8 hours a day, for multiple days, without changing batteries.

But for now it's a stupid idea for a stupid mass market. Sorry if that offends.

Personally I miss not changing the battery in my film bodies... well, ever.

As for MF vs FF vs APS-H vs APS-C, I wasn't aware the cost differences were that big. But then again, I don't care, and am happy that there is finally a rebate on the 645D, it's actually under $10k, which is promising for the future. Seems like a deal compared to a Hassy that costs more than a car.

[Anvh]

For the MF crowd things like 300mm lenses, lighting fast AF, and shutter lag are not critical. MF lends itself very well to EVIL technology.

You do know the sensor needs to be on to provide the image for the EVF right?
They might even need to resort to active cooling just to keep the thing running for more then ten minutes...

I just don't see it happen fast for MF cameras, just to impractical.
And downsizing might sound nice but you get something like the sony NEX, very small camera but huge lenses in comparison.


APS-H inveted by Canon???
The APS format including C, P and H where introduced by Kodak in 1996.

[Anvh]

You are comparing the Canon flagship Sports camera to to the entry level price point for a FF from Nikon and Sony? Really? Canon just changed the 1DIV APS-H to the 1DX FF and the price went up $3,000. It looks like there is a $3,000 difference between APS-H and FF from Canon. Let me repeat that...... The 1D series went up $3,000 when Canon moved it to full frame.

There is no "engineering premium". Once you have the wafers and the mask you can go a lot of different places and set up shop.

Did Canon only changed the sensor?
And if it is so cheap why don't they put APS-H sensors in more of their cameras?
Seems to me Canon wants to get rid of the APS-H sensor in their line, i wonder why...

You make it sound so easy, they only need the wafers and the mask.
How much will those cost to make and design, or better yet let them be made and designed because Ricoh can't make or design them...

[maxfield_photo]

So the next 'megapixel race' will be with EVF's, measured in MP, ms of lag, DR, whatever, and we'll all be the victims of it.

I can think of one person who won't be the victim of an EVF war; ME! I'll be the beneficiary as fools sell me their old OVFs for peanuts compared to what they paid. Mwahahhahhah!

But seriously, I don't think pros will embrace the technology the way the entry level has. To a certain degree, camera makers can tell a beginner that EVFs are THE cool new must-have feature and they'll believe it (much like in-camera HDR processing), but you can't 8ull$h!t a pro. They know what they want based on how they work, and if a manufacturer doesn't offer it, they'll take their money somewhere else. To me, that's what this thread is about: Pentax needs to give their abandonded and aspiring pros what they want, lest they take their business elsewhere. I think as long as there are cameras, there will be a demand for professional quality traditional optical systems, there's just something fundamentally satisfying about the experience of putting such a camera to your eye.

[Winder]

You do know the sensor needs to be on to provide the image for the EVF right?
They might even need to resort to active cooling just to keep the thing running for more then ten minutes...

I just don't see it happen fast for MF cameras, just to impractical.
And downsizing might sound nice but you get something like the sony NEX, very small camera but huge lenses in comparison.


APS-H inveted by Canon???
The APS format including C, P and H where introduced by Kodak in 1996.

OK. Let's swap Kodak for Canon in my statement. The point does not change. APS-H size was not a random event. Its size was the largest size they could make in a single process which makes it the largest you can make before it starts getting really expensive.

You know that Canon 5DII run in LiveView mode for long periods running HD Video. I am not saying that heat is not an issue. I'm not saying that Pentax has the technology to do it today. Until CMOS sensor make it to MF it is not a possibility. The 645D is not even going to get an update for at least 2 more years, and I don't see CMOS making it to MF in the next year.

If you read back a few pages you will see that my comments about an EVIL 645D was to produce a camera the size of the K-7/K-5. The lenses will balance pretty well and since the register distance will be shorter the lenses will be smaller. Nobody has suggested that Pentax produce a MF EVIL the size of the NEX system. Not sure why you think that is the intent of any of these statements.

We are discussing what Pentax needs to do in the future. Where will they be going? Where will technology be? This entire thread is about what Pentax will be doing in the future. Everyone keeps responding like technology is going to stop advancing tomorrow and EVF technology has peaked. We are just starting the 2nd generation of EVFs. This technology is still evolving very fast. CMOS sensors are going to get better, consume less power and produce less heat. Batteries are going to be better in the future. CDAF will be faster (in some cases already is) than PDAF systems. Nobody is expecting Pentax to announce anything (FF included) tomorrow. There will be a K-5 & K-r replacement in the Spring. After that it is anyone guess. The first signs will be glass. Probably the 28-70 F/2.8 will reappear the the new D-FA* label.

