Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Showing results 1 to 25 of 249 Search:
Forum: Pentax Full Frame 02-28-2012, 03:15 PM  
How to push the Pentax Full-Frame Idea and get that FF out faster...
Posted By Eigengrau
Replies: 1,493
Views: 160,347
This is my feeling exactly. The biggest argument for FF is thinner DoF, but as it is my 50/1.4 is at the very limit of useful when I shoot it wide open. On a bigger sensor I'd be stopping down more for focus, cranking up ISO more to compensate, and in general losing out vs. shooting APS-C.
Forum: Pentax Full Frame 02-23-2012, 11:37 AM  
How to push the Pentax Full-Frame Idea and get that FF out faster...
Posted By Eigengrau
Replies: 1,493
Views: 160,347
This is certainly an interesting idea, but the "non-equivalence" of current cameras seems to serve, at least partially, to correct the ISO problem. Because, (correct me if I'm wrong) if we went with the lens system that you suggest, the full frame camera would have to be perpetually operating at a higher ISO for the equivalent shot, which at least at face value will be a big turnoff to consumers.
Forum: Pentax Full Frame 02-22-2012, 06:09 PM  
How to push the Pentax Full-Frame Idea and get that FF out faster...
Posted By Eigengrau
Replies: 1,493
Views: 160,347
Having read the paper, I find that it is exceedingly well put together and raises some really interesting points. I find that it really illuminates a lot of facets of the situation very well, and brings in valuable new information to the argument. However, I'm not sure that I draw the same conclusions you do.

If I were to paraphrase what I feel like the outcome of the paper is, it would be:
We don't typically compare equivalent cameras. Here's what will happen if we do (we see big differences in ISO and aperture, among other things). Because of economic and design constraints, we still won't be able to compare equivalent systems most of the time.

While looking at the physics of the situation helps us to speak more intelligently about these topics, in this case I prefer a more pragmatic approach focused on economics and especially end use. The reality is that I buy a camera because I want to shoot a certain type of picture in a certain type of environment, and I don't usually care how that happens, but I usually want to do it as cheaply as possible. My opinion of the situation is that people aren't as concerned with getting a specific amount of DoF as they are with getting bokeh when they want it, which would make strict equivalence less relevant.

On the original point, that FF lenses are larger/more expensive/etc: This is more an observation on my part of existing lenses than a reality of the universe. Sure, you can analyze why that shouldn't be the case, and why it perhaps won't be in the future, but what of the actual situation right now? If you want a lot of reach, it seems to me that my contention holds pretty convincingly (given what the buyer is trying to ultimately get), but I'll admit that at the wide end it doesn't hold up as well.

At any rate, those are my thoughts - like I said, I certainly find your paper enlightening, but I go a different place with it than others might, because I think people make decisions in a way that isn't always mathematically justifiable. Just my opinion.
Forum: Pentax Full Frame 02-22-2012, 08:22 AM  
How to push the Pentax Full-Frame Idea and get that FF out faster...
Posted By Eigengrau
Replies: 1,493
Views: 160,347
Forgive me if I'm mistaken, but if this is the case, why design the Q with such a small sensor? One of the main justifications was that it enabled smaller lens design. And it seems to have worked, considering it is the smallest of the mirrorless group. I think you might be discounting aperture. In order to make cameras strictly equivalent (in terms of DoF) aperture would have to go through the roof - which just doesn't happen.

On the wide end of things, the APS-C equivalent of 31/1.8 would be something like 21/1.4. Not a lot of those lenses around. Or, consider the FA 20/2.8 and the DA 14/2.8 (which should be more like 2.0 to keep things equal). We can't really keep DoF constant because (judging by the lenses that have been made) that is impracticable on the wide end with APS-C. On the long end of things, APS-C seems to be a clear win, because you get the 200/2.8 instead of the 300/4.0. Smaller and faster for the same field of view and depth of field.

