[HSV]

How big is the market for a FF (compared to a APS)?

[ElJamoquio]

Proponents say it's big and getting bigger. Detractors say it's tiny.

[nanok]

FF will give you 1.5x better resolution, give or take.

ahem? how's that? perhaps you could say, with the same pixel count on the sensor, the lens needs to resolve roughly 1.5 less on fullframe (linearly) in order to achieve about the same level of detail. that's not really the same thing (meaning, you won't magically get "more resolution" just because the size of the sensor)

FF will give you 1 stop less DOF with the same lens.

that's probably a misunderstanding: 35mm will give you more dof with the same lens at same aperture (compared to aps-c), it will give you less dof for the same angle of view at the same aperture (so not same lens, but rather "equivalent lens")

If you're happy with the DOF you have now on APS-C, you could do the same on FF with a smaller, lighter, and much cheaper lens.

that's a purely academical statement, unless you price the lenses in question and decide. in theory, designing a lens for the same aperture and same field of view for a smaller format is cheaper (and building it is too), mainly because it's easier to correct it (briefly put: the natural shape of the "field of image" of a lens is spherical, not plane, the wider the plane you need to cover, the more trouble you're getting into, that's probably in part why prices for larger format lenses are heart-stopping, even though they don't need to resolve nearly as much as the smaller format ones, lens resolving power is "cheap", especially these days), but if you want one stop faster aperture for the "one stop smaller format" (aps-c in this case), i don't know how it scales (probably badly, though i'm not sure: note how most medium format "normal" lenses (50mm equivalent) are 2.8 ), but i think this "cost" is not liner with the diagonal of the frame (maybe roughly with it's sqaure?), and this perhaps works to reduce the cost difference between 35mm and aps-c, as compared to 35mm to mf.

The real point is: are you happy with the dof from aps-c, or do you want 35mm, or maybe medium format, or even bigger(less dof)? That is the question, because this "disadvantage" also means that i can do with a 50/1.4 what you won't find easy doing with an 80/1.4 on 35mm: shoot in low light and have "some" dof, while you.. ahem.. don't (though you do have arguably better iso performance, so could stop down and arrive in the same place), so it's a simple case of "what you really want"; for instance, i used to shoot film, and never liked the 50mm, i used to say 85mm would be my standard lens... if i could only afford one. now i own a 50/1.4 and 85/1.4 which i misuse on my aps-c, so i have an 80/1.4 and 135/1.4 equivalent (dof aside), am i happy? hell yeah. now if i could get my hands on one of those 135/1.8 pentax used to make... :P

All currently sold FF cameras come with bigger viewfinders than any APS-C viewfinders.

true, that's mainly down to physics. i take out my old pentacon six from time to time, and contemplate what "big viewfinder" really means . view camera users will laugh at us both. that's life

Doing this on medium format would cost quite a bit more - about 3x more for the body. The bodies that are available right now are much larger and heavier than a APS-C/FF body. A FF body technically doesn't have to be much larger than an APS-C body.

the mf to 35mm gap is technically (roughly) as big as the 35mm to aps-c (the cost gap however is not, and has never been iirc), so price aside, comparing 35mm and aps-c is about as absurd as comparing 35mm to medium format. is it not? (i do know "the cameras look the same", but i think we're all past that )

[ElJamoquio]

ahem? how's that? perhaps you could say, with the same pixel count on the sensor, the lens needs to resolve roughly 1.5 less on fullframe (linearly) in order to achieve about the same level of detail. that's not really the same thing (meaning, you won't magically get "more resolution" just because the size of the sensor)

You 'magically' get it because you don't have to enlarge so much.

the mf to 35mm gap is technically (roughly) as big as the 35mm to aps-c (the cost gap however is not, and has never been iirc), so price aside, comparing 35mm and aps-c is about as absurd as comparing 35mm to medium format. is it not? (i do know "the cameras look the same", but i think we're all past that )

'we're all past that'

Ability to use cheaper, smaller, lighter, better lenses with the same size body - I'm not past it.

[nanok]

You 'magically' get it because you don't have to enlarge so much.

so 24mp on "full frame" somehow magically have "more resolution" than on aps-c, because you need to.. ahem.. enlarge less?

