[ElJamoquio]

talking about new technologies - anyone here care to speculate on the new silicon/gold lens technology (Harvard makes distortion-free lens from gold and silicon, aims for the perfect image (or signal) -- Engadget) that apparently makes glass lenses obsolete - no distortions - super thin - hear one site saying that you will get the same level of performance from a smart phone sized camera as a typical dslr today - i find this hard to believe - surely you will still need the large sensor for dof effects? thats ignouring the dynamic range and high iso benefits of large sensors

Smart phone cameras have crop factors of 6-10 or so, right? So for your 50mm f/1.4 you'd need a f/.1 or f/.2 or so lens for same DOF.

Seeing as, right now, they're making lenses with scales of nanometers in the lab, I wouldn't throw away your K-mount lenses quite yet.

[Pål Jensen]

Pal i appreciate you think apsc is all they need. Have you worked in retail? Specifically retail akin to the camera market? I did 25 years
I can tell you it doesn't matter if apsc is good enough if canikon and sony all release sub $2000 FF (a price that will go down over the next 2 yeas as well)
just like consumers bought into the mp race they will buy into the FF race. the easy route for salespeople is oh you need a ff if you want the best. salespeople are inherently lazy and will take the easy way and close the deal. ignoring ff and a changing market will doom pentax to declining share.

I do not think APS is all they need but I suspect Pentax will have a hard time shifting an FF camera in signicant numbers.

Anyway, you miss some significant points. Prices are relative not absolute. Theres nothiong magical about, say, $1500. It depends of what other cameras costs.
Even if we for arguments sake accept a price of $1500 for an FF camera it is still out of reach of 90% of the DSLR buying public: 90% or more of all DSLR sold cost less. Then theres the added cost: lets take the seasoned pro who shoot cropped Canon (uses Rebel for the real tough work!) with several books, art gallery and stock shooter (a real person). He has two zoom lenses covering the FF eqivalen focal lenght from 16 to 640mm. In addition he have a macro lens giving 50% larger than lifesize on APS. As most pros (and most photographers in general) he is not concerned about DOF as long as there is enough of it but about reach, cost and weight/size. Obviously he want the reach he is used to. How do you do that in FF? The two lenses probably cost $600 in total. Mimicking the reach and versatility in FF will cost $20 000 and he will need a sherpa, not to mention that he couldn't get it in two lenses. Getting more than 50% lifesize from macro is impossible from a single lens and if such a lens did exist it would cost a fortune. Lets say some Pentax user were in the same boat; choosing between, say, a 24mp APS and a 24mp FF at the same price for arguments sake? There is no free FF lunch.

Also the price picture in North America is very different from the rest of the world; APS seem relative expensive (no point in importing an APS camera from the US) while the non-pro FF camera is realtively cheap. Where I live you can buy four K-5 for the price of Canon's cheapest FF camera. The salesman is good to sell these cameras to the same customer. I think the reason for this price peculiarities is the nature of the US market. Amercans are cheap (sorry); it is amazing what people do to save a dollar (litterally!). THe US has also been into a recession with increasing unemployment; not the environment to sell expensive cameras. I believe that APS is the money maker in the US market and FF may be in other, less price sensitive markets. So it might be that the prices in US dollars we are operating with is not necessarily numbers for comparison from the manufacturers point of view.

[gazonk]

Where I live you can buy four K-5 for the price of Canon's cheapest FF camera.

Indeed, but it should be added that you get the previous model for half of that (and that the D800 actually costs slightly less than the 5dMKIII).

[philbaum]

talking about new technologies - anyone here care to speculate on the new silicon/gold lens technology (Harvard makes distortion-free lens from gold and silicon, aims for the perfect image (or signal) -- Engadget) that apparently makes glass lenses obsolete - no distortions - super thin - hear one site saying that you will get the same level of performance from a smart phone sized camera as a typical dslr today - i find this hard to believe - surely you will still need the large sensor for dof effects? thats ignouring the dynamic range and high iso benefits of large sensors

The news is not very factual anymore, has anyone noticed One hears about these wonderful discoveries (remember "cold fusion") and then it just dies and one doesn't hear anymore about it for years, if ever. It used to be a major scandal if a news organization announced something and it was wrong, now news organizations are more like propaganda channels. If yesterday's news was wrong, they just go onto the next subject.

Anyway, i highlighted stormcloud's mention of the dof as being one of the big gains of going to FF. Thats not the first i've seen DOF mentioned as an important advantage of FF and DSLRs in general.

