[normhead]

I am sorry you didn't try to understand the context of my post.

I seem to do that quite often with you, I'm going to have to slow down and read really carefully.

[Blue]

The Canon 400mm f4 DO is $5999 brand new in the trunk from B&H, not "$7,000":

Canon Telephoto EF 400mm f/4.0 DO (Diffractive Optics) 7034A002

Canon 400mm 5.6L is $1,198:

Canon EF 400mm f/5.6L USM Autofocus Lens 2526A004 B&H Photo

Both have USM ring motors, no SDM sudden death motors in Canonland

Lets say you take the 400mm 5.6L & put it on Canon 7D 1.6x cropper = 640mm 5.6L.
Similar in spec to the mythical soon to be available $7,000 supertele Pentax for just $1,200.

Pentax 560mm 5.6 is priced at "$7,000" just $5800 more than 400mm 5.6L:

Pentax DA 560mm f/5.6 ED AW Lens 22180 B&H Photo Video

Given Pentax doesn't currently have a 400mm in production, the point is moot. The last 400 they had in production was the FA* 400/5.6 , but don't recall it being introduced at $^ to $8 K.

[normhead]

The Canon 400mm f4 DO is $5999 brand new in the trunk from B&H, not "$7,000":

Canon Telephoto EF 400mm f/4.0 DO (Diffractive Optics) 7034A002

Canon 400mm 5.6L is $1,198:

Canon EF 400mm f/5.6L USM Autofocus Lens 2526A004 B&H Photo

Both have USM ring motors, no SDM sudden death motors in Canonland

Lets say you take the 400mm 5.6L & put it on Canon 7D 1.6x cropper = 640mm 5.6L.
Similar in spec to the mythical soon to be available $7,000 supertele Pentax for just $1,200.

Pentax 560mm 5.6 is priced at "$7,000" just $5800 more than 400mm 5.6L:

Pentax DA 560mm f/5.6 ED AW Lens 22180 B&H Photo Video

CANON EF 400MM F4.0 DO IS USM SET 7034A002


Take this price, add 13% tax and then learn to be a little less fussy about your corrections. I never said what the B&H price was. In fact I didn't say where I found it. How does your plucking som eprice from a country I don't even live in add anything to the conversation? It doesn't. My point is if I want to fill the frame with an image on an FF and make full use of the MP I'm paying for, I need a lens that's between 3 and 4 times as expensive as the lens I need to fill the same frame on APS-c. Whether it's 3 or 4 times , does it matter? not at all twice as expensive might be barely acceptable, if the image was twice as large, which in the case of the D600 or 6D, it isn't.

YOu do realize that the 560 mm on APS-c is the rough equivalent of 800mmm on an FF camera?

price for an 800mm 5.6 lens for FF?

Search - Henry's best camera store in Canada

Read it and weep.

Given Pentax doesn't currently have a 400mm in production, the point is moot. The last 400 they had in production was the FA* 400/5.6 , but don't recall it being introduced at $^ to $8 K.

My DA* 60-250, is the rough equivalent of a 400mm FF lens. I was talking about what I have to buy to make use of the capacity of an FF lens and get the same functionality I have now.

I have nothing against the 6D/D600, I have something against their price.

After looking at what I can get for $2000.
Nikon D600, no lens.
Canon 6D - no lens.
Pentax K-5 ($800) Sigma 8-16 (800) Tamron 17-50 2.8 (400).

The above cameras have comparable IQ, these lenses give me best in class IQ, and with my DA*60-250, a landscape kit extraordinaire, covering 8-250, for under 4k. What would the cheapest cost in FF be to cover say 12 to 400 in pro quality glass? I shudder to think, but if you want to say I'm the one who doesn't know what he's talking about, state your case, I'm all ears.

[gazonk]

Given Pentax doesn't currently have a 400mm in production, the point is moot.

Actually, they do - if you count the FA645 400mm 5.6.

(before anyone starts complaining that it's not current, look at the road map)

[Blue]

Actually, they do - if you count the FA645 400mm 5.6.

(before anyone starts complaining that it's not current, look at the road map)

Given that we are talking about full frame (24x36) the 645 is not pertinent to the discussion and wouldn't be af with an adapter on K-mount. Nice try though. Now you go back and look at the the k-mount road map. The title of the thread is full frame under development, not cropped medium format. Stay on topic at least in the broad sense.

[snake]

After looking at what I can get for $2000. Nikon D600, no lens. Canon 6D - no lens. Pentax K-5 ($800) Sigma 8-16 (800) Tamron 17-50 2.8 (400).

To be fair, anyone can compare discontinued and/or blown out cams to current, in stock ones and show a savings.

[falconeye]

I have nothing against the 6D/D600, I have something against their price.

I think I can't believe what I read.

A full frame body with K-5 spec and at 1599.- Euro, i.e. at K-5 launch price and you still complain. I am stupefied. This 1/8000s detail is insignificant, after all, a FF shutter is larger and not everybody likes the detonation-sound of the D800/D4 shutters

[thibs]

I think I can't believe what I read.

