Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
07-08-2010, 12:16 PM   #151
Pentaxian
TaoMaas's Avatar

Join Date: May 2007
Location: Oklahoma City
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,197
QuoteOriginally posted by Aristophanes Quote
Why then, would one knowingly use an inferior size?
Maybe for the same reasons people used 35mm for years when medium format was available...the resolution was sufficient for all their needs, it was cheaper, smaller, etc...

07-08-2010, 01:16 PM   #152
Pentaxian




Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Eureka, CA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,980
QuoteOriginally posted by Aristophanes Quote
It's not a must. It will simply be as cheap to produce and implement as APS-C.

Why then, would one knowingly use an inferior size?

I doubt that FF will ever be quite as cheap to produce as APS-C. (And if so, why wouldn't MF be as cheap to produce as FF?) Nor does the whole equation reduce itself to the issue of superior size versue inferior size. There are tradeoffs between FF and APS-C; it is simply not the case that FF is absolutely superior, even if costs are ignored. The 1.5 crop factor, for instance, can be quite useful in reducing costs to those needing longer focal lengths. On an APS-C sensor, a 300 f4 lens has the FOV of a 460mm lens. To get something comparable on FF, you'd have to a get a 500mm f4 lens. Such lenses are 4 to 5 times more expensive. That's a rather important advantage for the hobbyist who merely wishes to photograph the miscellaneous critter.

Not only do FF lenses tend to be more expensive (sometimes greatly more expensive) than their APS-C equivalents, they tend to be bigger and heavier.

The majority of DSLR consumers are hobbyists. Many of them cannot afford to spend a lot of money on a camera system. For them, an FF system does not make financial sense. The "sweet spot" for them is what they can afford. And that means APS-C. In the final analysis, it is economics that is going to decide this issue, not the technical superiority of FF.

Also: this whole notion of using APS-C lenses on FF bodies is a non-starter. If camera companies suddenly abandoned APS-C, many people who have invested in APS-C lenses would deeply resent it. Nor would the ability to use such lenses on FF bodies provide much in the way of consolation.

There's no reason why an advance, industrial global economy cannot support both APS-C and FF. Why should one triumph over and obliterate the other when both fulfill the needs of different camera enthusiasts?
07-08-2010, 01:47 PM   #153
Pentaxian
Pål Jensen's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Norway
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,149
QuoteOriginally posted by TaoMaas Quote
You're a blind man who has hold of an elephant's tail and thinks it's a rope. When most camera manufacturers decided to keep their existing lens mount upon entering the digital age, it wasn't because they had FF sensors in mind...they were trying to hold onto their existing customers! You're reading WAY too much in this lens mount deal.
But the k-mount is an FF mount. FF is a open possibility for Pentax. A market segment to exploit. There can be no doubt that Pentax will make an FF camera when they feel it is finacially viable...
07-08-2010, 01:52 PM   #154
Pentaxian
Pål Jensen's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Norway
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,149
QuoteOriginally posted by Votesh Quote
While there are some people with large investments in APS-C glass and no desire to go to FF, there are also plenty of people that would go to FF at the right price. .
I think we will see FF lenses that makes sense on an APS camera as well; ie like the new Tokina 16-50/2.8, of which I am certain we will see in Pentax clothes as well. I do not think Tokina could pull off such a lens by themselves....

07-08-2010, 03:32 PM   #155
Pentaxian
TaoMaas's Avatar

Join Date: May 2007
Location: Oklahoma City
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,197
QuoteOriginally posted by Pål Jensen Quote
But the k-mount is an FF mount. FF is a open possibility for Pentax. A market segment to exploit. There can be no doubt that Pentax will make an FF camera when they feel it is finacially viable...
Right...the k-mount is a FF mount. But I think it's vastly more likely that Pentax kept the k-mount in order to maintain their backwards compatibility, which is one of Pentax's big selling points. To believe that Pentax stayed with the k-mount because they've always intended to build a FF DSLR is taking a bit of evidence and drawing the wrong conclusion from it.
07-08-2010, 03:44 PM   #156
Site Supporter
Aristophanes's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Dartmouth, Nova Scotia
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,922
QuoteOriginally posted by northcoastgreg Quote
I doubt that FF will ever be quite as cheap to produce as APS-C.
Right now it's about $60 more per chip, and rapidly declining in difference. When it's $6, and it will be, APS-C is dead.