I just wonder if dof control is that important in a camera anymore. Perhaps DOF is like many filters in the film days, they are just not important anymore because, (except for polarizers and ND) these effects can be duplicated by software after the picture is taken.

I finally, recently, took the expensive dive into Photoshop CS6, and their Blur Gallery makes me wonder if in-camera blurring has finally been made somewhat obsolete: Here's an example from Adobe TV:

Blur gallery | Learn Photoshop CS6 | Adobe TV

Between the "Iris blur", the "Tilt-lens Blur" and the Bokeh blur, software blur has come a long way. I'll concede upfront, that I don't think software blurring can replicate everything compared to optical blurring, but its way more convenient and probably can fool most folks that aren't in the profession.

I went back and checked on my Elements 9 software, and this jump in blurring capability is not in there, which makes me think CS6 is the first to have this depth of control. Sure, Elements 9 has blurring capabilities, but it doesn't touch CS6 capabilities in this area - see the link. I'm not as knowledgeable as many on this forum, but dang, this software feature looks nice.

[Pål Jensen]

Anyway, i highlighted stormcloud's mention of the dof as being one of the big gains of going to FF. Thats not the first i've seen DOF mentioned as an important advantage of FF and DSLRs in general. .

Theres one stop difference between FF and APS. Put your 200/2.8 on your camera. Set the aperture to F:4. Flip the DOF preview back and forth. Thats the difference. Can you see it? You can use two stop difference too. See it?

The degree of out of focus is not an absolute but a question of aestetics. However, sharpness, ie within DOF, is an absolute for a certain output size. Either it is sharp ot it isn't. If it isn't the image is a failure...Thats why having enough DOF is far more important than a one stop (or even more) degree of out of focus...

[aurele]

i've run through the last 4 pages, and i think i can give you my two cents.

Even if i had the choice between a APS-C and a FF, say K5 and D800(plus basic kit lens like 28-85 and 18-55), and for free , i would take the K5.

Why ? mainly because of the weight.

like many people who only have a DSLR to take pictures, holding 1.5 kg around the neck is quickly heavy, no mater the situation.

i love the go climbing / hiking / moutainering and taking picture, and in those cases, every gramme count.

If the body is to heavy, one won't take it, and at the end, would leave it alone ... like a certain 1ds mk 3 ...

To be honest, yes i'd loooooooooove to have a FF, but only if Pentax could make it as light as a K5 or (let's dream !) a k-x (600gr)

[Medium FormatPro]

It would not be difficult to make a full frame camera today that would not be much larger or heavier than the K-5. Sony has done it and the Canon 5d is also not far off of the mark.

[ElJamoquio]

Anyway, you miss some significant points. Prices are relative not absolute. Theres nothiong magical about, say, $1500. It depends of what other cameras costs.
Even if we for arguments sake accept a price of $1500 for an FF camera it is still out of reach of 90% of the DSLR buying public: 90% or more of all DSLR sold cost less. Then theres the added cost: lets take the seasoned pro who shoot cropped Canon (uses Rebel for the real tough work!) with several books, art gallery and stock shooter (a real person). He has two zoom lenses covering the FF eqivalen focal lenght from 16 to 640mm. In addition he have a macro lens giving 50% larger than lifesize on APS. As most pros (and most photographers in general) he is not concerned about DOF as long as there is enough of it but about reach, cost and weight/size. Obviously he want the reach he is used to. How do you do that in FF? The two lenses probably cost $600 in total. Mimicking the reach and versatility in FF will cost $20 000 and he will need a sherpa, not to mention that he couldn't get it in two lenses. Getting more than 50% lifesize from macro is impossible from a single lens and if such a lens did exist it would cost a fortune. Lets say some Pentax user were in the same boat; choosing between, say, a 24mp APS and a 24mp FF at the same price for arguments sake? There is no free FF lunch.

Has this guy considered a bridge camera? It'd be way cheaper and lighter, and then he could have macro 5x larger than lifesize.

[maxfield_photo]

Theres one stop difference between FF and APS. Put your 200/2.8 on your camera. Set the aperture to F:4. Flip the DOF preview back and forth. Thats the difference. Can you see it? You can use two stop difference too. See it?

The degree of out of focus is not an absolute but a question of aestetics. However, sharpness, ie within DOF, is an absolute for a certain output size. Either it is sharp ot it isn't. If it isn't the image is a failure...Thats why having enough DOF is far more important than a one stop (or even more) degree of out of focus...

