[Pål Jensen]

I still think that the focus on depth of field as the "ultimate goal of photography" is just silly. My wife is a professional photographer and uses k5s for her shoots (portraits and weddings) and people are very pleased with the results. I have never, ever heard one of her clients say, "You know, I really like that photo, but if you had just shot it with a little less of depth of field, it would have been stellar." Photography is about composition more than anything else. If that is lacking, then narrow depth of field is not going to suddenly produce an awesome photo. Particularly not when the differences are so small that most of the "public" can't tell the difference.

Spot on! And thats why those who like FF should stay with the valid arguments for the format like image quality and a larger optical finder....

[eddie1960]

The FA limiteds are obviously a special case. They are priced high precisely because they are the FA limiteds and about as good as Pentax gets. Still, Sigma does sell the 30mm f1.4 and the 28mm f1.8 in the 450 to 500 dollar range.

I still think that the focus on depth of field as the "ultimate goal of photography" is just silly. My wife is a professional photographer and uses k5s for her shoots (portraits and weddings) and people are very pleased with the results. I have never, ever heard one of her clients say, "You know, I really like that photo, but if you had just shot it with a little less of depth of field, it would have been stellar." Photography is about composition more than anything else. If that is lacking, then narrow depth of field is not going to suddenly produce an awesome photo. Particularly not when the differences are so small that most of the "public" can't tell the difference.

The Sigma 28 1.8 is a FF lens. So then I would want a hypothetical DA18 f 1.2 which would likely be much larger and more expensive even as an apsc only lens (Given the size of the 20 1.8 which is slower and 2 mm more @ $700 or so)
Conversely the 30 1.4 is an apsc lens. on FF the closest equivalent is the FA43 LTD which is marginally faster, and smaller, and better built..... and for the FF customer who isn't spooked by a little higher price obviously, then the price difference of $90 more isn't an issue given the better build.

[ElJamoquio]

They are priced high precisely because they are the FA limiteds and about as good as Pentax gets..

Yup, and if you want better than the $1000 31mm f/1.8, you go to a FF camera and the $350 40mm f/2.8, and the $350 lens will spank the 31mm, or the hypothetical FA 26mm f/1.8, in terms of resolution. DOF and SNR will be about the same. Bokeh of course is TBD.

[monochrome]

Photography is about composition

and light

[Aristophanes]

Originally posted by Rondec*
Photography is about composition
and light

You need a camera, too.

[Aristophanes]

Of course. To me, the biggest things that full frame cameras have traditionally brought to the table are not things inherent to full frame, but that just come with higher specified cameras -- faster auto focus, more auto focus points, better tracking, faster frame rate, and huge buffers. You could easily put these on APS-C cameras, but most camera companies reserve the best for their flagship models

Those features cost more $$$ and take up more physical room in the camera body.

So this impacts the price/size dynamic, regardless of FF or APS-C.

[RonHendriks1966]

Those features cost more $$$ and take up more physical room in the camera body.

So this impacts the price/size dynamic, regardless of FF or APS-C.

Of course. To me, the biggest things that full frame cameras have traditionally brought to the table are not things inherent to full frame, but that just come with higher specified cameras -- faster auto focus, more auto focus points, better tracking, faster frame rate, and huge buffers. You could easily put these on APS-C cameras, but most camera companies reserve the best for their flagship models.

But, these are the reasons that sports shooters will choose a D4 or a 1D series camera. It's not about depth of field, it is about getting sharp photos in difficult situations with regard to lighting, etc.

In those hi-end camera's there is a big pile of electronics that will cost more then the larger sized full frame sensor does. So I guess there is next to a fully packed camera also room for a basic-functional camera with the larger sensor and not all the expensive electronics.

Pentax could step into that market.

[falconeye]

There is a relevant post at this link:
Falk Lumo: The full frame mystery revisited

Thanks for the quote.

The blog article is meant to be a wrapper around the more general article:

LumoLabs -- True reasons for Full Frame -- Whitepaper

In the past, I urged Pentax to offer a full frame upgrade path to their loyal Pentaxians. They didn't.

Meanwhile, I shoot K-5 and D800E side by side and therefore, I don't care so much anymore. Still, I can only emphasize how suicide-like it would be for Pentax to ignore full frame. It really is another league of camera which Pentaxians, sooner or later won't be able to ignore. That's why I've now continued my 2010 FF blog article (one last time).

My opinion: if SLR, then D800 class (eventually). Which can and will be made at the size, price and weight of the K-5. If not by Pentax, then Nikon. But I'd like to see it be Pentax.

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-dslr-discussion/183054-why-full-fr...ml#post2009710

I'll add a pointer to the white paper. Thanks.

[Rondec]

You need a camera, too.

Of course. My point was merely that sensor size (and therefore depth of field) is not the be-all/end-all of photography. There are usually two dueling issues with camera design. Making things smaller (which seems to lead to tiny point and shoots with questionable image quality in many situations) and the pursuit of "ultimate image quality" (which of course leads to larger cameras, some of which have bigger sensors than full frame). There needs to be balance and everyone will choose something different -- micro four thirds, APS-C, full frame, medium format -- all have pluses, minuses and costs given the format.

[RonHendriks1966]

That's why I've now continued my 2010 FF blog article (one last time).

My opinion: if SLR, then D800 class (eventually). Which can and will be made at the size, price and weight of the K-5. If not by Pentax, then Nikon. But I'd like to see it be Pentax.

Thanks for giving just some more time (yet another PhotoKina I guess).

I like this quote:

But according to my own research, the most expensive component (the full frame sensor) is less than about $ 300 purchase price for the camera vendor. So, a full frame camera could run at about $ 500-$ 900 above an equally specified APSC camera which is closer to $ 1,500 to $ 2,500 rather than $ 3,000.

This would make my fake 24-megapixel-full-frame-k-11 really possible for let's say 999 euro!

[Quicksand]

This would make my fake 24-megapixel-full-frame-k-11 really possible for let's say 999 euro!

Sounds good Ron. Where do I send the check?

[Pål Jensen]

In those hi-end camera's there is a big pile of electronics that will cost more then the larger sized full frame sensor does. So I guess there is next to a fully packed camera also room for a basic-functional camera with the larger sensor and not all the expensive electronics.

Pentax could step into that market.

Not really. The electronic features in a camera is already developed and exist on a chip. The savings for robbing the camera of features is minuscule; perhaps only saving a few buttons.
What cost money is the sensor and the pipeline for image processing particularly if it is a large sensor. Hence, cheap large sensors is not going to happen soon without a total breaktrhough in sensor manufacturing....

[Aristophanes]

I agree with falconeye that Pentax FF is necessary. But I find that he accelerates the critical demand side by about 1 year due to sensor supply constraints.

Since Sony dropped Alpha FF production the price of FF cameras new has risen, not dropped. They never really are discounted either (go on sale).

For Pentax they need a $2,000 price point and some time after Sony/Nikon/Canon get in to make it happen.

[RonHendriks1966]

Not really. The electronic features in a camera is already developed and exist on a chip. The savings for robbing the camera of features is minuscule; perhaps only saving a few buttons.
What cost money is the sensor and the pipeline for image processing particularly if it is a large sensor. Hence, cheap large sensors is not going to happen soon without a total breaktrhough in sensor manufacturing....

You really think that that D4 can keep on shooting 10 fps for free and the electronics to do that are for free? The chip inside that D4 is a lot more expensive then the PRIME M inside the K-01.

[falconeye]

But I find that he accelerates the critical demand side by about 1 year

I wished I were able to accelerate demand

Of course, things will evolve slower than I see them evolve. I got used to that over the years