[philmorley]

hi,

bigger viewfinder, less noise and the wider the lens the more distortion etc ie a 24mm lens has lens distortion etc etc than a 16mm x 1.5 crop.

Personally I love the bigma being up to 750mm but also like to go wider (looking to buy 10-20 or 12-24 soon) so the perfect crop to me would be 1.3-1.33 (so I can sit on the fence and have extra length, bit wider, bit bigger viewfinder and a bit less noise

[and]

APS-H seems to be a nice size right now for a comprimise between cost and bigger sensor characteristics. The problem is the DA lenses. If pentax had continued with FF lenses, only releasing wide angle DA lenses, then they would be free to choose whatever sensor they wanted, APS-H, FF, 1.1x, 1.4x, whatever, and they would not have to change their lens lineup if they did. But now they are buried in APS-C, still struggeling to build up a DA lens lineup, I assume it will take at least another year before they have completed the DA lineup with the longer primes and the 50-250 etc. But I dont think this is a lineup built for the future. Sony still hasnt announced a bigger sensor camera, but they have lots of FF lenses and they are ready as soon as the body is ready. Same for Nikon they were ready for this body all along.

This is why I am concerned. If all except the < 20mm lenses were FF then there would be nothing to worry about, Pentax could go on like now and then in 2 years they could release an FF camera, by then I predict they would have to in order to stay in business.

[carpents]

Full-frame sensors aren't a 'Holy Grail'. APS-C sensors are a comprimise born out of the early days of digital SLRs.

My question is - why are you happy sticking with a comprimise whose utility is dated?

Edited with more opinion:
Oly chose the 4/3 sensor for other reasons - one of which is everything can be smaller. But they also did some neat things with it, like realizing that they can now make a hand-holdable 150mm f/2 (f/2!!) lens because the image circle is smaller. This is one of my frustration points with Pentax - the new DA* zooms are essentially intended to replace the old lens ranges. There is nothing new or novel about them, and if it weren't for the SSM and weather sealing the new DA* lenses would offer very little at all.

Hopefully the new Nikon announcement will be replicated by Pentax. This would be good news and a great change of course.

[Chako]

Well. Here is a perfect example of perceptions.

The vast majority of people who frequent and participate on any online forum are advanced amateurs and professional photographers. Nobody can deny this. We do get the few beginners, but they tend to ask a question that is stumping them and that is about it for the majority.

Because of this market segment, if you were to look at any other photography board, you will get a lot of people lusting after full frame sensors. Some of these people think nothing of spending 3+ grand on a camera to get it. In fact, the sales of 5D were a lot worse then Canon expected. This is simply because the population of Prosumer/Pro is relatively small compared to the consumer.

Anyhow, I digress. My point is that we tend to get a skewed view on any photography forum, which twists our perception somewhat.

The APS-C is a wonderful format. People who like longer reach such as wildlife photographers and sports enthusiast like the cropping. It is much like a free bonus. I would also hazard a guess, that digital noise isn't much of an issue either. You can ramp up to ISO 800+ with newer cameras with not much ill effect. If you don't like the noise, you can easily wipe it out using a little PP.

No. The only people who really want a FF are those who tend to do landscapes, or for the various reasons mentioned above, such as better noise which translates into better nighttime shooting characteristics.

As far as quality of the photos are concerned. I can honestly say that most, if any, wouldn't be able to tell the difference between one shot with a FF and one shot with an APS-C sensor. Honestly, I have seen prints side by side, and I couldn't tell the difference.

Now, we all know that eventually, everything will be FF. It has to simply because the camera companies know that megapixels sell. They compete for our dollars, and this will definitely up the megapixels in the long run. We already see compact cameras in the 10 megapixel range on sensors that are smaller then APS-C size. This does have deleterious effects on noise. They are going to hit a cap soon, if they haven't already. The same will happen for APS-C, but there is still some wiggle room. One could even argue that they will always have an APS-C line, as for most folks, the quality of images are more then adequate today. Besides, most wildlife photographers need the reach more then other things…and this is why I love this format. Much more then any FF camera can give me at the moment.

[ZaphodB]

I tend to agree regarding quality. I don't have any major problems with the APS-C technology. The two things that bother me are small viewfinders and expensive wide-angle lenses, and neither of these are huge problems for me. No-one's really going to be able to tell the difference in prints. There are advantages to smaller sensors too; either you get smaller lenses which are more convenient and usually cheaper, or you use the larger format lenses and make the most out of them... it's win-win.

