When it comes to image quality......

**Aristophanes** · 08-03-2013, 12:55 PM

The current FF market has enough volume to eliminate the APS-H frame, likely forever.

The cost I stitching a panorama sensor is made redundant by stitching software. I thought the major issue with panorama was lenses. I don't see anyone making lenses like that bin the future.

We might see a square sensor.

RonHendriks1966 · 08-03-2013, 01:53 PM

Originally posted by Aristophanes

The current FF market has enough volume to eliminate the APS-H frame, likely forever.

The cost I stitching a panorama sensor is made redundant by stitching software. I thought the major issue with panorama was lenses. I don't see anyone making lenses like that bin the future.

We might see a square sensor.

Unless the advantage is for owners off Pentax lenses that perform better on an aps-h sized sensor better then full frame.

The panorama size is quirky, since you are right that it is done by software. On the other hand it does give you a wider sensor then even full frame can. I don't think that market can be large enough. Would making oval lenses to fit K-mount even make it possible to make the sensor wider?

**Aristophanes** · 08-03-2013, 02:40 PM

Realistically each size of sensor needs optics designed for that frame. So APS-H is an orphan, intermediary format only Canon made.

It's really a poor investment to buy lenses that require cropping (paying too much for the sensor) or produce and oversize image circle (FF on APS).

Clavius · 08-03-2013, 02:56 PM

Originally posted by Aristophanes

The current FF market has enough volume to eliminate the APS-H frame, likely forever.

The cost I stitching a panorama sensor is made redundant by stitching software. I thought the major issue with panorama was lenses. I don't see anyone making lenses like that bin the future.

We might see a square sensor.

You logic is faulty. If it would eliminate the APS-H frame, then it would eliminate the APS-C even more so. But it doesn't. So what does that say?

I would buy a Pentax APS-H body in a heartbeat.

Originally posted by Aristophanes

Realistically each size of sensor needs optics designed for that frame. So APS-H is an orphan,

If that statement was true in any way whatsoever, then all those FA lenses would not work well on our crop cameras... but they don't.

**Aristophanes** · 08-03-2013, 05:13 PM

Originally posted by Clavius

You logic is faulty. If it would eliminate the APS-H frame, then it would eliminate the APS-C even more so. But it doesn't. So what does that say?

I would buy a Pentax APS-H body in a heartbeat.

You didn't read what I wrote.

Everyone else would wait for an FF or switch to an FF brand because the APS-H would cost exactly the same due to a much smaller economy of scale.

Product lines work if there is some separation between them. APS-H is too close to FF and too close to APS-C. It would be an FF price with less quality and almost impossible to differentiate from APS-C on web images, not to mention vignetting and other issues on DA lenses.

There's no point in taking an FF mount and making APS-H when for the same price you could make FF and actually compete.

jsherman999 · 08-03-2013, 07:36 PM

Originally posted by Aristophanes

Everyone else would wait for an FF or switch to an FF brand because the APS-H would cost exactly the same due to a much smaller economy of scale.

This ^^ is the deal. And aps-h really only makes sense and makes Pentax competitive if it can somehow sell at aps-c prices, otherwise why not just buy FF?

**Digitalis** · 08-03-2013, 07:49 PM

the question is if you could buy a pentax FF camera that is able to shoot at 4FPS that had an APS-H crop mode, that increased the firing rate to 6 FPS would you use it? - if it had an APS-C crop mode that doubled the rate to 8 FPS would you use it?

In the Nikon community the 1.2 crop mode isn't anywhere near as popular as the APS-C crop mode is - even with some of the quality issues. Pentax cut their teeth with the 24X36mm format SLR system cameras - I think it is time they went back to the format.

Last edited by Digitalis; 08-03-2013 at 07:58 PM.

