> From: Gonz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > The full frame question boils down to economics. Of course, this > question has been argued to death in this and other forums. A FF Pentax > would probably cost much more than most people here could afford, this > just to be able to break even. Even then, I don't believe that there is > a volume/price point constrained by Pentax's typical market and also > constrained by the sheer cost of the materials that would allow them to > break even. Unless there is a breakthrough in chip manufacturing that > allows CCDs to be made at this size inexpensively, this is not going to > happen anytime in the near future. Canon may not have broken even yet > on their 1DS, despite its $8000 price tag, but they are also doing this > to make their branding image more valuable which sells more of their > other cameras.
Kodak's ONLY DSLR is full frame, and costs about half as much. I imagine Kodak is making money on it, since Kodak is in enough financial trouble without supporting a DSLR if it isn't a money-maker. It's also a question of exactly what economics. Pentax isn't going to produce a *istD full frame for $1500 anytime soon, no. I don't think anybody is. $4000 might be achievable, though, and that's cheaper than the EOS1D and D1 started selling for. Both of those cameras sold quite well, although perhaps not to a Pentax-type market. Personally, I'd probably be in the market for a $4000 full frame DSLR if it were just a bit more capable than the *istD, because it would be almost an even break financially. It would take me about $2500 worth of new ultra-wide lenses to get to the same level of functionality that I enjoyed with film cameras, and another several thousand dollars worth of fast wide-angles would become meaningful again if I had a full frame DSLR. These are Nikon lenses, but I can see guys with the 18/3.5, 15/3.5, 28/2.0, and 31 FA being in the same boat. DJE
