[eddie1960]

Excellent points.

GS-1? Those are beasts. But I know what you mean. I used to hand hold my 500 EL/M frequently

Nope, not a GS-1 (it's positibvely lightweight compared to the RB67 mamiyas though)
Bronica is an ETRSI 645 (but i rarely go out with less than 3 backs and at least 2 lenses)
Mamiya is a super 23 6x7 Rf. it's a beast but still smaller and lighter than an RB67 or a GS1- i always feel like i should be wearing a fedora and using an old school metal flash with bulbs when i take it out, oh and smoking the stub of a cigar

[jstevewhite]

Nope, not a GS-1 (it's positibvely lightweight compared to the RB67 mamiyas though)
Bronica is an ETRSI 645 (but i rarely go out with less than 3 backs and at least 2 lenses)
Mamiya is a super 23 6x7 Rf. it's a beast but still smaller and lighter than an RB67 or a GS1- i always feel like i should be wearing a fedora and using an old school metal flash with bulbs when i take it out, oh and smoking the stub of a cigar

Oh, I loved those 6x7 RF. Fuji made 6x7 and 6x9 fixed-lens RFs that were a blast to shoot with. Linhof made a 6x17 cm fixed-lens rangefinder... that was a beast.

The ETRSi is a nice machine. I liked the Bronica lenses quite a bit.

I had an RB67 that I traded off for my Hassy EL/M. Never regretted that, IQ or weight wise

[Aristophanes]

t's not just the electronics that will need to be bigger so will the pentaprism and VF
the old MF Pentax cameras are not proper comparisons to Digital as they needed no electronics (mostly) and they didn't have to deal with big batteries to have viable battery life, or deal with heat dissipation etc. the D700 minus it's grip is probably close to as small as a true FF SLR will be
Certainly it will not be the size of a k5/7
Personally i wouldn't have an issue with it needing to be bigger (compared to my mamya or my bronica even a D3 seems light

Take the MZ-S. Add in a built-in grip for the battery and another 0.6 cm thicker to accommodate circuitry and rear LCD. It could be made slightly smaller with a pellicle EVF design (with extensive video which broadens market support), but battery life becomes an issue.

What is lost in the film compartment is regained and then some in the SR and other circuitry, plus battery.

High ISO sensors could obviate the need for SR and related circuitry. That's kind of what the thinking is for Pro offerings from Nikon especially. In theory an FF system could be built the size of the Fuji X100, but then you're tackling the issue of VF and whether you're making a true SLR. One also has to ask if all that legacy glass is capable of rendering quality on these unforgiving sensors. With Nikon FF, for 95% of shooting, one really needs the D700 and the 14-24, and 24-70 lenses plus a fast 50 and anything long. Other than some esoteric items (85 portrait, Speedlight, tripod, sherpa), that's it. You're done.

The advantage of FF digital is not prime lenses; its the phenomenal zooms.

[Aristophanes]

Oh, I loved those 6x7 RF. Fuji made 6x7

What do you mean "made"?

They still make one:

Fujifilm GF670 Rangefinder Folding Camera 16019089 B&H Photo

[eddie1960]

Take the MZ-S. Add in a built-in grip for the battery and another 0.6 cm thicker to accommodate circuitry and rear LCD. It could be made slightly smaller with a pellicle EVF design (with extensive video which broadens market support), but battery life becomes an issue.

What is lost in the film compartment is regained and then some in the SR and other circuitry, plus battery.

High ISO sensors could obviate the need for SR and related circuitry. That's kind of what the thinking is for Pro offerings from Nikon especially. In theory an FF system could be built the size of the Fuji X100, but then you're tackling the issue of VF and whether you're making a true SLR. One also has to ask if all that legacy glass is capable of rendering quality on these unforgiving sensors. With Nikon FF, for 95% of shooting, one really needs the D700 and the 14-24, and 24-70 lenses plus a fast 50 and anything long. Other than some esoteric items (85 portrait, Speedlight, tripod, sherpa), that's it. You're done.

The advantage of FF digital is not prime lenses; its the phenomenal zooms.

it is but then weight and size becomes an issue for daily walkabout
I like the weight of my k7 with a prime on it
Certainly the old primes that look good on a crop sensor may not be half as good when the whole image circle is in play, edge softness for sure will jump. Lack of a rear coating will also be a bigger issue
to launch Ff the FA series would all need to be reworked as DFA series to get the most from the lenses.
and for us legacy shooters we may end up buying a few new lenses for performance

for Nikon i would be happy with he 24-70 and 70-200 and a fast50 possibly the 85 as well. down the road the wide zoom may be nice, but i can always shoot my 14 on the k7 for a little wider than 24
problem of course is the cost
D700, 24-70 2.8, 70-200 2.8VR SB900 50 1.2 85 1.4D = $8600 pus taxes - that's a big chunk of change for what the benefit is and a lot more than a comparable K5 kit (16-50,50-135,af540,31ltd, 77ltd)
get more DOF out of the lenses and faster AF and better flash but at a big cost premium - about 3 grand more which would buy a lot of lenses to go with the K5.
Is the Nikon the better camera- of that i have no doubt .... it better be at about 50% price premium

[jstevewhite]

What do you mean "made"?