RonHendriks1966 · 08-04-2013, 12:37 AM

Originally posted by Aristophanes

Product lines work if there is some separation between them. APS-H is too close to FF and too close to APS-C. It would be an FF price with less quality and almost impossible to differentiate from APS-C on web images, not to mention vignetting and other issues on DA lenses.

There's no point in taking an FF mount and making APS-H when for the same price you could make FF and actually compete.

Originally posted by jsherman999

This ^^ is the deal. And aps-h really only makes sense and makes Pentax competitive if it can somehow sell at aps-c prices, otherwise why not just buy FF?

Well I looked at the prices and for the firts time the Canon 7D prices is going down (now down for 100 euro). That is (I think) because entry level full frame price is coming down and closing the gap.

Canon 7D: 1169 euro
Canon 6D: 1649 euro
Nikon D600: 1519 euro
Nikon D7100: 999 euro
Pentax K-5 II: 815 euro

So when Penatx could make a K-5 styled aps-h sensor camera and market it for 1299 euro then you just have a good camera to market. It is stil in some ways not the competition, but that makes a good sale possible. You can purchase a used Nikon D700 for less then 1000 euro at the time. So this needs to be a good futured camera without being the stellar camera, but with great IQ as a key item.

Fogel70 · 08-04-2013, 02:08 AM

Originally posted by RonHendriks1966

So when Penatx could make a K-5 styled aps-h sensor camera and market it for 1299 euro then you just have a good camera to market. It is stil in some ways not the competition, but that makes a good sale possible. You can purchase a used Nikon D700 for less then 1000 euro at the time. So this needs to be a good futured camera without being the stellar camera, but with great IQ as a key item.

But that is most likely not happening. If Pentax can make money on a €1300 APS-H DSLR they can also do it on a FF with the same price. AFAIK there are no APS-H sensors available for Pentax so they need a sensor supplier willing to supply a custom design APS-H sensor for Pentax, and that will probably cost as much as a stock FF sensor (if not more in small quantities), and there is a big risk that a sensor manufacturer willing to do that is using inferior sensor technology than used on the available FF sensors on the market.

When Pentax can make a K5 level DSLR with APS-H or FF at €1300, then they can also do it on APS-C K5 level cameras for half the price of today.

The only reason for using APS-H has been to over come some limitations of using FF. Too slow FPS on FF in case of Canon, and Leica used APS-H before the could solve all technical problem in using FF on M-mount cameras. I don't think Pentax has any problems like that, that needs to be solved by using APS-H sensors.

Kunzite · 08-04-2013, 02:37 AM

I vote for a special "Pentax APS-H" forum section. Of course, only Ron will be participating but that's fine with me. It's better than having to repeat over and over again the same pertinent arguments, each time Ron spams us with his APS-H.

RonHendriks1966 · 08-04-2013, 11:22 AM

Originally posted by Kunzite

I vote for a special "Pentax APS-H" forum section. Of course, only Ron will be participating but that's fine with me. It's better than having to repeat over and over again the same pertinent arguments, each time Ron spams us with his APS-H.

I started this thread

Don't overlook on the prices off aps-c going down to keep the gap with entry FF camera's that are getting cheaper as Aristophanes is telling us for some time now.

**Pål Jensen** · 08-05-2013, 06:37 PM

Originally posted by Clavius

I would buy a Pentax APS-H body in a heartbeat.

That makes two of you!

Nesster · 08-08-2013, 08:50 AM

For fun, and neither camera nor lenses are stressed by this: photos I took on two consecutive days walking the dogs (both with kit lenses -- AF-D 28-80 3.5-5.6 and 18-55 3.5-5.6 AL; though there is one or two with a Nikon AF-D 28/2.8). Processing the same on all photos; all resized to 3000 pix wide, from where flicr did its thing for the 1024 posted here. Overall the Nikon may have focused slightly more positively; but also gave lighter tone results and I had a difficult time getting the play of shade under a stand of trees to work out. The K-30 in Pentax fashion tended to produce a bit darker results, and avoided some of the Nikon's blow out of e.g. saturated flowers.

