[falconeye]

Of course that cost is body only, Falk.

I know. Tell the friends in question though... Seems that in a hobby, most decisions are emotional anyway...

I know that Pentax is loosing a lot of money and influence in the serious photo amateur community because people see no way to upgrade beyond K-5. You absolutely need to have a product in the $2k segment like it once had with the *istD. Otherwise, you leak at the top where the margin is (also for lenses btw). Even if you can attract lots of new users into the brand at the bottom. As soon as these new users grew mature enough to generate a solid profit, you risk loosing them. There can't be no worse strategy...

[Billgscott]

I know. Tell the friends in question though... Seems that in a hobby, most decisions are emotional anyway...

I know that Pentax is loosing a lot of money and influence in the serious photo amateur community because people see no way to upgrade beyond K-5. You absolutely need to have a product in the $2k segment like it once had with the *istD. Otherwise, you leak at the top where the margin is (also for lenses btw). Even if you can attract lots of new users into the brand at the bottom. As soon as these new users grew mature enough to generate a solid profit, you risk loosing them. There can't be no worse strategy...

I agree totaly with Falk on this! Pentax needs a 5DII type product it its stable, it already has a 7D type product in the K5. Ignore the 1D type as the 645 has this covered.

I know I haven't got the most out of my K10 / K20 bodies and so will not be upgrading to K5 but - whan I do get past them, I want a FF to go up to.

There are lots of pros out there who upgraded to the 5D from crop sensors and they wouldn't do that if there were no ROI in it for them. It is all £ and p for them.

Bill

[SpartanWarrior]

No.

1. FF gives another possibility of DOF which APS-C can't offer. It's impossible for crop.
No such fast lenses.
2. High ISO is still better with FF camera. The difference is not huge, but still ~ 1 stop for 5D Mk II and ~ 2 stops for D700/D3.
3. FA43 will be 43 mm, FA31 will be outstanding wide-angle lens, not standart,
FA77 will be 77 mm. e.t.c.

There is not a stop difference between the D700 and 5D II
D3x 5D II Actually 5D II looks better than D3x
Nikon D3x review test report: RAW High ISO Noise, Nikon D3x vs Canon EOS 5D Mark II | Cameralabs
and here is the 5D II and D700
Canon EOS 5D Mark II Review: 21. Photographic tests (Noise): Digital Photography Review
There's no two ways about it; if you're looking for this kind of resolution at higher ISO settings the EOS 5D Mark II runs rings around the A900.

Compared to the Nikon it is harder to call, with the 5D Mark II having almost double the pixel count of the D700. At the pixel level there is very little difference in noise up to ISO 800, but you can see Canon applying increasingly high noise reduction from then on, meaning that by ISO 3200 the 5D Mark II's resolution advantage has been wiped out and the the D700 steps into the lead, albeit by a whisker.

[SpartanWarrior]

I saw quite some banding in the high-ISO shots of the 5D MkII. Did you see that too? I have yet to see any serious banding in the K-5 (maybe a hint of banding if you push the EV slider in RAW to +4 at ISO 51.600, but who does that???)

For me, the current high ISO of the K-5 is better than that of the 5D MkII and based on the reports it's better than the D700 too. But only at high ISO, at base ISO I think FF is still at advantage.

So what you are saying is at High ISO the K-5 beats FF cameras? oh boy can't wait for the reviews, and I won't believe it until people start to show comparisons.

[Asahiflex]

So what you are saying is at High ISO the K-5 beats FF cameras? oh boy can't wait for the reviews, and I won't believe it until people start to show comparisons.

Yes, that's what I'm saying. However, it's good to realize that the aforementioned FF cameras are at least 2 years old. It won't take long before their successors will do it better.

[Priyantha Bleeker]

I have choosen for the option "I've always wanted/needed a FF dSLR and still do"
And that's just true
But that doesn't mean that the K-5 looks like a great performer And that I am going to buy it when the funds are there

[Winder]

No.

1. FF gives another possibility of DOF which APS-C can't offer. It's impossible for crop.
No such fast lenses.
2. High ISO is still better with FF camera. The difference is not huge, but still ~ 1 stop for 5D Mk II and ~ 2 stops for D700/D3.
3. FA43 will be 43 mm, FA31 will be outstanding wide-angle lens, not standart,
FA77 will be 77 mm. e.t.c.

