Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums >

LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Aug 6, 2008, 5:17 PM   #11
Senior Member
pwithem's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 116

I'm thinking that a good argument for maintaining the SLR mechanism is for power consumption, unless you're assuming that would improve substantially in your conjecture. Also, each exposure would have to start with a black "canvas". How else do you produce that if not with some mechanical shutter mechanism? I could be wrong, but I'm thinking you can't just have a sensor exposed to the light and "turn it on" for short durations. Maybe when graviational manipulation is figured out, camera makers could use localized space-time bending right in front of the sensor when they need light to hit it or not.
pwithem is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 6, 2008, 9:51 PM   #12
Senior Member
Biro's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 835

Localized space-time bending... that's the ticket! Actually, I agree, you'd need a mechanical shutter. But perhaps you wouldn't need the pentamirror or pentaprism. Even rangefinders have shutters - and so do all point and shoots. I'm not predicting the end of the SLR, mind you. I'm only taking a look at the rapid advancements in digital photography over the past decade and saying "what if?"
Biro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 6, 2008, 11:38 PM   #13
Senior Member
interested_observer's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Tumbleweed, Arizona
Posts: 1,381

This is a good discussion. With Pentax's release of the 2x/2xx series, I see just about everything I want between the K20 and K200. As a hopefully improving novice, the APS-C sensor is just fine. With the K20 at 14MP which will may filter down to the 300 model line, I am not willing to leverage up to a larger body in physical size as well as co$t.

I was out picking up a monopod, and saw the Canon and Nikon bodies and lenses. These are just too large. Compared to the K100 I have, just possibly the K300 may be the end of the line for me. FF will be larger in both physical size and price - along with a new lens set. Sure I could just pick up full frame lenses, but I like the size and price of the DA glass, while upgrading in quality and speed as the need arises.

I still have my old Spotmatic II that I continue to like very much, but use very little. Manual focusing is much easier as the viewfinder is much better. The camera body is actually about the same size as my current K100. Overall, my limitation is my ability and not the equipment, so I do not see any limitations for me with the current line.

So just count me as a happy camper. I think that I can do everything I ever desired with the current form factor. Plus, if a lot of people dump the APS-c to jump to FF, then there will be a lot of quality glass around for some hopefully nice prices.

interested_observer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 7, 2008, 6:05 PM   #14
Senior Member
pwithem's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 116

regarding the comment that using a FF in aps-c mode would reduce a 12 MP image to 5 MP, my knee jerk reaction was to start calculating what it ought to be by looking at the ratios. Before I did that, which in fact I haven't yet done, I thought if there's any problem with an image from putting a DA lense on an FF body, it'd be due to barrel distortion of some kind, which may or may not pose a problem in a given shot. Why not just shoot the photo as is, but have a view finder feature to light up a red rectangle for proper framing when using a DA lens. That way, the user could decide whether to make the final cut in post processing. It might be a lot of trouble too, so, just a thought.
pwithem is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 8, 2008, 2:17 AM   #15
Senior Member
bilybianca's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Hassleholm, Sweden
Posts: 3,457

I'm one of those who have stuck to FF lenses, just in case if in future... The only DA lens I have is the 16-45 I got as a kit lens with my DS.

But after getting the K20D I have started reconsidering. How much better will I ever need? 14 MP is enough to make A1 copies, if not larger. 100% crops are OK for printing. So for print size I can't see a need for more MP's. (On the other hand, when the first internal harddrives came people asked what on earth you would fill 5 MB with).

As for sensitivity and noise, I'd say usable pictures from ISO 3200 pretty well fills my needs. Of course better is better, but mainly we would be talking of scientifical photography like shooting bullets (pun intended) hitting balloons.

Right now my wallet tells me loud and clear that I don't need anything at all, but I have started to look at the 12-24 and DA* 300mm...

pwithem: I have tried the 16-45 on an analouge FF body. It works, but to put it mildly it does vignette severely...

For you in the US who want to stick with FF, there's a nice A*400mm 2.8 on ebay...

bilybianca is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 8, 2008, 5:18 PM   #16
Senior Member
snostorm's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Chicago Suburb, IL, USA
Posts: 2,770

Hi All,

Just to put in my 2ยข. . .

Unlike Kjell, I have not made any conscious effort to stick with FF lenses. I decided long ago that I'm very satisfied with the APS-C format in digital. I concede the advantages of a FF sensor for IQ potential, but I consider it much as I did Medium Format when I was shooting 35mm film -- I'm willing to accept the limitations of the present format and appreciate the advantages.

I have a very long way to go before I reach a point where the limitations of the APS-C format even come close to hindering my photographic goals. In my view, the K20's sensor shows that there's more to come in APS-C sized sensor development in the near future. It's very unlikely that I'll outgrow the K20 anytime soon, and by that time, they'll have come out with a better sensor in a better body.

I've always seriously doubted that FF will ever gain the sales levels needed to make the economics of scale a real factor in their pricing -- maybe some day, but certainly not soon, so FF bodies will always be very significantly more expensive.

I'm a bird shooter, and as such, I'm always looking for more reach. FF favors the wide end, removing the "crop factor", but I do very little shooting at the wide end of the FL spectrum, so there's no advantage for me from a FOV standpoint. Premium fast glass at the long end is VERY EXPENSIVE -- a minimum of 3-4x+ as much $$$ as at the wide end, and incredibly BIG -- I'm pretty happy with the lenses I've got now (finally!:-)), but a move to FF would again have me searching for more reach (I could, of course crop -- but that kinda defeats the purpose, doesn't it? :roll

Bottom line, I won't say never, but I doubt that I'll ever go FF. But I would be tempted by a fully "pro" spec'd and featured, affordable Pentax APS-C body, and I don't think I'm alone in that. IMO, Pentax should concentrate their "upgrade path" efforts in that direction.

snostorm is offline   Reply With Quote

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 9:44 AM.