[Class A]

Everyone seems to want a FF that's all good except for sports or wildlife where the crop sensor has the edge not only in the cropping ability but also FF camera all seem to have a fairly slow burst rate.
Not to mention FF carry a hefty cost increase.

The crop sensor in the K-5 has no "cropping ability" advantage compared to the the 36MP sensor in the Nikon D800. Pixel density defines "reach" advantages, not sensor size.

Burst rates are defined by the camera electronics which advance every year. The Sony A900 already had 5fps and used comparatively old technology.

Finally, FF need not be prohibitively expensive. Camera prices are coming down (D800, D600) and FF glass that corresponds to APS-C glass (e.g., f/4 zooms) is neither much more expensive nor heavier than APS-C glass.

APS is a format in its own right; not just a temporary size until FF gets cheap enough.

Not really when combined with an FF mount.

If one is using an FF mount (e.g., the K mount) then it does not make much sense to only use APS-C sensors. The reduced image circle hardly helps to decrease lens size/weight.

APS-C in combination with a smaller dedicated mount may survive, but I don't see a long-term niche for APS-C in combination with FF mounts. Maybe for the cheapest entry models?

[snake]

APS is quite ok and since it's now approaching FF performance on many fronts, I haven't an issue. The only thing I have an issue with on the Pentax front is the availability of fast wideangle lenses. If Pentax could get at least one going again, either a new version of the FA24 or wider on a crop, it would be quite a nice thing. Let's try to compare it to the non-comparable- the Fuji X100. 23mm f2 and that's my baseline (or wider).

[GibbyTheMole]

I like the crop factor (I shoot a lot with long teles) and lower cost of APS-C. Also, the DA lenses don't play well with FF. It's fine if Pentax wants to come out with a FF camera, but I won't be buying it.

[Rondec]

The crop sensor in the K-5 has no "cropping ability" advantage compared to the the 36MP sensor in the Nikon D800. Pixel density defines "reach" advantages, not sensor size.

Burst rates are defined by the camera electronics which advance every year. The Sony A900 already had 5fps and used comparatively old technology.

Finally, FF need not be prohibitively expensive. Camera prices are coming down (D800, D600) and FF glass that corresponds to APS-C glass (e.g., f/4 zooms) is neither much more expensive nor heavier than APS-C glass.


Not really when combined with an FF mount.

If one is using an FF mount (e.g., the K mount) then it does not make much sense to only use APS-C sensors. The reduced image circle hardly helps to decrease lens size/weight.

APS-C in combination with a smaller dedicated mount may survive, but I don't see a long-term niche for APS-C in combination with FF mounts. Maybe for the cheapest entry models?

The biggest negative on the D800 is the burst rate and although, of course, it is dependent on electronics, with the size files the D800 churns out, it would take some doing to either increase the burst rate or buffer size.

Anyway, I think for wildlife photographers, who are heavily cropping on APS-C, there probably is little point to even a camera like a D800. A K5 will serve such a photographer just as well.

[Pål Jensen]

The crop sensor in the K-5 has no "cropping ability" advantage compared to the the 36MP sensor in the Nikon D800. Pixel density defines "reach" advantages, not sensor size.

Burst rates are defined by the camera electronics which advance every year. The Sony A900 already had 5fps and used comparatively old technology.

Finally, FF need not be prohibitively expensive. Camera prices are coming down (D800, D600) and FF glass that corresponds to APS-C glass (e.g., f/4 zooms) is neither much more expensive nor heavier than APS-C glass.


Not really when combined with an FF mount.

If one is using an FF mount (e.g., the K mount) then it does not make much sense to only use APS-C sensors. The reduced image circle hardly helps to decrease lens size/weight.

APS-C in combination with a smaller dedicated mount may survive, but I don't see a long-term niche for APS-C in combination with FF mounts. Maybe for the cheapest entry models?

