[Pentaxor]

Well this is even more easy. No statistics, but when a photographer with a huge Nikon D3 walks in a gym everyone knows that he is going to make the better pictures. Because we (APS-C users) are convinced that we have the lesser performing equipement.

I've seen a number of people with Nikon D700 that had absolutely no idea about how that machine was working at all. Putting lenses on them that are DX-type because they didn't own a single FX lens. Making pictures in jpg at lower resolution because they only had a 2 GB card. Thought that Nikon was the system for flash-users but ended up with one Metz flash, because a full flash system is very expensive, and who needs it with that D700 and one consumerlens. Standing beside a sportsfield with a 50mm lens and saying "we can crop the picture at home, it really looks great then" (well hell yeah, compared to your iPhone!).

You assume people plan and know what they are doing, because on a forum like this people do. Outside this world it is different.

as I mentioned previously, there are mostly unaware APS-C owners compared to FF owners. do you think that APS-C owners are more knowledgeable of the equipment than FF owners? or most of them shoot RAW, know when to use flash, and which lenses are great rather than shoot kitlenses? the defining line is cost. since most consumers which composed of clueless people about photography are able to afford the APS-C cameras than FF cameras. consumers in general won't ask a vendor or look for an APS-C type camera sensor. they generally would look for the most affordable, cheapest yet professional looking camera in the store. it would even be pathetic that such consumer would debate and say that APS-C is more than enough for me or know the difference between kit lenses and premium glass. it's basically almost the same analogy as buying a kitlens and a premium lens. do these consumers in general care about fast apertures? it's the same thing.

[rawr]

Outside this world it is different.

Very true. Many FF users - like most APS-C users - fall into the category of the technically unaware, but in the case of FF it surprises me more since it is supposed to be a 'pro' tier.

One recent example springs to mind: a local photog who used to shoot a lot of music events in my area had their 5D2 stolen, and when the police asked them about what was stolen, the photog couldn't even name the model of their camera or the L lens on it at the time. Yet they had been shooting with that setup almost every day for probably two years.

[RonHendriks1966]

Very true. Many FF users - like most APS-C users - fall into the category of the technically unaware, but in the case of FF it surprises me more since it is supposed to be a 'pro' tier.

One recent example springs to mind: a local photog who used to shoot a lot of music events in my area had their 5D2 stolen, and when the police asked them about what was stolen, the photog couldn't even name the model of their camera or the L lens on it at the time. Yet they had been shooting with that setup almost every day for probably two years.

A pro here in my village (not to pro, but she gives photocources, weddings, portraits and companypictures) just rescently bought a NEX system camera, because that was a lot more convenient to use then her D700 and gave her the same picture quality.

And we are talking about someone with photographic education!

[Winder]

as I mentioned previously, there are mostly unaware APS-C owners compared to FF owners. do you think that APS-C owners are more knowledgeable of the equipment than FF owners? or most of them shoot RAW, know when to use flash, and which lenses are great rather than shoot kitlenses? the defining line is cost. since most consumers which composed of clueless people about photography are able to afford the APS-C cameras than FF cameras. consumers in general won't ask a vendor or look for an APS-C type camera sensor. they generally would look for the most affordable, cheapest yet professional looking camera in the store. it would even be pathetic that such consumer would debate and say that APS-C is more than enough for me or know the difference between kit lenses and premium glass. it's basically almost the same analogy as buying a kitlens and a premium lens. do these consumers in general care about fast apertures? it's the same thing.

I think there are a large number of FF owners who don't know squat about RAW or the differences between APS-C or FF. I happen to know a couple of Canon wedding photographers who do good work, and have decent/growing businesses, but know nothing about formats or gear. They shoot JPEG (custom settings) and go. One uses Canon because she started with a Rebel bought at Wal-mart, and one because she started assisting in high school and the person she was assisting used Canon. Both now use Canon 5DII and own no more than 5 lenses each. They read the wedding blogs and use the sames lenses every Canon wedding photog uses (85L, 24-70L, 35L). Wedding packages start at $2,600 and both have done over 20 wedding this year. Not striking it rich, but they are doing pretty good for being young.