They still make one:

Fujifilm GF670 Rangefinder Folding Camera 16019089 B&H Photo

LOL! When I decided I was done shooting film and sold out all my film gear ( except the Canon FD stuff; nobody wants it ) I quit following film cameras. Interesting that they still make it. Like I said, a lot of fun there.

[eddie1960]

LOL! When I decided I was done shooting film and sold out all my film gear ( except the Canon FD stuff; nobody wants it ) I quit following film cameras. Interesting that they still make it. Like I said, a lot of fun there.

Fuji still makes a lot of MF gear

the 6x9 folder that they co-brand with cosina(Bessa) is amazing
the6x17 is still in production as far as i know (and if the camera Peter Lik - the million dollar print guy uses for his landscapes AFAIK.)

mamiya still makes the mamiya 7 II RF
and the Rb and RZ 67

Film is not dead in the realm above 35mm, but it's on life support

If I had to bet on the last film type to be in production it would be 120 i think (sheet film is already getting tough to get)

[RioRico]

Film is not dead in the realm above 35mm, but it's on life support

Not dead *in* 35mm either. I open the latest B&H catalog and see Nikon FM10, F100, and F6 SLR's; Vivitar (Cosina?) (PK mount!) V3800N SLR; Leica M7 and Zeiss Ikon (M-mount) RF's. But yeah, MF is much thinner: Holga, Lomo, a Zenit pano, and the Fuji GF670 folder. [/me hears extinction approaching]

[jsherman999]

The really big lenses tend to be the exotic telephotos; 200 f/2 types, the 300 2.8, 400 f/4, etc, and the f/2.8 'pro' zooms. Also, the 85mms are pretty big, except for the Nikon 85 1.8D, which is shorter and about the same weight as the Pentax DA* 55 f/1.4.

Sure; so are we advocating that Pentax build a FF system without those lenses? (the 85 f1.4, the 200 f2, etc)?

No, why would that follow? You'd have the option of shooting any new large exotic or zoom Pentax may make - but you could also stick to the FA limiteds and other small, great FF-capable lenses, including some of the FF-capable DAs.

Nikon for one certainly doesn't have anything that quite matches the current FA limiteds in size/price/IQ. Marry those to a FF SLR body somewhere between the K-5 and D700 in size, and it's a drool-worthy proposition.

Also - the new FA 135 f/2.5 Limited I'm demanding... On FF..... so very, very sweet.


.


.

[eddie1960]

Not dead *in* 35mm either. I open the latest B&H catalog and see Nikon FM10, F100, and F6 SLR's; Vivitar (Cosina?) (PK mount!) V3800N SLR; Leica M7 and Zeiss Ikon (M-mount) RF's. But yeah, MF is much thinner: Holga, Lomo, a Zenit pano, and the Fuji GF670 folder. [/me hears extinction approaching]

F6 is now out of production as it was made in the plant that was destroyed in the earthquake (as were all FF DSLR) Don't imagine they will retool for it, i think sporadic production runs were being done because the tooling existed.
There are 4 Bessa RF and the leica m7 and the Zeiss Rf in production (though the Leica is now special runs only)
Cosina makes the low end nikon (F100 is out of production i think)
they make the vivitar as well (same camera as the nikon)
Kenko claims to make a few models but i've necver seen them for sale (perhaps in Asia)
Medium format
Mamiya - AFAIK still in production though hard to find - Harrys pro shop in Toronto is the only local guy)
1x645
3 6x7
Hassy - (i still see them for sale new but they may be out of production)
1 6x6
1x645
Bessa
the Bessa III and The Bessa III wide (6x7 with 6x6 masks)
Fuji
GF670
GF670W
rebranded versions of the BEssa
Alpa still makes custom very expensive medium format as well AFAIK - like the LF its pretty much a custom built piece

then there are the large format where a surprisingly large number of companies still make cameras (probably because this market downsized a long way back) - many of these are pretty much custom made units and pretty pricey, it's the lens companies that need to stay around for survival

Rangefinders are what has kept new 35mm alive IMO with Bessa making so many models and RF fans being a diehard lot (who really don't have much in the way of digital choice in any case - a couple of good RF cameras competing with leica would really hurt the film side of the RF business, I still wish Cosina would find another partner and do a digit R4, and maybe a stripped down in the R2 body (r2 as apsc r4 as FF (I still say Fuji is the partner for them)
Leica would be in deep shit if this happened regardless of what fanboys say

[jsherman999]

High ISO sensors could obviate the need for SR and related circuitry. That's kind of what the thinking is for Pro offerings from Nikon especially.

Yes.

...In theory an FF system could be built the size of the Fuji X100, but then you're tackling the issue of VF and whether you're making a true SLR. One also has to ask if all that legacy glass is capable of rendering quality on these unforgiving sensors.