Since my background is in physics, I appreciate your desire to compare idealized cameras, but I think it discounts the realities of what lens designs are and aren't practical.
Forum: Pentax Full Frame 02-21-2012, 08:44 PM  
How to push the Pentax Full-Frame Idea and get that FF out faster...
Posted By Eigengrau
Replies: 1,493
Views: 160,347
I think you overestimate the power of us camera nerds. Sure, I've talked a few people into buying Pentax, and maybe some of the rest of us have, but that's small potatoes compared to the kinds of numbers that make or break a camera company. I think the best example I know of to demonstrate exactly why outspoken geeks aren't the best place for advice is the infamous Slashdot report on the first iPod... Apple releases iPod - Slashdot

Long story short - Slashdot is a tremendously significant nerd news website, and it was even moreso back in the day when this story was posted because there weren't as many alternatives around as there now are. Geeks in 2001 were going all sorts of crazy for MP3 players, and then Apple released the iPod. Slashdot summarized the opinion from the techy elite: "No wireless. Less space than a nomad. Lame." Little did they realize that this was the product that would mark Apple's major turnaround, and set the trend for design principles of the next decade.

It's easy to imagine that we're doing the same thing: we're wanting viewfinders and sensor size, when the the thing that will change everything around is design, appeal, and usability. Not that the K-01 is an industry changer like the iPod was, but I for one see lots of parallels: A product that spurns the sensibilities of the tech-savvy, but has mass appeal that doesn't show up on a spec sheet.
Forum: Pentax Full Frame 02-21-2012, 01:01 PM  
How to push the Pentax Full-Frame Idea and get that FF out faster...
Posted By Eigengrau
Replies: 1,493
Views: 160,347
Citations? Claiming that everything after the K10D sold worse and saying that the largest portion of current Pentax users are manual focusers are both things that require pretty heavy backup. Great claims require great proof and all that. Also, you've got a lot of people here that are willing to make a forum post or hit "like" when it comes to FF, but how many will lay down the cash when the time comes?




The D800 offers only 25,600 ISO when boosted, which is matched by the K-5. Of course, we all expect the D800 to have less noise, but only a few years ago we had 6400 MAX iSO, and that was scarcely useable. The point here is that APS-C has made more dramatic improvements than FF did over the same time period. The gap is indeed smaller - I've never said it isn't there, but it is 100% true that it isn't nearly as big as it once was.




I'd agree with you, all else being equal, but it isn't. FF glass is bigger, more expensive, and harder to make. A FF sensor doesn't count for anything if you don't have the glass to support it, and while the used market is substantial for Pentax, none of those used sales put dollars in Pentax' pocket. And as nice as the limiteds are, APS-C is a lot kinder to them than FF will be. Releasing a FF body without competitive lenses to sell with it wouldn't work (see Sony). Putting all the resources into manufacturing those lenses isn't going to be cheap.



If Pentax has to go in that direction, I most likely won't be following, but Sony isn't the only sensor manufacturer out there. They've worked with Samsung before if I'm not mistaken, and maybe something good will turn up. That's more problematic for FF than APS-C, though - finding a quality FF sensor to put in a camera body is harder than an APS-C one, so that isn't convincing.



"Good enough" is subjective, and APS-C viewfinders are good enough for most - just look at the market sizes. Not everybody needs a V8, and not everybody needs a massive SLR to haul around. Where is the most growth likely to be? I've yet to see a convincing argument that big viewfinder full frames are the largest area for new camera sales. Don't make the mistake of assuming that the majority of the market has the same values that you do.




True, but to make a comfortable profit in a high margin environment isn't easy to do - everybody would be otherwise. Pentax has less resources than the competition, so it would be easy for them to be undercut if they really started to rock the boat. Probably the most successful company in this regard is Apple, who offers design and appeal that somehow lets them operate on way larger margins than everybody else. You can try to do that just out of nowhere, but as a for instance, VW tried to move upmarket recently with their Phaeton, and it flopped horribly. If Pentax could do it, great, but that's a big, big if.




Prove it! You have no way of showing that losses are due to the lack of a full frame camera, and your doomsday claims are the same exact things that people have been saying for years. You've got no evidence to show that right now is any different.