RonHendriks1966 · 08-10-2013, 03:34 AM

Just found this one in another thread and did see it before:

Well somewhere between aps-c and FF there is some magical sized sensor that can produce excellent IQ and can work together with as much of our Pentax DA-lenses as possible and making the best out off it. Or just take the full step to the FF size.

Nesster · 08-10-2013, 06:15 AM

Originally posted by RonHendriks1966

Just found this one in another thread and did see it before:

Well somewhere between aps-c and FF there is some magical sized sensor that can produce excellent IQ and can work together with as much of our Pentax DA-lenses as possible and making the best out off it. Or just take the full step to the FF size.

Then again, Pentax could crib an idea from Nikon (and we know Nikon has cribbed several from Pentax): the auto crop; but maybe even a DYNAMIC MEGA ZOOM CROP sensor!!! That is, the camera recognizes the lens and automatically sets a crop factor (or zooming crop indexed to the lens zoom) on the sensor. A transparent grey mask in the viewfinder indicates the crop in effect. And of course this can be defeated by the photographer.

08-04-2013, 12:37 AM	#83
RonHendriks1966 Banned Join Date: Jan 2009 Photos: Gallery Posts: 9,675 Original Poster	Originally posted by Aristophanes Product lines work if there is some separation between them. APS-H is too close to FF and too close to APS-C. It would be an FF price with less quality and almost impossible to differentiate from APS-C on web images, not to mention vignetting and other issues on DA lenses. There's no point in taking an FF mount and making APS-H when for the same price you could make FF and actually compete. Originally posted by jsherman999 This ^^ is the deal. And aps-h really only makes sense and makes Pentax competitive if it can somehow sell at aps-c prices, otherwise why not just buy FF? Well I looked at the prices and for the firts time the Canon 7D prices is going down (now down for 100 euro). That is (I think) because entry level full frame price is coming down and closing the gap. Canon 7D: 1169 euro Canon 6D: 1649 euro Nikon D600: 1519 euro Nikon D7100: 999 euro Pentax K-5 II: 815 euro So when Penatx could make a K-5 styled aps-h sensor camera and market it for 1299 euro then you just have a good camera to market. It is stil in some ways not the competition, but that makes a good sale possible. You can purchase a used Nikon D700 for less then 1000 euro at the time. So this needs to be a good futured camera without being the stellar camera, but with great IQ as a key item.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Where to get start when it comes to learning "the how"	jtkratzer	Troubleshooting and Beginner Help	44	07-22-2012 04:43 PM
What comes to mind when...	Clicker	Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands	6	02-17-2012 07:48 PM
Is it really worth upgrading *Ist DS to K-r in term of Image Quality	fgpinarli	Pentax K-r	16	03-01-2011 06:09 AM
KX in camera noise reduction shut it off to improve image quality	jlaubza	Pentax DSLR Discussion	14	04-27-2010 01:11 PM
when it comes to Flash, I'm a real Dummie	racinsince55	Flashes, Lighting, and Studio	5	12-29-2007 12:29 PM

08-03-2013, 12:55 PM	#76
Aristophanes Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Rankin Inlet, Nunavut Photos: Albums Posts: 3,948	The current FF market has enough volume to eliminate the APS-H frame, likely forever. The cost I stitching a panorama sensor is made redundant by stitching software. I thought the major issue with panorama was lenses. I don't see anyone making lenses like that bin the future. We might see a square sensor.

08-03-2013, 01:53 PM	#77
RonHendriks1966 Banned Join Date: Jan 2009 Photos: Gallery Posts: 9,675 Original Poster	Originally posted by Aristophanes The current FF market has enough volume to eliminate the APS-H frame, likely forever. The cost I stitching a panorama sensor is made redundant by stitching software. I thought the major issue with panorama was lenses. I don't see anyone making lenses like that bin the future. We might see a square sensor. Unless the advantage is for owners off Pentax lenses that perform better on an aps-h sized sensor better then full frame. The panorama size is quirky, since you are right that it is done by software. On the other hand it does give you a wider sensor then even full frame can. I don't think that market can be large enough. Would making oval lenses to fit K-mount even make it possible to make the sensor wider?

