Originally posted by rburgoss When I started in photography, the limitations came from the film (grain, dynamic range, etc) and the chemistry involved (development quality, enlargement, printing, display, storage, etc). With digital, almost all of that is gone. The only remaining limitation was "grain" or "image noise".
For some of use who struggled with ASA (iso) 40 and 64 Kodachrome, when we got some decent results from Ektachrome at 100, we all thanked God, then came Disneychrome (Velvia) who knocked our socks off with its color and saturaration.
By those days, any lens was a good lens, simply because it was difficult to find any film that could render true optics resolution. B&W films such as Agfapan 25 or Kodak Panatomic really started splitting hairs by showing real lens resolutions.
With today's digital cameras (APSC), we are getting way better results and resolution, as well as dynamic range than 40 yrs ago with any film. So, it doesn't seem logical to pursue farther dynmic range or resolution that what is optically and reasonable (cost) to produce with today's gear.
So, unless there is a huge leap in IQ, I find no reason to feel compelled to go to full format, the same way I could have felt compelled to go medium format during the film days. Its a matter or cost vs. actual usable results.
I am just an avid enthusiast. I do not make money from photography, so that's probably a good reason not to be forced into full frame.
Besides, history has told me that new technology needs some extensive "real world" use and abuse, so its creators can come up with second and third generations that fix whatever was overlooked the first time. I am sure the new FF body will also walk this path, but at an average price of $2,000 + per body.... sounds a bit too steep for my enthusiasm.
Besides, I think its too early to know what is going to happen to the market, in matters of availability (APS), and support, as well as further improvement on what we already have. Just lets hope Pentax does not abandon the high end spectrum of the APS format (K3 and good DA new glass).
There are some really good points here. I will add two more:
1. Has the resolution of a really good camera & lens combination such as a K-3 with DFA 100 Macro WR already surpassed what our computer monitors and printers are capable of? My guess is yes, especially printers. I have an I Mac 21.5 inch display which is a very sharp monitor but I think the best shots with my K-3 surpass even this monitor.
2. I am 62 years old and my eyesight is not quite what it used to be. Digital camera resolution keeps getting better but my eyesight is not keeping up with the technology and I think the K-3 has now surpassed my eyesight permanently. This makes me think: What advantage in FF is there for me and many others like myself?
I expect my K-5 and K-3 will give many more years of service, but I hope that Ricoh/Pentax will continue to offer high end APS-C. I suppose the worldwide market, all of us who buy the cameras, will make that decision.