But again it's perception. Of course the vast majority of users will not buy the absolute top level high-end dSLRs... not now and not ever. They will stick to cheaper bodies and probably cheap glass as well. But a lot of them will still, for no good reason whatsoever, think that they are doing it better if that equipment says Canon or Nikon. You see this mentality when someone asks what brand to buy into and they are told "You'll look more professional using a Rebel", despite such comments being clearly ridiculous to us. People will say "Canon and Nikon have been in optics for decades", as if the Asahiflex never existed! It's ridiculous... but people will swallow such comments if there's no-one around to correct them (which there often isn't on C&N-dominated forums)... they are told that within a year they'l need to have an "upgrade path" or the ability to rent lenses, and often they'll accept it without thinking.

You can call me cynical, but honestly there are a lot of people of spectacularly weak will around. They see reviews, they see comments on forums, hell they watch CSI and notice what cameras they use... and so there's this mentality in place which is fairly hard to beat. It's not only on the internet either, I see it all the time in shops. Sometimes it's the sellers themselves, but more often it's the first-time buyers who come in with preconceptions... recently I saw someone come in looking for something "Like a Nikon D40"... he had no clue what it was he wanted, except that he wanted something "like a D40" but cheaper. The salesman had a good second-hand Olymus dSLR and was trying, in perfectly rational terms, to explain the quality of the Olympus system and their lenses... but the customer had this confident not-having-any-of-it look as if the salesman were trying to sell him a plate of dog turd. "Zuiko" meant nothing to him, he was already convinced he needed Nikon because they were "better". It's like people buying iPods because they're iPods... alternatives may be better and better value, but it doesn't matter... everyone else has an iPod, X-million people can't be wrong etc...

I think I'm just turning into a grumpy (not so-) old man. When I was younger, everyone wanted a certain brand of trainers because everyone else had them, but when it came to buying cameras they just went to the shop and chose one that they liked. Seems to me that cameras are the new trainers...

[arbutusq]

I have no great desire for FF. I can get great 13 by 19 prints off of my lowly 6mp K100d, and the lenses are small and light (relatively of course). Does FF give better image quality in some situations, yes. Is it worth paying an extra $2000 CDN for? Not for me. I like the extra reach and the increased DOF that APS-C gives me.

Pentax will have to go FF eventually but when they do I expect they will find a way to make SR functional. As to the DA* lenses, well Canon has some APS L lenses and Nikon has some high end lenses for cropped sensors as well so Pentax will be in the same boat, if of course they can ramp up lens production and make some more FA lenses.

[Falcons]

I'm a rank amateur and have no intention of trying to make a living from photography, so FF at the current pricing structure has no appeal to me at all.

I admire those Pros on here that make money from their Pentax and I often wonder why they went Pentax when there is very little support around the world from retailers for lenses and accessories. It seems to me a much easier option to go canon or nikon with guaranteed supply and a continual program of body improvement.
I suppose Pentax invokes a pioneering spirit as (hopefully) these pros look back and know they were part of the re emergence of the Pentax brand into the high end pro arena.

As for me , please keep aps-c, don't forget us rank amateur DSLR consumers who are in the vast majority and want a decent camera for our hobby that doesn't cost the earth. And personally I (and most others) don't need FF, but I am sure the marketers out there will make me feel like a moronic ludite for not joining in the climb up the greasy pole of my camera is better than yours.

Hope you Pros and no $$$ budget enthusiasts do get your FF Pentax one day and I hope it is able to capture that magic photo that apparently can't be acheived without FF.

[arbutusq]

The only thing that concerns me really is that there are still cameras out there that use the K mount. I don't have too many DA lenses and have some legacy glass for FF. Pentax will use whatever sensor the other guys use, just six months later. If they stick with APS or go with FF we'll all still love taking pictures.

As long as Pentax stays in business its all good.

[roscot]

Quite true. But the shorter the FL, the more barrel distortion gets introduced, which gives that WA "look". A good 35 mm doesn't have a lot but my FA20 sure does.

Maybe I'm just an old dinosaur that is used to the way certain FL look for a given image. IMO It is a subjective judgment.

[khardur]

Well - Honestly I couldn't afford a FF camera right now, or probably next year or the year after as well. I know pros and advanced amateurs drool over the possibility of FF cameras having lower noise, etc etc.

