"Butch Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >I'll throw my 2� in. > >I think the 3 main reasons for building a 35mm sensor sized DSLR are: > >1. Larger files while maintaining optimum pixel size and density >2. Compatibility with existing film SLRs including wide angle lenses (no > lens factor) >3. Less magnification to any given print size. > >Given those, I have no trouble seeing a manufacturer having both APS and >35mm sized sensor DSLRs in their stable.
Not only is there no reason not to, there are very good reasons *for* doing so from the camera manufacturer's point of view. Traditionally, one of the main reasons for owning and carrying more than one camera body was to have quick access to different types of film. With digital that is no longer an issue: You can instantly switch between ISO settings, convert to black & white or boost color saturation. Why carry two camera bodies? Yes, you can have quicker access to two different lenses, but I expect manufacturers would like to give us more incentive than that to buy an extra camera body! Different sensor sizes is just the ticket from their point of view. An "APS" size sensor for max magnification (and lower price!) for sports, wildlife, etc. and a full frame for maximum resolution (and profit, from their point of view) for landscapes, fine art, really big prints. >Whether Pentax, who doesn't consider its 35mm system as their pro line, will >have enough reason to turn out a pro spec'd 35mm sized sensor DSLR remains >to be seen :( They've said they intend to make one, but I expect they will be a couple of years behind the cutting edge as far as time-frame goes, though right on par in terms of quality when it happens. (Just like the *ist-D, actually.) If you need maximum digital resolution *now*, you're probably better off switching to Canon like TV did. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