The Pentax legacy glass? I don't know, all the FA Limiteds will be more than fine, as would (I'm sure) any FA 35 f2 update, any new prime or zoom they come up with. The lenses that would be inadequate for say an 18 or 24mm FF sensor would probably be the minority, I'd guess. FF is generally more forgiving than aps-c in that respect.

With Nikon FF, for 95% of shooting, one really needs the D700 and the 14-24, and 24-70 lenses plus a fast 50 and anything long. Other than some esoteric items (85 portrait, Speedlight, tripod, sherpa), that's it. You're done.

The advantage of FF digital is not prime lenses; its the phenomenal zooms.

The zooms are phenomenal - also huge and expensive. The most used part of my kit is the 20 2.8, 50 1.8, 85 1.8, 180 2.8, and 300 f4 AF-D primes, all bought new & used combined for less than that 14-24 f/2.8. D700 matched to one of these primes is much easier & funner to wield than a big zoom combo, too (IMO).

Also, I'm not convinced that the mid-range 28-75-ish 2.8s need to be that big. The Tamron 28-75 2.8 is fantastic, and much lighter than Nikon's behemoth (although it does include VR).


.

[Emacs]

Certainly the old primes that look good on a crop sensor may not be half as good when the whole image circle is in play

Why are you trying to be ignorant so hard? That edge softness: it's not any worse than one of APS-C, because the latter magnifies not so hard softness on crop-factor, so the resulted image becomes soft not only at edges but on the whole frame, while on FF they are only edges that has as bad quality as on APS-C. I have seen tons of images taken with FA Ltds on FF wide open: they are excellent from 1.8 (1.9 for 43).

[eddie1960]

I've seen plenty on film from the legacy glass which isn't as demanding as digital emacs, the lack of a rear caoting will be just as much an issue on FF if not more so
Regardless FF is a small market, Sony no longer is pursuing the sensors very hard (and took a beating on the ones they did)
it will be 4-5 years before it makes any sense whatsoever for pentax to pursue FF at the current rate (chraist everyone had heart failure when the K5 came out at 1600 i don't imagine we would see a FF at anything less than 2500-3000
without a range of lenses to support the needs of pro FF shooters and a new AF and better flash systems it wouldn't grab many people away from canikon
if they came in under 2 grand right now it would have to be with a very old sensor which would just be a massively dumb move. better to have a higher price and launch with performance as revolutionary as the K5 was for apsC, along with new AF and at least 4 new lenses initially to support the system
i don't see it happening any time soon, there are way too many other areas that are current that need the attention first (lenses for 645, improved flash, better Af, - there could definitely be a move towards it though if they continue doing reworks of older F/Fa lenses as DFA lenses to fill holes in the line before launching a FF since these lenses would sell right now to the current crowd. 2 teleconverters and some bigger glass, a DFA24 f2, .... maybe a DFA300 2.8
a DFA400 4.0
you get the idea.
Sony struggled with FF and they had a good range of lenses for the system with the zeiss line

[fuent104]

I'm not sure where some of the information in this discussion is coming from. How are some people so sure the legacy lenses won't look good on a full frame sensor?

For one thing, that is exactly how they have been used for their entire history, except for the last several years. Also, aside from using them on Canon or Nikon ff bodies, how many of us have actually seen how they perform on ff digital? When I was using them on my film bodies, I never thought "These lenses really look bad on this 35mm frame due to a lack of corner sharpness. I wish someone would invent a smaller format so I could use these lenses for optimal performance."

Also, I don't think Pentax has forgotten how to make lenses that cover the ff image area. They would not need to reinvent the wheel to manufacture some new ff lenses.

My desire for Pentax ff is not out of brand allegiance. I have 2 Pentax film bodies, 2 Pentax digital bodies, and many lenses, some of which have automatic features. Switching to another brand means switching to another system, or maintaining two systems, neither of which I would like to do (the second of which is not necessarily economically feasible for me).

[jstevewhite]

Why are you trying to be ignorant so hard? That edge softness: it's not any worse than one of APS-C, because the latter magnifies not so hard softness on crop-factor, so the resulted image becomes soft not only at edges but on the whole frame, while on FF they are only edges that has as bad quality as on APS-C. I have seen tons of images taken with FA Ltds on FF wide open: they are excellent from 1.8 (1.9 for 43).

Such passionately expressed opinions. Much of what you say about FF is nominally true, but only in the instance that the sensors are the same technology and pixel pitch; other things you say are nominally true, but only in the instance that the sensors are the same technology and the same MP. Other things you say are nominally true, but only in the instance that the sensors use the same technology and the prints are made at the same size. Other things you say are nominally true, but only in the instance that the sensors are the same technology and the prints are of the same magnification (that is, the FF print is 1.5x larger).

Many of the things you say are not true of any real world comparison; many of the things you say are not true in the same instance and context as other things you say.

All the time calling APS-c "crappy", when it (the K20D, not to mention the K-5) produces better IQ than most films ever made in 35mm format.