[Roob-N-Boots]

Generally to people in this thread, you are like a bunch of 10 year olds arguing about who's father is the strongest.

Hahahahaha!!! I'm sorry but thats funny.

[fikkser]

Hahahahaha!!! I'm sorry but thats funny.

Hehe, kind of wanted to making my point in a funny way (more provocative).

[Jan67]

You can get thin DOF from any DSLR systems currently available. The difference between APS and FF is one stop; in most cases not distinguishable without side by side comparison. And again, 99% of all photography do not rely on paper thin DOF. Hence, it is an odd argument for generalizations.

Well, as said many times before, one stop at wide angle makes considerable difference between FF and APSC. We needn't to talk about paper thin DOF. Let's take FF f=2.0, 35mm, what is quite reasonable setup for daily shooting. Which of 24mm F=1,4 lens would you recommend me then for my K5?

But I agree, that more than 90% of all photography do not rely on thin DOF. The reason could be that 90% of photography is made by P&S and their authors probably even don't know, what DOF is. As analogy we can say, that people drive more bicycles than cars, all over the world. Unfortunately these assumptions are completely useless for FF vers APSC issue.

[Pål Jensen]

But I agree, that more than 90% of all photography do not rely on thin DOF. The reason could be that 90% of photography is made by P&S and their authors probably even don't know, what DOF is. As analogy we can say, that people drive more bicycles than cars, all over the world. Unfortunately these assumptions are completely useless for FF vers APSC issue.

You can check any newspaper, magazine, book, National Geographic and fine art galleries and count the number of images that have so shallow DOF that it can't be shot with APS (or indeed images with really shallow DOF at all). We are not even talking percentages. Nothing to do with P&S. It is a total moot argument and a bizzarre fetish when one is out of real arguments that actually matters for most photographers.

[maxfield_photo]

You can check any newspaper, magazine, book, National Geographic and fine art galleries and count the number of images that have so shallow DOF that it can't be shot with APS (or indeed images with really shallow DOF at all). We are not even talking percentages. Nothing to do with P&S. It is a total moot argument and a bizzarre fetish when one is out of real arguments that actually matters for most photographers.

Of course you won't find it in newspapers, "f/8 and be there" is the mantra of the photojournalist. Now try selling senior portraits while trying to "f/8 and be there."

[Jan67]

You can check any newspaper, magazine, book, National Geographic and fine art galleries and count the number of images that have so shallow DOF that it can't be shot with APS (or indeed images with really shallow DOF at all). We are not even talking percentages. Nothing to do with P&S. It is a total moot argument and a bizzarre fetish when one is out of real arguments that actually matters for most photographers.

Then I am happy not to belong to most of photographers.

And finally, one bizzarre fetish portrait with totally ugly f=1.8 :
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/members/31592-jan67/albums/3869-b-w/picture39441.jpg

[jsherman999]

It is a total moot argument and a bizzarre fetish when one is out of real arguments that actually matters for most photographers.

I think you may have an anti-fetish, Pål, and once again you're confusing need with want.

There's nothing wrong with wanting another 1.3 stops of DOF control. If we can find in our shooting habits a pattern of preference for more DOF control, lower noise, faster autofocus, a larger viewfinder, how is this illegitimate? How can want ever be illegitimate?



.

[fikkser]

I think you may have an anti-fetish, Pål, and once again you're confusing need with want.

There's nothing wrong with wanting another 1.3 stops of DOF control. If we can find in our shooting habits a pattern of preference for more DOF control, lower noise, faster autofocus, a larger viewfinder, how is this illegitimate? How can want ever be illegitimate?



.

(contradicting myself and joining the arguing sorry)

If he believes FF is pointless, let him.

Has Pål even tried a FF camera? I got a 5d from Canon, and I know I need and want one from Pentax. The 5d was introduced in 2005 or something is beating my k-5 in most situations, and the k-5 is about 5 years younger (thats like a million human years).

Only since I bought the FA 43 Limited I feel my k-5 is performing good enough to keep me away from my 5d with superb manual glass (1.5x crop runis the purpose and usefulness of MOST FF glass (the 43 is perfect on k-5 IMO)).

