[jstevewhite]

Why are you are all so worry about full frame edge sharpness? It's just about as unsharp as edges on APS-C are. The only difference the center on FF is much sharper )))

I know many supposes Ken Rockwell is a clown, but just see at images.
The Full-Frame Advantage

Just for fun:

$150 camera vs $5000 camera

Where Ken claims his $150 Canon A530 makes a *better image* than his 5D.

Or from the first bit of the article you linked to:

Ken Rockwell:

If you just want to make great photos of things that matter, don't worry about this baloney and get whatever you find convenient. I use my D40 and its kit lens or my 18-200mm VR 90% of the time for my photos that matter. In the few rare cases that something will sit around and wait for me, I'll pull out my klunky Canon 5D or 4x5" view camera. I haven't had my 4x5" fired up in over a year, but I use my D40 daily, and even when my D3 arrives, I expect that I'll still use the D40 most of the time. The D40 is easier and more fun since it's so light.

The only way to see any of these pixel differences is when you've already got a flawless shot, and then only when printed really big and you're looking too closely.

In the comparison shot, he enlarges the APS-C to 113%; of course, nothing will appear sharp at that enlargement. The point I've been trying to make to YOU through many of these comments is that the sharpness difference between lenses you call "good" and "crap", or between the FF sensor and the APS-c sensor you call "crap", are virtually indistinguishable at most normal print sizes - like 8x10, or even 11x14 (with the K-5) - and you'd have to look very carefully to see the difference at 16x20. Ken's example is equivalent, according to him, to a 41 inch print. 41 inches. You printing that size often?

And, just for you, another KR gem:

Your Camera Doesn't Matter

[Emacs]

About the $150 vs $5000 comparison:
Full images are too small, but he faked with the crop: he intentionally shew the piece where the out-of-focus part of the image (foreground) attracts the most. The focused background differs very much.

[jstevewhite]

About the $150 vs $5000 comparison:
Full images are too small, but he faked with the crop: he intentionally shew the piece where the out-of-focus part of the image (foreground) attracts the most. The focused background differs very much.

The crop is only to format - it's not a small piece of the image:

"The two cameras make slightly differently shaped images. The A530's images are a little taller (4:3) and the 5D's images are a little wider (3:2).

To get them to fit on top of each other I had to trim a little from the top and bottom of the A530's image, and trimmed the same amount from the sides of the 5D's image.

I reduced both images to the same size to fit on your screen."

I suspect that Ken would tell you you were wrong. I certainly disagree. I think that center tree is the focus point in both images, and I don't think there's *any* "faking" going on here. He wasn't suggesting that the A530 made a universally better image - his point is all about the color and resolution; that even though the 5D produces a technically "superior" image, the A530 produces a more *pleasing* image. His whole schtick here is about the difference between metrics and aesthetics. He flogs that horse pretty regularly.

[Aristophanes]

"
Those of us who think ff can be achieved in a smaller body don't believe so due to the presence of fairy dust. We believe that engineers are intelligent, creative people.

You can get FF in a Sony NEX, although slightly larger. You will only see incremental improvements in body size in the DSLR format. To get smaller you have to be Leica and do away with qualities not found in a DSLR to make it work. Instead, DSLR's are packed full of features. History has repeatedly demonstrated that this has increased sales and margins despite the trade-off in larger size bodies. It's why Canon, Nikon, and Minolta always outpolled the smaller body systems from Olympus and Pentax.

But again, you are missing the point. Some FF components have actually been getting larger, not smaller. To get a 30+ point AF system for Nikon requires a larger phase detect mechanism in pure, physical area. People have all too willingly sacrificed a larger body size for superior AF. The market has spoken and it makes the current FF market tick.

[sjwaldron]

For an APS-C DSLR.
1) SR is very bulky and for mechanical reasons cannot be shrunk much.
2) FPS is necessary for high-end DSLR's and the extra bulk necessary
3) Power and cooling and video and rear LCD all take up space. Lots. Add in video and you need some serious cooling.
4) Not true. My Nikon D40x was a touch smaller than the K-r and the D3100 is about the same size.
5) The Sony A33/A55 are thicker because of the EVF extension and rotating LCD, but they weigh less than the K-r and in the hand feel about the same size.
6) Yes. So what? The Canon sells about 8x as many. Marginal size differences have little to do with sales. People buy the bigger cameras more than the smaller ones, so the sales data says.
7) You're arguing at cross-pusposes. The Fuji is a high-end, single style camera and the 645D is extremely high-end.
8) Where would Pentax be now if there was no DA* 16-50, 50-135, 60-250. Nowhere. Probably 25% of the base would be gone and 40% of the margins.
9) There seems to be a flawed logic in that Pentax can make a smaller FF system without giving up something like SR or an OVF, ...

