really...is it a good bussines for Pentax a FULL FRAME Camera?

**RobA_Oz** · 07-07-2013, 02:31 AM

Originally posted by Ash

Yeah, Jim. It's a misnomer and a nuisance, but it's nomenclature that's stuck with the 24x36 format - perhaps we can suggest a change to the name, like digital 35 or 135.
Historically, in 35 mm (135 film) cameras, the terms full-frame and half-frame were used to distinguish the 24 × 36 mm and 18 × 24 mm film formats, according to Frances E. Schultz and Roger Hicks (2003). Rangefinder: Equipment, History, Techniques.

The half-frame 35 mm film format is also known as single-frame in movie film, and as a result, full-frame film cameras were sometimes known as double-frame as per Leslie D. Stroebel and Richard D. Zakia (1996). Focal Encyclopedia of Photography.

Go figure.
We may as well call it APS-F for want of consistency and clarity.

Language is important, though, and we can use it to promote intelligence, or stunt it. The relationship between vocabulary and intelligence is, I think, well-established. I don't believe that creating misleading shorthand terms like FF supports that.

If you have to say "You know what I mean" when you use "FF", then you're creating or supporting an esoteric language subset, a jargon, if you like, but unlike scientific jargon this one pretends to be an absolute when it clearly isn't (something's either full, or it isn't, but it can't be "over-full"). Unscientific jargon is meant to exclude, not include, and that's what this example does, but it also stunts intelligence by pretending to be something it isn't.

jogiba · 07-07-2013, 05:22 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by Parallax

So if 24x36 is "Full Frame", what are the sizes larger than that
? FF+, Super full frame, Super Duper Full Frame, Gigantor Frame?

Really ? I thought you were old enough to understand the difference between a 35MM SLR, MF 6x7 and 4x5 view camera. So exactly what should we call a DSLR with a sensor the same size as a 35mm SLR ?

Parallax · 07-07-2013, 05:55 AM

Originally posted by jogiba

So exactly what should we call a DSLR with a sensor the same size as a 35mm SLR ?

How about "Bob"?

**RobA_Oz** · 07-07-2013, 01:33 PM

Originally posted by Parallax

How about "Bob"?

I've always favoured "Gladys"...

Fogel70 · 07-08-2013, 01:53 AM

Originally posted by jogiba

Really ? I thought you were old enough to understand the difference between a 35MM SLR, MF 6x7 and 4x5 view camera. So exactly what should we call a DSLR with a sensor the same size as a 35mm SLR ?

How about 35mm DSLR with crop factor 1.0? With APS-C sensor it's a 35mm DSLR with crop factor 1.5 - 1.7, as long as the camera is based on a 35mm lens mount. Describing it like this tell more than only the sensor format. FI Olympus 4/3 DSLR is not a 35mm camera as it use a different lens mount than Olympus 35mm SLR. But it has a 35mm crop factor of 2.0.

As there are full frame digital medium format systems. it can be a bit confusing using "Full Frame" for describing the 36x24mm sensor format.
Edit: Pentax 645D is a 645 DSLR with crop factor 1.3, or 35mm crop factor of 0.78.

redrockcoulee · 07-11-2013, 11:17 AM

Originally posted by Parallax

Okay, this may be a bit off topic, but not entirely:
[rant on] This is just a pet peve. FF? Is that a full 8"x10", or a full 4"x5", or a full 6x7, or a full 120, or a full 110, or a full 220? Just askin'. (or full APS-C) [/rant]

(Oh c'mon, lighten up!

)

Full frame is definetly the same as full plate which is 6 1/2 by 8 1/2 inches.

Or you could say that any image that has vignetting is not full frame.

**boriscleto** · 07-11-2013, 11:45 AM

Originally posted by Parallax

How about "Bob"?

Originally posted by RobA_Oz

I've always favoured "Gladys"...

Just don't call it Shirley.

Parallax · 07-11-2013, 11:51 AM

Ohhhhhh you can call me Ray, or you can call me Jay, or you can call me Ray-Jay, but ya doesn't hassa call me Johnson.

~Raymond Jay Johnson, Jr.

You Tube

jsherman999 · 07-11-2013, 08:40 PM

Originally posted by Parallax

Ohhhhhh you can call me Ray, or you can call me Jay, or you can call me Ray-Jay, but ya doesn't hassa call me Johnson.

