I dont like the idea for anything between APS and FF. If your going to go bigger than APS, might as well go for the whole lens cirle which is about 2.25 times the area used now. jco
-----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of P. J. Alling Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2006 11:30 AM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Official Full Frame Pentax Rumor - Technical Limitations of K 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 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
