[Schmidlapper]

(edit: Maybe this particular discussion isn't the best of the many on these subjects to add this to, but it is close enough and I have been wanting to express it for awhile.) The best perspective to have when debating a topic such as these is to understand it is not an all or nothing situation. A Pentax FF would not be aimed at nor best for everyone, and having one does not mean the line up would loose it's hi-end APS-C model. Most if not all manufacturer have a middle priced range line using APS-C along with their higher priced FF offerings. I myself find no compelling reason to need FF, if it will cost me substantially more to buy, it will cost me more in file size handling issues and a complete shift of my lens line up. My older manual primes may not be so great on FF as they are on APS-C, I suspect but don't really know. I liken it to that FF for me is no different than with the 645D has been. I like what medium format can offer, but I can't afford the real costs it would take me to have it. There are those though who can and need and or want those additional options and it is up to Pentax to provide them.

---

Last edited by Schmidlapper; 02-09-2013 at 06:19 AM.

[Jean Poitiers]

True. I will be happy - if- it comes.

Me, too ... I will be happy and would consider one, but first gotta get past the "IF" factor, then the "WHEN" factor (2014+?), and the "HOW MUCH" factor, the last be not least factor. I am quite happy now with my K-5, but I am not looking at any DA glass purchases until a FF becomes reality ... for now, I just keep collecting "cheap" legacy and odd-ball glass to play with on the K-5. J

[NitroDC]

(edit: Maybe this particular discussion isn't the best of the many on these subjects to add this to, but it is close enough and I have been wanting to express it for awhile.) The best perspective to have when debating a topic such as these is to understand it is not an all or nothing situation. A Pentax FF would not be aimed at nor best for everyone, and having one does not mean the line up would loose it's hi-end APS-C model. Most if not all manufacturer have a middle priced range line using APS-C along with their higher priced FF offerings. I myself find no compelling reason to need FF, if it will cost me substantially more to buy, it will cost me more in file size handling issues and a complete shift of my lens line up. My older manual primes may not be so great on FF as they are on APS-C, I suspect but don't really know. I liken it to that FF for me is no different than with the 645D has been. I like what medium format can offer, but I can't afford the real costs it would take me to have it. There are those though who can and need and or want those additional options and it is up to Pentax to provide them.

Exactly. It's not like Pentax is going to go full-frame-only. That would be a stupid decision. Obviously they will continue making APS-C cameras after they introduce their FF.

[northcoastgreg]

I think that when they start FF production, it would be a reasonable and maybe even wise decision to only focus on producing top of the line full frame lenses and not even have a mediocre kit lens. Sell a body only, body with 28-105 f4 kit, or body and FA 50 f1.4. Then produce the obligatory 24-70 f2.8, 70-210 f2.8, and a handful of additional primes to supplement the FA ltd and D FA lines. The lack of a kit lens can be justified by saying that the FF line focuses on the professional market who don't want or need that kind of lens.

I agree with this. Pentax, with it's small user-base, does not enjoy large enough economies of scale to make a value FF that can compete with Nikon/Canon. A Pentax FF, to be economically viable, has to be a high-end prestige product. Nor can Pentax afford to provide as many FF lenses as Nikon and Canon. A DFA 24 and 135 would be enough to fill out their prime line-up, and four high quality zooms to fill wide angle, standard, tele, and a ~24-120 and that's about as much as could be reasonably hoped for.

[tclausen]

I agree with this. Pentax, with it's small user-base, does not enjoy large enough economies of scale to make a value FF that can compete with Nikon/Canon. A Pentax FF, to be economically viable, has to be a high-end prestige product. Nor can Pentax afford to provide as many FF lenses as Nikon and Canon. A DFA 24 and 135 would be enough to fill out their prime line-up, and four high quality zooms to fill wide angle, standard, tele, and a ~24-120 and that's about as much as could be reasonably hoped for.

So, that's not necessarily a bad thing, from an enthusiast perspective at least. I'd much rather have a smaller set of excellent lenses, than a large (& confusing) selection of overlapping stuff.

I am not really sure that going FF would be for me, but....assume it was. I've got the FA Ltd's, which would be perfect, I thing. What I'd want more would be one or two longer lenses, say something about 135mm and 200mm (and, I'd be happy for those to be Ltd. and going at a premium), and a good wide (or a FF version of the 10-17mm would do). Throw in an updated 24-90, and I think that it'd be a range.

I know that I am just one datapoint here, but that would be, what, 4 new lenses that Pentax would need to develop (of which, was I to go FF, I'd end up buying 3 to be happy). 4 new lenses which could, likely, be based off existing designs from the various K-series, and just refined.

Thus, the differentiating factor would be "affordable high-end only", or something. Luxury sells, exclusivity sells - even if it's only "perceived exclusivity" (cf. Nespresso).

[leopold]

I also like small and light, which is one of my reasons for using Pentax.
But here's the thing: For wide-angle lenses,
full frame equipment is not necessarily larger and heavier.

Compare the full-frame FA 20/2.8 at 70mm length and 255 grams
with the APS-C equivalent DA 14/2.8 at 84mm length and 420 grams.

Currently, I use a two-body APS-C kit.
If a good compact Pentax FF DSLR appears,
I would have it replace one of the APS-C bodies.
Then FF for wide angle and APS-C for tele.

Yes i have both the FA20 and DA14 and the size difference is big, the FA20 is small for a FF 20mm compared to the Canon at the times it came out.