I think a bigger issue may be that FF + SR in the same body would make for a very large camera.
Even if the two couldn't work together, the firmware could automatically crop a certain number of pixels from the edge when SR is turned on. At least for wide angle landscapes where you don't need SR, you would get the bigger image area. But look at the size of the K10D, and that is because of the APS sized SR mechanism. Imagine how big an FF sensor indide such a mechanism would be - not to mention that you would need much stronger magnets etc to move the larger sensor. I am not convinced that they would put both in the same body. However I would like to see 1.2 or 1.3 crop sensor with SR, and/or FF sensor without SR. There would be applications for bigger bodies without SR, even if they would be more niche players. I would dearly love to be able to use my 77 for portraits again, but on the smaller sensor the FOV is just not wide enough for indoor shots. So I use the 50 1.4 which is fine, but I fell in love with the 77 and would give my left arm to use it as intended again, but on digital... Rob -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bob Sullivan Sent: 21 December 2006 15:54 To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Official Full Frame Pentax Rumor - Technical Limitations of KMount? I'm having trouble with identifying Shake Reduction as a problem for full frame sensor cameras. Everybody is talking like the shake reduction movement is centimeters of travel. Look at some of the side by side comparisons. Remember some of the old time discussions about 'circle of confusion' at 1/1000th of an inch. Shake reduction is going to be a movement of very tiny proportions. 1 to 3 pixels on a sensor that is 3000+ pixels wide. If our full frame lenses can't deal with that small amount of moving or miss positioning, I would be really surprised. Bring on the full frame! Comments or corrections to this logic??? Regards, Bob S, On 12/21/06, David Savage <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The main argument at the moment is SR, as it is in the K100/10D, > wouldn't work. Supposedly current full frame Pentax lenses projected > image circle wouldn't be large enough to cover the moving sensor. > > As some people think that SR is more useful than a FF sensor, that's > their reason for thinking Pentax FF is a pipe dream. > > Time will tell. > > Cheers, > > Dave > > P.S. Welcome. > > On 12/21/06, Tom Simpson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > Hi: > > > > Im kinda' new here, but one of the things I picked up in passing is > > that the K-mount might be fundamentally incompatible with a > > full-frame DSLR? Or did I miss something? If I didnt, please explain > > to me what the issue is, as I was under the impression that if you > > put a sensor the size of a 35mm frame in the same place in reference > > to the lens as a 35mm frame of lens, it would all work out just > > peachy. Why not? I hope not, as I am hoping that the bigger sensor > > will give the quantum physicists more to work with to give us all > > the resolution we can eat AND bring dynamic range more in line with > > film. From my understanding, this is likely an either/or proposition > > with an APC sensor. Cant have both. > > > > TIA > > -Tom in SC > > > > -- > > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > > [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > [email protected] > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