Cropping ability is the same regardless of sensor. The difference is in image quality for a certain crop which will be better on larger format. APS has great cropping ability - it is meaningless to buy an FF camera in order to crop the images.
Burstrate could be faster with smaler files using the same technology. Technologi is often a generation in front on APS as they sell in much larger quantities.
APS is much cheaper than FF and always will be. In the worst case scenarios, saving on lenses alone may be above $10 000 for a complete set up for similar magnifications and light gathering abilities. Getting macro magnification as possible with APS is impossible on FF regardless of cost. Nor do you have the same close focusing abilities with FF for a certain magnification as you have on APS.
Of course K-mount make sense for APS (Canon EOS have about the same diametre as 645 systems). It is not the diametre of the lens that causes size and weight savings but the fact that you use a shorter lens for the same magnification on smaller formats compared to FF. If you are using long lenses you can save several kilos on those lenses alone. Not to mention the cost.
The fact that you have up to five stop advantage on say a K-5 compared to a D600, as the former have one stop faster shutterspeed at the same ISO and DOF and up to four more due to image stabilization on all lenses, just add to the smaller formats advantage. To make an FF camera do the same, if possible, would make it prohibitively expensive. However, it will give you better image quality.
Smaller sensors has an extremely bright future. FF camera in the sub $2000 level has been around for years. They have not sold well, though I'm sure the D600 will be quite sucessful but there will be a D400 too.

[eddie1960]

Short term (as in the next generation or 2 of cameras) I think high end apsc and FF will continue side by side. At some point though as FF Sensor costs drop the enthusiast apsc models will disappear. As pointed out from a reach standpoint what gives you the better reach on apsc is the pixel density not the sensor size. a k5/D7000 and D800 have the same reach. Processors will improve and give the burst rates for the bigger Ff sensor that is a given, technology advances.
Even on a 24 mp sensor FF you will have the same reach and pixel density as a 12mp apsc which may be good enough for many, while giving them the option of better wide and dof control.
Sub $1000 I think will be the domain of apsc within 2 generations, above $1000 will be FF domain (and there is no reason a Pentax FF can't be much the same size/weight as a K5 - the D600 looks to be a modified D7000)

[ElJamoquio]

light gathering abilities

Your choice of words was poor. Light gathering ability is proportional to sensor area and aperture area.

What you've just said was that a 50mm f/1.4 FA would need to have an APS-C 50mm f/0.9 for "equal light gathering ability".

APS is much cheaper than FF and always will be.

Define 'much cheaper' and 'always' so we can put a bet on this.

[Pål Jensen]

Your choice of words was poor. Light gathering ability is proportional to sensor area and aperture area.

What you've just said was that a 50mm f/1.4 FA would need to have an APS-C 50mm f/0.9 for "equal light gathering ability".

Light gathering ability for the same unit size of sensors. This is obvious. This give you the same exposure.

[Pål Jensen]

Short term (as in the next generation or 2 of cameras) I think high end apsc and FF will continue side by side. At some point though as FF Sensor costs drop the enthusiast apsc models will disappear.

I don't understand where this "logic" comes from. APS will no more dissapear than FF would dissapear if Pentax sold the 645D for $3000. They are different formats in their own right. Besides, sensors cost money and all else equal the camera with smaller sensors will cost less, use smaller and cheaper lenses. As image quality of smaller sensor is good enough (and improving) for even the most demanding uses theres no quality push for bigger sensors from the majority of consumers. Size and cost (and the other advantages) will keep smaller sensors even more relevant in the future. The idea that FF is a sort of holy grail where anyone eventually end up is hard to fathom.
The game changer is not FF but APS proven by sales. Again, a K-5 have a up to five stop gain in handholdability (thats a lot; pure science fiction a few years back) with a DA* 16-50/2.8 over a D600 with a 24-70/2.8 at the same DOF. It produces 50% larger 1:1 images in macro (1:1 is the same size regardless of format). It focuses closes for the same magnification and the saving in long telephoto magnification and weight are in the thousands of dollars and several kilos respectively. The general consumer is not married to the old film format. Bigger viewfinder and better image quality at a considerable cost both moneywise, in size and versatility is not going to float the majorities boat.

[eddie1960]

I don't understand where this "logic" comes from. APS will no more dissapear than FF would dissapear if Pentax sold the 645D for $3000. They are different formats in their own right. Besides, sensors cost money and all else equal the camera with smaller sensors will cost less, use smaller and cheaper lenses. As image quality of smaller sensor is good enough (and improving) for even the most demanding uses theres no quality push for bigger sensors from the majority of consumers. Size and cost (and the other advantages) will keep smaller sensors even more relevant in the future. The idea that FF is a sort of holy grail where anyone eventually end up is hard to fathom.
The game changer is not FF but APS proven by sales. Again, a K-5 have a up to five stop gain in handholdability (thats a lot; pure science fiction a few years back) with a DA* 16-50/2.8 over a D600 with a 24-70/2.8 at the same DOF. It produces 50% larger 1:1 images in macro (1:1 is the same size regardless of format). It focuses closes for the same magnification and the saving in long telephoto magnification and weight are in the thousands of dollars and several kilos respectively. The general consumer is not married to the old film format. Bigger viewfinder and better image quality at a considerable cost both moneywise, in size and versatility is not going to float the majorities boat.