FF lenses are only more expensive now because they are the top-end lenses, same as the DA*. There is marginally more materials; same principle as the sensor.

The first brand that puts an FF camera at an APS-C price point has a cost equivalency and a major quality advantage. They win if others don't "get it".

As for telecentricity, this can be accomplished with cropping.

You are correct about the antipathy of those who "bought into" the APS-C format whole hog. They'll get burned. Many will use that as an opportunity to switch systems. but this applies to Canikon as well. Ask yourself how an Olympus 4/3 system user feels right now as Oly is now almost 100% going forward with M4/3 exclusively.
07-08-2010, 03:57 PM   #157
Senior Member
Eigengrau's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Colorado
Photos: Albums
Posts: 250
QuoteOriginally posted by northcoastgreg Quote
I doubt that FF will ever be quite as cheap to produce as APS-C. (And if so, why wouldn't MF be as cheap to produce as FF?) Nor does the whole equation reduce itself to the issue of superior size versue inferior size. There are tradeoffs between FF and APS-C; it is simply not the case that FF is absolutely superior, even if costs are ignored.
MF is not as cheap as FF because of the body, lenses, mounts, and target markets. None of these differences apply between APS-C and FF. The body size can be identical, the lenses are identical, the mounts are identical, and anybody that would be happy with APS-C could in theory be served equally as well with a FF sensor (just by cropping to emulate APS-C). There is no drawback.

I think this situation is much like the market for hard drives, or other memory. After a certain point, the sensor becomes such a small part of the cost, that it doesn't make sense to skimp there any more. Try to find a 20GB hard drive available new, and you'll find that you can't get one for any price. This is because the rest of the parts become so much more expensive in relation that it doesn't make sense to put a cheap platter in an enclosure that has fixed costs of $30 or so. So, we don't see hard drives coming out below the $50 point, instead we see more and more capacity available at that same price.

Same deal here. The camera isn't going to get much cheaper, so we're not going to see $100 APS-C DSLRs. Instead, we're going to see them selling the same $500 camera, but stuffing more resolution and sensor size into that same box.
07-08-2010, 05:13 PM   #158
Pentaxian
Pål Jensen's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Norway
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,149
QuoteOriginally posted by TaoMaas Quote
Right...the k-mount is a FF mount. But I think it's vastly more likely that Pentax kept the k-mount in order to maintain their backwards compatibility, which is one of Pentax's big selling points. To believe that Pentax stayed with the k-mount because they've always intended to build a FF DSLR is taking a bit of evidence and drawing the wrong conclusion from it.
Not at all. Pentax first DSLR was FF and it was shelved quite letterally at the last moment. FF have almost certainly figured in Pentax plans since day one; just like the 645D. And like the 645D it is just a question of timing.

07-08-2010, 06:06 PM   #159
Veteran Member




Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Indiana
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 818
The 1.5x crop advantage is an artificial "advantage". As I have said several times in this thread, a FF sensor with the same pixel density as an APS-C sensor will provide images that could be cropped to APS-C sized images and provide the same resolution as an image taken with an APS-C camera in the first place. They would also take images with the maximum FOV allowed by a lens, which an APS-C camera could never do. So it's win win for FF in that regard.

Nobody is suggesting that camera companies will suddenly abandon APS-C. If anything it will be a slow pull out from that segment.

QuoteOriginally posted by northcoastgreg Quote
I doubt that FF will ever be quite as cheap to produce as APS-C. (And if so, why wouldn't MF be as cheap to produce as FF?) Nor does the whole equation reduce itself to the issue of superior size versue inferior size. There are tradeoffs between FF and APS-C; it is simply not the case that FF is absolutely superior, even if costs are ignored. The 1.5 crop factor, for instance, can be quite useful in reducing costs to those needing longer focal lengths. On an APS-C sensor, a 300 f4 lens has the FOV of a 460mm lens. To get something comparable on FF, you'd have to a get a 500mm f4 lens. Such lenses are 4 to 5 times more expensive. That's a rather important advantage for the hobbyist who merely wishes to photograph the miscellaneous critter.

