[Votesh]

APS-C lenses work fine on FF, they merely don't cover FF the whole 24x36mm frame. I used my 16-50mm on my LX and the only wproblem was severe vignetting and inability to control aperture. On a body with built-in aperture control vignetting would be the only problem.
Nikon FF cameras have a crop mode for use with APS-C lenses. I think it's different for Canon, but they aren't sticklers for compatibility.

FF doesn't have to be big. Look at the M9. Also Pentax has mad a big DSLR. Have you seen the 645D?

Everything except for the sensor assembly for FF is already covered by Pentax's previous knowledge and experience. They even had a FF prototype.

Most FF cameras are sold to "prosumers". APS-C DSLRs will come down in price, and profitability. FF is the next frontier. When manufacturers can't sell an APS-C DSLR for above $1000 they will have to go somewhere.

Wait wait wait - what? APS-C lenses work fine on FF? Am I missing something?

They have never made a FF digital camera. Lens R&D is always pretty easy I would think (lots of old designs) but making their first FF DSLR won't be easy I should think. They have never even made a big DSLR!! It just isn't their style.

I still don't think FF will catch on like you think it will. FF will get cheap, APS-C will get cheaper! FF is not the only thing getting cheaper! FF will also. always be more bulky and generally complicated to use. It's only really used by pros and dedicated hobbyists. Since most of the emerging DSLR market is "prosumer" I don't see much demand for FF opposed to APS-C or EVIL.

[sushi warrior]

I think one thing a lot of people are missing is FF is like low-end DSLR's compared to P&S cameras. One has a bigger sensor, way more controls, and is harder to use while the other is cheap, small, and so easy a baby could use it. P&S cameras still exist and sell a LOT, don't they? FF will not "replace" APS-C. EVIL won't "replace" APS-C. They all have their place. APS-C will always be cheaper and generally smaller than FF. It will also have better IQ and viewfinder and all that over an EVIL. There are always advantages and disadvantages.

[Votesh]

All 3 segments will still exist. However, most of APS-Cs few "advantages" are artificial. Just because they are generally smaller than FF DSLRs doesn't mean they have to be. The M9 is tiny, but yet FF. It depends more on what a manufacturer decides to do with size and features. Aside from 4/3s, all current DSLR mounts are meant for 24X36 frame sizes(outside of MF DSLRs of course). To that end APS-C DSLRs are unnecessarily large because they use mounts developed for, and inteded to be used with, Larger sensors.

The fact that FFs are generally larger than APS-C DSLRs is one reason that Pentax could enter the FF market and thrive. They are focused on small DSLRs now, and could continue in that vein with a FF DSLR. It is something other manufacturs haven't focused on, but something many people interested in FF would no doubt see as a step in the right direction.

[Unsinkable II]

The fact that FFs are generally larger than APS-C DSLRs is one reason that Pentax could enter the FF market and thrive. They are focused on small DSLRs now, and could continue in that vein with a FF DSLR. It is something other manufacturs haven't focused on, but something many people interested in FF would no doubt see as a step in the right direction.

If Pentax went FF, I would totally agree that keeping it small would be the way to go. A D90-sized FF would create a lot of attention.

[Votesh]

Good to know
Hopefully something interestin will be announced at or befor Photokina, even if it's just a new lens, or lenses.

Isn't that called nothing else but an 1.4x or 1.5x tele converter


Yvon is talking about buying cameras in niches Pentax doesn't address, like machine guns. Now that he has to replace stolen equipment.

Pentax does have something exciting/new in the pipeline. How exciting it will be, or if it will be FF, I don't actually know/cannot say. I can't even say if it will be announced at PK. But I do know something is coming.

[falconeye]

To put a cropped sensor into an FF mount isn't the first time a compromise was made to cut cost down.

There have been earlier examples which evolved to de-facto standards nevertheless. Let's see how they survived after the technical reason for the compromise disappeared:

• 5 1/4" floppies rather than 3.5" floppy disks
• 3.5" floppy disks rather than flash memory
• CRT screens with their brilliant colors rather than flat dull screens
• 91 Octane gasoline rather than 95 Octane
• Terrestial analog TV

And the reason for the compromise will have disappeared soon: When FF systems (camera+lens) are cheaper to make and not necessarily bulkier.

So, to speak in simple words:

APS-C dSLRs will die out. Dead. Dead like can only be seen in a museum. You'll see analog film SLRs and FF dSLRs maybe decades after APSC died out and only really old people remember they ever existed. Dead enough for you?

[Unsinkable II]

APS-C dSLRs will die out. Dead. Dead like can only be seen in a museum. You'll see analog film SLRs and FF dSLRs maybe decades after APSC died out and only really old people remember they ever existed. Dead enough for you?

LOL!

But what about digital radio being more compressed than FM? LPs being truer than CDs etc.

I will defer to your far greater technical knowledge, though in my work in manufacturing electronics, I can see a future where processors invalidate optics.

[nosnoop]

APS-C lenses work fine on FF, they merely don't cover FF the whole 24x36mm frame.

Hmm..... I think we are playing with words here.
But for majority of users, it does not "work fine". :ugh:
You have to crop to avoid the severe vignetting; I would consider that a compromise and a "work around" rather than "working fine".

