[distudio]

What Pentax needs to do is deliver on the 645D ...their 35mm style camera''s can continue to have APS size sensors and compete with the likes of the new D300 from Nikon. The 24/36 (FF) sensor in the 35 mm SLR style body has a limited market.

I think the 645D will outperform Cannon's new 21 mp FF camera for those looking for the ultimate IQ. ...So come on Pentax, get that 645D on to dealer's shelves and bring out your D300 beater. ...Cheers!

It's not looking good for the 645D, I'd suggest that it would be a bad idea to hold your breath whilst waiting:

Pentax: 645 Digital ‘no longer priority’ news - Amateur Photographer - news, camera reviews, lens reviews, camera equipment guides, photography courses, competitions, photography forums

Don't shoot the messenger.

Cheers,

[arbutusq]

Evenually Pentax will go FF if the sensor cost drops and the other brands have a FF camera at entry level prices. When that time comes I'll get one. Until then APS-C works fine for me.

[and]

Evenually Pentax will go FF if the sensor cost drops and the other brands have a FF camera at entry level prices. When that time comes I'll get one. Until then APS-C works fine for me.

Yup, then you can pick up your new Pentax FF and put all that DA glass on it.

[ngkmh]

Yup, then you can pick up your new Pentax FF and put all that DA glass on it.

I wont be investing heavily in DA glass and I wont be buying any of the DA* lens thats for sure.

[stewart_photo]

Ten years down the line, if Canon/Nikon have entry level FF DSLRs selling at $400 and you have Pentax on APS-C format selling for around the same, what will the consumers choose?

1. Your scenario assumes consumers will choose based on image sensor size, while I don't think most mainstream consumers (then or now) care at all about the size of the image sensor. Therefore, I suspect most of the consumers in your scenario will base their choices on other things (image quality, price, user features, etc), with image sensor size not even a factor.

2. Your scenario assumes full-frame and APS-C image sensors will still be available in ten years. Heck, neither of those may exist by then, with either an entirely different sensor size dominating or radically new technology used instead. Because of that, I'll limit my conjecture to something a little less long-term - the next two to three years perhaps.

stewart

[sft]

Will we all want FF if say the 12MP APS-C CMOS sensor in the new Nikon D300 is better than the 10MP Sony CCD we use now? FF is nice but not needed by many IMO - especially if APS-C sensors continue to improve. DOF is shallow enough with APS-C, I like CCD-Shift IS so I would rather have a 1 stop noisier sensor than lose the 2-3 stops of CCD-Shift IS (I assume CCD-Shift is not possible with FF?) and I certainly don't want to pay for IS in every lens I buy. If APS-C can continue to improve thanks to new designs, etc and get better than it already is (which is good enough for me anyways) than all is good IMO. That Nikon D300 looks like one sweet cam though. Nikon just turned their Dxxx line from semi-pro to full-on pro with this release. It is practically a D3 in a smaller shell and an ASP-C sensor and slightly slower fps. I think this will be a good blueprint for the high-end Pentax to come.

[cygnet]

Ok, so I recently entered digital shooting with a K10D, and after reading through this thread the one thing I didn't see was a reference to the depth of field difference to FF. I got a 70mm DA F2.4 lens to use for portraits, and even with it cranked all the way open to 2.4 I don't find it as shallow as I would like. I used to shoot portraits with an Olympus OM1 with a 100mm Zuiko lens, and loved the look. Are y'all just used to this, or is there something I need to do to get more critical depth of field control. The other reason I would appreciate FF is the fact that my favorite lens on the old Olympus was a 28mm, where with the 18 I'm using now on the K10d, I'm not getting quite as wide a view, but I'm getting more edge curvature of straight lines. I could give a hoot about more pixels, but the way this works with the lenses would be my reasons.

[arbutusq]

(I assume CCD-Shift is not possible with FF?)

I have yet to see a cogent argument as to why it wouldn't. The theory is that the FF sensor would vibrate into the less optimal areas of a FF lens, yet we have lenses optimized for the APS-C sensor that exhibit no such problems. Even if we had to settle for a 1.1 cop sensor it would still be amazing, except that my 16-45 wouldn't work at 16.

Minolta had no problem scaling their anti shake mechanism from the A2 to the KN7D, so why can't the systems be scaled up further. If SR works with FF sensors think of the low light shooting possibilities!! Clean ISO 6400 with 3 stops SR, i can finally shoot that black bear that steals the neigbours' garbage every night without a flash!!! O out of fantasy land now...

[sft]

Clean ISO 6400 I think is pushing it a little mate Even for FF. There is only about a 1 stop advantage with noise over APS-C. But I do see your point about FF - thing is I am quite sure that most APS-C lenses do cover a little more than the APS-C crop - I do not know if this is intentional or just the way they are. I also do not know if FF lenses cover more than the 36 x 24 area either. I guess it should be possible if all lenses are designed to cover a wider area than their designated crops. As you say though a 1.1X crop should be fine I guess - the bigger problem probably lies in getting a very beefy SR mechanism to support the large size sensor & MP count probably (ie. K10D needed upgrade from K100D SR just to be able to supoorts 10MP's and that is still with the same size sensor).