[Anvh]

I forgot to say that APS is a film size...
So APS-H was not invented to be an useful size to make digital sensors out of a wafer, it just happened to be like that, nothing more.

I actually don't see CMOS making to MF at all, CCD sesnors are much more suited to how most MF users use their camera.
Also the design cost of CCD are cheaper so for small badges CCD are much cheaper to make then CMOS.

Sadly lenses won't be smaller because the register is shorter, Sony nex is the prove for that.
The lens still needs to have the large opening to cover the sensor so no gains to get from that.
You'll have 645 size lenses on k5 size body, it will be unbalanced no matter what you do since you also need to use longer focal length because of the larger sensor.
645 is never made to be really portable and to shoot out of the hand, it isn't a camera like APS-C or FF camera's these are another breed altogether.

Technology will off course not stop but what you're suggting is changing the whole photography branch all together and that will simply not happen.
EVF has their place but not in the profesional market at the moment, maybe we will see an hybrid viewfinder over 3 or 4 years but i doubt we will see EVF in that market witin 10 years, certainly not for MF market.

I actually think that APS-C sensor is much more the futher, we all know that technology will make things smaller.
Pentax should consider a new mount for their APS-C cameras I believe but they should make sure there is a good adapter to K mount for it.
They should make the register shorter and make the mount opening so that they can create faster lenses to off set the smaller sensor size compared to FF.
Something like DA*16-50 f/2 and DA*50-135 f/2 and DA*55 f/1 sound like music to my ears ^^
So yeah... bye bye K-mount.

ps. sensors like CMOS and CCD are at the end of their life, te improvements made are quite marginal.
A new type of sensors is muc more preferable actually.

[Winder]

Did Canon only changed the sensor?
And if it is so cheap why don't they put APS-H sensors in more of their cameras?
Seems to me Canon wants to get rid of the APS-H sensor in their line, i wonder why...

You make it sound so easy, they only need the wafers and the mask.
How much will those cost to make and design, or better yet let them be made and designed because Ricoh can't make or design them...

The 1Ds line has always been a more expensive than the 1D line even though the 1D line had better AF and faster frame rate. The 1DX has other advancements, but not $3,000 worth.

You can buy the wafers from Sony or any manufacture. Nikon was rumored to be doing this for the D3 and D700. Nikon was leasing space at the Sony fab plant (why?). They were taking the Sony wafers and making the 12MP FF sensors. Nikon can claim that it is a Nikon sensor but they are making them from Sony wafers. The 25MP in the D3x is also a Sony wafer, but Nikon does their own micro-lenses and finishes them out. How much is done by Nikon? I don't know. Canon's new 1DX is the first Full-Frame with gap-less micro-lenses which I am told is an expensive process. The Nikon D90 used the same 12MP sensor as several other cameras, but to my knowledge it was the only one with gap-less micro-lenses which is why it performed so much better than all the other 12MP sensors cut from the same wafers.

How much fab capability does Pentax have? I don't know. I know that in order for Ricoh to compete at the level they have stated they want to compete at they will have to develop a certain level of fab capability. I think Nikon is working towards making their own high end sensors in house so they don't have to depend on a competitor for sensors. Aptina is making some Nikon sensor and there are rumors that Nikon owns a big piece of Aptina. Image Sensors - MT9H004 (Preliminary) - Aptina Imaging Aptina also has a 16MP APS-C sensor for sale.

[Winder]

I forgot to say that APS is a film size...
So APS-H was not invented to be an useful size to make digital sensors out of a wafer, it just happened to be like that, nothing more.

I actually don't see CMOS making to MF at all, CCD sesnors are much more suited to how most MF users use their camera.
Also the design cost of CCD are cheaper so for small badges CCD are much cheaper to make then CMOS.

Sadly lenses won't be smaller because the register is shorter, Sony nex is the prove for that.
The lens still needs to have the large opening to cover the sensor so no gains to get from that.
You'll have 645 size lenses on k5 size body, it will be unbalanced no matter what you do since you also need to use longer focal length because of the larger sensor.
645 is never made to be really portable and to shoot out of the hand, it isn't a camera like APS-C or FF camera's these are another breed altogether.