Guess what I prefer - K-5 with super expensive glass or the cheap "equivalent" glass I use on the 5d? A Takumar 55 1,8 stopped down to like 2.8 beats almost anything and it's CHEAP, how do you get that with the k-5 Pål? It would take a dream lens to get the same FOV, DOF and sharpness as the 55 @ 2.8 gets you on FF. I love thin DOF and razor sharp images, FF will always be better at that. I bought a 55 1,2 for my k-5, it's very soft and dreamy at 1,2 and the lens costs $$$, for a FF camera that cost would be $$ and it would be much sharper. :-)

[Aristophanes]

No, Aristophanes - the current market can not handle 5 suppliers, THEREFORE IT HAS TO GROW which you told us is impossible like ten times per post. OMG. And how do you know facts about the Sony sensor supplies or other manufacturers ability to produce sensors? Everything about FF is impossible to you, why have you decided it's impossible? Did a FF camera do something EVIL to you as a child?

Generally to people in this thread, you are like a bunch of 10 year olds arguing about who's father is the strongest. Speculating about something that probably no one on this forum fully comprehends, and trying to make his own point the truth time and time again is pointless and to me very annoying. http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_05VaN1rgby0/SlSSgPfGpVI/AAAAAAAABfU/TVDGW_yPbHA/s4..._internet.ashx You know who you are.

Please stop repeating your "truth", bring something new.

I have many FF cameras. MZ-S, MZ-6, Super Program, ME Super, Olympus 35RC, Minolta X-500, Rollei 40, Yashica Electro GSN, Canonet QL17III, Fuji Natura, Olympus MjuII and a few others scattered about in closets.

Ohhhh..you mean a "digital" SLR.

What information do you bring? We do know through industrial profiles and interviewers like Thom Hogan that only Canon and Sony make FF CMOS sensors right now. The Leica sensor is not up to DSLR snuff and is a CCD made by a company that bought the facilities from a Ch. 11 Kodak. Canon is a closed shop and Sony's FF tech is partially designed by Nikon, who have a common enemy in Canon.

The traditional means to get a foothold in an established market is to do something new, like Olympus did with their OM/Zuiko stuff back in the 1970's. Pentax followed suit. But the investment threshold to source an FF sensor is staggeringly different. It's somewhere in the hundreds of millions of $$ to set up an industrial fab. So the long term return has to be there, guaranteed. That's a tough sell.

In high tech industrial supply chains with lots of co-dependencies items like sensors are not simply available on an open market. They are designed and made to order on guaranteed volume deliverables locked into front and back end contract. Pentax simply does not have enough standing market share to get there by trying to move a portion of its APS-C base to FF at $3,000 a camera. So their demand would be so low as to make the sensor substantially more expensive. The costlier it gets, the less competitive it is. Or, as sherman suggest repeatedly, Ricoh should take a bath on profits for the sake of the few FF wanters on PF.

Also, I called the D700 staying in production a a much lower price point and posted so on this forum months ago and was correct. I have my sources.

The good thing is that FF will move a notch lower in price point with the D700 move (and rumours of a D720 are about as well, same price point, slightly updated). If the generation after this notches down one more price point, then FF sensors become more of a commodity product than defined order and Pentax can get in. We've seen Canon's response, and we are still at cameras in the price stratosphere. Now we await Sony. For Pentax the FF possibilities are all about price.

[eddie1960]

Also, I called the D700 staying in production a a much lower price point and posted so on this forum months ago and was correct. I have my sources.

The good thing is that FF will move a notch lower in price point with the D700 move (and rumours of a D720 are about as well, same price point, slightly updated). If the generation after this notches down one more price point, then FF sensors become more of a commodity product than defined order and Pentax can get in. We've seen Canon's response, and we are still at cameras in the price stratosphere. Now we await Sony. For Pentax the FF possibilities are all about price.

