[goubejp]

I don't care anymore, I am switching to Canon 5DMkII or MkIII and some L lenses, at least I will be sure to have the kind of equipment I need for many years.

Really ? I was thinking you preferred Samyang 14 mm over Canon L serie lenses ? For me, when I have a look on photozone tests of the 24mm L, 35 mm L, 50 mm L, 85 mm L, 24-105 L, 24-70 L... I'm not impressed at all; anyway you are free to spend money the way you want...

---

Last edited by Marc Sabatella; 07-31-2010 at 11:15 PM.

[youky63]

Really ? I was thinking you preferred Samyang 14 mm over Canon L serie lenses ? For me, when I have a look on photozone tests of the 24mm L, 35 mm L, 50 mm L, 85 mm L, 24-105 L, 24-70 L... I'm not impressed at all; anyway you are free to spend money the way you want...

Right, that's why I plan to buy the 5DMkII or III with:
-EF 24-105/F4.0 L IS (convenient range, stabilized, nice opening for FF)
-EF70-200mm F4L IS USM (light weight but razor sharp!)
-EF135mm F2L USM (one of the best portraiture lens in the world! Exactely the same focal length and DOF than my Samyang 85mm on my K20D. Bokeh almost perfect)
-a few non L shorter fast primes (85mm, 50mm, 28mm F1.8, but not yet decided exactely)
-and the resolution monster Samyang 14mm F2.8! The perfect guy for high resolution landscape pictures.

[Kguru]

DA* lenses theoretically support APS-H, but I'm pretty sure that's just to increase the IQ on APS-C cameras.

Moving to APS-H instead of full-frame would be a pointless compromise, IMO.

Let's not see 1.3x as alternative to FF but as bonus extra to APS-C users

Say $200 extra for this bonus in the next body release, I'm sure it will stir up interests.

[Marc Sabatella]

There's nothing wrong with a little speculation, and since we don't have a dedicated "speculation" forum, the DSLR forum seems as appropriate place as any to speculate about DSLR's. The thread remains open, but I'm cleaning it up. If you're not interested in the discussion, don't take part. No need to insult those who do find the topic interesting.

---

Last edited by Marc Sabatella; 07-31-2010 at 11:16 PM.

[tram57]

DA* lenses theoretically support APS-H, but I'm pretty sure that's just to increase the IQ on APS-C cameras.

Moving to APS-H instead of full-frame would be a pointless compromise, IMO.

This thread presents a very relevant discussion even now, IMHO.

Wouldn't a new camera made from the senor wafer currently used for APS-C k5, upsized to APS-H and thus yeilding 24MP have resolution the same as the D600 FF, and high ISO noise performance the same or near that of the D600, allow for continued use of a small camera body (perhaps the ssame size as the k5), save costs so the camera would be only a bit more expensive than the d7100 (and much less than the D600), and allow continued use of the DA limited adn DA* lenses as well? This could be a very compelling solution.

[boriscleto]

This thread presents a very relevant discussion even now, IMHO.

Wouldn't a new camera made from the senor wafer currently used for APS-C k5, upsized to APS-H and thus yeilding 24MP have resolution the same as the D600 FF, and high ISO noise performance the same or near that of the D600, allow for continued use of a small camera body (perhaps the ssame size as the k5), save costs so the camera would be only a bit more expensive than the d7100 (and much less than the D600), and allow continued use of the DA limited adn DA* lenses as well? This could be a very compelling solution.

You and @RonHendriks1966 might be the only people in the world who feel this way

[RonHendriks1966]

You and @RonHendriks1966 might be the only people in the world who feel this way

Thanks, yes.

[twitch]

APS-H would be about the dumbest thing Pentax could ever do.

[Kerrowdown]

What if Pentax did not go FF but rather a 1.3x?

I don't even want to consider that, it's FF or bust for me.