~Raymond Jay Johnson, Jr.

Raymond J. Johnson Jr. - YouTube

Arg! Nothing about that bit was amusing after the second time you heard it, much less the 200th. Why did you have to make me remember it.

Parallax · 07-12-2013, 05:00 AM

Originally posted by jsherman999

Arg! Nothing about that bit was amusing after the second time you heard it, much less the 200th. Why did you have to make me remember it.

So I wouldn't be the only one that couldn't get the damned thing out of his head.

Nesster · 07-13-2013, 04:32 AM - **2 Likes**

But I remember when MF started to mean the less automatic version of AF ??? and have heard that in our parent's generation 120 film was miniature format, not medium format -- although both meanings can be held by "MF"... When I start to front focus (FF) too much I know I have to MF on FF and miss the term 1/2 frame and use APS-C instead.

With such a conundrum I throw up my arms (and wince as the left still suffers from Speed Graphic elbow (SGE)) and figure I can decompress with MF ME MF film, or even AF AE FF film, or relax with a AF AE APS-C digital. but all the talk about FF and crop reminds me I have to go sit on a toilet....

robgo2 · 07-15-2013, 04:50 PM

Originally posted by Aristophanes

Those have almost zero bearing on whether Pentax will release FF DSLR.

Camera bodies make such low margins and ROI that in order for Pentax to make FF they need to sell a huge array of new FF glass. Competing against legacy glass is a significant barrier to this and is likely one of the major reasons why the company hesitates to jump into this very high-end market.

Getting consumers to buy new glass will make or break a Pentax FF effort.

Excellent point, but Pentax could leverage a FF camera into the manufacture and sale of updated versions of the classic FA Limiteds (e.g. newer coatings, weather sealed, SDM) as well as several new FA Limiteds of different focal lengths. I think there would be significant interest in a contemporary series of these great lenses.

Rob

Clavius · 07-17-2013, 01:28 AM

Originally posted by Aristophanes

Those have almost zero bearing on whether Pentax will release FF DSLR.

Camera bodies make such low margins and ROI that in order for Pentax to make FF they need to sell a huge array of new FF glass. Competing against legacy glass is a significant barrier to this and is likely one of the major reasons why the company hesitates to jump into this very high-end market.

Getting consumers to buy new glass will make or break a Pentax FF effort.

That's why I think they cannot avoid implementing a new mount for the Pentax FF camera. Maybe that's why it's taking Pentax so long? New mount design?

It would be a shock to the die-hard Pentax fanboy sitting on a giant mountain of "legacy-glass". But those are not making Pentax any profit now, and they wouldn't have made Pentax any profit with a K-mount FF DSLR either.

**Ash** · 07-17-2013, 02:58 AM

Originally posted by Clavius

That's why I think they cannot avoid implementing a new mount for the Pentax FF camera

Why can't they produce DFA lenses and continue the tradition of producing the FA Limiteds, which are pricey and continue to sell well? - sounds more like a good business opportunity for Pentax with the current K-mount.

**monochrome** · 07-17-2013, 06:27 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by Clavius

That's why I think they cannot avoid implementing a new mount for the Pentax FF camera. Maybe that's why it's taking Pentax so long? New mount design?

Please, then, explain the voluntary, direct, unequivocal statement, "Pentax is committed to Q, K-mount and 645."

Unless you believe a small camera company with 5% of the market in a good month can maintain 4 mounts.

Following your technical logic, Occam's Razor suggests there will never be a FF Pentax (unless Q is about learning mirrorless and leaf-shutter lenses)..

