[bossa]

You said it twice and I still don't really have a clue what you said.

[ogl]

FF from Pentax Ricoh will be....

[ogl]

You said it twice and I still don't really have a clue what you said.

+1

[RonHendriks1966]

Yes but it's not 'only' about the camera bodies as the people who buy FF pro-machines are probably more likely to spend up on very expensive lenses.

Maybe this doesn't hold true for the people buying entry-level FF. They maybe favor a 17-70/f4|70-200mm/f4 over a 17-70/f2.8|70-200/f2.8 and thus spending much less money.

[Edvinas]

LubaSAB,

What language are you autotranslating from?

[Class A]

FF from Pentax Ricoh will be....

Will be what?

[bossa]

LubSAB: I have an great idea (joke)... why don't you auto-translate [the English translation] back to your native language and back to english a few more times. I'd love to see what turns up as it should get more and more strange.

Seriously though: Not meaning any disrespect here but I just thought it might be funny PLUS it might give you an idea as to how incomprehensible the translation is for us.

[cromdeg]

I cannot have ' FF APS-C ' with one optics as is not present at “ Pentax FF ”.
“APS-C”, it is specific and ideal for work on a panorama, but all other this flat with absence of air ' plywood '.
It is impossible on “APS-C” to be realized with full feedback.
And still, whether became more with arrival “APS-C” a photo of works noteworthy?

Not sure where you're going with this, but it made me smile in an otherwise long Friday afternoon. So, Thanks

[ogl]

Will be what?

will be.

[Asahiflex]

Of course the Pentax Ricoh FF will come! It's suicide if they don't make one...

[gtl]

If the D600 rumors are real and Sony is indeed pushing out a low cost 24mp FF sensor for their A99 and the D600, I don't see how Pentax Ricoh can stay out of the FF game and hope to survive solely on their APS-C offerings in the long run. And this might lead to lower prices for the K5 replacement!

[gazonk]

Or a FF lens made with a smaller max aperture to reduce size/cost, basically giving up some of the FF advantage and 'matching' aps-c. Any f/4 zooms for example (24-70 f/4, 70-200 f/4)

That's actually not a bad idea, since a 24-70 f/4 will be "DoF&FoV-equivalent" to a 16-45 f/2.6, i.e. not bad at all - presumably it will be "high ISO equivalent" too.

Question to those who may know: What is the most expensive lens to make: a high quality 16-50/f2.8 covering APS-C with good corner-to-corner quality, or a 24-70 f/4 with equally good FF coverage?

[Pål Jensen]

And Sony has a strong reason to push FF into this price segment: They have to ensure that the value of the sensor in 1000+$ cameras isn't marginalzed. And this isn't possible with APSC sensors which have become cheaper than the processors in the cameras.

Sony (like everybody else) is not concerned with value but profit. Putting exensive componennts in "cheap" cameras is not in their interest as a camera maker; not to mention Nikon (whom we are discussing) who make no profit from making the sensors.
Lets wait and see what the camera cost before we treat rumors as facts...

[Pål Jensen]

That's actually not a bad idea, since a 24-70 f/4 will be "DoF&FoV-equivalent" to a 16-45 f/2.6, i.e. not bad at all - presumably it will be "high ISO equivalent" too.

No it won't unless the former have a minimum aperture of F:32 which they usually don't....

We don't need very fast lenses anylonger to the extent of the film days when the default (slide) film was Kodachrome 64 with the blazing speed of 64ISO.

[glanglois]

My guess: A lens only covering the smaller image circle of the APS-C sensor.

Of course, thanks. Now that I'm moderately awake, I'll cheerfully acknowledge that I should have known that.