I use a Canon 5D and just sold my E-3. I have used FF, APS-C, & 4/3. Everyone likes to argue that DoF is a one way advantage, but that is not the case. There a plenty of times when more DoF is better. If you stop down the FF to get the same DoF then you have to raise ISO and you lose the ISO advantage or lower the shutter speed if that is an option. Yes FF gives you some creative options that are not possible with APS-C, but those creative options are only practical in a few situations. I have let several people borrow my 5D w/85L so they could work an event. Most of the pictures that come back at f/1.2-f/2.0 too blurry to use as the DoF is so shallow only a slice of the subject is in focus.

Re-size the images from the K-5 down to match the 12MP D700 and let's see what the difference is. The K-5 appears to have better High ISO than my 5D, but we will see.

The difference in the field of view is not a one way advantage for FF. I don't use wide glass I have no primes wider than 50mm and my 24-70L is the only zoom I own that goes wide. I like the longer reach I get from standard focal length glass on APS-C bodies. The DA* 200mm give you a 300mm FoV. If you crop the D700 down to simulate the 300mm FoV you are left with a 6MP image compared to a 16MP image on a K-5. My biggest complaint about Pentax is the lack of longer fast primes line the 85mm and 135mm.

The people who really NEED a FF body have a lot of options to chose from already and can justify paying for it. The Sony A850 is only a few hundred dollars more than a K-5. Pentax does not have the glass for a FF system and does not appear to be interested in making any.

[ogl]

Yes FF gives you some creative options that are not possible with APS-C, but those creative options are only practical in a few situations. I have let several people borrow my 5D w/85L so they could work an event.
.

Yes...it's rather marginal advantage, but there is.

But..You can shoot with any 50/1.4 at f/1.4 without any problems at FF...
To get the same DOF we need 35/0.93 at APS-C. A lot of users use 50/1.4 wide-opened at FF.

And e.t.c. 200/2.8 at FF means that we need 135/1.8. e.t.c.

I've used 5D + 50/1.4 from my friend - no any problems with AF at f/1.4.

[Winder]

I agree totaly with Falk on this! Pentax needs a 5DII type product it its stable, it already has a 7D type product in the K5. Ignore the 1D type as the 645 has this covered.

I know I haven't got the most out of my K10 / K20 bodies and so will not be upgrading to K5 but - whan I do get past them, I want a FF to go up to.

There are lots of pros out there who upgraded to the 5D from crop sensors and they wouldn't do that if there were no ROI in it for them. It is all £ and p for them.

Bill

What specifically will you be able to do with a FF that you could not do with a K-5?

I upgraded to a 5D from film because the 5D was the first camera that I felt gave me a level of quality that I wanted. When the 5D came out most of the guys I know were still using film for their more serious work. At that time I was still using my Contax 645 more than my 5D. The digital work-flow was not were it is today. Lightroom was not introduced until 2 years after the 5D hit the market. The ROI for the 5D was judged against the cost of film and development/printing.

[Urkeldaedalus]

I use a Canon 5D and just sold my E-3. I have used FF, APS-C, & 4/3. Everyone likes to argue that DoF is a one way advantage, but that is not the case. There a plenty of times when more DoF is better. If you stop down the FF to get the same DoF then you have to raise ISO and you lose the ISO advantage or lower the shutter speed if that is an option. Yes FF gives you some creative options that are not possible with APS-C, but those creative options are only practical in a few situations. I have let several people borrow my 5D w/85L so they could work an event. Most of the pictures that come back at f/1.2-f/2.0 too blurry to use as the DoF is so shallow only a slice of the subject is in focus.

Re-size the images from the K-5 down to match the 12MP D700 and let's see what the difference is. The K-5 appears to have better High ISO than my 5D, but we will see.

The difference in the field of view is not a one way advantage for FF. I don't use wide glass I have no primes wider than 50mm and my 24-70L is the only zoom I own that goes wide. I like the longer reach I get from standard focal length glass on APS-C bodies. The DA* 200mm give you a 300mm FoV. If you crop the D700 down to simulate the 300mm FoV you are left with a 6MP image compared to a 16MP image on a K-5. My biggest complaint about Pentax is the lack of longer fast primes line the 85mm and 135mm.

The people who really NEED a FF body have a lot of options to chose from already and can justify paying for it. The Sony A850 is only a few hundred dollars more than a K-5. Pentax does not have the glass for a FF system and does not appear to be interested in making any.

Good points here. I am interested in the limited DOF of full frame on the one hand, but on the other I feel that the look that people crave from full frame is often overused. There are some wedding shooters I know of who shoot basically everything wide open, relying more on the dreamy look they get than on good composition. Lazy.

Also agreed that what Pentax needs even more than full frame is some more good lenses, both wide and telephoto. They've got the normal range covered pretty well.

