Full Frame for the Insecure?

I'm sure there are plenty of such people who switch to FF for sound 'aesthetic' reasons. For all you know these people may well go for an older second hand model, and a few legacy primes. Don't patronise them.

My message was not meant to be patronising but to be humorous/ironic (hence the smilies), and apologies for anyone who found it such.
It was simply meant to say we should all take more images, and get less hung up on equipment.

Now I know why I don't post on forums much

If I'm tempted to buy any more equipment I'll be be strung up by "my" equipment Thus spake the Financial Controller

The FC did say a very cheap IR Filter would be OK

Regards

Just an ordinary charlie who enjoys taking photos, all this technical talks have left me breathless, so I'll stick to my K2 with a 28_-105mm zoom & newly acquired RZ10. When you hit the 70s, each mile you travel with the equipment it gets heavier.
Like John said, if I do hit the jackpot, I'll get the mother of all cameras with just one lens and go about my ways enjoying photography,
Warm Regards to all from France
Oso

The main part of a laps income is not from the newspaper use that you see first but from subsequent library sales to magazines and publications worldwide. For magazine use at 300dpi a centre spread will need a good pixel count, possible poster or promotional use even more.

The more and bigger pixels the more flexibility your sales guy has in chasing sales after the initial flurry.

Lemmy- That makes sense. Genuine question- if one of these guys used a camera with a smaller sensor, would the clients stop buying them do you think? - I just wonder whether its self perpetuating?

One thing is for sure. It will be very interesting to turn all this debate into reality should a FF Ricoh/Pentax body launch.

I think if I ever change sensor size, it will be for a smaller one, once they reach the level of APS-C now...

Why does a DLSR such as the K10D/K5 etc only have a APS-C sensor.
Afterall the bodies are bigger than most 35mm film bodies and the "mirror hole" looks about the same size to me.

Could not the next upgrade be to install a full frame sensor into this size of camera?

Bernard

And price them a lot cheaper too. Why does EVERYTHING to do with photography have to be so expensive

Regards

Lock the mirror up, and have a look inside.

The sensor itself may be just 24x16, but there's all the shake reduction mechanism as well, which would have to be enormously beefed up, and made smaller at the same time to fit in the available space.

It would also need a completely new shutter, I imagine.

Not at all trivial.

I would forgo SR for a bigger sensor to be honest. But I ask myself, if they can produce a camera like the k5 which is so much smaller than say the D7000, which does not have SR, why couldn't they make a FF camera which is only slightly larger.

In principle, I'm sure they could.

But it's all about the investment in all the new technology, fabrication plants etc, etc,.... weighed up against the income from the probable market.

The fact you want one doesn't mean it's a profitable project

There's a gap in the market for a smaller, lighter 35mm DSLR, and a need to 'complete' the Pentax system with a 35mm body to encourage new people to Pentax, and help reduce the 'emigration' to Canikon of a fairly significant number of users.

The fact that you don't fancy one doesn't mean it's not an important product for Pentax to consider introducing if they're serious about staying in the DSLR (rather than mirrorless) game long term. I think with Ricoh at the helm it's virtually inevitable. Yes it will take investment, and careful market positioning, but look what they did with the 645D.

With the benefit of hinsight, the Pentax system should probably have been designed as APSC mirrorless with a new line of lenses and a K adapter, FF DSLR with complete compatibility with FA/DFA lenses and 645D medium fomat. APSC is a kludge-format for DSLRs IMO... it works well enough but it's not taking full advantage of what that sort of camera body could offer.

There might be a market for a relatively small light FF DSLR. The Leica Forums are full of accounts of photographers abandoning their big heavy Nikon and Canon FF DSLRs in favour of the M9 FF rangefinder camera because it and its lenses are relatively small and light.

No, but you are still thinking of the initial flurry of sales. In five years time someone will be using the picture for different reasons. Let's say the celeb in the pic has been given a prize for services to fashion. Vogue wants to use it across a spread. They need it also for a promo poster. If it is shot on a small sensor camera, the quality will not look good at poster size. Someone will have that shot or a similar one that will make the quality they need, so they buy that one.

These are simply hard business decisions, nothing to with photography at all.

I'll give an example, one of my all time best selling pix is the last one ever taken of The Who all together before Keith Moon died. I shot it on my Hasselblad. That shot has been used over and over all over the world. The quality is such that you can use it for a poster at 6ft tall. If I'd shot it on 35mm, then a poster would still be possible, just. But why would someone buy it if there was a similar shot at 6x6 quality.

In the end, there is no argument against shooting at the best possible quality for maximising future sales. Like I say, nothing to do with photography, just a business decision.