[junyo]

These are advantages, but not absolute advantages. I'm trying to use the word in a very simple sense, really I am. Not sure why this distinction is hard to grasp.

If I show you a video and tell you it was taken on a camera, you can be sure that it was NOT taken on a K20D, because the K20D doesn't do video. This is (I hope) a clearly absolute difference, and if you regard the ability to do video as an advantage, then it's an absolute advantage. This camera can do it, that one simply can't, can't do it even badly. It's a simple, unambiguous distinction. No advantage of 36x24 is this clear cut, this black and white. You simply CANNOT show me a photo taken with a 36x24 camera that simply could not have been taken by an APS-C camera. You can show me 36x24 photos that would be hard to take with APS-C. You can show me photos that, if taken on APS-C, might have a little more noise. But these are matters of degree, not absolutes.

Then I thinking you're parsing the definition of "advantage" razor thin, past the point of uselessness. Hell, I can show you video done with a K20, using timelapse. So video is no longer an absolute advantage, as long as you're willing to accept a really slow framerate. Underwater isn't a limitation either, as long as you put it in a housing. You can disregard any "advantage" if you're willing to discard the differences in function as trivial.

I don't have the time or energy to go through point by point, but so much of the argument you're making is based on a subjective judgement about what a feature is worth to "most photographers". In a cherry picked scenario or in everyday shooting the difference may be negligible to most people. For that matter the differences between a high point and shoot and an SLR are probably negligible to most people. Nevertheless the difference(s) exist. And asserting that the difference doesn't really matter is a value judgement, not an objective fact. You'll argue forever over the subjective worth of a feature or function.

[zackspeed]

Well yes the big chief for Pentax Europe has confirmed upgrades to existing models (which means the K-7 and K-x) will be released this year.

That´s the point,but don´t forget the 645
It will be the finest Photokina,since long ago
Not only for us Pentaxians.
Same for Olympus E-3 Freaks

[WMBP]

.... when photographers shoot wide open for a "thin DOF", what they're usually, actually after is "creamier bokeh". (so the 1 inch vs 1.5 inch argument can fall apart - even the DOF is too close to be noticeable, the background blurring often behaves otherwise).

Hmm. Not sure I can go along with that. You have to have bokeh in the first place before you start worrying about creaminess.

I have to confess that I don't worry about "creamy bokeh" at all, never have. Some of my lenses have nicer bokeh than others, but I've never studied the matter closely. When I stop down to f/2 while shooting a portrait, I'm doing it to throw the background out of focus as much as possible, plain and simple.

You may achieve the same with APS-C... 24x36 shooters need to pay more attention to keep things in focus. Some find one easier to achieve than the other.

Righty-o, but you can have this problem with APS-C, too. Occasionally when I'm shooting too fast, I open up the aperture TOO much and forget to calculate depth of field (or chimp carefully). Recently I was taking portraits, and I shot a family of three with the mother in the middle and two adult children on either side; and I shot from a 45° angle to the mother, rather than straight on. I had a "creative" idea in my head: I wanted the mom in sharpest focus, and I wanted the focus on the two children just slightly soft. I should have used the depth of field calculator on my phone to get it right but I didn't. I guessed. I guessed wrong. :-(

On a point-and-shoot, they would all have been in focus.

Will

[Angevinn]

Why is it that APS-C enthusiasts keep trying to hammer the Fullframe format?
There are differences!

This podcast is a little long winded but illustrates some good points.

Episode 011 - APS vs Full Frame Shootout!

John Greengo compares the Fullframe and APS-C formats.

At 17:12, John visually illustrates the differences in depth of field between the two formats.

There are differences! I shoot with a Pentax K100D and K20D, if Pentax offered a Fullframe camera I would purchase it in a heartbeat.

For further comparison check out:

EOS 5D vs. EOS 20D - Full Frame vs. APS-C Sensors - Bob Atkins Photography

All this curmudgeonry against Fullframe is silly. There are many advantages to the Fullframe format over APS-C.

[youky63]

These are advantages, but not absolute advantages. I'm trying to use the word in a very simple sense, really I am. Not sure why this distinction is hard to grasp.
.
.
.

