If Pentax were planning on releasing a FF body, what would be the point in secrecy?

TaoMaas · 07-09-2010, 07:47 AM

Originally posted by GeneV

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.

I'm not saying that smaller FF cameras can't be developed. I'm just saying that there's a lot more to it than simply slapping a FF sensor into the existing bodies.

Votesh · 07-09-2010, 08:16 AM

Originally posted by TaoMaas

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.

It's obvious that FF is here to stay, and I'm sure Pentax knows that. As for the extra price of FF mirror boxes and prisms, every SLR maker offered affordable film cameras with them, so it is obviously possible to offer affordable FF DSLRs with them.

The retooling costs would be large but would probably be comparable to the cost of retooling for any new model. It would likely be slightly higher for the mirror box and prism but not significantly higher.

GeneV · 07-09-2010, 08:28 AM

Originally posted by TaoMaas

I'm not saying that smaller FF cameras can't be developed. I'm just saying that there's a lot more to it than simply slapping a FF sensor into the existing bodies.

I agree there is more to it. However, ironically, from the outside, a few years ago, it looked a bit like the early APS-c cameras just slapped a cropped digital sensor into a body originally designed for full frame, but, again, that is probably mostly the result of using a common lens mount. Not that such a camera would have been successful, but I would expect that an APS-c camera with interchangeable lenes could have been designed in a much smaller form factor if it did not have to accept legacy FF lenses.

The newer Canon FF cameras are only a little bit bigger than the K10d/K20d, so I think the engineers will get there.

**Aristophanes** · 07-09-2010, 08:46 AM

Originally posted by TaoMaas

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.

Partly.

The big advantage MF has over FF is in printing, not developing. The cost advantage there lay with FF.

99% of FF SLR photos were printed 4x6, maybe some blow-ups, but rarely. MF's advantage was at the print stage, and that was easily a multiple factor more expensive. If you were going 5x7 or higher, there was a reality check at the cashier. For that much $$$ on bigger format printing, MF made sense.

And it still rings true today, that only in printing can one really see the difference between sensor sizes.

TaoMaas · 07-09-2010, 08:47 AM

Originally posted by GeneV

The newer Canon FF cameras are only a little bit bigger than the K10d/K20d, so I think the engineers will get there.

That's not sayin' a lot. Most folks who pick up my K10d say, "Holy cow!" because it seems so heavy to them.

**Aristophanes** · 07-09-2010, 08:49 AM

Originally posted by GeneV

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.

Unless EVIL stays APS-C for price point reasons. That will extend the life of the DA line, even if an adapter is need along with a micro-k-mount.

While I see DSLR's moving to FF, I see EVIL struggling with price points for quite some time, and requiring smaller sensors to make margins.

We may also see ultra-cheap DSLR's using APS-C for quite some time.

**Aristophanes** · 07-09-2010, 08:52 AM

Originally posted by TaoMaas

I'm not saying that smaller FF cameras can't be developed. I'm just saying that there's a lot more to it than simply slapping a FF sensor into the existing bodies.

You'd need a larger VF. There's power issues, too, especially with video in the mix.

**Aristophanes** · 07-09-2010, 08:53 AM

Originally posted by TaoMaas

That's not sayin' a lot. Most folks who pick up my K10d say, "Holy cow!" because it seems so heavy to them.

The Sony NEX is APS-C. So getting smaller is possible once the mirror box goes bye-bye.

GeneV · 07-09-2010, 08:56 AM

Originally posted by Aristophanes

Unless EVIL stays APS-C for price point reasons. That will extend the life of the DA line, even if an adapter is need along with a micro-k-mount.

While I see DSLR's moving to FF, I see EVIL struggling with price points for quite some time, and requiring smaller sensors to make margins.

We may also see ultra-cheap DSLR's using APS-C for quite some time.

Interesting observations. I think that EVIL might be a place for APS-c, as it greatly improves the low light capabilities over the tiny sensors in most P&S cameras.

The only problem I would see is that DSLR lenses would negate enough of the size advantage of EVIL that it would hardly be worth it. It would be a bit like putting a MF lens on 35mm. You can do it and get good results, but few do.

GeneV · 07-09-2010, 09:05 AM

Originally posted by Aristophanes

You'd need a larger VF. There's power issues, too, especially with video in the mix.

Perhaps video should be omitted for a while. A 24x36mm video sensor is a bit of overkill, and anyone looking for that kind of quality would want three sensors.

Votesh · 07-09-2010, 10:14 AM

The 5D MkII shoots video and does it well.

falconeye · 07-09-2010, 11:12 AM

Originally posted by GeneV

video [...] anyone looking for that kind of quality would want three sensors.