People way over play the differences in equipment and formats. It is not nearly as important as marketing and actually having a good eye and good sense of timing. I think Pentax needs a FF not because it will sell, but because of the marketing and perception in the market place. The advantages of marketing and perception out way the cost of the FF body. People wont invest in a line of equipment unless they perceive it to be strong and capable. Right now Pentax is a limited line with limited options.

[Winder]

A pro here in my village (not to pro, but she gives photocources, weddings, portraits and companypictures) just rescently bought a NEX system camera, because that was a lot more convenient to use then her D700 and gave her the same picture quality.

And we are talking about someone with photographic education!

It depends on what she does with her images. If she is presenting all of her images to students on Power Point presentations or on the web, then she is correct. She obviously does not shoot moving subjects or concerts or events where high frame rates or fast AF are important. She does not shoot outdoors where weather is an issue. She does not need really long glass or really wide glass. She is probably a street photographer (or similar style) where a camera like the NEX is perfectly fine.

Lots of people take images with cheap cameras, process the piss out of them with software and call it creative or art. With a lot of my music work I process in B&W and go for a 60's Rolling Stone Magazine look. I have to add grain/noise to my K-7 at ISO3200 and then increase the contrast to recreate that look. I laugh when people say the K-7 is a noisy camera. My only complaint is the center AF point is the size of a golf ball and I can brew a pot of coffee faster than the SR can spool up. I don't complain about AF speed because it is usually faster than the SR.

I could probably use an NEX-7 for a lot of my work, but I think it is too small for me to hold and use steadily. When Sony gets around to producing some serious glass for the NEX it will be a good line.

[Kryscendo]

And we are talking about someone with photographic education!

Oh man. Kinda going off the point but Education ≠ Intelligence, understanding, or even insight.

I have a quality exchange I had just the last week at school. I sort of humiliated the valedictorian of the graduating class at my school at his reception in front of his employer by joking. Normally I am not this caustic, but I am just posting here to make the point that formal education or even doing well in formal education does not automatically mean that a person is a competent or knowledgeable photographer.

I joked, "So you now have the paper saying you know all about depth of field and the Sunny 16 rule." When he asked what I meant by Sunny 16, I just said something along the lines of, "It's how you meter manually. Its a rule that says if sunny outdoors, you can get a good exposure if your are at f16 and use your ISO as your shutter speed.":

"What if the meter is showing over or under exposure."

"No no, the rule originates from before you even had metering done for you. Or what if your meter is broken."

"Then I'd bracket until I got a good enough shot."

"Yeah but if you are using film, you'd waste your entire roll."

"Nobody uses film, its all digital."

"Not true and my point was, you just graduated on the top of your class and you don't know how to meter by yourself."

Kinda scary how something so basic as metering by yourself rather than relying on the little bar on your LCD or viewfinder was something so alien to a graduate, let alone a valedictorian.

[Smeggypants]

Smegpants, I wish you wouldn't keep pushing your Sigma 30/1.4 down my throat. I said at the beginning I want to replicate the performance of my FF 43/1.9 Limited on APS-C. I don't want f1.4 because it's bound to be too big and heavy. And the Sigma doesn't cut it performance-wise, period, although it's obviously fine for your style. If I wanted something that's all-centre it might be a candidate. Besides 28mm is the equivalent 'ideal' focal length on APS-C and Sigma's version (a 1.8) is even more monstrous with its 77mm front end and 500g.

Pentax made an A-series 28/f2 weighing only 215g and accepting 49mm filters but they are so rare I've never seen one. What's Sigma's problem? Indeed, what's Pentax's problem that they haven't plugged this gap in the lens line-up with a modernised 28/f2? The 31/1.8 Limited is frankly silly money and not exactly compact either.

Seems to me like all this dithering over 'FF or no FF' is holding up important lens work.

I'm not pushing it down your throat, I'm just contending you claim its' a poor performer. It's not, and it's not all centre when stoppe down.

[Smeggypants]

Sorry, didn't see your reply. Also sorry, you weren't even close.

Typically our eyes see about 80-70 degrees as field of view. The rest is periphery and periphery is about 120 degrees. The area of sharp focus though that our eyes see is only about 2 degrees though. Try reading a book from the corner of your eyes. This is in a sense why those magic eye puzzle optical illusions work.
.