I personally think that Pentax doesn't need to compete directly with the big two to have a 35mm FF camera available and be successful with it.

2) Your opinion, however having higher FPS would be a positive feature.

3) Yes, look at the K-5 cutaways I posted a link to earlier for how Pentax constructs their cameras.

4) D40x? 3fps, no in body SR, I'd assume no AF motor either. My point is pound for point Pentax makes smaller cameras. The D3100 however is closer, but it still will never have in body SR and in-body AF motor. That means Pentax fits more inside for a given size, so it could in turn mean Pentax can't make a FF smaller than a D700 with SR inside, but it's all speculation either way.

5) EVF extension and rotating LCD are design choices. According to you those cameras are thicker. I'm not talking about weight, but physical size. Otherwise I would be happy with plastic lenses instead of DA/FA Limiteds that Pentax sells.

6) Yes. So what? .... Yes, I think it is well known people shopping for something in that level would choose between the two. The Pentax is smaller. I've specifically had 7D users talk to me about the K-5 in relation to their camera with the same thoughts as I have with the two.

7) I'm naming specific examples to prove my points and they are not related. I believe the Fuji is successful because it has a large sensor, an optical viewfinder, and small in size for what it is overall. There are of course trade offs, such as that fixed lens. There are many people who want compact full featured cameras with optical viewfinders. I will not be buying one of those mirrorless ILCs, but the Fuji is appealing. The 645D successful in general for for various reasons, but my only point in mentioning it is that it came out with a single new lens. Pentax sells it at a fixed price to make a profit. I guess time will tell if releasing it with a single lens was a good idea or not. From what I've read in the past, They are selling more camera bodies than 55mm lenses, so these existing 645 users have lenses they want to go digital with. I think the same can be said for for people with 35mm full-frame lenses in M42/K-mount.

8) Yes, Pentax should have a full lens lineup eventually.

9) Your opinion

[Aristophanes]

Pentax fits more in its bodies in part by using inferior and smaller AF and metering arrays, areas where Canikon smoke Pentax. The Canikon FF bodies in particular are designed for the big FF glass and a balanced feeling between the 2. Have you ever used a D700 with the stunning 14-24 lens? Just for ergonomics you would not want the body any smaller (and that lens has no VR, and probably never will).

if you are talking volumetric form factor the difference between a D3100 and K-r, D7000 and K-5 is frankly not a huge factor in sales. In fact, as DSLR's have gotten larger, they've sold more. If people want a "serious" camera with tactile controls and big glass, they do not seem to be put off by marginal size differences.

The problem is, Pentax users want a D700 in a K-5 body, which cannot technically happen. I think the smallest a DSLR FF can go will be about the size of the Nikon D300. If you want smaller, you need a lot less function, or you need to move away from k-mount towards mirrorless.

What features are you willing to do away with to get the size down?

And this is not all "speculation". The entire, well-documented history of M43 is related to this in detail. Olympus saw that they could not move the form factor without doing away with DSLR functions. The mirror box components plus sensor plus power and electronics can only go down so far in size.

Historically the market has reacted to the size issue by having Nikon F-series owners buy second, smaller systems and/or RF's. This is Fuji's thinking. Olympus designed their entire OM philosophy behind it as did Pentax with the MX and now the Q. The industry benefits far more from selling the same person multiple camera systems than it does selling one do-it-all system.

[jstevewhite]

Pentax fits more in its bodies in part by using inferior and smaller AF and metering arrays, areas where Canikon smoke Pentax. The Canikon FF bodies in particular are designed for the big FF glass and a balanced feeling between the 2. Have you ever used a D700 with the stunning 14-24 lens? Just for ergonomics you would not want the body any smaller (and that lens has no VR, and probably never will).

I've agreed with most of the stuff you've said, to one degree or another, but I have to take exception here, as "balance" is a preference, not a measurable quantity. I've never seen the 14-24, but I'm willing to bet a dime or two that it's not bigger than Bigma, and I don't find any particular desire to have a larger camera than the K-5 when I strap it onto that honker.

And I think it's a little misleading to say it's "physics". Moore's law is still playing out, so we *know* the computers will become more powerful. Fab costs for all sensor sizes have dropped steadily. And you're completely disregarding the possibility of technological advance.

So I'd agree that what you've said to some extent makes a smaller FF OVF DSLR unlikely, I would not agree that it's impossible, or even highly unlikely. Just unlikely.

