full frame..

I'm not buying the mass argument. One example: the mass of the lens element that is shifted in the in-lens anti-shake systems certainly is higher than the mass of a full frame sensor.
There are actuators around that can move quite a bit of mass at speed over very short distances.

Prieni

If you look at the construction of the SR mech with the sensor mounted... then scale that up to hold the 36x24mm sensor I think you'd have a monster of a camera with a view finder that would probably have to be a lot higher.

Also, if you read the comments (even on DPR) it's common knowledge that lenses that were great on film behave differently on FF digital. The image has to be collimated properly because the sensors sit in a "well". This wasn't the case with film - light at the edges of the film would be recorded fine even if the rays were not perpendicular. The Canon FFs need really good (read: EXPENSIVE) glass otherwise you get some serious vignetting.

I've mentioned it before, but it's worth mentioning in this context as well - a friend of mine has a 30D and 20D kit with L-series glass. It weighs a flippin' ton I could barely lift it. The equivalent focal range in Pentax glass was cheaper and probably half the weight. He was amazed at how light weight the Pentax was in comparison. Goodness knows what a serious Canon FF kit weighs

Still, with Canon FF you do really look the part

Matt

Yes, the size would go up, but the sensor size would add about 12.5 mm in width and 8.3 mm in height. If you add that to the K10D it's not really C**on size, is it.

I also could imagine a construction that might add depth to the camera body but not width/height.

But I don't want to get hung up on size/weight at the moment, the original question was why a full frame sensor cannot go with in body anti-shake.
OTOH size/weight might be just the point that the advocates of this argument are making. For me, though, it always sounded as if the laws of physics would stand against it... (i.e. the argument runs "it's impossible" and not "it doesn't make sense"; the latter I could be convinced of)

Prieni

My argument is not "it's impossible"
It's "it doesn't make sense", and especially "it doesn't make business sense".

I've got enough saving to do already: 16-50, 50-135, K20D
Matt

It would work, but not with existing lenses. The current "Full Frame" lenses have an image circle that just covers the 35mm frame - in order to account for that frame being moved around they'd need a bigger image circle or you'll have an overlap. My doubt is that the current K-mount can accomodate lenses with an image circle larger than it was originally designed for, hence my assertion that you could have K mount FF with no (sensor based) antishake, or a new mount with FF sensor based anti shake. If it's the latter then they may as well bring back project 645D and be done with it - at least there are already existing lenses for that one.

By how much? No error margin? To the Angstrom?

I doubt it. And a few pixel rows/columns might be enough (thus my questions for the travel of the shake reduction). One perhaps would be willing to sacrifice a few pixels for the benefit of anti-shake.
Or, how's about 95% full frame?

Personally if I had the choice between full-frame without anti-shake or APS-C with it then I'd take the full-frame option.

Where is it written that a FF Pentax must have SR...?

Where is it written that a FF Pentax MUST follow all the other along the 'black plastic blob type SLR designed by Canon 30 years ago'....?

Personally, I don't want a FF,... but I would be very interested in a 30mm square sensor system with existing mount and designed, rather than styled, elements,....a sort of 'mini-medium format' but using full frame lenses. Such a system could be a great performer for all those of us who don't spend our time crouching at goal posts cluchin big white lenses.....

Theres too much 'racing bike' syndrome in DSLR's at the moment......it's all actually got more than a bit stupid.

Eventually, one of the more intelligent makers WILL break the trend of the last 30 years and head off into good modern design to get customers rather than the 'jelly mould' styling that we are all obliged to know and love.

I realise that this is heresy to many people here but it would be great if a giant killer like Pentax did it......and brought photography into the new millenium

The blindingly obvious does not need to be written.

It's called evolution. Animals or machines designed to do the same thing eventually evolve into the most efficient way of doing whatever it is that they are designed to do. That means that different designs will eventually converge.

We used to have 6x6 cm in MF, until people realised that the most pleasing pictures are rectangles, not squares. Heard of the golden mean?

Bright people then designed the 6x4.5 format, which became easily the most popular MF format. This slashed film costs by a third, whilst permitting equal quality. Lenses became smaller too.

By the way, you'd need a 29.39mm square to be compatible with 35mm camera lenses.

Waffle

No idea what you are talking about. Are you saying that modern cameras should look like Spotmatics?

The jelly-mould shape you deride has a lot of structural integrity. Think ping-pong balls. Curves mean strength, and reduce weight.

Did what?

Viewfinder, you are off on one of your rants again.

How are you getting on with your new camera?

G

Good old George!....I knew you would'nt be able to ignore a baited hook!!

If you are refering to the k100 then it's ok.....

I did'nt really expect much,...but it's ok if one overlooks a basic crudness and lack of refinement........

???.........

So you didn't mean a word of it? Great, progress at last.

G

Well there is this bit of news on Steves digicams today.
http://www.steves-digicams.com/pr/sony_01292008_cmos_pr.html

But since Pentax are finally producing sensors with Samsung and are no longer using Sony ones I wouldn't get your hopes up just yet.

Yes I also saw this lunch time:

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0801/08013001sony35mmcmossensor.asp

Maybe I'll be buying a Sony next?

George: I was over in your part of the world at the start of this week. Unfortunately I didn't have much time for sightseeing however I did have time for a lesuirely drive round the TT circuit.

Not worth it unless you've got some old K-M glass twiddling it's thumbs in a cupboard somewhere.