Again, baseless conjecture. I personally was really considering moving to a D700 until the K-5 came out. I wanted something that could do a really solid job in indoor light and during wedding receptions, and while the k20 and k-7 were lacking, the k-5 is everything I could ask for. I (like many people) don't care about whether my camera is the best, I care about whether it is enough to do what I need it to do. That is the case for the K-5 in basically all of my use cases.

My main point is this: This online forum, dpreview, and the FF fanatics that have been yelling about it for years, are a very vocal but very limited demographic. Many of these folks shoot on old manual glass, and even if a FF body came out they might not have the cash to buy one (not to mention lenses). You can tell me all you want about you and your friend and this other guy you know who will lay down preorder money for a FF, but talk is cheap and, more importantly, we aren't a very representative group here on the forum.

For Pentax to prosper, they need to find profitable market segments where they can put out class leading products and make lots of money. I've seen little actual data or supported argument explaining why FF is somewhere that Pentax could do well. There are no end of opinions about halo products and people going for Nikon or Canon because of a lack of high-end options, but there's no data I've ever seen to back that up. If a high-end halo product is all that a manufacturer needs to motivate buyers, then Sony should've done great.

The case for FF used to be really good IMO, but it seems to me that it is less solid now than it once was. Sony has had a failure in that segment, there's more competition there than there used to be, and APS-C has been improving a lot. The biggest area of growth right now seems to be on the other end of SLRs - mirrorless and other small SLRs.
Forum: Pentax Full Frame 02-20-2012, 08:45 PM  
How to push the Pentax Full-Frame Idea and get that FF out faster...
Posted By Eigengrau
Replies: 1,493
Views: 160,347
Ya, it's too bad that the A850/900 didn't really pan out as well as was hoped. I'd have loved to have an excuse to get some of those Zeiss lenses, as expensive as they are, but the system as a whole just didn't fit my needs.
Forum: Pentax Full Frame 02-20-2012, 07:01 PM  
How to push the Pentax Full-Frame Idea and get that FF out faster...
Posted By Eigengrau
Replies: 1,493
Views: 160,347
Are you forgetting Minolta? A lot of compatible legacy glass there.
Forum: Pentax Full Frame 02-20-2012, 06:54 PM  
How to push the Pentax Full-Frame Idea and get that FF out faster...
Posted By Eigengrau
Replies: 1,493
Views: 160,347
What this says to me, however, is that FF isn't nearly as important as making good cameras. I don't think Pentax will do any better than Sony on name recognition - Sony doesn't have the photographer clout, but it does have huge recognition and advertising budgets that offset that. I don't see Live View as a make-or-break feature either... AF and High ISO are issues, but that just highlights my point, which is that people are motivated by performance more than sensor size. In terms of pricing... Sony seems like they always overprice their products, so who knows what logic motivates that.

FF is a means to an end for most - they want really good performance, and if a large sensor helps produce that, that's where they will head. If it doesn't offer a considerable benefit, it isn't going to sell. If you can offer a really awesome APS-C, you can guarantee that you're going to appease some of those people that are crying for full frame, without all the risks involved.
Forum: Pentax Full Frame 02-20-2012, 06:12 PM  
How to push the Pentax Full-Frame Idea and get that FF out faster...
Posted By Eigengrau
Replies: 1,493
Views: 160,347
If we want to claim that a FF will make Pentax suddenly more successful, we need to explain why that didn't happen with Sony and FF. And we need to explain how it will be different with Pentax. Pretty much since the first FF came out, it seems like people have been screaming for Pentax to have one and prophesying the death of Pentax if they don't have one, but that still hasn't happened.

Can a camera manufacturer be successful by only selling APS-C bodies and smaller? Absolutely. Will they ever dominate the market? No. Could a full frame be harmful to a smaller manufacturer if it diverted resources from more profitable market segments? Yes.