08-03-2013, 02:40 PM	#78
Aristophanes Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Rankin Inlet, Nunavut Photos: Albums Posts: 3,948	Realistically each size of sensor needs optics designed for that frame. So APS-H is an orphan, intermediary format only Canon made. It's really a poor investment to buy lenses that require cropping (paying too much for the sensor) or produce and oversize image circle (FF on APS).

08-03-2013, 02:56 PM	#79
Clavius Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2011 Location: De Klundert Photos: Gallery Posts: 4,150	Originally posted by Aristophanes The current FF market has enough volume to eliminate the APS-H frame, likely forever. The cost I stitching a panorama sensor is made redundant by stitching software. I thought the major issue with panorama was lenses. I don't see anyone making lenses like that bin the future. We might see a square sensor. You logic is faulty. If it would eliminate the APS-H frame, then it would eliminate the APS-C even more so. But it doesn't. So what does that say? I would buy a Pentax APS-H body in a heartbeat. Originally posted by Aristophanes Realistically each size of sensor needs optics designed for that frame. So APS-H is an orphan, If that statement was true in any way whatsoever, then all those FA lenses would not work well on our crop cameras... but they don't.

08-03-2013, 05:13 PM	#80
Aristophanes Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Rankin Inlet, Nunavut Photos: Albums Posts: 3,948	Originally posted by Clavius You logic is faulty. If it would eliminate the APS-H frame, then it would eliminate the APS-C even more so. But it doesn't. So what does that say? I would buy a Pentax APS-H body in a heartbeat. You didn't read what I wrote. Everyone else would wait for an FF or switch to an FF brand because the APS-H would cost exactly the same due to a much smaller economy of scale. Product lines work if there is some separation between them. APS-H is too close to FF and too close to APS-C. It would be an FF price with less quality and almost impossible to differentiate from APS-C on web images, not to mention vignetting and other issues on DA lenses. There's no point in taking an FF mount and making APS-H when for the same price you could make FF and actually compete.

08-03-2013, 07:36 PM	#81
jsherman999 Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Photos: Gallery Posts: 8,237	Originally posted by Aristophanes Everyone else would wait for an FF or switch to an FF brand because the APS-H would cost exactly the same due to a much smaller economy of scale. This ^^ is the deal. And aps-h really only makes sense and makes Pentax competitive if it can somehow sell at aps-c prices, otherwise why not just buy FF?

08-03-2013, 07:49 PM	#82
Digitalis Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Melbourne, Victoria Photos: Gallery Posts: 11,694	the question is if you could buy a pentax FF camera that is able to shoot at 4FPS that had an APS-H crop mode, that increased the firing rate to 6 FPS would you use it? - if it had an APS-C crop mode that doubled the rate to 8 FPS would you use it? In the Nikon community the 1.2 crop mode isn't anywhere near as popular as the APS-C crop mode is - even with some of the quality issues. Pentax cut their teeth with the 24X36mm format SLR system cameras - I think it is time they went back to the format. Last edited by Digitalis; 08-03-2013 at 07:58 PM.

