[Clavius]

I liked this one.

Wow, forget about full frame! I like the one you posted better!!

[RonHendriks1966]

It is mistake to think that the success of various form of camera types has a direct link to sensor size. If anything, the trend is towards smaller sensors. APS is so good now you can print large murals from it. EVILS take customers from P&S something that is as expected because they were also bought because they were small (and cheap). Neither image quality, price or size points towards larger sensors in mass consumers cameras. Larger sensors will remain a niche and it is very unlikely that FF will ever reach a market share of more than ~5% of the DSLR market...

I think this is maybe due to market (where you live) or just because it is growing slow in your livingspace, but I do see people who have/had an entry level dslr (D40, Canon 350 or Olympus 420) that buy into NEX or Pen after their camera died. And why not, they are good camera's and most of them only have a camera and two lenses and a small flash. That is no longterm investment, but time to make changes after using such a system for 3-4 years.

I think that FF market is going to be bigger in marketshare in the future, just because entry-level is going to move on to NEX and alike camera's.

[jsherman999]

...
Unless Pentax does go FF/APS-H it will be harder for them to compete with the likes of the smaller form factor APS-C camera's as they evolve and will eventually get weather sealing and a good sized buffer and processor... I could see Pentax entering that arena too.. APS-C sensor in a mirrorless format with weather sealing.. But unless they are going to have some more smaller lenses that are the size of the DA limiteds it's kind of pointless to go with such a small body and keep a larger sized lens line....

I really think/hope they will push into bigger sensor sizes and re-release some updated FA glass as DFA's.

.


This has been one of my main points for a while now.

APS-C is a tier that's getting saturated with a lot of choices, and with the intrusion of mirrorless, more players than the original big three. (and aps-c itself is getting gnawed at from below by the pretty-good smaller formats.)

It should be coming clear in folks minds here now how brutally competitive that tier is - and we're just really at the start of mirrorless/EVIL. Wait until that new mirrorless ILC body from Fuji appears, wait until Nikon + Canon really get into the game, watch Samsung, Sony, Panasonic, etc.

Something like a K-x, and entry-level DSLR, which was the reason Pentax was in the black last year, is probably not going to be able to do as well in this new environment as the K-x did..

I fear that If K-mount is going to remain viable, a move into FF makes sense - a tier that it's much harder for the new EVIL players to follow you to.


.

[gazonk]

It is mistake to think that the success of various form of camera types has a direct link to sensor size. If anything, the trend is towards smaller sensors. APS is so good now you can print large murals from it. EVILS take customers from P&S something that is as expected because they were also bought because they were small (and cheap). Neither image quality, price or size points towards larger sensors in mass consumers cameras. Larger sensors will remain a niche and it is very unlikely that FF will ever reach a market share of more than ~5% of the DSLR market...

I think APS-C is the largest size that makes sense in the EVIL market. Not so sure about DSLRs though: larger format also means larger and better OVF.

[maxfield_photo]

I actually have a camera like the one posted; the sex button fell off.

[Pål Jensen]

.


This has been one of my main points for a while now.

APS-C is a tier that's getting saturated with a lot of choices, and with the intrusion of mirrorless, more players than the original big three. (and aps-c itself is getting gnawed at from below by the pretty-good smaller formats.)

It should be coming clear in folks minds here now how brutally competitive that tier is - and we're just really at the start of mirrorless/EVIL. Wait until that new mirrorless ILC body from Fuji appears, wait until Nikon + Canon really get into the game, watch Samsung, Sony, Panasonic, etc.

Something like a K-x, and entry-level DSLR, which was the reason Pentax was in the black last year, is probably not going to be able to do as well in this new environment as the K-x did..

I fear that If K-mount is going to remain viable, a move into FF makes sense - a tier that it's much harder for the new EVIL players to follow you to.

.

It is not sensor sizes thats getting saturated; people do not generally buy camera by sensor size but by cost, size, form factor, features or whatever. APS is in the sweet spot: it is not saturated - it is popular.
EVILS are not stealing sales from DSLR's - the latter continues to increase in sales volume. Both Nikon and Canon (and probably Pentax) set new production records for DSLR's. What we are seeing is a further fragmentation of the camera marked.

[Pål Jensen]

I think APS-C is the largest size that makes sense in the EVIL market. Not so sure about DSLRs though: larger format also means larger and better OVF.

It does but it also means higher cost (particularly when the cost of lenses is taken into the equation) to such an extent that FF is firmly for the dedicated enthusiast who are willing to spend thousands of dollars on camera equipment.
The manufacturers have no interest of dumping prices on FF. It is a low volume (relatively) - high profit segment. They would like it to stay that way as it complements the high volume - low profit margin segments.

[Winder]

It does but it also means higher cost (particularly when the cost of lenses is taken into the equation) to such an extent that FF is firmly for the dedicated enthusiast who are willing to spend thousands of dollars on camera equipment.
The manufacturers have no interest of dumping prices on FF. It is a low volume (relatively) - high profit segment. They would like it to stay that way as it complements the high volume - low profit margin segments.

The lens argument is not entirely valid. If I want to make an 85mm f/1.2 equivalent in APS-C I need 55mm f/1.0 lens. If I want to duplicate the A* 135mm f/1.8 I need a 90mm f/1.2. And since APS-C has to be enlarged 1.5 as much as images taken from a 135mm system the lenses have to be sharper at wider apertures to equal the performance. All of these factors will make APS-C a more expensive option for really serious glass. Yes, the super slow/super soft/super zooms will be cheaper and lighter, but the serious glass will be more expensive that the FF equivalent. Take a look at the Olympus SHG lenses. They are all bigger/heavier/more expensive than the FF equivalents, but only need 1/4 the image circle. But when your images are being enlarged 2x more that ones taken from a FF you have to have really sharp glass to match the IQ.

