Originally posted by normhead I'm guessing my DA* 60-250 would, and that would be worth a ton.
I think the profit would be in the excisting lenses that would perform well on a bigger sensor then aps-c, but would go down on a FF.
Originally posted by rawr In considering the options for FF, I like DxoMark's rough classification of photographer usage scenarios: Portrait (colour depth) - Landscape (dynamic range) - Sports (low-light). (one should probably add to the Sports category high fps and awesome AF). But it would be nice indeed, and probably not impossible, to see maybe two new Pentax FF's - a D4/Canon 1Dx competitor for Ron, and a D600 clone for the rest of us.
Well Pentax is not yet ready to enter the sportsmarket, but it can still put good specs in a camera where you (and I) can do still a lot with in a variety off workingplaces.
Originally posted by rawr The D4 does 11 fps vs the D800's 4 or 6 and the D600's 5.5, so it's a significant step above.
All of this of course highlights the big job ahead of Pentax. Just changing the sensor size won't really impress anyone unless there are other tech smarts included in the product.
Well the difference in hi-performing camera's for sports (fast framerate and less pixels to get the workload done) and for studio/landscape (lots off pixels for hi details) is huge when it comes to the electronics. I don't expect Pentax to enter in on the superfast framerate race.
Originally posted by Fogel70 And to make full use of this sensor format Pentax would need to start with designing at least a few dedicated zoom lenses for it. And Pentax can forget to get better support from third party lens designer if the choose to use APS-H sensors.
If Pentax is to make APS-H sensor cameras they will need to show the same dedication to this format as they have shown on APS-C. So then we can forget FF for another 10-15 years. The only reason I see for APS-H is if FF for some magical reason would not be possible to use on K-mount cameras, so APS-H would be a replacement for FF.
As for FF and aps-H there is a need for new lenses in the wide-angle range. I think the FA31mm is shortest lens to work on either off them. Choosing aps-h would probably mean that a FF won't be around the corner. On the other hand when it is a great camera no-one will ask for it anymore.
Originally posted by jogiba A full frame with both FF and APS-C modes would be the way to go.
Originally posted by NickLarsson Please also add an APS-H mode for Ron so everybody is gonna be happy
Originally posted by normhead I think we're missing the point of APS-c H. it would be to make use of existing FF lenses with the addition of shake reduction. If in fact the Pentax shake reduction system cannot be used with an FF sensor, (and that has yet to be determined), then going to APS-h might allow one to use all those FA lens on a closer to FF system. It's a bit of a reach either way, and no one really knows what the exact situation. Based on my own work, I'm guessing APS-h might allow me to use my DA*60-250 even, and that would be fantastic.
APS-H should be part off a positive choice. Stand out with your own system.
Originally posted by Winder 1. People have the option of shooting at reduced resolution in JPEG.
2. APS-H would not be seen as "chickening out" if Pentax offered it in the same price range as the Canon 7D. Sensor prices have come way down.
3. APS-H will work much better with legacy K-mount and DA* lenses.
A Pentax APS-H sensor should come in a top-off-the-line Pentax camera that should be better then other top-camera's like 7D (or when it ever comes a D400).