[Rondec]

There really are two segments in the market that are separate. One segment is driven by size -- people who want tiny cameras and for whom image quality is secondary. Not that they don't care about image quality, but the concept of lugging an SLR (even of kx size) is foreign to them. The second segment are people who are pursuing higher image quality. For these people, size is secondary and features are more important. These people often buy the most expensive camera they can afford. While they may choose a kr or a Nikon D3100, they do so, not because of size, but because they really can't afford to buy up to the upper end.

I just really don't think size is that important in people's decisions to purchase or not purchase an SLR. Once people decide that they want to get an SLR, cost, image quality and other features (metering, flash performance, auto focus performance, frames per second, etc) all end up being bigger issues when people decide what to go with.

[RyanW]

This is not so much a full frame vs APS-C as it is a pro photographer that doesn't use full frame talking about how in many cases the folks with the top of the line Canon and Nikon gear don't utilize the full capabilities of their camera.
Torontowide: Toronto International Film Festival 2010 - Impressions From the Media Pit

Anyway, I just thought it was an interesting read, especially since the author is shooting a smaller format than APS-C and makes a living just fine.

Do I still want a full frame? Yes. Do I need one? Probably not.

[Aristophanes]

I've agreed with most of the stuff you've said, to one degree or another, but I have to take exception here, as "balance" is a preference, not a measurable quantity. I've never seen the 14-24, but I'm willing to bet a dime or two that it's not bigger than Bigma, and I don't find any particular desire to have a larger camera than the K-5 when I strap it onto that honker.

Fair enough. The 12-24 and 24-70 are walkaround zooms for FF and one could say that a Bigma is not!

On Sunday I was briefly at the Sigma Canada rep's demo at the local Henry's. This guy brought about 30 lenses. I inquired about the Bigma jokingly and in all seriousness the guy told me there was no way he could cart that all over for demos. It's just too big.

And I think it's a little misleading to say it's "physics". Moore's law is still playing out, so we *know* the computers will become more powerful. Fab costs for all sensor sizes have dropped steadily. And you're completely disregarding the possibility of technological advance.

Take an AF phase detect system or a metering system. To be accurate they need X # of photons in a representative data set, just like a sensor. The # of photons requires area, the more the better. We cannot make a smaller photon catcher physically because we cannot make photons smaller! So the compromise is contrast detect AF as is done with mirrorless systems using the single sensor. But now we see that to reduce size we have to compromise; no more need for the mirror, OVF, etc., and k-mount is a victim as well.

So I'd agree that what you've said to some extent makes a smaller FF OVF DSLR unlikely, I would not agree that it's impossible, or even highly unlikely. Just unlikely.

I am not convinced that smaller is better; only that volumetric form factor matters to different market segments. The market has been very comfortable with the K-r size DSLR form factor with integrated grip for a long time now and they sell well, considerably more than mirrorless systems, the latter of which are frankly ridiculous with larger lenses. If the largest sensor one can into that form factor is APS-C, then so be it. If want a bigger sensor DSLR, prepare to have a much larger body, or do without DSLR functionality.

[RonHendriks1966]

The problem is, Pentax users want a D700 in a K-5 body, which cannot technically happen. I think the smallest a DSLR FF can go will be about the size of the Nikon D300. If you want smaller, you need a lot less function, or you need to move away from k-mount towards mirrorless.

And how about an APS-H sensor camera as Pentax's top off the line camera with K-mount? What is that doing sizewize? Say a sensor of 30x20mm or so, 1,2 -1,3x crop.

[jstevewhite]

This is not so much a full frame vs APS-C as it is a pro photographer that doesn't use full frame talking about how in many cases the folks with the top of the line Canon and Nikon gear don't utilize the full capabilities of their camera.
Torontowide: Toronto International Film Festival 2010 - Impressions From the Media Pit

Anyway, I just thought it was an interesting read, especially since the author is shooting a smaller format than APS-C and makes a living just fine.

Do I still want a full frame? Yes. Do I need one? Probably not.

LOL... Yeah, exactly. The vast majority of people who use full frame *don't need it*, and most who do need it would probably be better served by MF. That leaves a small slice who actually do need it - and in many cases it's an artistic choice, not a technical one.

[RioRico]

This is not so much a full frame vs APS-C as it is a pro photographer that doesn't use full frame talking about how in many cases the folks with the top of the line Canon and Nikon gear don't utilize the full capabilities of their camera.