'we're all past that'

Ability to use cheaper, smaller, lighter, better lenses with the same size body - I'm not past it.

okay, nevermind, just keep ignoring me

[ElJamoquio]

so 24mp on "full frame" somehow magically have "more resolution" than on aps-c, because you need to.. ahem.. enlarge less?

I was speaking of lens/sensor resolving power. And yes. Check out the lp/ph of the same lenses on equal-ish MP ff and APS-C on photozone.

okay, nevermind, just keep ignoring me

I'm not sure what you want me to answer. FF and APS-C have the same camera size. FF is going to be in APS-C price territory pretty soon, especially when you factor in the cheaper lenses for equivalent results that are at various stages of here/in pipeline/coming.

MF is 'even better' but the cameras right now are quite expensive and (although the 645D handles quite well) quite heavy.

[HSV]

What is approx. the APS-C price territory, around 1K?

Seems to me that it will be along way before a (new) FF gets near that price...

[ElJamoquio]

What is approx. the APS-C price territory, around 1K?

That's what APS-C is going to be. I was talking about the high end of APS-C, of course. As I recall the K-5 announced at $1600 and I believe the D-300/300s announced at $1800. The Canon 7D announced at $1700.

Seems to me that it will be along way before a (new) FF gets near that price...

We're talking different things. I'm saying the 'past' APS-C high end market was $1600-1800, and the next gen of FF (think D-600 II or something) will be in that price range. Actually some rumors have the D600 in that price range, but we'll see.

[Anvh]

True. So the reality is that pentax can continue with APS-C and hope customers ignore the other advantages... or pentax can produce a FF camera.

Or bring out an APS-C mount

[Anvh]

to use cheaper, smaller, lighter, better lenses with the same size body - I'm not past it.

I think he is saying that the advantage you're naming now for FF compared to APS-C also stand when you compare MF to FF since the gap is just as large.
Difference is both have the specialize mount so imagine what can happen with an ASP-C mount

[24X36NOW]

I think he is saying that the advantage you're naming now for FF compared to APS-C also stand when you compare MF to FF since the gap is just as large.
Difference is both have the specialize mount so imagine what can happen with an ASP-C mount

Actually, given that digital medium format is generally also a compromised "crop" format as compared with the film used in similar cameras (e.g., the 645D vs. 645 film), the gap between FF and "cropped" medium format is less than the gap between FF and APS-C (i.e., "cropped FF"), sometimes significantly less. For example:

645D = 1452 sq mm
FF = 864 sq mm
APS-C (K5) = 365 sq mm

FF is 59.5% the size of the "cropped" medium format 645D
APS-C is only 42.24% the size of FF

The only instance where the difference would be greater is if you use the digital medium format cameras with the biggest available sensors (40.2 x 53.7, Hasselblad H4D-60, which will set you back about $31,000 for the body alone), in which case the difference is slightly bigger (FF is 40% the size of the H4D-60).

As for Pentax launching a "dedicated" APS-C mount, they could always follow the footsteps of Olympus. You can see how successful abandoning their legacy mount - and their customer base - worked out for them in the dSLR market. How many "Pentaxians" would stick with the brand given the need to replace everything for a whole new mount, or at least put up with probably further limited functionality with "adapters" using their current glass? That would be business suicide. FF has always been where Pentax is going to head if it is to survive in the dSLR market. Marrying themselves exclusively - and needlessly - to a lesser format is just a guarantee of failure.

[HSV]

Pentax is the best brand for "legacy support." That in itself, is enough sales-pitch for me, it guarantees that my investment in glass (which is more than on bodies) will last quite a while. Aside from the "subjective" advantages in pictures and handling, legacy support is next most important factor for me to buy a DSLR.

I would guess many other Pentax users think this way...and I agree that is business suicide if they invent another mount.

Just curious, how are the sales of the Q compared to the K-01? This factor can indicate the impact and feasibility of changing mounts.

In the discussion of MF, FF, and APS, I would argue that, from a manufacturing point of view the crop factor in itself might not be as important (maybe) as the amount of sensors that they can produce in a single silicon wafer. That determines, cost and ultimately, feasibility of a format (from the manufacturers perspective).