All I'm saying is that full frame isn't a black-and-white affair - there are lots of ways it could help, but lots of things about it that could be damaging. A well implemented solution is more important than just throwing out something to fill a certain segment. It reminds me of the people that want Apple to put out a cheap desktop tower just like everybody else - but it is insane to suggest they should compete in a low-margin, super competitive segment when they are profitable and successful elsewhere. "Me too" strategies are seldom successful.
Forum: Pentax Full Frame 02-20-2012, 10:16 AM  
How to push the Pentax Full-Frame Idea and get that FF out faster...
Posted By Eigengrau
Replies: 1,493
Views: 160,347
Going by DXOmark, the D3s offers a stop and a half of better low light performance. Other full frame cameras have a significantly smaller advantage. And, this is with worse dynamic range and color depth than the K-5. So, I wouldn't call them "way better". I think it is safe to say that the K-5 is in the same ballpark. Note also that there are full frame cameras that the K-5 beats... the point here is that it isn't as simple as it used to be. There used to be a huge image quality gap between full frame and everything else, and that gap has diminished.

There's also the question about when a sensor is "good enough". Most people don't need a computer with more than 2 cores and a few GB of RAM - for 90% of use cases (emailing and watching youtube) modern computers are far more than most people need. Sure, a 12 core monster with 16GB of RAM is objectively more powerful, but it is a complete waste for most people. The race is over for speed in a consumer computer, and there's an argument that cameras will approach the same kind of barrier, if they haven't already. At the limits of the k-5's low light performance (at least with a fast lens), you are likely to be struggling with focusing and even being able to see your subject well enough to compose a shot well. Sure, going to ISO 200,000 is better than ISO 50,000, but the situations where that is meaningful are pretty scarce.

The question isn't "is full frame better?" The question ought to be: Is full frame enough better to move a lot of units and make more profit than an APS-C only strategy? Is it enough of a difference to motivate a lot of buyers? It is tough enough for a small player like Pentax to make a grab at a fairly large market (entry level DSLR). Don't expect a small market like full frame to magically be any different - in many ways it could be more difficult to do profitably.
Forum: Pentax Full Frame 02-19-2012, 10:00 PM  
How to push the Pentax Full-Frame Idea and get that FF out faster...
Posted By Eigengrau
Replies: 1,493
Views: 160,347
The better high ISO performance is academic at this point. K-5 is in the same ballpark as the full frames.

More sensor area/lens area... sort of. Don't forget that APS-C has the advantage of sitting in the "sweet spot" - a lot of these full frame lenses are going to show their weaknesses more if we have to push it out to the corners, so I don't think that's a complete win.

Not sure what you mean for the last point... are you saying that a wide aperture has higher depth of field on fullframe? Because that isn't accurate. Consider the 50/1.4: the 1.4 is already thin enough DoF to be problematic in many situations. On full frame, you are going to have to be closer for an equivalent field of view (which makes it even thinner), so you're going to have to crank up the aperture to compensate, so you have to crank up the ISO or lose shutter speed or something... in many cases, the smaller sensor has an advantage. The only place a small sensor bites you is if it is so small that you can't get the DoF you need - that isn't an issue for most of us on APS-C.
Forum: Pentax Full Frame 02-19-2012, 09:03 PM  
How to push the Pentax Full-Frame Idea and get that FF out faster...
Posted By Eigengrau
Replies: 1,493
Views: 160,347
So, the viewfinder is a compelling argument for FF. I have a K1000, and it does have a nice viewfinder, but I think if we're honest that is an insubstantial argument for most. Not saying a viewfinder isn't valuable, but I don't think it is the thing that motivates big spending... if people have the option between a $1000 camera with an ok viewfinder and a $2000+ camera with a really nice one, which way is the vast majority going to go? Again, I am a big potential customer for full frame, but I just don't see a big market for it.

And honestly, resolution is already far in excess of what it needs to be for most cases - I was shooting weddings no problem with a 6MP K100 just a few years ago, and I can't say that the extra resolution on the more recent cameras has offered any real value to my customers - mostly it makes processing a hell of a lot slower. Sure, you can argue that more resolution means less noise, and cropping is nice in a handful of cases, but really, most shots are much more limited by focus, motion blur, or lens sharpness than resolution at this point. Full frame doesn't fix that.