[TaoMaas]

Hmm..... I think we are playing with words here.
But for majority of users, it does not "work fine". :ugh:
You have to crop to avoid the severe vignetting; I would consider that a compromise and a "work around" rather than "working fine".

True. This is why I think the death of APS-C is greatly exaggerated. I just can't see Pentax leaving such a huge portion of their customers with only a work around way to use many of the lenses they've accumulated. How many of those folks, if they have to sell their APS-C lenses at a significant loss (since APS-C cameras will be a thing of the past), will then turn around and use the money to re-buy into the Pentax line?

[nosnoop]

APS-C dSLRs will die out. Dead. Dead like can only be seen in a museum. You'll see analog film SLRs and FF dSLRs maybe decades after APSC died out and only really old people remember they ever existed. Dead enough for you?

Sorry, but I disagree with you.
Unlike some of the examples you have given where standardization is required to ensure interoperability, sensor sizes do NOT need to be standardized. And for the majority of the consumer outside these forums, they do NOT care about sensor sizes!

Currently, many sensor sizes coexist for digital camera, even for DSLR - 4/3, Foveon 1.7x, Canon 1.6x, APS-C, APS-H and FF; and many more for P&S. As lenses and accessories between different manufacturers, or even between different systems within the same manufacturer, are not interchangeable and compatible, each particular system can cater for their own selected sensor size.

There is only one scenerio where your prediction has a chance to be true - that is the death of the whole DSLR segment (e.g. completely replaced by EVIL/mirrorless system). I don't think that would happen though. But if that's the case, then the only surviving DSLRs left would be FF + MF to fulfill the niche, just like the vinyl market right now (vs digital downloads + CDs).

[Votesh]

They would work fine. Exactly as well as they work on APS-C, but you could also use lenses with a FF image circle to their full potential. Increased versatility is always a good thing.

Hmm..... I think we are playing with words here.
But for majority of users, it does not "work fine". :ugh:
You have to crop to avoid the severe vignetting; I would consider that a compromise and a "work around" rather than "working fine".

[Votesh]

So people wouldn't use FF cameras that could produce the exact same images that their APS-C cameras could produce with their APS-C lenses, while also having the extra capability of producing images with FF lenses that could NEVER be produced with APS-C? That's silly logic. Nobody would "have" to sell their APS-C lenses. Those lenses could produce the same images they always did. The cameras could produce images APS-C cameras never could with any lenses.

True. This is why I think the death of APS-C is greatly exaggerated. I just can't see Pentax leaving such a huge portion of their customers with only a work around way to use many of the lenses they've accumulated. How many of those folks, if they have to sell their APS-C lenses at a significant loss (since APS-C cameras will be a thing of the past), will then turn around and use the money to re-buy into the Pentax line?

[nosnoop]

So people wouldn't use FF cameras that could produce the exact same images that their APS-C cameras could produce with their APS-C lenses, while also having the extra capability of producing images with FF lenses that could NEVER be produced with APS-C? That's silly logic. Nobody would "have" to sell their APS-C lenses. Those lenses could produce the same images they always did. The cameras could produce images APS-C cameras never could with any lenses.

Silly logic? Have you actually used APS-C lenses with FF cameras?
With D700, you are only limited to 5M pixels when using a DX lens. And "boxed" viewfinder image area of the same DX lens on D700 is much smaller than that with D300s - it is not pleasant to use at all.
And 5D II won't even take EF-S lenses!

[Aristophanes]

LOL!

But what about digital radio being more compressed than FM? LPs being truer than CDs etc.

I will defer to your far greater technical knowledge, though in my work in manufacturing electronics, I can see a future where processors invalidate optics.

How? By making more photons?

[Aristophanes]

So people wouldn't use FF cameras that could produce the exact same images that their APS-C cameras could produce with their APS-C lenses, while also having the extra capability of producing images with FF lenses that could NEVER be produced with APS-C? That's silly logic. Nobody would "have" to sell their APS-C lenses. Those lenses could produce the same images they always did. The cameras could produce images APS-C cameras never could with any lenses.

There would likely be a strong perception amongst APS-C lens buyers that they invested in an inferior system. That would strain brand loyalty and encourage switching. That's why I have come around to falconeye's thinking that if Pentax doesn't at least announce FF very soon, a whole lot of loyal, high-end buyers, will put their $$$ to other brands as a means of future proofing their investments.

The kicker is that Canon, Nikon, and Sony want high-margin products like the D3. They need a technical item to hang their hat on to differentiate price points, and they seem to have coalesced around FF with APS-H thrown into the mix. There is a sort of collusion or standoff because the first one to move FF towards commodity pricing and ubiquity will hurt everyone's profits, not to mention the loyalty issue spoken to above.

Back in the 1980's there were vicious price wars as 35mm cameras became a virtual commodity market. Canon was literally forced to diversify from the camera and optics markets to right its balance sheet. It actually became an OEM to other companies (like Apple printers) to try and gain revenue streams. Minolta and Konica and other smaller players were eventually marginalized well before digital came out; they had no capital left from the commodity price wars.

The first big name to go FF in the sub-US$1,500 price point sets off a tsunami. The K-7 at APS-C will be dropped entirely from retailers if that happens and Pentax does not have an FF replacement including a lens quiver. That's a big problem.

When? Not sure. There's consensus to milk APS-C until one player requires market share more than margins.