[24X36NOW]

I think many folks share this concern, that, if a Pentax Full Frame were to materialize it would mean an end to the development of APS-C bodies. Really I don't think you have to worry about that. Full Frame isn't for everyone. It certainly isn't for birders, or most sports shooters, it isn't for folks who shy away from heavy gear, it isn't for your average family event archivist. APS-C may be feeling the squeeze from cell phone cameras, but anyone who has ever owned even a half way decent lens understands that cell phone optics just can't compare, even if the sensors are getting better. APS-C still has a very viable position in the market and Pentax isn't about to stop catering to their largest consumer base just because they have something with a bit more horsepower. (Look at me speaking as if this has already happened) APS-C and Full Frame can peacefully coexist, and even compliment each other as they do for other brands.

I agree that many seem to have a fear that they won't continue to get nice APS-C bodies if Pentax introduces FF bodies, and I agree that such concern seems nonsensical. Amazing how the same fear didn't grip Pentax APS-C shooters when the 645D was rumored.

However, I would disagree strongly with the notion that FF "isn't for" birders (D800 provides enough pixel density for APS-C crops at better than 15 megapixels, along with the ability to "see" beyond an APS-C sized "cropped" image and custom crop after shooting, which requires less shot precision and greater flexibility for BIF photos with the same quality as the cropped format cameras when the (mostly BS) "reach" (really only a pixel density issue, which the D800 has essentially dispensed with) is needed, along with much better image quality in instances where cropping is not necessary). I would also disagree strongly with the notion that FF "isn't for" sports shooters (I'm sure most sports shooters use FF for its much better high ISO quality in indoor and/or night sport events).

I don't think any dSLRs are going to feel any pinch from cell phone cameras, because those aren't cameras and have poor ergonomics for use as such. Where they may feel a pinch is from mirrorless ILCs, in that "family event archivist" user base you mentioned.

As for the "size and weight" crybabies, I think most of that whining comes from those who are looking for fictitious "advantages" of the APS-C format dSLRs to crow about (only real advantage has always been cost). The size and weight differences are trivial for the most part when you compare cameras and lenses with similar quality levels.

[Anvh]

Actually, given that digital medium format is generally also a compromised "crop" format as compared with the film used in similar cameras (e.g., the 645D vs. 645 film), the gap between FF and "cropped" medium format is less than the gap between FF and APS-C (i.e., "cropped FF"), sometimes significantly less. For example:

645D = 1452 sq mm
FF = 864 sq mm
APS-C (K5) = 365 sq mm

FF is 59.5% the size of the "cropped" medium format 645D
APS-C is only 42.24% the size of FF

The only instance where the difference would be greater is if you use the digital medium format cameras with the biggest available sensors (40.2 x 53.7, Hasselblad H4D-60, which will set you back about $31,000 for the body alone), in which case the difference is slightly bigger (FF is 40% the size of the H4D-60).

As for Pentax launching a "dedicated" APS-C mount, they could always follow the footsteps of Olympus. You can see how successful abandoning their legacy mount - and their customer base - worked out for them in the dSLR market. How many "Pentaxians" would stick with the brand given the need to replace everything for a whole new mount, or at least put up with probably further limited functionality with "adapters" using their current glass? That would be business suicide. FF has always been where Pentax is going to head if it is to survive in the dSLR market. Marrying themselves exclusively - and needlessly - to a lesser format is just a guarantee of failure.

Who said we are talking about digital per se and about 645 crops?


About the APS-C mount, go back a few pages
About FF needed to survive... have you look how well Sony FF is doing?

[RonHendriks1966]

As for the "size and weight" crybabies, I think most of that whining comes from those who are looking for fictitious "advantages" of the APS-C format dSLRs to crow about (only real advantage has always been cost). The size and weight differences are trivial for the most part when you compare cameras and lenses with similar quality levels.

Not completely true, but only Pentax did offer the real APS advantage over FF. A K-5 with DA*50-135mm is a lot easier to handle then a FF camera K-1 with FA*80-200mm. Other brands don't give those choices.


I still would like a FF K-1 and would prefer it to have some kind of croppingmode that is in D800. When to expensive and only one could be incorporated then I would prefer having a 1.3x croppingmode to an APS-H sized sensor. In that way you get a FF and aps-H camera for the price of one!

FF: 24mp
APS-H: 14mp with faster framerate.