There is certainly potential for Pentax to do big things if they brought out an inexpensive, compact full frame, but outside of that I'm not sure what direction they could go to compete with Canon and Nikon. And, they've been getting sensors from Sony, right, so who do they get a full frame sensor from since Sony's have been unconvincing so far? Also, how much of a camera's cost is attributed to the sensor? Are there massive profit margins on those cameras, so that it's conceivable for Pentax to undercut people price-wise? Pumping out an also-ran FF camera would be worse than nothing, and I really think Sony's attempt was exactly what you get if you have FF for the sake of FF. Pentax shouldn't put one out unless they have something that will really stand out like the K-5 has.

As to their performance with Hoya - I don't watch market share really, but it seems to me that Pentax did a fantastic job shaking up the market and generating press with the K-7 and K-5. It seems to me that they've got disproportionately large share of buzz for their size (and their nonexistent advertising budget!) and the K-5 is the most compelling camera that they've put out since... I don't know when. It's hard to complain about a strategy that produced class leading IQ.
Forum: Pentax Full Frame 02-18-2012, 04:33 PM  
How to push the Pentax Full-Frame Idea and get that FF out faster...
Posted By Eigengrau
Replies: 1,493
Views: 160,347
Also - does anybody have any idea what full-frame did for Sony market-share-wise? Last I checked they aren't doing all that fantastic in the DSLR front, and the A900 was pretty underwhelming. I think producing good cameras is ultimately what matters - a bad or average full frame doesn't help any, while a good APS-C can help a lot.
Forum: Pentax Full Frame 02-18-2012, 04:29 PM  
How to push the Pentax Full-Frame Idea and get that FF out faster...
Posted By Eigengrau
Replies: 1,493
Views: 160,347
I remember a thread a while back when somebody asked "could an APS-C ever be good enough that you wouldn't need full frame?"

It seems to me that if you don't answer "yes" to that question, then you aren't thinking rationally. The reason I hollered for a full-frame Pentax for quite a while was the fact that I wanted D700-esque low-light performance, and I thought that the only way to achieve it was full frame. Well, now the K-5 is competitive with any camera out there in terms of sensitivity, and I have to say that I don't really give a damn about full frame any more, because it isn't offering any compelling benefit (for me).

Most of us don't need higher resolution. Most of us don't need thinner DoF. What else is full frame offering, other than bragging rights? And, is it really worth Pentax expending the resources to enter the full-frame arms race when 90% of users will be better satisfied by a high-performance APS-C?

I understand that there is a niche market that needs that full frame thing, but I think the obsession borders on religious for some, and that if we are objective it doesn't offer anything critical in most scenarios. I certainly wouldn't complain if Pentax brought one out, and if they do the same thing with full frame that they did with the K-5 I would be thrilled and a potential customer, but honestly I don't know if there's a good business case, or an entirely rational justification for full frame. What is it actually offering at this point?
Forum: Pentax K-01 02-18-2012, 04:11 PM  
Marc Newson's K-01 fails design principles test
Posted By Eigengrau
Replies: 317
Views: 31,191
That's exactly my point - cars have much larger design challenges than cameras. Yet, they still make them aesthetically interesting and continually bring in fresh new looks.

If they can do it for cars, doing it for cameras should be much easier. Pentax is one of the only manufacturers stepping out to try it, and good for them. We've been stuck in the 90's for way too long with SLR design.
Forum: Pentax K-01 02-16-2012, 01:16 PM  
Marc Newson's K-01 fails design principles test
Posted By Eigengrau
Replies: 317
Views: 31,191
Sorry, I don't buy it - car exteriors (and interiors) have more functional design limitations imposed on them than any camera. Consider - aerodynamics, signal visibility, cargo capacity, safety (for the occupants, other cars, and now pedestrians), and a whole bunch more. Yet, the designs continue to be fresh and progressive.

This is because car manufacturers have figured out that good design adds value - look at KIA, who used to put out putrid little econoboxes and shameless ripoffs, and then decided to hire Italdesign to give them cars that have gotten mistaken for Lexuses.