Will

Good for you, you perfectly demonstrated that FF camera is not for you. You are a lucky guy since Pentax will continue to release APS-C bodies for a while.
Now you must also understand that your photographic conditions are not the photographic conditions of everybody. You shoot often at f/2 2000isos? I do often f/1.4 2000 to 3200 isos (night protraits) and believe me, I would be a happy guy to be able to do at 6400 isos, so I could use a longer exposure than 1/10 sec... (because for portraiture, it's a bit long, don't you think so? )
Also, I noticed that you forget another point about FF sensors: the DR. I have seen pictures taken by a FF sensor. Even a day light picture. The DR ability of FF sensor just cannot be matched by acual APS-C ones. And the race to high isos (as the Kx does) is just killing more and more the DR (technology is evolving, but to increase something they still need to reduce another one).
The FF has for me an absolute advantage on APS-C since it can offer you: more pixels + more isos (for the same quality) + more DR. All of this with the same sensor.

Then I am just like you, I don't know what entax excutives has decided for photokina, but I sincerely think time is cme for FF. We can already find bodies for 2000 dollars (price of D700 body 2 weeks ago in my closer shop), and price will continue to go down since FF bodies are still in their infancy and sold at low volume. High end APS-C are already 1400 or 1500 dollars (K20D, K7 when they were releaed, so the same for K7 replacement). The gap is just too short for the higher model expected with the actual low price FF.

last point. Now many people will tell me that if I need/want so much a FF I would just have to buy one of this "cheap" body that I can found in my shop. Right, I will think about it if Pentax is not following this FF way within a few months, as many advanced users (limited by their actual high end pentax) already did. But I tryed them. All of them. And sincerely, none of them gave me the feeling we have with a Pentax Body. They are big and heavy, button not always at the right place, menus very tricky. I think I am... a Pentaxian! Especially the k7 body is for me a real big improvement in ergonimics, even compared to my K20D. So if FF there is, the shape of K7 it must have (maybe bigger, but with the same lovely handgrip! )

[wolfier]

Hmm. Not sure I can go along with that. You have to have bokeh in the first place before you start worrying about creaminess.
I have to confess that I don't worry about "creamy bokeh" at all, never have. Some of my lenses have nicer bokeh than others, but I've never studied the matter closely. When I stop down to f/2 while shooting a portrait, I'm doing it to throw the background out of focus as much as possible, plain and simple.

What I meant is, when you shoot at f/2.8 on 24x36, vs shooting f/2.8 on APS-C, although the DOF are very close that both will be quite thin, and too close to be noticeable in most cases, if you look at the out of focus background, you'll find it quite obvious that the one shot with 24x36 is "blurrier".

Righty-o, but you can have this problem with APS-C, too. Occasionally when I'm shooting too fast, I open up the aperture TOO much and forget to calculate depth of field (or chimp carefully). Recently I was taking portraits, and I shot a family of three with the mother in the middle and two adult children on either side; and I shot from a 45° angle to the mother, rather than straight on. I had a "creative" idea in my head: I wanted the mom in sharpest focus, and I wanted the focus on the two children just slightly soft. I should have used the depth of field calculator on my phone to get it right but I didn't. I guessed. I guessed wrong. :-(

On a point-and-shoot, they would all have been in focus.

Will

Ouch. I know how it feels. I usually try to keep them on the same plane by as much as possible.

[24X36NOW]

An APS-C sensor, used with an APS-C optimized lens, is not "undersized." Will

I'd have to disagree; APS-C dSLRs still house their sensors in cameras sized for 24x36 sensors. Further, nobody makes any "dedicated" APS-C lenses in long telephoto focal lengths, their image circles all end up being FF anyway, so unless you never want lenses longer than about 150mm, you're always going to be using lenses that cover a FF image circle on a less-than-half-frame sensor. APS-C cameras are like cars with an engine compartment built to fit a V-12 that have a V-6 installed instead. Wasted size/weight and less performance.

My point was, that 36x24 cameras have no absolute advantages over APS-C cameras. Will

How about these:

1. A viewfinder that doesn't suck.

2. A larger format that based on the nature of optics, always has an absolute advantage over a smaller format, i.e., with an APS-C sensor your lenses must resolve the details in your photo at 42.25% of the size your lens must resolve the same details to on a FF sensor, which is a big difference (lenses for smaller formats need to be much sharper to provide equal image quality). This advantage does not "go away" due to any technological factor, since it is not a matter of pixels or sensors or image processing, and since any advances on any of those fronts can be equally applied to the larger format.