I like the longer reach of the 1.5x crop. And 18mm is wide enough for me - rarely do I find myself wanting more. Perhaps I'll get a fisheye at some point to satisfy the once-in-a-while urge.

I honestly don't think Pentax can compete in the FF market. They need to get their arses in gear with production of lenses and accessories for the current APS-C cameras. You don't come out with a hit product and then screw everyone who bought into it by going FF on them right away. (at least Pentax doesn't have the market share to do that to it's customers like other companies have)

What does Pentax excel at? Making quality, feature-laden cameras that are affordable to the masses. Do you think the K1000 was so popular because Pros and Advanced Amateurs thought it was the best?

They need to back up their recent uptick in success with more lenses and availability, not a new system entirely that will have one or two lenses to go with it - while aps-c owners still wait for lenses for their now outdated aps-c cameras to come into the retail outlets.

They could improve their hardware/software to reduce that extra noise you get at high ISO's due to the aps-c size, improve already good ergonomics and functionality, etc etc... to perfect what they've got now, and perhaps add a 12 or 15 mp model at the high end of that.

Then they could make the 645D, they'd have that niche market camera that will be the talk of the photographic world and put them in the headlines, not just "well Pentax has finally caught up to C&N and gone to FF" again.

Sorry for the rambling! Just had a hellish day at work so my thoughts aren't all together!

[harv3589]

Is is a depressing thread, makes me think I made the wrong decision by buying my new K10D with all this talk that Pentax is falling behind.

[PaulAndAPentax]

Is is a depressing thread, makes me think I made the wrong decision by buying my new K10D with all this talk that Pentax is falling behind.

Within certain limits, a camera is what you make of it.....Ansel Adams had no EOS1D, No D2X, D3, or D300....yet we still remember his name...why? Because he "saw" and went the extra mile to get beautiful images...it was his vision, composition, and presentation....not the latest and greatest megapixel shooter....

I chose the K10D over the 30D and the D200...I had the $$$ for whichever one I wanted...but being budget conscious and liking the features, I chose the K10D over the others...and the Canon image smoothness did impress me a lot...anyway....no worries...Pentax has been behind the whole time...yet they still make a decent product...let's hope they stay an option!

[Chickenhawk]

I admire those Pros on here that make money from their Pentax and I often wonder why they went Pentax when there is very little support around the world from retailers for lenses and accessories. It seems to me a much easier option to go canon or nikon with guaranteed supply and a continual program of body improvement.

Because Pentax makes wonderful mature products that we have relied on for many years, and they still make some of the best glass in the world.

Because Pentax does not release products with possible majour flaws in them that are going to cause pros to question whether they should have been so quick to upgrade.

Because shooting professionally with a Pentax is different - in a good way - and no REAL pro photographer would ever disparage another pro's choice of camera because we all know we buy the best we can afford for OUR style of shooting; no one else's. Pentax is still highly respected among pros.

Because - VERY surprisingly for some - my K10D bodies did not suddenly turn out crappy shots on the day Nikon announced the D300/D3. If the shots are crappy, it is MY fault. The camera does its job, and more.

Because we have some of the nicest people around on OUR forums.

And the NUMBER ONE reason why some pros have chosen Pentax over other brands when we could probably afford any camera system we want:

Because results count. My client doesn't give a whit what camera I am shooting with, doesn't know the difference between my K10D and my partner's 5D; all they care about is we deliver the shots they need for their purposes.

[harv3589]

Within certain limits, a camera is what you make of it.....Ansel Adams had no EOS1D, No D2X, D3, or D300....yet we still remember his name...why? Because he "saw" and went the extra mile to get beautiful images...it was his vision, composition, and presentation....not the latest and greatest megapixel shooter....

I chose the K10D over the 30D and the D200...I had the $$$ for whichever one I wanted...but being budget conscious and liking the features, I chose the K10D over the others...and the Canon image smoothness did impress me a lot...anyway....no worries...Pentax has been behind the whole time...yet they still make a decent product...let's hope they stay an option!

Good point, I guess my concern is that you would slowly see Pentax fade out and not produce anything new.

[Lowell Goudge]

I think you will find the desire is to get lower noise and wider dynamic range on the sensors, while this might be attractive for some commercial photographers, they already are moving this direction with medium format DSLRs .

For most of us, that is the mass market and serious amature, the ASP-C is adaquate and actually desireable. the only drawback is the need to have ultra wide lenses due to the crop factor, but even that is being knocked back, with leses like the Sigma 10-20 mm and the numerous 12-24 mm zooms.