Not only do FF lenses tend to be more expensive (sometimes greatly more expensive) than their APS-C equivalents, they tend to be bigger and heavier.

The majority of DSLR consumers are hobbyists. Many of them cannot afford to spend a lot of money on a camera system. For them, an FF system does not make financial sense. The "sweet spot" for them is what they can afford. And that means APS-C. In the final analysis, it is economics that is going to decide this issue, not the technical superiority of FF.

Also: this whole notion of using APS-C lenses on FF bodies is a non-starter. If camera companies suddenly abandoned APS-C, many people who have invested in APS-C lenses would deeply resent it. Nor would the ability to use such lenses on FF bodies provide much in the way of consolation.

There's no reason why an advance, industrial global economy cannot support both APS-C and FF. Why should one triumph over and obliterate the other when both fulfill the needs of different camera enthusiasts?
07-09-2010, 02:42 AM   #160
Veteran Member
falconeye's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Munich, Alps, Germany
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,863
QuoteOriginally posted by GeneV Quote
The superb FA24/2 will become even more valuable.

I mentioned the DA15 mostly because it is one of the least useful on full frame. The effect I've observed on film is rather interesting, though.
You are right but I fear you didn't get my point.


The *istD to K-x plus DA15 (APS-C) all stay an interesting walk around camera because e.g., it is much smaller/lightweight than a camera with the FA*24/2. Which is why I mentioned the A24/2.8 in particular and ignored the FA*24/2. It's not that FF is larger per se. It is that the DA15 is a sweet little lens even if you have to crop the image to 65%.
07-09-2010, 03:04 AM   #161
Veteran Member
falconeye's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Munich, Alps, Germany
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,863
QuoteOriginally posted by TaoMaas Quote
Maybe for the same reasons people used 35mm for years when medium format was available...the resolution was sufficient for all their needs, it was cheaper, smaller, etc...
While I don't totally disagree, this argument must be used with caution.

The main cost factor which kept people from using larger media was cost of film and processing. Cost per shot was something like $3 instead of $0.50 for 35mm (if the internet does not lie ). But I am sure, the difference in cost was significant.

It is the removal of this difference which makes large sensors an intersting proposition for the future. Especially when large sensors are combined with a short registration distance in one single cheap package, like medium format EVIL for sub $1000, a thing rather easy to predict
QuoteOriginally posted by northcoastgreg Quote
Not only do FF lenses tend to be more expensive (sometimes greatly more expensive) than their APS-C equivalents, they tend to be bigger and heavier.
You need to read about the concept of the "equivalent lens". Here in the forum or on Luminous Landscape.

Equivalent lenses are cheaper with a larger sensor. That's the entire point of my argument which you are missing.

Just to get your mind started: A 70-200/4 equivalent for FourThird is $2000 which is 3x the price for 35mm. Same optical quality (with a Canon L lens).
07-09-2010, 03:54 AM   #162
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 16,253
The only benefit if APS C (if it is a benefit) is the cropping ability. I don't know any full frame camera that allows the level of cropping that even a 15 megapixel APS C camera does. That being said, eventually full frame will probably be the camera of choice of SLR users, while EVIL will take the place of point and shoots.
07-09-2010, 04:35 AM   #163
Pentaxian
TaoMaas's Avatar