Would be great to have a SR in a 1.1-1.0X crop camera though eventually. (not that I would buy a FF instantly - probably when the price is lower I would though (say $2K or so).

[pgenovese]

Hi Phil,


From your comment it appears that you own a Sigma 50-500. Would you do me one small favour. I'm considering getting a 50-500 myself and would like to know what the effective maximum aperture is when the lens is set to 400mm..

Regards

Patrick

[Spot Focus]

Haha the day people start dropping pentax widespread will be the day I eagerly wait at the camera stores to pick up all the used smc glass. =P

I second that

[Spot Focus]

Hi Phil,


From your comment it appears that you own a Sigma 50-500. Would you do me one small favour. I'm considering getting a 50-500 myself and would like to know what the effective maximum aperture is when the lens is set to 400mm..

Regards

Patrick

Hi I have a 50-500 the f changes are f4@50, f4.5 @about 75, f5.6@about 125 and f6.7@about 300on up to 500 these are on a K10D hope this helps

[nosnoop]

Ten years down the line, if Canon/Nikon have entry level FF DSLRs selling at $400 and you have Pentax on APS-C format selling for around the same, what will the consumers choose?

First, APS-C cameras will always be cheaper than FF.
And the consumers would choose the one with the best price, smallest, lightest and most features they want - i.e. majority would still go for the APS-C format.

To be honest, most DON'T CARE about the sensor size AT ALL. That's why Olympus is doing quite well with its 4/3 sensor. By your reasoning, why would anyone buy Olympus given that the much larger APS-C sensor camera can cost LESS than the smaller sensor Olympus??

The next big thing is NOT FF. FF will always be the niche top end curiosity for the majority of the consumers outside this or dpreview forums.

In 10 years time, maybe not what you want, but the next leap for DSLR will be Electronic hi-res viewfinder with interchangeable lens in a much much smaller package, and with high def movie capability. Again, this is not on the wish list of most forum users here or in dpreview, but this is the type of camera which would sell big time in the consumer market.

Pentax wont release a FF camera this year but it has to plan to migrate to it to survive.

Absolutely not true. It is more essential for Pentax to release a camera for 95% of the users than catering for maybe <5% of the market segment. Yeah, of course, it would be nice to have a ultra cool flagship model for bragging right. But it is not needed for survival.

[Chickenhawk]

Sorry for taking apart your post, I don't mean it personally... myself, I totally agree with everything you said. But what you said is fact, and sadly perception is very often more important than fact when it comes to sales. And sales are important for a relatively small company and its existing customers. What I'm really getting at is this... a lot of people aren't as rational as yourself... when they look for their first dSLR (or even their second) they are affected by what they hear and read about the various systems. It isn't even necessary for people to disparage Pentax... no need for negative coverage, the relative lack of positive coverage and awareness is a problem in itself. One EISA camera-of-the-year award does not compare to overwhelming coverage in various mediums, from seeing only Canon at sporting events, to watching CSI using Nikons, to seeing the Rebel ads on the street, via reading on countless websites that these brands are the choice of "pros". That's why some of us - regardless of our own contentedness with current Pentax products - feel that Pentax needs to do something... to be seen to be doing something.

I agree with you, but I was answering the question about why some pros would use Pentax - and to be seen to be swimming against the stream, not about the mainstream consumer. My assumptions are that pros are going to do some research, have probably owned cameras before and thus have a better understanding of their own needs, and can possibly forgo a few lenses for a more expensive camera if that camera was needed to deliver the results they want in their line of work. I gave the reasons why I thought some pros WOULD use Pentax. It is logical to assume that because Pentax does not have a huge lineup of professional equipment; there is little support on the rental market for Pentax gear; they don't have pro-level service support for their products; and, Pentax is a much smaller company than the big two, there will be far fewer Pentax pros than the other two.

I don't sweat it.

Now there are a hundred definitions about what a "pro" photographer is, but to me this is a person who needs to deliver results or they don't get paid. Whether they are full-time or part-time, whether they do weddings or advertising, whether they have gorgeous artistically-beautiful shots they proudly show off on their websites or whether the only time we see their work is on billboards, covers of magazines or wine labels across the country ... it's still results that count.

As for other professionals ever disparaging Pentax or offering unwanted advice to another pro on what they need for their work ... I have never seen it. (Yes, there are some amateurs, even in the pro ranks!)

Amateurs spend their time worrying about the equipment. Professionals spend their time worrying about the money. Masters spend their time worrying about the light.

Many of us spend our time on all three; sadly, some people never get away from number one on the above list.

[pgenovese]

Hi I have a 50-500 the f changes are f4@50, f4.5 @about 75, f5.6@about 125 and f6.7@about 300on up to 500 these are on a K10D hope this helps

Thanks for the Info.

Patrick