[Winder]

Yes...it's rather marginal advantage, but there is.

But..You can shoot with any 50/1.4 at f/1.4 without any problems at FF...
To get the same DOF we need 35/0.93 at APS-C. A lot of users use 50/1.4 wide-opened at FF.

And e.t.c. 200/2.8 at FF means that we need 135/1.8. e.t.c.

I've used 5D + 50/1.4 from my friend - no any problems with AF at f/1.4.

1. Yes, but the difference in DoF is marginal.

2. I agree. Sony has an excellent 135mm f/1.8. The Pentax A* 135mm f/1.8 would be a great lens to bring back.

3. It is not a problem with AF. The problem is that unless you are shooting static subjects the DoF is so thin that the slightest movement moves the subject out of focus. I love my 85L and it is the main reason I still use Canon and the 85L is one of the best lenses on the market for any system. I really like the lens on Canons APS-C bodies because it gives me a very fast 135mm.

There is also the issues with edge sharpness. After shooting with an E-3 for a couple of years I really notice the softness of my 5D w/24-70L. Of course if you are printing 8x10 or 11x14 you are going to have to throwout 20% of the image anyway so the edges are not as important. After using the 645 and the E-3 for so long I don't like the 3:2 aspect ratio of the FF or APS-C. I don't print nearly as much as I use to so aspect ratio is less important.

[Steelski]

I want a Full frame camera because I really like shallow DOF.
I would still buy a cheap FF camera to use with shallow primes.
I now do not need a full frame camera for Noise performance, I have seen my needs surpassed. To me 12800 is the new 1600! and 80-1600 is superb.

[Winder]

Good points here. I am interested in the limited DOF of full frame on the one hand, but on the other I feel that the look that people crave from full frame is often overused. There are some wedding shooters I know of who shoot basically everything wide open, relying more on the dreamy look they get than on good composition. Lazy.

Also agreed that what Pentax needs even more than full frame is some more good lenses, both wide and telephoto. They've got the normal range covered pretty well.

When I first got my 85L I went through a phase where I tried to shoot everything at f/1.2. It is neat and can generate some great images, but like everything it only has limited applications in the real world. It is one of those things everyone thinks they have to have to make their work stand out. Good pictures are good pictures regardless of the media they are captured on. Quality glass is much more important than than sensor size.

[Billgscott]

What specifically will you be able to do with a FF that you could not do with a K-5?

You miss my point. I will not upgrade to the K5 as I haven't reached the limits of my existing cameras yet.

I would like to start selling some pics so I can retire from the rat race and suppliment my pension with income from my hobby.

To do that you have to compete with whoever is out there and they are mostly using FF bodies to get the DOF that everyone subconciously expects, and the image quality for large prints and sharp distance detail in landscapes.

A friend, who is a pro landscape photog, showed me virtually the same image originaly taken with a crop Canon and re-taken with a 5D and you could see the difference in the distance detail and so the 'apparent depth' of the picture.

So, when I am ready to upgrade the next step would be a FF. Buying a K5 or its derivitive would probably mean that I would have (or want) to go FF later and effectivly waste that cash spent on it.

All very subjective I know, but it is a crowded market out there.

I still feel that Pentax should have a visible path to pro FF bodies so that prospective pros in college will buy into the brand rather than buy Cannikon. Even if they never get to those heights.

Bill

[Winder]

You miss my point. I will not upgrade to the K5 as I haven't reached the limits of my existing cameras yet.

I would like to start selling some pics so I can retire from the rat race and suppliment my pension with income from my hobby.

To do that you have to compete with whoever is out there and they are mostly using FF bodies to get the DOF that everyone subconciously expects, and the image quality for large prints and sharp distance detail in landscapes.

A friend, who is a pro landscape photog, showed me virtually the same image originaly taken with a crop Canon and re-taken with a 5D and you could see the difference in the distance detail and so the 'apparent depth' of the picture.

Bill

Do you see a lot of landscape pictures with razor thin DoF? There are two professional photographers for National Geographic who use the Olympus 4/3 system for the bulk of their work. Sensor size is not holding back their careers.

I'm not saying that FF does not have some advantages over APS-C or that certain fields of photography do not benefit from some of those advantages. On the other hand APS-C has some advantages over FF and certain types of photography benefit more from APS-C than FF.

I think the differences between FF and APS-C are much smaller than a lot of people think. There are an awful lot of people out there taking phenomenal pictures with APS-C or 4/3 bodies. I was a judge at an event last year where the grand prize winning image was taken with a Sony F-828.