A full frame body with K-5 spec and at 1599.- Euro, i.e. at K-5 launch price and you still complain. I am stupefied. This 1/8000s detail is insignificant, after all, a FF shutter is larger and not everybody likes the detonation-sound of the D800/D4 shutters

Because we're not talking about the same thing. You're talking about the price of an FF cam no matter the rest (not really true, I know, the AF doesn't suck like it did years ago etc. I know). But you don't consider your very own argument, the actual cost for the cam makers. And in this case, they're still trying to rip us. Not that they don't usually do, mind you. But it doesn't change anything: the D600 is a D7000 with a tweaked body and a very nice FF sensor. Would I like Pentax to do the same? Heck yes. And they'd still rip us off. Pentax or Nikon. Doesn't change a thing. It still a mid range, overpriced, camera.

Nikon may very well have started a change of game though, although I doubted it very very much at D600 launch. And that's good. They still a ripping us off though.

[snake]

Because we're not talking about the same thing. You're talking about the price of an FF cam no matter the rest (not really true, I know, the AF doesn't suck like it did years ago etc. I know). But you don't consider your very own argument, the actual cost for the cam makers. And in this case, they're still trying to rip us. Not that they don't usually do, mind you. But it doesn't change anything: the D600 is a D7000 with a tweaked body and a very nice FF sensor. Would I like Pentax to do the same? Heck yes. And they'd still rip us off. Pentax or Nikon. Doesn't change a thing. It still a mid range, overpriced, camera.

Nikon may very well have started a change of game though, although I doubted it very very much at D600 launch. And that's good. They still a ripping us off though.

Your posts are not making sense, particularly the part I boldfaced.

I love it when people think all products, despite having different parts and designs, are the same thing and just adaptations of one another.

[bossa]

I think those suggesting that we are being ripped off should shoot film for a year and add up the cost.

200 shots a day ought to bring some perspective into play.

[falconeye]

But you don't consider your very own argument, the actual cost for the cam makers. And in this case, they're still trying to rip us.

My very own argument was against selling FF sensors at 3000 $ and above while selling APSC at 1500 $.

Now that uncrippled FF bodies are sold at 1599.- € I am satisfied. Now, the market will sort it all out for us, now that the artificial barrier was removed.

I always said an FF sensor adds maybe 200$ to production and 500$ to market price, which at 799,- € for the D7000 should be 1299.- Euro. But the extra 300 € is well deserved money for Nikon, esp. as he D600 is new and the D7000 is old.

To sell a camera in higher demand at a higher margin is no rip off.

That's the entire driving force behind any attempt to make a product attractive actually ...

You don't understand pricing in the market. A price isn't production cost. Production cost only sets the lower limit for a price. Price is determined by demand. And Nikon eventually understood how to offer a reasonably attractive SLR again. They deserve the extra margin. That's no rip off.

Like the price for an iPhone 5 is no rip off. Apple may have a high margin on them. But without them, we still would use crappy Windows CE or Blackberry or Symbian smartphones. No Androids and no iPhones. Well deserved by Apple and certainly no rip off.

[John Shriver]

The FF sensor adds far more to the manufactured cost of the camera than $200. The yield for full frame sensors is dramatically lower, and there's half as many on a "wafer", so you have to make a lot of wafers to make a few sensors. They are also larger than any semiconductor stepper/photolithography system can expose at once, they can only expose an APS-C area at once. So there have to be two masks (left side and right side), and the exposures of the two masks for each layer of the sensor has to be perfect.

A good starting guess is that FF sensors should cost four times as much as APS-C sensors. It's probably worse than that.

[LFLee]

I always said an FF sensor adds maybe 200$ to production and 500$ to market price, which at 799,- € for the D7000 should be 1299.- Euro. But the extra 300 € is well deserved money for Nikon, esp. as he D600 is new and the D7000 is old.

That extra 300 is to pay Ashton Kutcher.

[dfujevec]

[
After looking at what I can get for $2000.
Nikon D600, no lens.
Canon 6D - no lens.
Pentax K-5 ($800) Sigma 8-16 (800) Tamron 17-50 2.8 (400).

The above cameras have comparable IQ, these lenses give me best in class IQ, and with my DA*60-250, a landscape kit extraordinaire, covering 8-250, for under 4k. What would the cheapest cost in FF be to cover say 12 to 400 in pro quality glass? I shudder to think, but if you want to say I'm the one who doesn't know what he's talking about, state your case, I'm all ears.

Canon Eos 5d mkII and Sigma 12-24, Tamron 28.75 f2,8 and Canon 100-400 is not far from that with big improvment in IQ and DOF. I bought Eos5dmkII last year over Pentax just because that. I use 28mm, 35mm, 50mm and 100mm with Canon and they are dirty cheap.

[thibs]

I think those suggesting that we are being ripped off should shoot film for a year and add up the cost.

200 shots a day ought to bring some perspective into play.

Oh, those bodies which don't require battery, which still runs although they were made in 1975?
Yeah, right, film is a rip off. Only for those who can't see.