Join Date: May 2007
Location: Oklahoma City
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,197
QuoteOriginally posted by falconeye Quote
The main cost factor which kept people from using larger media was cost of film and processing. Cost per shot was something like $3 instead of $0.50 for 35mm (if the internet does not lie ). But I am sure, the difference in cost was significant.
The film cost difference wasn't anywhere near that great. If I remember right, my 6X7's cost about 3X what I was paying for 35mm. Significant, but not a deal-breaker for what you got. It was the cost of the gear, and the size of it, that steered most folks away. Unless you shot Pentax (and there were a number of trade-offs that came with doing so), lenses for medium format were terribly expensive for the time...and even the Pentax lenses weren't cheap. f4 was about all you could hope for as far as speed goes. FF may indeed be coming for Pentax, but I just question how quickly that will happen. When the first FF camera is offered for sale in the APS-C range, what trade-offs will have been made to get to that price point? Is a plastic FF camera a better buy than a water-resistant, improved version of the K7, for example? Eh...for me, it's not. Eigengrau made the best argument so far, IMHO, when he compared things to hard drives. If all the hardware costs are the same, why not include more memory (or more resolution, in the case of cameras)? The problem with that is that the hardware costs are not going to be the same. The mirror box needs to be bigger...the prisms need to be bigger...so there's going to be some re-tooling costs. That's a huge cost that I suspect Pentax will put off dealing with until they're sure FF is here to stay. As usual, that will put them behind the game, but that, too, is consistent with Pentax history.
07-09-2010, 05:43 AM   #164
Site Supporter
GeneV's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Albuquerque NM
Photos: Albums
Posts: 9,775
QuoteOriginally posted by falconeye Quote
You are right but I fear you didn't get my point.


The *istD to K-x plus DA15 (APS-C) all stay an interesting walk around camera because e.g., it is much smaller/lightweight than a camera with the FA*24/2. Which is why I mentioned the A24/2.8 in particular and ignored the FA*24/2. It's not that FF is larger per se. It is that the DA15 is a sweet little lens even if you have to crop the image to 65%.
True, for those who never buy FF, but perhaps you did not get my point, which is actually more along the lines of your orginal theme. Unless the FF camera is huge, the size factor goes toward making the DA15 an orphan.

With FF digital, the DA21 becomes a sweeter little lens in the same way. It is smaller, lighter, a tad faster and with corners cropped, it can give a similar FOV on the same number of pixels on FF as the DA15 on APS-C. If I had a FF camera and leftover DA lenses, I don't know why I would to pack a second cropped body and a larger, slowish lens such as the DA15 just for a walk-around when I can get the same FOV on the same number of pixels by cropping the tiny 21mm (or using my equally tiny M20, but that is another story).

Or was there an ironic point or something else that I missed?
07-09-2010, 06:00 AM   #165
Site Supporter
GeneV's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Albuquerque NM
Photos: Albums
Posts: 9,775
QuoteOriginally posted by TaoMaas Quote
The problem with that is that the hardware costs are not going to be the same. The mirror box needs to be bigger...the prisms need to be bigger...so there's going to be some re-tooling costs. That's a huge cost that I suspect Pentax will put off dealing with until they're sure FF is here to stay. As usual, that will put them behind the game, but that, too, is consistent with Pentax history.
I wonder about that. My film bodies are as small or smaller than most of my DSLRs, including my autofocus FSLR with built-in flash. Engineers have all the area taken up by the two film reels for batteries and electronics, and I don't see why they can't get the bodies to the same size for full frame as film, but then I'm not an engineer.

It has always seemed to me that engineers worked from the FF size body and built APS-c into it, rather than designing a body around the smaller sensor from scratch. I suspect this results in large part from using the K-mount lens, which then determines the diameter of the mount and the depth of the box.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
body, camera, dslr, ff, glass, pentax, photography, release
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Tamron no longer releasing new lenses for Pentax? Mike.P® Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 3 03-12-2010 09:06 AM
Nikon releasing 24mm 1.4 RonMexico Non-Pentax Cameras: Canon, Nikon, etc. 0 02-09-2010 07:56 PM
Sigma releasing 24-70mm F2.8 for Pentax? yakiniku Pentax News and Rumors 9 04-14-2009 10:17 AM
Planning to buy an old Pentax dbmayur Pentax Film SLR Discussion 18 04-11-2009 11:20 AM
Official: New DSLR Body is Coming; Full Frame Model is Under Planning! RiceHigh Pentax News and Rumors 78 08-04-2008 06:18 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:40 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top