07-08-2013, 01:53 AM	#20
Fogel70 Pentaxian Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Stockholm, Sweden Photos: Albums Posts: 3,062	Originally posted by jogiba Really ? I thought you were old enough to understand the difference between a 35MM SLR, MF 6x7 and 4x5 view camera. So exactly what should we call a DSLR with a sensor the same size as a 35mm SLR ? How about 35mm DSLR with crop factor 1.0? With APS-C sensor it's a 35mm DSLR with crop factor 1.5 - 1.7, as long as the camera is based on a 35mm lens mount. Describing it like this tell more than only the sensor format. FI Olympus 4/3 DSLR is not a 35mm camera as it use a different lens mount than Olympus 35mm SLR. But it has a 35mm crop factor of 2.0. As there are full frame digital medium format systems. it can be a bit confusing using "Full Frame" for describing the 36x24mm sensor format. Edit: Pentax 645D is a 645 DSLR with crop factor 1.3, or 35mm crop factor of 0.78. Last edited by Fogel70; 07-08-2013 at 02:05 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
why is a full frame Pentax such a holy grail?	adwb	Pentax Full Frame	427	07-24-2015 12:32 PM
Full Frame Pentax Were Is It	Gord	Pentax Full Frame	16	06-30-2013 06:31 PM
So.... Pentax Full Frame is a sure thing?	LFLee	Photographic Industry and Professionals	25	11-02-2012 12:55 PM
Black & White K-30 is either a really good camera, or I'm becoming a better photographer...	Julie	Post Your Photos!	14	09-22-2012 10:59 AM
Full Frame lenses and value if a FF camera is introduced	olivemike	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	22	01-16-2012 11:20 PM

07-07-2013, 02:31 AM	#16
RobA_Oz Site Supporter Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Tasmania, Australia Photos: Gallery Posts: 8,209	Originally posted by Ash Yeah, Jim. It's a misnomer and a nuisance, but it's nomenclature that's stuck with the 24x36 format - perhaps we can suggest a change to the name, like digital 35 or 135. Historically, in 35 mm (135 film) cameras, the terms full-frame and half-frame were used to distinguish the 24 × 36 mm and 18 × 24 mm film formats, according to Frances E. Schultz and Roger Hicks (2003). Rangefinder: Equipment, History, Techniques. The half-frame 35 mm film format is also known as single-frame in movie film, and as a result, full-frame film cameras were sometimes known as double-frame as per Leslie D. Stroebel and Richard D. Zakia (1996). Focal Encyclopedia of Photography. Go figure. We may as well call it APS-F for want of consistency and clarity. Language is important, though, and we can use it to promote intelligence, or stunt it. The relationship between vocabulary and intelligence is, I think, well-established. I don't believe that creating misleading shorthand terms like FF supports that. If you have to say "You know what I mean" when you use "FF", then you're creating or supporting an esoteric language subset, a jargon, if you like, but unlike scientific jargon this one pretends to be an absolute when it clearly isn't (something's either full, or it isn't, but it can't be "over-full"). Unscientific jargon is meant to exclude, not include, and that's what this example does, but it also stunts intelligence by pretending to be something it isn't.

07-07-2013, 05:22 AM - 1 Like	#17
jogiba Banned Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Millstone,NJ Posts: 6,491	Originally posted by Parallax So if 24x36 is "Full Frame", what are the sizes larger than that ? FF+, Super full frame, Super Duper Full Frame, Gigantor Frame? Really ? I thought you were old enough to understand the difference between a 35MM SLR, MF 6x7 and 4x5 view camera. So exactly what should we call a DSLR with a sensor the same size as a 35mm SLR ?

07-07-2013, 05:55 AM	#18
Parallax Senior Moderator Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: South Dakota Photos: Gallery Posts: 19,333	Originally posted by jogiba So exactly what should we call a DSLR with a sensor the same size as a 35mm SLR ? How about "Bob"?

07-07-2013, 01:33 PM	#19
RobA_Oz Site Supporter Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Tasmania, Australia Photos: Gallery Posts: 8,209	Originally posted by Parallax How about "Bob"? I've always favoured "Gladys"...

07-11-2013, 11:17 AM	#21
redrockcoulee Pentaxian Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Medicine Hat Posts: 2,306	Originally posted by Parallax Okay, this may be a bit off topic, but not entirely: [rant on] This is just a pet peve. FF? Is that a full 8"x10", or a full 4"x5", or a full 6x7, or a full 120, or a full 110, or a full 220? Just askin'. (or full APS-C) [/rant] (Oh c'mon, lighten up! ) Full frame is definetly the same as full plate which is 6 1/2 by 8 1/2 inches. Or you could say that any image that has vignetting is not full frame.

07-11-2013, 11:45 AM	#22
boriscleto Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: North Syracuse, NY Photos: Gallery Posts: 16,476	Originally posted by Parallax How about "Bob"? Originally posted by RobA_Oz I've always favoured "Gladys"... Just don't call it Shirley.

