full frame..

If I were you, I wouldn't care for being targetted by some replies here (and I think you have been too sensitive here ) . Do we have to be pro to demand better wider images? Do we have to be pro to ask for a viewfinder with more freedom?
It is only the cost of full-frame sensor being too expensive at the moment that leads to the impression that full frame is meant for pros. Is the Canon 5D anymore pro than the K20D I wonder??? You say Pentax is not big enough? Then...

In MF, Pentax was no where near Hasselblad but they managed to build a wonderful MF system that IMHO, the best money could buy.

Cosina is no bigger than Leica's finger but they are the current player in rangefinder scenario.

What I mean is that there's no point each of us trying to be Pentax CEO because we never know. For my part, I just enjoy my K10D and keep my mind open to any possibility.

You managed to say in one sentence what took me two posts and several paragraphs to put across - well done!

What is so silly about these endlessly repetitive threads is not just the fact that the FF'ers appear to have no grasp of economics whatever (economies of scale in particular), but they also fail to remember that in the days of film there was such a thing as medium format.

And the point about medium format was that very few people used it, despite the fact that it offered better quality.

And why didn't they use it? Two reasons: cost and bulk. And those reasons hold true for digital, only more so in the case of the former.

A medium format camera body is just a box with a winding mechanism. A FF (so-called) digital body is a much more expensive proposition, and when you consider that virtually nobody will buy them, you will see that they make no economic sense whatsover.

The quality produced by modern digital cameras is more than good enough for most of us. We really don't need sensors the size of a 35mm film frame, and I am quite sure that we are not going to get them - at least from Pentax.

And I wonder how many of the whingers use prime lenses exclusively (Limiteds and * lenses especially). If they don't, then simply by switching to good primes they will see an increase in image quality. And it will be cheaper than buying a so-called FF body.

G

Wise words G. Very wise words.
Martin

Well said, George, I note from todays AP that their test of the new Canon Eos-1 Ds is 'comparable' to an image from a 6x7 Mamiya and the Canon is 21.1mp not 6.1 or 10.1 or 14.1mp.

When I view any photograph I consider the image and perhaps delight in my interpretation of the photographer's intent. I frankly couldn't care if it was taken on a FF body or a Kodak 126 Instamatic and printed on wet toilet paper to which a light sensitive emulsion had been applied.

The ONLY thing that matters is the photograph and every time I see one of these tedious threads again I'm going to click on 'all threads read' - so there - gone off in huff

One of the reasons people cite for wanting a 35mm sensor is to be able to continue using old wide angle lenses as such.

The price of a good extreme wide angle lens for an APS-C dSLR is about 500 quid, plus or minus. Does anyone that wants full frame really believe that the extra they'd have to pay for a 35mm body would be less than the price of an extreme wide angle lens - or even two?

And with the way lenses have come on since they bought their lenses, they'll probably get better image quality by buying a new lens and sticking with APS-C, than they would do with their old lens and a body with a 35mm sensor.

LOL, there's always two sides to the story George. I'm one of the whingers (according to many), I have one zoom (DA16-45) out of 31 top prime lenses for my Pentax kit and a Mamiya 7 kit with three excellent lenses that I still use (due to the significant limits of my Pentax DSLR kit). I'd love to be able to retire my Mamiya kit if a suitable so-called FF body was available.

A good point too, Chris, the only reason I'm holding on to two K mount bodies is that I have a 28mm Shift. I cant see Pentax producing a digi equivalent because there is possibly some flawed thinking that software can produce the same effect and, of course, the development costs are probably enormous for such a specialised piece of kit. I hold on to screw thread models for embarrasingly entimental reasons

One has to question what you were thinking of to invest in 31 prime lenses for a system with "significant limits".

Still, I am sure the K30D will meet all your expectations. Well, to be honest, I'm not entirely sure, but I do hope so.

G

Well if you must know I've purchased just one new lens since the release of the *ist D and that's my one DA. They've only been making cash out of me on their body merry go round and that's only so I can use the glass I love, nothing more.

I've no idea what the K30D is but a camera spec'd similarly to the D3 with a K mount would do me for quite some years I expect regardless of its likely minor quirks. No camera is perfect, we all know that don't we? But a good camera should last a while, only mediocre ones need upgrading.

Didn't you say once that you bought many of them prior to the release - which never happened - of the MZ-D?

No affordable digital camera has lasted for very long so far, and it's not because they are mediocre; it's because technology has been moving very fast.

I don't think you will ever get a D3 in K-mount. First, you will never get a 24x36 sensor in K-mount (anti-shake won't allow it, and the lenses are largely discontinued), and second, Pentax does not have the market for a high-end pro camera (unless they re-launch the D645 project, where they already have a suitable mount and the lenses to go with it).

But at one time you would have been satisfied with the MZ-D. Now you want something much more sophisticated. You're not an easy man to satisfy.

G

Anyone seen the Canon G9....?

Now, THATS a real comera!......10 mil, RAW files, flash socket and "poster" sized prints,...more than enough camera for everyone here and it goes in your pocket!

Best of all it has a fantastic built in zoom so there's no point in thinking about all of these tedious lenses insuch detail.

Supposed to be as good as a digital Leica,.. thats what people on the web are saying and lets face it, they should know...

You could all start to enjoy shooting pix........

There should be ahealth warning on posts like that, viewfinder

I nearly fell off my chair.

I could do you a deal on a nice box camera. Takes 120 film. No pesky focusing or anything. Great results on Verichroime Pan, but a bit iffy with colour.

I've read that many a times but I wonder if that really is true. Why does anti-shake inhibit a full-frame sensor?
Is the image circle exactly 43.267 mm (i.e. diagonal for 24x36)? What is the tolerance? How long is the maximum travel of the anti-shake?

Not that I am really keen on a full frame. I know image quality of the APS-C is good enough for me (and that is already true for low ISO shots with my "ancient" istD). It's just that I don't see the argument...

Prieni

The degree of movement might be different but also the mass of the sensor will be much greater as well.