All the things you quote as the same are not. the DOF on a K5 will not be the same on a 24-70 2.8 as the 16-50 2.8. the AOV will be, if the 24-70 is at f4 the DOF will be. However there is the pixel density issue. If the FF is the 36mp sensor and the apsc is the K5 sensor for all intents and purposes they are equals. shoot a 16-50 at 2.8 on it in apsc crop mode and the 36mp will behave the same as the k5. shoot the 24-70 at f4 and you will get the same AOV and DOF but a much larger file (which has it's uses.)
I did not say APSC would disappear, I said it would be relegated to sub $1000 cameras in a couple of generations based on recent developments
.I stand by that. I understand apsc has it's niche, but at the high end body level that disappears when the FF has a sensor with the same pixel pitch. In fact apsc and FF from a Canon Nikon, Sony Alpha and Pentax perspective are all the same system based on a FF system - not the same as medium format moving down at all. APSC only exists as an option because FF was not viable as an option 10 years back. There is no reason to think that dropping FF sensors won't eclipse the apsc in over $1000 cameras within a couple of generations now that we are supposedly going to see mass production FF sub $2000 from the big 3. Pentax will be there.as well, or they will be selling to entry entry mid clients only and be marginalized even further in the higher profit realm
Certainly it won't happen in the next 2 years, but withing 5 there is almost no doubt. all the advantage of apsc is disappearing with the advent of high performance small pixel pitch FF like the D800 (in fact aside from price and storage a K5 has no real advantage over a D800, and the D800 has many over the K5 - not the same price I know, but this too will come)
there is no smaller cheaper lens for the same performance. the f2.8 16-50 may have more light gathering capability than the 24-70 f4.that is equivalent in every other way, but the ff sensor has about a stop of high iso advantage, and if you want narrower DOF, better faster WA the FF wins. If it is each there is no win for apsc when sensors are equivalent pixel pitch
the only thing that has stopped FF dominating the enthusiast market has the most part has been price. the only thing that has kep a lot of pros shooting apsc in the canon and nikon world has been the price. APSC will still be around for the entry market, and will be a big component of the milc market of course.

[ElJamoquio]

Light gathering ability for the same unit size of sensors. This is obvious. This give you the same exposure.

It's also obvious that, in the case you described, a FF sensor will have far more signal per noise for a given print/display size.

Look at the D800 vs D7000 SNR curves at DxO... the D800 has about (1.55)^2 better SNR for a given display size.

[ElJamoquio]

I don't understand where this "logic" comes from. APS will no more dissapear than FF would dissapear if Pentax sold the 645D for $3000. They are different formats in their own right. Besides, sensors cost money and all else equal the camera with smaller sensors will cost less

Yes.

, use smaller and cheaper lenses.

No.

[Pål Jensen]

All the things you quote as the same are not. the DOF on a K5 will not be the same on a 24-70 2.8 as the 16-50 2.8. the AOV will be, if the 24-70 is at f4 the DOF will be. However there is the pixel density issue. If the FF is the 36mp sensor and the apsc is the K5 sensor for all intents and purposes they are equals. shoot a 16-50 at 2.8 on it in apsc crop mode and the 36mp will behave the same as the k5. shoot the 24-70 at f4 and you will get the same AOV and DOF but a much larger file (which has it's uses.)
.

The second point first. Is pointless to buy an FF camera in order to crop it to APS size. Then we are comparing APS to APS.
Different formats do not display same DOF characteristics and thats the point I was making. That is not to say, however that you don't want the same DOF for the same image; otherwise they won't be the same. Ie If you want to shoot at F:8 with FF you shoot at F:5.6 with APS; that is one stop advantage.

[Pål Jensen]

It's also obvious that, in the case you described, a FF sensor will have far more signal per noise for a given print/display size.

Look at the D800 vs D7000 SNR curves at DxO... the D800 has about (1.55)^2 better SNR for a given display size.

Bigger formats have better image quality as I've said many times. Thats presumably the main reason for buying cameras with larger sensor.

[Pål Jensen]

Yes.



No.

You can say no as much as you like; it is physics. APS lenses are shorter ie smaller than FF lenses for the same angle of view. A 200mm lens on APS have the angle of view of a 300mm lens on FF.