D700 hanging around actually makes it harder for pentax to enter effectively just by being at such a low price but may well free up the sensors as well. Canon has responded 5D2 is dropping to 2200 this week apparently - now will they keep it around????? I'd say it's a 60%+ chance at the moment - that or a response with a 7D mkII that inherits and APSH chip

I agree what is coming from sony has a direct impact (provided sony is the sensor Pentax chooses. If the 24mp sony sensor rumoured for 2 of the 3 bodies they are introducing is accurate then the D720 may well have it as well. If this is an open sensor Sony and Nikon benefit from reduced cost from volume if pentax is on the same sensor (and this is likely the scenario) I's quite possible then for a Pentax to arrive/Announce at Photokina. the trick is in differentiating themselves. Sony will probably be Nex, SLT @ 24mp and OVF at 36 mp once the D800 exclusive period ends, a D720 @ 24MP Nikon may strip some features a bit to keep it differentiated from the D800 enough to get people to move up (this is their standard practice) that leaves Pentax to produce low cost high build quality with a unique feature - can't be WR because D700 already is as are all nikon FF with a broader WR lens ass't. that still leaves a system approach like an LX digital which is unique, makes marketing sense given the anniversary year it is for the slr & Pentax and fits well within the current market fetish for a retro camera (xpro,omd)

Of course the mass speculation of what it will be like is as silly a pastime as we can get unless we work in R&D or at a senior level at Pentax we will have no clue until the final prototype leaks preceding an announcement start this may happen at the beginning of september or it may not until next year

hitting a $2000 price point completely changes the FF market. If as Falk has speculated a FF sensor costs $300 to produce give or take and is being flogged at $500 then certainly there is room to build at this price profitably
Still won't generate volumes a $500-700 camera will (in units) but bet it can generate as much or more profit (I would also think for the next 1-2 years dealers will hold firm on that price level because they will have no need to discount beyond it to move things whereas the apsc that hits the street at $1500-$1000 this year will rapidly fall to $1200

[Roob-N-Boots]

(contradicting myself and joining the arguing sorry)

Oh yeah, well my dad can rip a telephone book in half with his bear hands!

[Pål Jensen]

hitting a $2000 price point completely changes the FF market. If as Falk has speculated a FF sensor costs $300 to produce give or take and is being flogged at $500 then certainly there is room to build at this price profitably

You have unrealistic opinion about the cost of making aproduct like this. $500 part in product sold at $2000 is unheard of except for products that sells in the tenth of millions like computers or cell phones. In addition, $500 is only a small part of the cost; eg the magnesium body alone of the MZ-S (I happen to have the price on that) cost $200. Then theres the shutter, the finder and all the electronics of the camera. Then theres manufacturing cost which I have no idea about but it cost money to have thosands of enployees and big factories. Then there developing cost which are in the tenth of million dollars range. End camera stores have 30% mark up. The distributors probably around 15%. And lets not forget that the manufacturer need significant profit in order to be able to dfevelop the follow up. Then theres transport cost. A Nikon D800 is dirt cheap for what it costs....

[mattdm]

Canon is a closed shop and Sony's FF tech is partially designed by Nikon, who have a common enemy in Canon.

For what it's worth, the "sensors are partly designed by Nikon" is probaby marketing B.S. intended to save face for Nikon. It's similar to the "joint design" of Pentax and Samsung for the K20D/K-7 sensor. The actual engineers doing the actual design are almost certainly all from the chip-making company, but they are probably working to specs and design guidelines from the customer. ("Please prioritize resolution", or dynamic range, or whatever.) That's not necessarily bad, but I think it's extremely unlikely that there's Nikon secret-sauce involved. It's just not their business, and I don't see cross-company engineering collaborations ever working that way.

[ElJamoquio]

hitting a $2000 price point completely changes the FF market. If as Falk has speculated a FF sensor costs $300 to produce give or take and is being flogged at $500 then certainly there is room to build at this price profitably

k-5: $1100
+ FF sensor $500
- APS-C sensor $100

= $1500

+ a little bit for upgraded hardware for larger files, but right now we're 'only' talking about doubling the MB size, and we'd be willing to accept a slightly lower frame rate in all likelihood, AND by the time it's introduced it'll have been two years since the k-5, so if you follow Moore's law then we're not talking about all that much more money.

[ElJamoquio]

For what it's worth, the "sensors are partly designed by Nikon" is probaby marketing B.S. intended to save face for Nikon. It's similar to the "joint design" of Pentax and Samsung for the K20D/K-7 sensor. The actual engineers doing the actual design are almost certainly all from the chip-making company, but they are probably working to specs and design guidelines from the customer. ("Please prioritize resolution", or dynamic range, or whatever.) That's not necessarily bad, but I think it's extremely unlikely that there's Nikon secret-sauce involved. It's just not their business, and I don't see cross-company engineering collaborations ever working that way.

Very likely true, and agrees with my experience as well.