But how often have we heard "this lens becomes sharper upon stopping down a bit"? I'm not talking about DoF, but simple resolving power. So if you want sharp results from a 2.8 lens you probably need to shoot it at f/4, which means that on APS-C you're getting results that look like f/5.6. Sometimes 5.6 is fine for portraits, but sometimes I want shallower, sometimes I want just the eyes in focus, and by the time you reach the ear, it's starting to transition to OoF. I don't want to have to sacrifice resolution to do that.

[24X36NOW]

All these discussions are based around the current sensors continuing with the same technology.

Soon large sensors may not be required.

Check this InVisage

All the tech in the world will not eliminate the need for larger sensors. Whatever tech can be applied to smaller sensors can also be applied to larger sensors, with the larger sensors always winning the image quality competition. Plus, you're ignoring that the big advantage to larger sensors is a matter of optics, as in (when comparing APS-C with FF) you're asking the lens to resolve the same details at about 42% of the size on an APS-C sensor to keep pace with a FF sensor. Larger sensors are much less demanding on lenses than smaller sensors, and will always provide better image quality for that reason.

[Pål Jensen]

Indeed, but it should be added that you get the previous model for half of that (and that the D800 actually costs slightly less than the 5dMKIII).

If the rumoured price of the 24mp FF Sony of $2800 is correct and the rumoured price of $1400 for the 24mp Pentax is also correct, then it firstly suggest that the Pentax is not FF as I cannot imagine Pentax could sell a camera with the same sensor as the Sony at half the price. Secondly it indicates that FF cost twice as much as APS with the same pixel count. This seems about right to me. Hence, I find the rumors credible....

[Pål Jensen]

All the tech in the world will not eliminate the need for larger sensors. Whatever tech can be applied to smaller sensors can also be applied to larger sensors, with the larger sensors always winning the image quality competition. Plus, you're ignoring that the big advantage to larger sensors is a matter of optics, as in (when comparing APS-C with FF) you're asking the lens to resolve the same details at about 42% of the size on an APS-C sensor to keep pace with a FF sensor. Larger sensors are much less demanding on lenses than smaller sensors, and will always provide better image quality for that reason.

But lens resolution really isn't a problem and it is cheaper to make great lenses for smaller image circles. While it is true that demand of lenses is stronger for smaller formats than larger at the same output size, it is equal if you use the larger format in order to make equally larger outputs.

[24X36NOW]

I do not think APS is all they need but I suspect Pentax will have a hard time shifting an FF camera in signicant numbers.

Obviously he want the reach he is used to. How do you do that in FF?

With a D800, you simply crop to APS-C size. You get nearly 16 megapixels in that size, which you would be hard-pressed to argue won't offer sufficient image quality for those occasions when the photographer is beyond the reach of his longest lens (the ONLY time when this is necessary). With a D800, your APS-C "reach" is built in, with no legitimate complaint to be made about the pixel density in instances where you need to crop. The arguments for APS-C are boiling down to the one (and only) real issue - cost. Since the D800 will outperform every APS-C camera for the next several generations, it will actually be cheaper than chasing the serial increments of "upgrades" in APS-C cameras.

Pentax needs FF. If they keep "preaching to the choir," the choir will soon be dead and the congregation long departed.

[Fontan]

It seems to me that FF DSLR with a kit zoom for $999 settles it all for good. Amen.

[eddie1960]

If the rumoured price of the 24mp FF Sony of $2800 is correct and the rumoured price of $1400 for the 24mp Pentax is also correct, then it firstly suggest that the Pentax is not FF as I cannot imagine Pentax could sell a camera with the same sensor as the Sony at half the price. Secondly it indicates that FF cost twice as much as APS with the same pixel count. This seems about right to me. Hence, I find the rumors credible....

Sony isn't an issue (except for MILC) particularly on FF. the rumor to worry about is nikon and canon both looking at sub $2000 FF.
As for the earlier comment about the majority of people looking at sub $1000 I agree they do, but one of the draws to the brand is FF whether they buy it or not, it's the fantasy that somehow you plastic pos rebel for instance is somehow as good as that 5d2, which was the point i had made that you chose to ignore
Pentax from Hoya days I'm sure could not put out FF. Ricoh days are here and i believe they are committed to growth and returning stature to a diminished brand
In any case either they will devote the funds to it or not. photokina may well have the hints (it may not)
Truly Ricoh products are still in the pipeline, we've only seen what is likely a modded Hoya product (K30)