Not true. Subsampling is limiting quality in video mode. A video feed downsampled from a full single Bayer sensor feed would deliver a quality which hasn't been seen yet, whatever be the price of the equipment.

GeneV · 07-09-2010, 02:58 PM

Originally posted by falconeye

Not true. Subsampling is limiting quality in video mode. A video feed downsampled from a full single Bayer sensor feed would deliver a quality which hasn't been seen yet, whatever be the price of the equipment.

Does subsampling result in the need for multiple sensors for color fidelity?

It seems that an SLR would not be the ideal ergonomic platform for utilizing newly developed video quality so high it has never been seen, nor would such a DSLR be something for which many people would want to pay the development costs, but who knows. In any case, my point was that developing and powering video should not hold up producing a more compact FF digital. The fact that Canon is doing it as pointed out by Votesh seems to indicate it will not.

falconeye · 07-09-2010, 03:26 PM

Originally posted by GeneV

Does subsampling result in the need for multiple sensors for color fidelity?

No, it just leads to aliasing artifacts, color moiré, flicker and noise. Multiple sensors would cure some but not all of these problems and AFAIK, multiple sensors aren't exactly feasible for large high resolution sensors.

I agree that the SLR form factor isn't ideal for video. I think the road Sony is following for their E-mount (one mount, one sensor, one lens, but separate bodies optimized for still and moving photos, resp.) are the way to go. Over time and with lessons learned, both could merge into a single hybrid body.

**Aristophanes** · 07-09-2010, 08:13 PM

Originally posted by falconeye

No, it just leads to aliasing artifacts, color moiré, flicker and noise. Multiple sensors would cure some but not all of these problems and AFAIK, multiple sensors aren't exactly feasible for large high resolution sensors.

Panasonic is making a move from their 3CCD video sensor array which has always been very good, towards a single sensor M4/3.

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	Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands	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	Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras	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

07-09-2010, 07:47 AM	#166
TaoMaas Pentaxian Join Date: May 2007 Location: Oklahoma City Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,574	Originally posted by GeneV 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. I'm not saying that smaller FF cameras can't be developed. I'm just saying that there's a lot more to it than simply slapping a FF sensor into the existing bodies.

07-09-2010, 08:16 AM	#167
Votesh Inactive Account Join Date: Apr 2008 Photos: Gallery Posts: 817	Originally posted by TaoMaas 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. It's obvious that FF is here to stay, and I'm sure Pentax knows that. As for the extra price of FF mirror boxes and prisms, every SLR maker offered affordable film cameras with them, so it is obviously possible to offer affordable FF DSLRs with them. The retooling costs would be large but would probably be comparable to the cost of retooling for any new model. It would likely be slightly higher for the mirror box and prism but not significantly higher.

07-09-2010, 08:28 AM	#168
GeneV Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Albuquerque NM Photos: Albums Posts: 9,830	Originally posted by TaoMaas I'm not saying that smaller FF cameras can't be developed. I'm just saying that there's a lot more to it than simply slapping a FF sensor into the existing bodies. I agree there is more to it. However, ironically, from the outside, a few years ago, it looked a bit like the early APS-c cameras just slapped a cropped digital sensor into a body originally designed for full frame, but, again, that is probably mostly the result of using a common lens mount. Not that such a camera would have been successful, but I would expect that an APS-c camera with interchangeable lenes could have been designed in a much smaller form factor if it did not have to accept legacy FF lenses. The newer Canon FF cameras are only a little bit bigger than the K10d/K20d, so I think the engineers will get there.

07-09-2010, 08:46 AM	#169
Aristophanes Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Rankin Inlet, Nunavut Photos: Albums Posts: 3,948	Originally posted by TaoMaas 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. Partly. The big advantage MF has over FF is in printing, not developing. The cost advantage there lay with FF. 99% of FF SLR photos were printed 4x6, maybe some blow-ups, but rarely. MF's advantage was at the print stage, and that was easily a multiple factor more expensive. If you were going 5x7 or higher, there was a reality check at the cashier. For that much $$$ on bigger format printing, MF made sense. And it still rings true today, that only in printing can one really see the difference between sensor sizes.

07-09-2010, 08:47 AM	#170
TaoMaas Pentaxian Join Date: May 2007 Location: Oklahoma City Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,574	Originally posted by GeneV The newer Canon FF cameras are only a little bit bigger than the K10d/K20d, so I think the engineers will get there. That's not sayin' a lot. Most folks who pick up my K10d say, "Holy cow!" because it seems so heavy to them.

