P�l wrote: PJ> I'm not so shocked by this real possibility at all. After all, the PJ> 35mm format doesn't make much sense for digital. Older lenses can PJ> still be used whereas newere digital only lenses could be made PJ> better, cheaper and smaller.
I don't feel that moving to a lower sensor size has anything to do with maintaining a SLR system, which is the whole point with preserving the current 35mm lens mount. Few of the existing 35mm lenses (and most of us have quite a few) will be of any use for their intended purpose - focal ranges will shift, special qualities will be lessened. I can't see what I might do with half of my lenses mounted on an "APS" sensor camera. I'll have to drop them entirely and have it replaced with "APS" lenses that fit the original bill. Then I'll end up with 2 different systems, one for film and the other one for digital, so where's the point in staying with Pentax after all? Don't tell me that some specialized photography like sports will benefit - I couldn't care less. Most of us came to build well balanced, optimized systems that fill their needs - breaking it will destroy the very idea of system. Pentax might as well come up with another mount. No difference here from the Olympus four thirds proposition. At least they were outspoken from the very beginning. PJ> If the "APS" sized sensors can achieve results that rivals 35mm PJ> film, then I see no reason why such a standard should not be set. PJ> Such camera will be far more cost effective compared to full PJ> frame DSLR with larger sensors and lenses. Most people won't give PJ> rats ass about the size of the sensor; results and $$$ is going to PJ> matter. Oh really? Let's see about it: $$$? - having to buying several new "APS" lenses will defeat the original saving on the body. Of course Pentax will be happy to sell you more and "help" ypu build a new ssytem. results? - current APS sized 6 MPixel cameras are not convincing at all in a digital versus film argument, at least not to me. Just because today's scanners are poor in exploiting film capabilities (see Nyquest sampling frequency theorem) doesn't mean digital delivers better quality. This is just wishful thinking from digital owners part. I always saw the undersized sensors as a transition stage. I don't see any reason why in the not so distant future the industry won't be able to build full frame sensors, having the adequate potential to surpass film capabilities. All one has to do is to consider optical limitations to see why small sensors are reserved for point and shoot cameras. If Pentax goes this route they will simply content themselves to build substandard cameras, and believe me, sensor resolution will be a more serious argument when comparing cameras than today's ludicrous synchro speed and fps. Servus, Alin