[tram57]

Probably won't get FF with a small camera, or a cost most can afford. Why wouldn't folks want a 24MP camera with resolution equivalent to D600, maybe higher if no AA filter, plus high ISO noise performance same or near same as D600, and better than any other APS-C camera including d7100? Maintainence of a small size, these peformance features, and the ability to continue to use all the DA limited lenses and DA* lenses would justify a price slightly higher than d7100

[calculator01]

APS-H, that'd be exciting with the use of DA lenses. FF? No thanks.

[Cannikin]

Why wouldn't folks want a 24MP camera with resolution equivalent to D600, maybe higher if no AA filter, plus high ISO noise performance same or near same as D600, and better than any other APS-C camera including d7100?

Something I think all you APS-H supporters fail to realize is that 1.3x crop is much closer to APS-C than FF in performance. Even theoretically a 1.3x crop gives you about 2/5 of a stop improvement over APS-C, not even halfway to FF levels (which is ~6/5 stops improvement over APS-C).

Real world advantage would probably be even less. Just take a look at the 1D4 on DXO, less than 1/5 stop high ISO advantage over the K-5 (1320 vs 1162) with more or less contemporaneous sensors. The 1D4's APS-H sensor doesn't even beat the 5D Mark 1 in high ISO (1368), a sensor 4 years older than it, both made by Canon.

Sorry, but APS-H is nowhere near FF. The only reason APS-H existed at all in the first place was for cost-cutting measures.

[Ratmagiclady]

Probably won't get FF with a small camera, or a cost most can afford. Why wouldn't folks want a 24MP camera with resolution equivalent to D600, maybe higher if no AA filter, plus high ISO noise performance same or near same as D600, and better than any other APS-C camera including d7100? Maintainence of a small size, these peformance features, and the ability to continue to use all the DA limited lenses and DA* lenses would justify a price slightly higher than d7100

Cannikin's right that APS-H is kind of more of a bigger APS-C than a trimmed-down FF in some important ways. The size advantages might not be that significant, compared to what else can be done to make DSLRs more the size of film SLRs, ie, shrinking the electronics that make up so much bulk, etc. Think about volume of things rather than area. A full-frame ME Super film body can fit in a blazer pocket with a lovely viewfinder to boot.

More than that, it'll be full-frame first because that's what's going to *sell* compared to designing around APS-H. It's what people want, and if Pentax is gonna go with a whole new format, that'll likely be what it is.

Mind you, I'm someone who really doesn't mind APS-C in many respects, and mostly would want the full-frame viewfinder out of FF. If somewhere down the line it made sense for Pentax to put an APS-H sensor in the likes of a K-5 or K20D body, it might actually suit me quite well on a few counts, be a nice little boost in finder size over the APS-C for a prosumer range at some point, but it's not going to satisfy those who just need/want full frame. It'd have to make sense to do all that separate engineering, though. (If Pentax tries another K-mount mirrorless, that might actually be an interesting combo, though it might not help my better-finder desires: what it *would* do is make an interesting way to use smaller lenses like the Limiteds on a pretty small body.

[cbaytan]

Most DA lenses won't work on APS-H either, or should I say like, "bigger is better, case is closed, next!"

[tram57]

Something I think all you APS-H supporters fail to realize is that 1.3x crop is much closer to APS-C than FF in performance. Even theoretically a 1.3x crop gives you about 2/5 of a stop improvement over APS-C, not even halfway to FF levels (which is ~6/5 stops improvement over APS-C).

Real world advantage would probably be even less. Just take a look at the 1D4 on DXO, less than 1/5 stop high ISO advantage over the K-5 (1320 vs 1162) with more or less contemporaneous sensors. The 1D4's APS-H sensor doesn't even beat the 5D Mark 1 in high ISO (1368), a sensor 4 years older than it, both made by Canon.

Sorry, but APS-H is nowhere near FF. The only reason APS-H existed at all in the first place was for cost-cutting measures.

DxoMark has already demonstrated that the new 24MP APS-C sensor in the D7100 is not as good as the 16MP sensor in the k5 when it comes to dynamic range and noise. One could preserve these performance characteristics of the k5 and go up to 24MP for resolution by expanding to APS-H using the k5 sensor waffer. would be a pretty good result, I'd think.