07-09-2010, 08:49 AM	#171
Aristophanes Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Rankin Inlet, Nunavut Photos: Albums Posts: 3,948	Originally posted by GeneV 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. Unless EVIL stays APS-C for price point reasons. That will extend the life of the DA line, even if an adapter is need along with a micro-k-mount. While I see DSLR's moving to FF, I see EVIL struggling with price points for quite some time, and requiring smaller sensors to make margins. We may also see ultra-cheap DSLR's using APS-C for quite some time.

07-09-2010, 08:52 AM	#172
Aristophanes Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Rankin Inlet, Nunavut Photos: Albums Posts: 3,948	Originally posted by TaoMaas I'm not saying that smaller FF cameras can't be developed. I'm just saying that there's a lot more to it than simply slapping a FF sensor into the existing bodies. You'd need a larger VF. There's power issues, too, especially with video in the mix.

07-09-2010, 08:53 AM	#173
Aristophanes Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Rankin Inlet, Nunavut Photos: Albums Posts: 3,948	Originally posted by TaoMaas That's not sayin' a lot. Most folks who pick up my K10d say, "Holy cow!" because it seems so heavy to them. The Sony NEX is APS-C. So getting smaller is possible once the mirror box goes bye-bye.

07-09-2010, 08:56 AM	#174
GeneV Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Albuquerque NM Photos: Albums Posts: 9,830	Originally posted by Aristophanes Unless EVIL stays APS-C for price point reasons. That will extend the life of the DA line, even if an adapter is need along with a micro-k-mount. While I see DSLR's moving to FF, I see EVIL struggling with price points for quite some time, and requiring smaller sensors to make margins. We may also see ultra-cheap DSLR's using APS-C for quite some time. Interesting observations. I think that EVIL might be a place for APS-c, as it greatly improves the low light capabilities over the tiny sensors in most P&S cameras. The only problem I would see is that DSLR lenses would negate enough of the size advantage of EVIL that it would hardly be worth it. It would be a bit like putting a MF lens on 35mm. You can do it and get good results, but few do.

07-09-2010, 09:05 AM	#175
GeneV Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Albuquerque NM Photos: Albums Posts: 9,830	Originally posted by Aristophanes You'd need a larger VF. There's power issues, too, especially with video in the mix. Perhaps video should be omitted for a while. A 24x36mm video sensor is a bit of overkill, and anyone looking for that kind of quality would want three sensors.

07-09-2010, 10:14 AM	#176
Votesh Inactive Account Join Date: Apr 2008 Photos: Gallery Posts: 817	The 5D MkII shoots video and does it well.

07-09-2010, 11:12 AM	#177
falconeye Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Munich, Alps, Germany Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,871	Originally posted by GeneV video [...] anyone looking for that kind of quality would want three sensors. Not true. Subsampling is limiting quality in video mode. A video feed downsampled from a full single Bayer sensor feed would deliver a quality which hasn't been seen yet, whatever be the price of the equipment.

07-09-2010, 02:58 PM	#178
GeneV Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Albuquerque NM Photos: Albums Posts: 9,830	Originally posted by falconeye Not true. Subsampling is limiting quality in video mode. A video feed downsampled from a full single Bayer sensor feed would deliver a quality which hasn't been seen yet, whatever be the price of the equipment. Does subsampling result in the need for multiple sensors for color fidelity? It seems that an SLR would not be the ideal ergonomic platform for utilizing newly developed video quality so high it has never been seen, nor would such a DSLR be something for which many people would want to pay the development costs, but who knows. In any case, my point was that developing and powering video should not hold up producing a more compact FF digital. The fact that Canon is doing it as pointed out by Votesh seems to indicate it will not.

07-09-2010, 03:26 PM	#179
falconeye Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Munich, Alps, Germany Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,871	Originally posted by GeneV Does subsampling result in the need for multiple sensors for color fidelity? No, it just leads to aliasing artifacts, color moiré, flicker and noise. Multiple sensors would cure some but not all of these problems and AFAIK, multiple sensors aren't exactly feasible for large high resolution sensors. I agree that the SLR form factor isn't ideal for video. I think the road Sony is following for their E-mount (one mount, one sensor, one lens, but separate bodies optimized for still and moving photos, resp.) are the way to go. Over time and with lessons learned, both could merge into a single hybrid body.

07-09-2010, 08:13 PM	#180
Aristophanes Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Rankin Inlet, Nunavut Photos: Albums Posts: 3,948	Originally posted by falconeye No, it just leads to aliasing artifacts, color moiré, flicker and noise. Multiple sensors would cure some but not all of these problems and AFAIK, multiple sensors aren't exactly feasible for large high resolution sensors. Panasonic is making a move from their 3CCD video sensor array which has always been very good, towards a single sensor M4/3.