SLR designs have been stagnant for a long, long time because nobody has thought to do anything else. This is starting to change, first with retro influences, and now with some entirely new approaches. But existing photo enthusiasts are used to the status quo and fear change (like everybody), so anything new is going to be regarded with suspicion and distaste.

I applaud Pentax on taking the lead with using design to add value to their products. Target figured it out when they started selling cheap, attractive clothing (Wal-mart and others have since followed) and cellphone manufacturers and car manufacturers are following. Consider - good design doesn't add a per-unit cost... it is roughly like R&D, and the money invested is easy to recoup across thousands of sales. It's a good strategy, because everybody is limited by the similar production costs when adding features, but design potentially offers a lot of bang-for-your-buck, and the more you sell the better deal it is.

BTW - Marc Newson did design a Ford concept car, and it had some pretty ergonomic features like swiveling seats that made getting in and out of the car easier. And the steering wheel and pedals were perfectly usable.
Forum: Pentax K-01 02-13-2012, 07:00 PM  
Meet the K-01 designer.... (video interview)
Posted By Eigengrau
Replies: 22
Views: 3,192
Engineering is different than design, though. He doesn't claim to know anything about engineering, and he is correct to say that he knows more about design than the Pentax engineers do. In another video he expressed his appreciation for how much they accommodated his design choices, so I don't think he meant to be arrogant at all.

Well-engineered things can be beautiful apart from any design, but engineers are not selected for their ability to capture the imagination or their aesthetic sensibilities. Putting engineers in charge of design would be like putting them in charge of the website - you end up with a site that is sensible and functional but has little aesthetic appeal and that might require a lot of time to learn. It is good to bring in some fresh blood to stir up the camera market - when was the last time we had a truly original design in an interchangeable lens camera?
Forum: Pentax K-01 02-13-2012, 06:34 PM  
Marc Newson's K-01 fails design principles test
Posted By Eigengrau
Replies: 317
Views: 31,191
Seems that nobody here has bothered mentioning this - but traditionally cameras have been exceedingly uninteresting in terms of design. The most lauded designs recently (looking at Fuji) have been what amount to carbon copies of older designs - not bad, but certainly not original or forward-thinking. I find most of the mirrorless segment to be either unoriginally copying old cameras, or taking cues from the totally uninspired compact point-and-shoot segment.

DSLR's are even worse. The K-5 (and K-7) are the only DSLRs in recent memory that exhibit design worth making any noise about, and even then they are not making waves or new statements. For the average consumer, DSLRs are literally indistinguishable from one another, and none of them offer anything visually interesting in terms of design. We've progressed hardly at all since the 90s, and if you didn't know what the models were going in, you wouldn't be able to tell from looking at the front whether the k-5 came before or after the *ist. Other manufacturers are as bad or worse.

While I don't cherish the "planned obsolescence", fashion-focused development of the automotive industry, the constant competition for an inspired, compelling design keeps things interesting, and many of the cars are pieces of art in their own right. I think we should applaud Pentax for doing something different, even if the design isn't universally appealing. It's a welcome change from the stagnant state of SLR design, and I think that many people outside of the change-wary DSLR crowd will find it appealing, or at least not boring for once.
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors 08-13-2010, 09:18 PM  
What if?
Posted By Eigengrau
Replies: 81
Views: 13,316
If truly top-end performance could be had from APS-C, then FF would only really appeal to people with a glass investment or who really want thin DoF. The problem is that physics makes it a virtual certainty that FF will always be the best out there: you just have more photons to work with. Ever since FF has been around, it has been significantly better than the best APS-C. The K-x, which has been reported to be one of the best APS-C sensors to date, still does not compete with the D700, which was released quite a while ago.