3. In addition to the optical advantage of a larger format, the advantages of being able to have the same pixel count with less than half the pixel density (and less noise), or similar pixel density with more than twice the pixels (and more resolution), or a combination of more pixels (and resolution) and less density (and noise) that doesn't go to either extreme. In any situation, the larger format size is an advantage.

[philippe]

The amount of pixels is not absolute, what you do whit them, and how, is as important as the amount of them.

Last year I shot the exposition catalogue for the Europalia China show in Gent (Belgium). 320 pictures (of the +/-500 I finally delivered) were published (but not so well printed) and the picture on the cover was used on a ABRUBUS size poster (+/-120 cm wide and +/-180 cm high). Of corse, the pixels could no more be seen due to the size of the printing screen, but the whole poster, seen from the 'standard' distance of twice the diameter, was wonderful!

What I am trying to say is that it is not only the sensor but the whole (camera-) system and the chain of post production toward the final image, that determines the image's quality.
So, why nitpicking about pixels, just use them well AND shoot with GOOD lenses (I cannot stress this enough). The latter is no problem with Pentax as they have those limiteds…
What is the point of having a so called Full Frame (what a dragon of a name is this) if one is shooting through a bottom of a coke bottle (what most zoom-lenses are) and does not threats the camera system's outcome decently in PP?
On a full page in a magazine or a book, no one will see the difference between a picture shot with APS-C, FF, MF or an LF scanner-back. This is because most of the time the printing screen size will be that rough, not to mention the sloppy register, even so in a well produced art book. Now days sensors are far more better than the best up to date off-set printing quality.
And, the quality of most of the ink-jet printers is not as good as said it should be too.

Instead of spending your dear pennies on a larger sensor, buy good lenses, a good computer + ditto monitor, good app's and exercise to improve your skills!

[RMabo]

Good for you, you perfectly demonstrated that FF camera is not for you. You are a lucky guy since Pentax will continue to release APS-C bodies for a while.

"for a while" sounds like a suggestion that APS-C will only live for a short time.
I don't believe so. I believe in that both 24x36 and APS-C has their place in the market.

[youky63]

"for a while" sounds like a suggestion that APS-C will only live for a short time.
I don't believe so. I believe in that both 24x36 and APS-C has their place in the market.

Sorry, seems it doesn't sound what I mean. I also think like you: APS-C is going to survive, FF is not a thread for this size of body.
Only EVIL camera can kill APS-C as we know them today (they can loose their OVF) but it will take a few years to do so... and maybe it will never happen!

[Kunzite]

I'd have to disagree; APS-C dSLRs still house their sensors in cameras sized for 24x36 sensors.

I don't think so. A modern DSLR like the K-7 or the K-x is designed to house an APS-C sensor, and nothing larger.
It's true, they use the good old K-mount thus they have a larger registration distance than necessary. But that's all.

[Asahiflex]

I don't think so. A modern DSLR like the K-7 or the K-x is designed to house an APS-C sensor, and nothing larger.
It's true, they use the good old K-mount thus they have a larger registration distance than necessary. But that's all.

I want to remind everyone here that the original *ist D, Pentax's first DSLR on the market, had a FF mirror box. Proof of this is on Dpreview.

The MZ-5's mirror box:


The *ist D mirror box, which was FF from the start:


The *ist DS mirror box, which was made narrower:


Who wouldn't want a FF camera the size of the *ist D? I would, definitely! It can be done and I'm sure Pentax can do it. Not all FF DSLR's need to be like a ugly, heavy tank.

[youky63]

Thanks for the information, I love you for that! ;-)

[Asahiflex]

Thanks for the information, I love you for that! ;-)

No thanks. I'm 100% convinced that with the current state of electronics, a *ist D with a FF sensor could easily be made. It would be the smallest FF DSLR on the planet. Of course, this would rule out the SR mechanism, but it shows that it can be done. And I'm sure that more than just 1 person on this forum would buy such a camera in a heartbeat, even sight unseen.

[youky63]

No thanks. I'm 100% convinced that with the current state of electronics, a *ist D with a FF sensor could easily be made. It would be the smallest FF DSLR on the planet. Of course, this would rule out the SR mechanism, but it shows that it can be done. And I'm sure that more than just 1 person on this forum would buy such a camera in a heartbeat, even sight unseen.

Yes, but only with SR into a body of the size of K7!