I'm going to drag this pedantry further as I'm not here to score forum points as you seem to be, You can narrow it down to 80-70 or even 2 degrees to try and rescue yourself but the field of view of out eyesight is about 180 degrees.. I duno where you get 120 for perhipheral field of view but I can hold up two fingers 180 apart at the side of my head .and see them both. Everyone I've ever done this test with can do so as well.

Anyway like I say I won't bother you further with it

[Pentaxor]

A pro here in my village (not to pro, but she gives photocources, weddings, portraits and companypictures) just rescently bought a NEX system camera, because that was a lot more convenient to use then her D700 and gave her the same picture quality.

And we are talking about someone with photographic education!

she bought an NEX because it is convenient and more portable, not because she prefer shooting APS-C nor that sensor size influence her decision. given the circumstance that FF is available in a compact mirrorless system, will that make her stick to her APS-C NEX or will she buy a FF EVIL compact camera? you can personally ask her given the hypothetical question.

[rawr]

More NEX eating into FF here:

Sony NEX-7 – A Week in Havana | Peter Sills Photography

So throw away your FF 5D2's and D700's folks, with their thin DOF, high ISO and wide wides, etc. That stuff isn't really important. The train has left the station. Everyone here is on the wrong side of camera history.

[Pentaxor]

More NEX eating into FF here:

Sony NEX-7 – A Week in Havana | Peter Sills Photography

So throw away your FF 5D2's and D700's folks, with their thin DOF, high ISO and wide wides, etc. That stuff isn't really important. The train has left the station. Everyone here is on the wrong side of camera history.

Yes, because next time, we will see a NEX FF sensor camera and the train just come back full circle back to where it started.

[Anvh]

1. Do you think that Leica is made of 4+ times better aluminium, glas, surfase treatment etc than competitors similar lenses?
2. If I could aford to buy a complete set of leica lenses and then still some of the Leicas latest DSLR body, I would miss the possibility to change to a DSLR system in where there is used the latest technology on the market. Leica is and most probably will be always after the leaders in DSLR technology, and why, because Leica is really quite a tiny maker, and the development of new technologies is quite expensive, Leica do not have that money.
3. Leica is like Rolls Royce, nice to have, but if you want a modern car with understandable cost, RR is not your choise.
Leica is and will be an expensive system, because they are more or less hand made which is not profitable if you do not have the huge image like Leica have. If Ricoh or some even more unknown brand would start making same quality products as Leica, tehy could not ask even close to those prices what Leica asks for their products, the price/quality factor is far too high.
4. This is only my opinnion

To be honest i reallly don't care and that wasn't the point at all of my comment.
I only used that Leia lens because it was used in the comment i was reacting to.

The point was that lenses hold there value better and last you much longer than a DSLR does.
So even if you need to invest more in lenses to get the same quality out of your APS-C camera compared to FF it's still better investment then putting your moeny into FF camera which will get replaced over 2 years.

[Anvh]

I think Pentax needs a FF not because it will sell, but because of the marketing and perception in the market place. The advantages of marketing and perception out way the cost of the FF body. People wont invest in a line of equipment unless they perceive it to be strong and capable. Right now Pentax is a limited line with limited options.

I agree with the perception part but I actually think it would weaken Pentax if they would get a FF camera on the market.
Pentax is a small company, i just don't see them being able to support, compacts, Q, APS-C, FF and the 645D format all at the same time.
I rather see them invest in the 645D more, If they will neglect 645D line now i doubt it will be there for long and it would look bad if they need to drop it...
Same for the Q.

[Alizarine]

I wonder if Pentax should just drop the P&S line and focus more on interchangeables (or Ricoh drop the Pentax P&S and keep theirs)... or at least "compact" the compact line to one or two, a low-tier full auto P&S and a high-tier P&S with manual controls, just so to spend the little production savings from that line for more R&D into the 645D/APS-C line... or well, FF too maybe?

[bobmaxja]

You need a low cost line to attract peoples to the higner product line. Nikon and Canon do have P&S