Technology will off course not stop but what you're suggting is changing the whole photography branch all together and that will simply not happen.
EVF has their place but not in the profesional market at the moment, maybe we will see an hybrid viewfinder over 3 or 4 years but i doubt we will see EVF in that market witin 10 years, certainly not for MF market.

I actually think that APS-C sensor is much more the futher, we all know that technology will make things smaller.
Pentax should consider a new mount for their APS-C cameras I believe but they should make sure there is a good adapter to K mount for it.
They should make the register shorter and make the mount opening so that they can create faster lenses to off set the smaller sensor size compared to FF.
Something like DA*16-50 f/2 and DA*50-135 f/2 and DA*55 f/1 sound like music to my ears ^^
So yeah... bye bye K-mount.

Leica has said that the next generation of S2 WILL BE CMOS. Pretty sure that means CMOS will be MF.

Have you ever used a Maymia 7II? Before you start talking about lens size take a look at MF range finders and lenses. Have you taken a look at the new 45mm Olympus for m4/3 compared to the 50mm f/2 for standard 4/3. Same sensor size, but bid difference in lens size.

I am not taking about changing the "whole photography brand" for Pentax. The EVIL 645D would be a specialty camera like the Fuji's and Maymia's that have been around since the 60's. Nothing that I have said indicated that the K-5 line will not go on just as it always has.

APS stood for Advanced Photo System. APS-C was a crop of the full APS format. APS-C is a relic of the film era. The Canon APS-C is a good bit smaller than the film version.

APS-H :The APS-H size was selected since it is the largest that can be imaged with a single mask to help control production costs and manage yields. Image sensor format - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia The APS-H film format happens to be a 16:9 format and is not the same dimensions as the APS-H used in digital cameras which a 3:2. The name might have been kept, but the dimensions were adjusted for format and production yields.

[deejjjaaaa]

Canon's new 1DX is the first Full-Frame with gap-less micro-lenses which I am told is an expensive process.

oh, you are so big expert

Nikon | Imaging Products | Behind the scenes - Nikon FX-Format CMOS Sensor

"...In addition, the adoption of a gapless micro-lens ..."

[Kunzite]

argumentum ad baculum.

btw, you are not talking to a 5 year old. so please make some real sense next time.

Ad baculum, where?
No, I'm not talking to a 5 year old but what I said (even if in a simplified form) makes a lot of sense. The viewfinder is something that's really good on these MF cameras (OK, 100% coverage is missing but that's about it) - and on the other side, the EVF still have lots of issues to be fixed (if they can).
And just replacing the reflex viewfinder (with all the associated mechanisms) with an EVF won't cut the cost by some $4000. I believe this statement makes sense as well.

Look at Mareket's post - he's quite impressed with that IMO unimpressive Nikon 1 EVF, yet his message is full of "ok, there are still some issues but...". I'm not sure how it could beat a real viewfinder "for utility", though... gadgetry should be a better word.
In the MF world, nobody would make up excuses for such inferior technology.

maxfield_photo: well said!

[ogl]

oh, you are so big expert

Nikon | Imaging Products | Behind the scenes - Nikon FX-Format CMOS Sensor

"...In addition, the adoption of a gapless micro-lens ..."

The same with Samsung CMOS sensor for K20D.

[Mareket]

Something like DA*16-50 f/2 and DA*50-135 f/2 and DA*55 f/1 sound like music to my ears ^^
.

As amazing as a 50-135 f/2 would be, looking at the size and cost of the Oylmpus 14-35 f/2, there would be almost no benefit in developing these lenses except for people laden with money or pros, who will most likely just buy a FF system and get cheaper lenses that do the same thing. You could buy a D700 for the cost of that lens. Let's not even think about the cost of a 50-135 f/2

We can dream though...

[Rondec]

I don't understand the focus on APS-H. At this point, if you are going to do full frame, just do full frame. If your lens won't cover full frame, your camera will give you the option of an automatic crop or, no crop in which case you can do it in post. Whatever.

Cost savings is fairly negligible, size difference is fairly negligible. There aren't even any higher density sensors out there for APS-H that would give "extra reach" like there are for APS-C. If Pentax makes a bigger sensored camera, they need to go full frame and make sure that they put enough processing power in it to handle it.