Originally posted by falconeye Will, I know this is surprising when one first encounters the idea.
Well, it's still surprising, even after I've read your explanation. ;-)
Quote: Consider pairs of equivalent FF lenses (lenses yielding identical image quality), like a 50-135/2.8 and 70-200/4. Both lenses are roughly same size, weight and price. Roughly. But the 70-200/4 has a slightly relaxed lp/mm requirement (for obvious reasons) and it max. aperture is f/4 which is easier to handle when assuring tack-sharp images wide open. In the end, the 70-200/4 turns out cheaper. You may check the market and see for yourself.
Hmmm. I can't find the 70-200 f/4 to compare, not on Amazon, not at B&H. This is an old manual focus lens perhaps?
And are there lots of FF lenses available at a savings in this way? Remember, if a Pentax 36x24 body is released, and if it sells for a street price of around $2000 (US), you are going to have to save a LOT of money buying those alternative lenses, to make up the $1000+ difference in price between the new FF and the existing K-7.
But okay, I kind of see how you're figuring this. But even if your math is right, I'm not persuaded that, in the end, the idea that "FF is cheaper!" is going to persuade a lot of buyers.
Quote: Some get confused because they compare a 50-135/2.8 with a 70-200/2.8. But this is the wrong comparison. The latter yields superior images and therefore, should be more expensive irrespective of sensor size.
Yeah, okay, although, for me anyway, buying FF and then getting budget conscious on the lenses would be kind of strange. I wouldn't buy FF in order to take photos that were AS GOOD as the ones I'm taking already. The WHOLE POINT of going 36x24 would be to sqeeze even better images out of those really good lenses, sharper, less noisy images at higher ISO, and shallower depth of field at f/2.8. or f/3.2.
Well, I am willing to bet a plate of ribs that Pentax is NOT released a 36x24 camera this year, so it's a moot point.
Will