full size CCD for SRL digital?

Does any of the Pentax cameras have a CCD whose dimension is 24x36mm?
I mean, a CCD that would give to the M/K/A series optics the same exact angle of field that they have with film cameras?
If not, when do you think such a camera will be released?
Is any other manufacturer making such a camera, compatible with Pentax optics?
Thank you,
Frank

Nobody outside Pentax knows what Pentax's plans are for a full-frame digital in K-mount, but my own view is that it is not going to come any time soon, if ever. People who say otherwise are optimists.

Pentax ARE bringing out a camera this year (?) with a larger chip, but it will be a digital version of the 645.

Pentax K lenses cannot be used on existing 24x36 DSLRs from other makers without expensive modification and loss of features.

The quality obtainable from the APS-C chips is for most purposes comparable to 35mm film, and often better. Landscape photographers can use software stitching to achieve results similar to a view camera.

Because of economies of scale and technical difficulties , a full-frame sensor is always going to be massively expensive compared to APS. There is also the matter of storage to consider. Those big images will be slow to process and eat up a lot of hard disk space.

Personally, I'm delighted with the present offerings, and am in no hurry for a 24x36 sensor. With such a beast, my expensive 300mm would lose a third of it's magnification.

George

Well, Nikon and Kodak do, and if you have many wide-angle lenses and like interior design photography or landscapes the full-size sensor makes a lot of sense.
A bigger sensor, if the pixels remain the same size, means more pixels, therefore you wouldn't lose any magnification, as you'd have the option of just using the portion of the image you get now, ending up with the same sharpness and pixels.
I bet they will try and saturate the reduced-size sensor market and then they'll release the full-size.
I mainly use wide angles, down to 20mm, I'd love the full-size sensor.

Kodak have stopped making their full-frame camera, I believe, as have Contax, and Nikon's biggest sensor is APS (at 12MP). The only remaining FF camera is Canon, and it's incredibly expensive.

I agree that for a wide-angle user, the APS format means investing in another lens or two.

As for the magnification argument, I take your point, but to get the same effect means I would have to download a massive 22MB file and crop it. The quality would be better from FF, but the quality I get at the moment is quite good enough for my purposes. I don't think the increase in quality justifies the massive increase in price.

There's an interesting discussion about this here:

http://www.photo.net/oped/bobatkins/full_frame.html

Those who are seriously concerned about APS sensor quality would, I presume, presently be using MF rather than 35mm film cameras.

G

I am an owner of a a *ist D who would love to see a full frame sensor as well. Since the *ist D is proportedly no longer in production a 10 or 12 mp full frame sensor would make a tremendous replacement.

Don't get me wrong, I love my camera and enjoy the 1.4x gain on the telephoto end. But, the loss on the super-wide angle end certainly pains me.

The new Sigma 10-20mm F4-5.6 DC lense is on my radar (available soon). This might be an answer for those looking for a super-wide angle fix. Hopefully, Pentax will answer the need as well. (sooner than later).

Dave,
I didn't think the Sigma was available in Pentax mount. Even Tamron's 11-18 doesn't appear to have a Pentax mount available when you look on their website, but Park Cameras in the UK and BHPhoto in the US both have them listed - but awaiting stock.
Pentax, of course, have a 12-24mm coming out... but when??!
Yes, a full frame sensor would be lovely, but I wouldn't mind just higher resolution, faster speed, less noise, and still on the APS size sensor!
Matt

Matt,

Alas you are correct! It appears they aren't making the Sigma for the Pentax mount. I assumed they were making one (the new 18-200 is available). Why would they snub Pentax users?

Do you have any other recommendation for a super wide? I really miss a lense that can shoot at 18mm (equivalent @ 35mm). Aside from the Tamron you mentioned, which I am considering, it appears my only choice is a Sigma 12-24 for about $799 ouch!

Dave,
Don't forget:
Sigma = full frame. Real gelatin filters. "Pop-eye" front.
Tamron = APS field. 77mm filter.

There's a Pentax 12-24 coming... I'm waiting for that

Matt

Why do no camera makers make a "full frame" digital sensor that uses the full image circle of the 35mm lenses, but has an aspect ratio closer to 4:3 or 4:5?? MF cameras are designed so the "standard" print sizes don't lose the ends of the frame, like the 3:2 of 35mm or APS-C.

It all started when a Leica designer put two movie frames together to use movie film in the cameras. This has caused endless grief for people who sometimes even scribe their focusing screens to indicate what the true useful area of the photograph will be.

So when the sensors were designed, you'd think they would say "hey, we can make a sensor that will let people who make A4 or A3 prints use more of the pixels". You'd be naive to think that. They stick with what they have even if it doesn't work.

So now we have the 4x6 snapshot, not a very pleasing shape. I used to buy4x5 paper in boxes, now they don't make that any more!!

Only Olympus has done anything sensable with its 4:3 sensor, and fortunately it's possible to get an adapter to use those jewel-like K mount lenses on the E-1 and E-300. So Pentax just lost a sale of a second digital body, I'll just buy the E-2 and an adaptor when it comes out, and Pentax loses out!

In the 1970s "Photo Technique" constantly argued for the introduction of A sizes in photo papers, arguing that they would fit the sizes used in magazine production. Now we have A4 paper, do we feel any better off? Not really...

I think it's all in the mind - who is to say that any given picture will compositionally fit any one size of CCd or paper any better than any other as a routine thing? Why would all my pictures be in a 4:3 ratio? Or any other ratio?

Actually, I just adjust the picture size to suit my composition, and then print it on a piece of paper which invariably has to be trimmed to shape. I quite like square prints, panoramic prints, all sorts of shapes of prints, depending entirely on what fits the subject matter.

For those who can only get 6x4 prints, a pair of scissors can be very handy!

I shoot mostly for commercial, brochures, magazine ads, and so on. The 4:3 or 4:5 ratio is better suited to the requirements of magazine pages. 8x10 prints, 11x14 prints, 16x20 posters, and so on.

Just my personal beef.

Where can i get one like that? ?