07-11-2013, 08:40 PM	#24
jsherman999 Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Photos: Gallery Posts: 8,237	Originally posted by Parallax Ohhhhhh you can call me Ray, or you can call me Jay, or you can call me Ray-Jay, but ya doesn't hassa call me Johnson. ~Raymond Jay Johnson, Jr. Raymond J. Johnson Jr. - YouTube Arg! Nothing about that bit was amusing after the second time you heard it, much less the 200th. Why did you have to make me remember it.

07-12-2013, 05:00 AM	#25
Parallax Senior Moderator Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: South Dakota Photos: Gallery Posts: 19,333	Originally posted by jsherman999 Arg! Nothing about that bit was amusing after the second time you heard it, much less the 200th. Why did you have to make me remember it. So I wouldn't be the only one that couldn't get the damned thing out of his head.

07-13-2013, 04:32 AM - 2 Likes	#26
Nesster Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: NJ USA Photos: Gallery Posts: 13,072	But I remember when MF started to mean the less automatic version of AF ??? and have heard that in our parent's generation 120 film was miniature format, not medium format -- although both meanings can be held by "MF"... When I start to front focus (FF) too much I know I have to MF on FF and miss the term 1/2 frame and use APS-C instead. With such a conundrum I throw up my arms (and wince as the left still suffers from Speed Graphic elbow (SGE)) and figure I can decompress with MF ME MF film, or even AF AE FF film, or relax with a AF AE APS-C digital. but all the talk about FF and crop reminds me I have to go sit on a toilet....

07-15-2013, 04:50 PM	#27
robgo2 Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: New Mexico Photos: Albums Posts: 1,125	Originally posted by Aristophanes Those have almost zero bearing on whether Pentax will release FF DSLR. Camera bodies make such low margins and ROI that in order for Pentax to make FF they need to sell a huge array of new FF glass. Competing against legacy glass is a significant barrier to this and is likely one of the major reasons why the company hesitates to jump into this very high-end market. Getting consumers to buy new glass will make or break a Pentax FF effort. Excellent point, but Pentax could leverage a FF camera into the manufacture and sale of updated versions of the classic FA Limiteds (e.g. newer coatings, weather sealed, SDM) as well as several new FA Limiteds of different focal lengths. I think there would be significant interest in a contemporary series of these great lenses. Rob

07-17-2013, 01:28 AM	#28
Clavius Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2011 Location: De Klundert Photos: Gallery Posts: 4,150	Originally posted by Aristophanes Those have almost zero bearing on whether Pentax will release FF DSLR. Camera bodies make such low margins and ROI that in order for Pentax to make FF they need to sell a huge array of new FF glass. Competing against legacy glass is a significant barrier to this and is likely one of the major reasons why the company hesitates to jump into this very high-end market. Getting consumers to buy new glass will make or break a Pentax FF effort. That's why I think they cannot avoid implementing a new mount for the Pentax FF camera. Maybe that's why it's taking Pentax so long? New mount design? It would be a shock to the die-hard Pentax fanboy sitting on a giant mountain of "legacy-glass". But those are not making Pentax any profit now, and they wouldn't have made Pentax any profit with a K-mount FF DSLR either.

07-17-2013, 02:58 AM	#29
Ash Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Toowoomba, Queensland Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 23,920	Originally posted by Clavius That's why I think they cannot avoid implementing a new mount for the Pentax FF camera Why can't they produce DFA lenses and continue the tradition of producing the FA Limiteds, which are pricey and continue to sell well? - sounds more like a good business opportunity for Pentax with the current K-mount.

07-17-2013, 06:27 AM - 1 Like	#30
monochrome Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Working From Home Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 26,276	Originally posted by Clavius That's why I think they cannot avoid implementing a new mount for the Pentax FF camera. Maybe that's why it's taking Pentax so long? New mount design? Please, then, explain the voluntary, direct, unequivocal statement, "Pentax is committed to Q, K-mount and 645." Unless you believe a small camera company with 5% of the market in a good month can maintain 4 mounts. Following your technical logic, Occam's Razor suggests there will never be a FF Pentax (unless Q is about learning mirrorless and leaf-shutter lenses)..