Hi Jostein, It's not a whine or a rant. It's something I've thought for years... that Pentax should/would have a full frame DSLR. Obviously Pentax thought so also at one point with the MZ-D, or whatever is was called, before cancellation due to sensor issues.
As far as I can tell the only reason the smaller sensor size entered the picture (no pun intended but give me credit for noticing) is because it: 1. allowed mfrs. to produce more easily (sell) and cut costs (profit) 2. market specialized lenses (smaller, less materials, lower cost) for that format (sell and profit) In the 8 or 9 years that DSLR's for the public at large have existed, they (all mfrs.) have sold millions of cameras and lenses, from which we have profited by having a product, and they have profited to the the tune of 1000's of millions of dollars. In the meantime, sensor technology and manufacturing processes have matured to the point that FF 135mm bodies are now a reasonable proposition as evidenced by their existence, including even interloper Sony having one. The mfrs., at large have played the game pretty smartly, having produced and profited in the interim with what could be considered a compromise product (in the sense that they compromised and adjusted in order to market an affordable product). They now are profiting again (or stand to) by producing the level up FF 135mm body lines. They have experienced a sales revolution and paradigm shift over the last 10 years that was beyond their wildest dreams. In the past the average SLR purchaser bought a camera body and kept if for 5, 10, 20 years with possibly no compelling need to upgrade and the continued sale of additional lenses was extremely important. Fast-Forward... in the last 10 years many people have changed DSLR bodies 2, 3, 4, 5 times, plus they've purchased many new lenses to match the format. If sensor resolution is limited by density/pixel size/inherent noise, then as I see it, manufacturers have little choice but to increase sensor size as a means of generating continued interest in a new product they can sell to their existing customer base. It's a logical move. In fact it may become easier to increase resolution or image quality by moving to a larger sensor than by trying to eke out the last bit of headroom from the APS-C format. If Pentax, Hoya, whoever they are, does not make a 135mm format body they will simply be relegated further back in the pack as they will likely hit the brick wall of physics. I agree that MP count is not everything and that some people will/do not feel the need for more. But we live in a world where mfrs. have generated exactly the opposite perception and continue to do so. And at the base level, higher MP count = increased resolution = higher image quality. You're correct in that I haven't moved on from Pentax yet, largely because 1) everytime I consider it I must also factor in new lenses, and 2) everytime I consider it I must also factor in the cost for new lenses. My affinity for Pentax, despite my misgivings, is evidenced by the fact that I've purchased 4 of their DSLR's, 2 APS-C lenses, an expensive Sigma long zoom in K-mount, and that I continue to display images made with that gear. I believe I've every right to voice a negative opinion on some aspect of Pentax as I've paid for that right. When I write my opinion (this is the only list I frequent) and it includes what is, or is perceived as, negativity or criticism regarding Pentax, that's allowed. :-) If I chose only to say things positive about Pentax, while ignoring the other side of the picture, then I could be correctly referred to as a fanboy. Tom C. On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 3:35 AM, AlunFoto <alunf...@gmail.com> wrote: > 2010/2/24 Tom C <caka...@gmail.com>: >> Dichotomy again. What Pentax does must be correct, while what they do >> not do is unnecessary, unneeded, or unwanted. > > Sorry, Tom, this is not to point at you personally, but your statement > is exactly why I choose to call the 135 factor sensors "Fool's Format" > instead of anything else. Whatever forum you go to, there are whiners > (RiceWhine, anyone?) who bitch that > their-brand-do-not-have-the-fancy-stuff-of-the-other-brand. Now it's > the chip format, before that it was either buffer size, AF speed, > number of spots in the light metering systems... the list goes on. If > Pentax complied to the current whiners, the whiners would immediately > turn to the lack of 135 format lenses, and think that Pentax sucks > because they're not able to push a magic button and spew forth a full > lens range to fit the new sensors within weeks of launching the new > camera. > > The bottom line is that some people seem to thrive on disdain, demand > what they can't have, and generally meet any new development with the > intent of pointing out what could have been better for them > personally. And then of course post that opinion to any online forum > where they can hope to be read. > > If they really meant it as seriously as their posts would have you > think, they should have switched brands a long time ago. And quite > possibly switched brands multiple times over the years as the > technology leadership drift from one brand to the next, but that's the > only way to be honest about ones perpetual dissatisfaction with any > particular brand. Pentax included. > > Why not focus on the nice things instead, for a change? > > Jostein > > -- > http://www.alunfoto.no/galleri/ > http://alunfoto.blogspot.com > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow > the directions. > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