Note that he said the main draws of big pro FF's are 1) durability and 2) more room for cropping. Dynamic range is trivial, thin DOF is irrelevant. His clients want 10mpx compressed JPG files. The shooters at these events use manual focus, manual exposure, manual flash. Outside of high-speed sports, all the bells-and-whistles are just irrelevant. This suggests that a ruggedized 12mpx FF dSLR is quite sufficient for the vast majority of photo-pit work. Meanwhile he shoots his Oly E5 and makes a good living.

[Aristophanes]

And how about an APS-H sensor camera as Pentax's top off the line camera with K-mount? What is that doing sizewize? Say a sensor of 30x20mm or so, 1,2 -1,3x crop.

I don't know. It's an incremental step between APS-C and FF, and only Canon has gone down this path save for the Leica M8 and some ancient Kodak sensors. Since Pentax does not make sensors and none are really available on the market, it's a problem of no supply.

I suspect the DA glass plus SR would pose a similar issue with APS-H as FF, so for lens array, you're back to square one for Pentax. APS-H might be a reasonable size to maximize legacy glass, but you'd still need tens of millions of $ investment in new glass to amortize the investment with new sales. The only real advantage to APS-H is cost through sensor production. Canon makes that up elsewhere for the $5k price tag as the 1D is a big, big camera because it packs some serious photojournalist "get the shot" electronics in it. A journalist friend of mine uses this as his main body.

For Pentax moving to APS-H there would also be issues for third party suppliers as the Sigma, Tamron, Voigtlander crowd may simply not imitate with Pentax'a razor thin market share.

I wonder if APS-H has a future with Canon. The D700 massacres it in price. I am sure that played a part in why Nikon overtook Canon at the high-end for DSLR sales.

[jstevewhite]

Fair enough. The 12-24 and 24-70 are walkaround zooms for FF and one could say that a Bigma is not!

On Sunday I was briefly at the Sigma Canada rep's demo at the local Henry's. This guy brought about 30 lenses. I inquired about the Bigma jokingly and in all seriousness the guy told me there was no way he could cart that all over for demos. It's just too big.

Oh, seriously? We *are* still talking about the 50-500, right? It's not THAT freakin' big. It's smaller and lighter than a 300 f2.8 from most lineups. I can use the thing handheld without any particular problem. Maybe it's because of the box required to pack it and transport it? And I think it's a GREAT walkaround lens - for nature walks

Take an AF phase detect system or a metering system. To be accurate they need X # of photons in a representative data set, just like a sensor. The # of photons requires area, the more the better. We cannot make a smaller photon catcher physically because we cannot make photons smaller! So the compromise is contrast detect AF as is done with mirrorless systems using the single sensor. But now we see that to reduce size we have to compromise; no more need for the mirror, OVF, etc., and k-mount is a victim as well.

That's pretty much what you already said, and I said I more-or-less agree with; but it's not physics, it's technology. Many years ago, before practical digital cameras existed, people had a million reasons digital photography could never exist; Then they had a million reasons why it could never compete with film; then they had a million reasons why it could never displace film... and so on. Technology marches on. There's no way of predicting whether or not tomorrow Ricoh (or anyone) is going to announce a new phase system that can work twice as accurately with half the photons. That was my only point there.

I am not convinced that smaller is better; only that volumetric form factor matters to different market segments. The market has been very comfortable with the K-r size DSLR form factor with integrated grip for a long time now and they sell well, considerably more than mirrorless systems, the latter of which are frankly ridiculous with larger lenses. If the largest sensor one can into that form factor is APS-C, then so be it. If want a bigger sensor DSLR, prepare to have a much larger body, or do without DSLR functionality.

I agree, generally, that smaller is not *necessarily* better.

I also would agree with your last line if you phrased it conditionally, rather than a flat statement of fact. Like "If you want a DSLR with a bigger sensor, you're probably going to have to have a larger body than the K-5, or do without DSLR functionality."

Which makes me think. I bet there would be an enthusiast market for a DSLR that was MF through the OVF, but still had contrast AF with live view, and had no shake reduction. Those two changes could probably reduce the price to something like the K-5 (eliminating the entire phase-focus system and SR system would be a big cost reduction, I have to assume), and eliminate the largest obstructions to making a small-body FF camera. I'd certainly buy one.

After thinking about it... it could be disruptive. Think of all the people who use APS-c cameras most of the time, but once in a while really 'need' that FF difference. Several people have mentioned things like that in this thread, and I didn't like the idea at first, but now I'm imagining the other side of the conversation. Many people that currently have K-5s would save their pennies and buy that K-FF, too. I would.