The same rules that applied to film and MF vs 135mm still apply. Lenses for larger formats do not have to be as sharp because they are being captured on a larger format and will not have to be enlarged as much.

[Chex]

I actually have a camera like the one posted; the sex button fell off.

Over-use generally does cause wear and tear on those buttons.. I keep looking for the sex or money buttons on my K-5.. guess they were never implemented on the K-5

[Smeggypants]

Pentax can do it better, smaller and lighter. Sigma's 30/1.4 is a lump and a poor performer. Their 28/1.8 is an even bigger lump. Who in their right mind wants to lug a 500g 'normal' lens with a 77mm front end? That's why I suggested a (more modest) 28/f2.8 to do the job of the FF 43 on APS-C.

You obviously don't have a Sigma 30/1.4 do you? - I have one and it's a stunning performer. One of my favourite lenses as it happens. Oh wait you probably read a review by a reviewer who doesn't know what they are talking about about. The Sigma 30/1.4 has been optimised for centre sharpness wide open because no one need sharp edge performance to capture the bokeh. Those who go by charts .... [sigh]

further - Why would anyone use an f/2.8 lens when they want narrow DOF of f/1.4? makes no sense.

[Smeggypants]

Sigma is doing a 30mm f/1.4 for a reasonable price, if only pentax did that as well.
Their was a DA*30 on the roadmap together with a SDM 1.4x TC, but they both disappeared.

I wish pentax would do a 30/1.2 - I love my 50/1.2 but its' a bit narrow sometimes

[Smeggypants]

180 degrees? I think you need to learn more about our anatomy.

Sorry you're right, we can see almost 180 degrees. Nearly right. sorry it wasn't quite accurate enough for you

Then brush up on your camera theory.

Focal lengths measure angle of view- but when you put a 50mm lens on a sensor smaller than a piece of 35mm film (aka full frame) then the sensor records a smaller selection from the image circle which makes it appear a bit more telephoto as some people say. Others say that there is a focal length multiplier. The most correct way to explain it is that it is a narrower angle of view. It does not change focal length. It just takes a slightly different angle of view than what the lens would typically produce.

Essentially, on a full frame camera, 50mm is regarded as normal. It is approximately the same angle of view as the human eyes and doesn't feature any noticeable distortion. Focal lengths less than 50mm feature wider angles and expand space. They can make objects appear further away from subjects (IE lamp post 5 ft from your subject may appear even further at wider angles). Focal lengths that are longer are labelled telephoto and take in a narrow angle of view.

That's right.


please point out where my camera theory is erroneous?

[Anvh]

The lens argument is not entirely valid. If I want to make an 85mm f/1.2 equivalent in APS-C I need 55mm f/1.0 lens. If I want to duplicate the A* 135mm f/1.8 I need a 90mm f/1.2. And since APS-C has to be enlarged 1.5 as much as images taken from a 135mm system the lenses have to be sharper at wider apertures to equal the performance. All of these factors will make APS-C a more expensive option for really serious glass. Yes, the super slow/super soft/super zooms will be cheaper and lighter, but the serious glass will be more expensive that the FF equivalent. Take a look at the Olympus SHG lenses. They are all bigger/heavier/more expensive than the FF equivalents, but only need 1/4 the image circle. But when your images are being enlarged 2x more that ones taken from a FF you have to have really sharp glass to match the IQ.

The same rules that applied to film and MF vs 135mm still apply. Lenses for larger formats do not have to be as sharp because they are being captured on a larger format and will not have to be enlarged as much.

If you look at the longer lenses i think the opisite is true though, there is a turning point with this.

About the aperture.
Because the DOF is large with the equivelant on APS-C it also means you can shot wider more often where as with FF you might need to stopdown to increase the DOF.
So when actually shooting i doub there will be much differnce, also in noise because of this.

Some might want the smaller DOF of FF but in genereal APS-C is in the sweet spot, we just need some faster lenses.
A lens may cost more then a camera but don't forget that in this digital age the cameras don't often last longer then 4 years so a lens is a better investment.

BTW if you want to really have a nice dof why not get a 645D, it's almost the same price as the top of the range FF from other brands

[Anvh]

That's right.

Actually it isn't.

I've seen the answer on this thread.
Standard lens is the diagoniaal of the film/sensor so for 135film standard lens is 43mm, that's why pentax has on.
Also look at other formats, certainly the larger ones and you see it's true.

50mm comes from leica.
I don't remeber the full story but it was problematic to make a 43mm lens so they opted for 50mm brcause it was easier to make.

ps. for APS-C the standard lens is 30mm

edit:
this seems to be the correct story behind it.
forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1018&message=31916394

ps. ps.
when talking about distortion it's mostly the perspectieve that does it not the lens, don't forget that.
You need to stand closer to fill the frame with a 30mm compared to 50mm but if you stand at same point and tke a photo with both lenses the distortion will be the same.

[Anvh]

Over-use generally does cause wear and tear on those buttons.. I keep looking for the sex or money buttons on my K-5.. guess they were never implemented on the K-5

You can make a sex and money mode though with the K5, just use the custom mode option