Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
08-11-2009, 02:08 PM   #31
Pentaxian
Class A's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 9,205
QuoteOriginally posted by Steve Beswick Quote
One of the benefits of the switch to aps-c was higher top shutter speeds.
Top shutter speeds are achieved by running the front and rear curtain in parallel, so making the top speed faster seems to be a matter of making the distance between them (gap of the slit) smaller, as opposed to making them move faster.

Given the size advantage, an APS-C sized shutter could be made to allow a shorter flash-sync speed, but it appears this potential isn't often not exploited.

08-12-2009, 03:56 AM   #32
Forum Member
snogglethorpe's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Tokyo, Japan
Posts: 71
QuoteOriginally posted by Marc Sabatella Quote
I don't honestly know what prevents someone form making an APS-C body smaller than an ME Super, but the lack of existence proofs makes me assume there is something.
Indeed, but my guess is that the main culprits are things that are mostly the same in FF and APS-C bodies -- Battery (batteries in current DSLRs seem absolutely huge!), giant screen on back, focusing motor, etc. Of course the mirror box and mount represent a lower bound.

I'll bet if you could find a way to shrink the battery dramatically and were satisfied with a smaller screen, you could get closer to the old film SLRs...
08-13-2009, 02:00 AM   #33
Veteran Member
Matjazz's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: EU/Slovenia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 774
I believe that if there was interest to make a bigger and still bright viewfinder, we'd already have it. Think of viewfinder as a scope for looking at focusing screen. Had you a bigger scope you'd get a bigger/brighter picture. I'm sure there are some limitations, but I believe there is still headroom for improvements. Think of what Oly did with E-3 viewfinder.

But I'm afraid that big viewfinder will be kept for expensive FF cameras.
08-14-2009, 08:03 PM   #34
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: CT, USA
Posts: 499
QuoteOriginally posted by Marc Sabatella Quote
Yes, so if you buy both a small lens capable of providing a given FOV in crop format as well as a larger one capable of giving the same FOV in FF, you can indeed "have it all" - except you need two lenses to do it. If you take them both with you, you've given up most of the size advantage of having a smaller one. If you don't have them both with you, then you don't get to have it all, at least not with you.
Actually, no. You can take a lens of a given focal length on a FF camera and crop it to "cover the same field of view in crop format", you do not need a different focal length lens to do it. FULL frame always "covers" CROPPED frame. The composition possibilities of APS-C are always included within Full Frame (it's called "cropping").

QuoteOriginally posted by Marc Sabatella Quote
Until there is an existence proof of this claim, I'm going to file it along with claims of the feasibility of cheap cold fusion.
Here's proof of this claim:

D300 vs D700 - size compared - Nikon D700

Again, cameras with similar construction and features are not significantly bigger or heavier when comparing APS-C with Full Frame. The weight difference is also puny, I've tallied it up before (I'll let you search for it or calculate it yourself). If it makes you feel better to believe that Full Frame cameras must by definition be significantly larger and/or heavier, so be it, but as you put it, until there's some actual proof of that, I'll file it along with claims of feasibility of cold fusion, the existence of bigfoot, etc.

08-14-2009, 10:52 PM   #35
Pentaxian
Marc Sabatella's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Denver, CO
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 10,686
QuoteOriginally posted by 24X36NOW Quote
Actually, no. You can take a lens of a given focal length on a FF camera and crop it to "cover the same field of view in crop format", you do not need a different focal length lens to do it. FULL frame always "covers" CROPPED frame. The composition possibilities of APS-C are always included within Full Frame (it's called "cropping").
Of course - I never said otherwise. The point is, if you want a lens that covers FF, it's bigger than necessary. You don't "have it all" - you either have a lens that meets *your* needs (covering FF) or one that covers *my* needs (small size for the FOV), but you can't have both in the same lens.

QuoteQuote:
Here's proof of this claim:

D300 vs D700 - size compared - Nikon D700
That is *not* a small body. Putting an APS-C sensor into a larger-than necessary FF-sized body is easy. The hard part is putting an FF sensor in a smaller APS-C sized body. That's the part I'm waiting for an existence proof of.

Again, I have no doubt that people who like large cameras and large and large price tags lenses will have lots to celebrate if when Pentax puts out an FF camera. But the idea that such a camera will make the rest of us happy is shows a profound lack of appreciation for the fact that other people have other preferences.
08-16-2009, 05:38 PM   #36
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: CT, USA
Posts: 499
Not following your logic, Mark. APS-C dSLRs are built around a mirror box and register distance that was designed for a full frame "sensor" (i.e., film) by necessity to maintain backward compatibility. Aside from the slight (and beneficial) growth of the viewfinder (which will be bigger and better), exactly what is it you think is going to take up all the extra room you think is necessary to "fit" the full frame sensor??

As for lenses, I've posted size/weight comparisons of lenses of the same focal length and aperture before that show no significant size/weight difference at all; if you carry a range of different focal length lenses, you only have to crop to cover less angle of view with the longest of your lenses (otherwise you can simply move up to your next focal length that you already have). Since the lenses are not in fact bigger/heavier than they need to be (being similar in size/weight to APS-C lenses of the same focal length and maximum aperture either despite providing a bigger image circle or because the APS-C lens covers a bigger image circle than necessary), you actually don't have to carry lenses that are "bigger than necessary." Ironically, it is for APS-C that you are carrying lenses that are "bigger/heavier than necessary," because they have to be designed to fit full frame lens mounts with full frame register distances.