08-04-2013, 02:08 AM	#84
Fogel70 Pentaxian Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Stockholm, Sweden Photos: Albums Posts: 3,062	Originally posted by RonHendriks1966 So when Penatx could make a K-5 styled aps-h sensor camera and market it for 1299 euro then you just have a good camera to market. It is stil in some ways not the competition, but that makes a good sale possible. You can purchase a used Nikon D700 for less then 1000 euro at the time. So this needs to be a good futured camera without being the stellar camera, but with great IQ as a key item. But that is most likely not happening. If Pentax can make money on a €1300 APS-H DSLR they can also do it on a FF with the same price. AFAIK there are no APS-H sensors available for Pentax so they need a sensor supplier willing to supply a custom design APS-H sensor for Pentax, and that will probably cost as much as a stock FF sensor (if not more in small quantities), and there is a big risk that a sensor manufacturer willing to do that is using inferior sensor technology than used on the available FF sensors on the market. When Pentax can make a K5 level DSLR with APS-H or FF at €1300, then they can also do it on APS-C K5 level cameras for half the price of today. The only reason for using APS-H has been to over come some limitations of using FF. Too slow FPS on FF in case of Canon, and Leica used APS-H before the could solve all technical problem in using FF on M-mount cameras. I don't think Pentax has any problems like that, that needs to be solved by using APS-H sensors.

08-04-2013, 02:37 AM	#85
Kunzite Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Romania Posts: 15,132	I vote for a special "Pentax APS-H" forum section. Of course, only Ron will be participating but that's fine with me. It's better than having to repeat over and over again the same pertinent arguments, each time Ron spams us with his APS-H.

08-04-2013, 11:22 AM	#86
RonHendriks1966 Banned Join Date: Jan 2009 Photos: Gallery Posts: 9,675 Original Poster	Originally posted by Kunzite I vote for a special "Pentax APS-H" forum section. Of course, only Ron will be participating but that's fine with me. It's better than having to repeat over and over again the same pertinent arguments, each time Ron spams us with his APS-H. I started this thread Don't overlook on the prices off aps-c going down to keep the gap with entry FF camera's that are getting cheaper as Aristophanes is telling us for some time now.

08-05-2013, 06:37 PM	#87
Pål Jensen Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Norway Photos: Albums Posts: 4,371	Originally posted by Clavius I would buy a Pentax APS-H body in a heartbeat. That makes two of you!

08-08-2013, 08:50 AM	#88
Nesster Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: NJ USA Photos: Gallery Posts: 13,072	For fun, and neither camera nor lenses are stressed by this: photos I took on two consecutive days walking the dogs (both with kit lenses -- AF-D 28-80 3.5-5.6 and 18-55 3.5-5.6 AL; though there is one or two with a Nikon AF-D 28/2.8). Processing the same on all photos; all resized to 3000 pix wide, from where flicr did its thing for the 1024 posted here. Overall the Nikon may have focused slightly more positively; but also gave lighter tone results and I had a difficult time getting the play of shade under a stand of trees to work out. The K-30 in Pentax fashion tended to produce a bit darker results, and avoided some of the Nikon's blow out of e.g. saturated flowers.

08-10-2013, 03:34 AM	#89
RonHendriks1966 Banned Join Date: Jan 2009 Photos: Gallery Posts: 9,675 Original Poster	Just found this one in another thread and did see it before: Well somewhere between aps-c and FF there is some magical sized sensor that can produce excellent IQ and can work together with as much of our Pentax DA-lenses as possible and making the best out off it. Or just take the full step to the FF size.

08-10-2013, 06:15 AM	#90
Nesster Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: NJ USA Photos: Gallery Posts: 13,072	Originally posted by RonHendriks1966 Just found this one in another thread and did see it before: Well somewhere between aps-c and FF there is some magical sized sensor that can produce excellent IQ and can work together with as much of our Pentax DA-lenses as possible and making the best out off it. Or just take the full step to the FF size. Then again, Pentax could crib an idea from Nikon (and we know Nikon has cribbed several from Pentax): the auto crop; but maybe even a DYNAMIC MEGA ZOOM CROP sensor!!! That is, the camera recognizes the lens and automatically sets a crop factor (or zooming crop indexed to the lens zoom) on the sensor. A transparent grey mask in the viewfinder indicates the crop in effect. And of course this can be defeated by the photographer.