I've been hoping for a 1.3x crop for some time now. I think that would
be within the working area. However if everyone else goes FF Pentax
will have to as well. (And in camera SR will become a footnote).
Tom Simpson wrote:
> Well, they wouldn't have to go quite full-frame to get major
> improvements in IQ and still have enough leeway for SR excursion for the
> sensor, right?
>
> How about, say, a 9/10-size sensor with x1.1 crop factor? Just what is
> max X/Y excursion of the sensor with SR engaged, anyway?
>
> Tom
> in SC
>
>
> Mark Roberts wrote:
>
>> David Savage 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.
>>>
>>>
>> Pretty accurate summation.
>> My feeling is that Pentax simply won't have any choice in the matter:
>> The demand for higher pixel counts and low noise will continue and it
>> will force sensor size increases. The marketplace will make the
>> decision for them.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
--
Things should be made as simple as possible -- but no simpler.
--Albert Einstein
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