Just for clarification, I never suggested that everyone who is happy with APS-C is going to be happy with full frame (mostly due to the price difference, as you pointed out). Just that the bigger/better viewfinder comes with full frame, and that the reduced angle of view is always available via a crop (i.e., you haven't really "lost" anything, you "have" everything you have with APS-C, plus a bigger, better viewfinder). Clearly you are "sold" on the purported "advantages" of APS-C dSLRs, but let's look at it a different way. If the sensor costs didn't make full frame dSLRs cost prohibitive to produce from the very beginning (i.e., if the first and every subsequent dSLR from Nikon, Canon and Pentax WAS full frame, how many people do you think would be clamoring for dSLRs with the same lens mount and therefore same basic camera size with a smaller sensor? I submit the answer is, none.
08-16-2009, 07:20 PM   #37
Pentaxian
Class A's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 9,205
QuoteOriginally posted by 24X36NOW Quote
how many people do you think would be clamoring for dSLRs with the same lens mount and therefore same basic camera size with a smaller sensor?
Perhaps those who do not want to spend a fortune on lenses which can fill the frame with little vignetting and corner to corner sharpness?

Once we get full frame not everything will be rosy as we'll see how the non-top-notch lenses will perform outside the APS-C circle.

I agree that you still have the FF advantage of going into APS-C crop mode or not but some may ask what is the point of having an FF sensor if the super APS-C part of the image typically does not come close to the performance of an affordable APS-C lens.

As one member put it in a humorous tagline: Ah, full frame; fuzzy corners again but luckily we won't see them as well because of the vignetting.
08-16-2009, 11:29 PM   #38
Pentaxian
Marc Sabatella's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Denver, CO
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 10,686
QuoteOriginally posted by 24X36NOW Quote
Aside from the slight (and beneficial) growth of the viewfinder (which will be bigger and better), exactly what is it you think is going to take up all the extra room you think is necessary to "fit" the full frame sensor??
The sensor is bigger, the mirror is bigger, the viewfinder is bigger. It's hard for me to imagine how that would not result in a bigger and more expensive camera. If you want to argue it doesn't, fine - show me the K-m-sized FF camera that proves this.

QuoteQuote:
As for lenses, I've posted size/weight comparisons of lenses of the same focal length and aperture before
That's not exactly the point, though. The question is, what size lens do I need to get the FOV I want? And if the answer is that I can have a smaller lens *if* I use the camera in cropped mode, then I say, great - as long as you don't make me pay for those pixels I'm not using, and they don't make the camera bigger, then I'm sold.

QuoteQuote:
Just for clarification, I never suggested that everyone who is happy with APS-C is going to be happy with full frame
Well, *someone* on this thread said that FF allowed you to "have it all". I'm simply trying (in vain, it seems) to point out how this is *not* true. It allows some people to have everything *they* want.

QuoteQuote:
let's look at it a different way. If the sensor costs didn't make full frame dSLRs cost prohibitive to produce from the very beginning (i.e., if the first and every subsequent dSLR from Nikon, Canon and Pentax WAS full frame, how many people do you think would be clamoring for dSLRs with the same lens mount and therefore same basic camera size with a smaller sensor? I submit the answer is, none.
I'd agree if the those first DSLR's were the size of the K-m and sold for under $1000. It's not like I actually care whether a camera is APS-C or FF - it's *all* about price and size.

I'll tell you what, as soon as someone *actually builds* a FF camera that is the size of the K-m, with in body SR, and sells it for $500, I'll buy it, and I'll buy you one, too. But only if people stop pestering me about it between now and then.

08-17-2009, 04:43 AM   #39
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Borås, Sweden
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,165
This is getting downright silly. No one is going to build a FF sensor body with the same pixel density and price as an equivalent APS-C body.
08-17-2009, 04:51 AM   #40
Veteran Member
falconeye's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Munich, Alps, Germany
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,863
QuoteOriginally posted by pingflood Quote
This is getting downright silly. No one is going to build a FF sensor body with the same pixel density and price as an equivalent APS-C body.
This turned out to be yet another fruitless FF vs. APS-C debate ...

Let me say this much ...

I you look at the system (body (electronic) + lenses (glass)) for a given performance, then the cheapest solutions over time are:

1. Micro FourThirds (past sweet spot)
2. APS-C (current sweet spot)
3. FF (future sweet spot)

The reasons for this proposition can be found in my other posts, not to be repeated here
08-17-2009, 09:50 AM   #41
Pentaxian
Marc Sabatella's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Denver, CO
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 10,686
Sorry for that. For the record, again, I'm not anti-FF. I'm anti-being-told-why-I-would-be-better-off-with-FF. Should probably have stayed out of this, although I'm now quite intrigued by the possibility that someday someone might produce an APS-C camera with an FF-sized viewfinder. That's really the only aspect of FF I envy.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
body, camera, dslr, eye, k7, magnification, photography, vf
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
K-7 and wireless pTTL restrictions (and praise!) Mister Guy Pentax DSLR Discussion 5 09-17-2009 01:16 PM
Dome shooting / restrictions (St. Loiuis) user440 General Talk 11 04-24-2009 07:22 PM
News Knowledgebase Posting Guidelines and Restrictions Adam Site Suggestions and Help 1 01-30-2009 11:36 PM
K mount lens on K10D, restrictions? rdrum76 Pentax DSLR Discussion 1 10-25-2007 06:26 PM
K mount lens on K10D, restrictions? rdrum76 Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 3 06-23-2007 06:35 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:23 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top