You are basically asking "If APS-C could outperform FF, would you buy it", and the answer is of course yes. But I don't think that will ever happen, outside of edge cases like Sony.
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors 08-06-2010, 01:21 PM  
Potential ka-bosh on Pentax FF in the near future due to Sony rumor?
Posted By Eigengrau
Replies: 235
Views: 33,169
Ah, I see. Thanks for clearing that up.
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors 08-05-2010, 08:34 PM  
Potential ka-bosh on Pentax FF in the near future due to Sony rumor?
Posted By Eigengrau
Replies: 235
Views: 33,169
Fantastic! This is a great description, and as someone getting a physics undergrad right now, I always appreciate opportunities to see quantum uncertainty at work in day-to-day things like lens apertures.

It makes perfect sense, of course, but somehow it is always surprising to see the quirky rules of quantum mechanics impinge on our lives in noticeable ways.

Question, though: don't we know luminosity as a function of location, (the specific spot on the film/sensor) rather than as a function of direction? In the double slit experiment, for instance, we can know the final location of the photon, but not if we know which slit it went through - location instead of direction. If I understand correctly, the smaller the aperture, the more certain we can be about the direction a photon comes from (and therefore momentum), and the less certain we can be about the location on the sensor. Am I going wrong somewhere?
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors 08-05-2010, 10:34 AM  
Potential ka-bosh on Pentax FF in the near future due to Sony rumor?
Posted By Eigengrau
Replies: 235
Views: 33,169
What I'm expecting is something very similar to what happened with the first Digital Rebel. Inexpensive digital SLRs didn't really exist before that, but it only took one successful model to start the trend. As soon as we get the FF equivalent of the rebel (cheap and compelling enough to get people to buy) we'll see a trend that way. There's some hinting even now that Canon and Nikon might be bringing out cheap FF cameras pretty soon.

The price they set that FF at is going to be the new maximum price for APS-C. It will be very hard to sell a cropped sensor body for more than a FF one.
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors 08-04-2010, 07:27 PM  
Potential ka-bosh on Pentax FF in the near future due to Sony rumor?
Posted By Eigengrau
Replies: 235
Views: 33,169
You misunderstand my argument. First, I am not talking about right now, but about the most likely trend in the future.

Second, believe whatever you want about the cost of a FF sensor, but already the sensor has gone from being the single most expensive component in a camera to just another part to plug in. Honestly, look at the state of the SLR market even 5 years ago! We've got cameras now that put that generation to shame, for much cheaper. What makes you think that the future will be different? Today's pro model will be in tomorrow's bargain bin. All I'm expecting is for the future to be like the past, while you for some reason are expecting that APS-C sales will continue as they always have been and ignore the changing economics of the sensor business.

Where's the flawed logic?
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors 08-04-2010, 03:28 PM  
Potential ka-bosh on Pentax FF in the near future due to Sony rumor?
Posted By Eigengrau
Replies: 235
Views: 33,169
1. I have established this with actually some pretty decent logic. That being: digital era technology has, in every single case, become so cheap that today's top-of-the-line stuff will be in the bargain bin in only a couple of years. This in and of itself should make it obvious that we can expect sensors to develop to insane levels and become really, really cheap simultaneously. This is the only fact I need to build the rest of my assertions off of, and as far as I can tell you haven't addressed it.

2. I never claimed that SUV's are better. I claimed that they were more than the average person needed, yet they sold like hotcakes. As an answer to your contention that people won't buy more than they need. (FF in this case)

3. FF is the feature. It has been relegated to the top of the top-end for quite a while, but as soon as a camera manufacturer finds a profitable way to offer a good one to the masses, we can expect to see them take off.

By the time FF is threatening APS-C it will be too late. I'm arguing that it will happen eventually. I have yet to see any good evidence of why it wouldn't happen.

Responding to Winder, if you reread my original post you'll see that I said 'assuming constant performance per square mm of sensor', suggesting that we have the same pixel density in both cases. If a sensor can be made to a certain density at APS-C size, it should be equally possible to scale that up to FF. Thus the argument that a FF camera could do everything an APS-C can plus more. The only limitation here is that putting APS-C density on a FF chip would lead to tons and tons of data, which would be an engineering issue to work out.
Search took 0.01 seconds | Showing results 1 to 25 of 249

 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:33 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