Quoting Digital Image Studio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > The pertinent consideration of course is that the now defunct > resolution sensors would have used a similar silicon area to those by > which they were replaced. FF and APS sensors will always differ in > price by at least the value of area of silicon that they utilize.
Silicon is least part of price, it is yield that matters. And it drops exponentially with increase of size of sensor, thus making production expensive. Anyway, the cost should be dropping due to advances in chip production, but again I do not understand why stop at 24x36mm while 48x36mm is not really that much more expensive (as we already entered multi-thousand $ price region). There is nothing that makes 24x36mm "sweet spot" except for Canon's marketing strategy - they do not exists in MF market segment and using "old" lenses is the only upgrade path for their customers. The same logic might apply to Sony, but it does not to Pentax. Personally, it annoys me that people see whole DSLR market through pink glass of Canon marketing department. Given obvious issues with wide lenses and 24x36mm sensor I do not see it as attractive alternative to APS. Someone who does not use wide lenses might not care, but given that Pentax offer is especially strong at the wide end, it should matter for Pentax customers. In other words, would you buy 24x36mm DLSR from Pentax, if pictures it takes with your lovely 31/1.8 or 24/2 or 35/2 or 20-35 would look good only in the centre of frame? I certainly would not. There might be some ways around this problem, but I do not think it is viable now. B. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
