[kales]

FF is FF, still

[jogiba]

Pentax has a FF camera in the 645D

Try using any of the 24 million FF K mount lenses out there on it.

[pinholecam]

K5 and Kr has certainly re-affirmed my belief that FF is not necessary. There are other more important things to improve (AF, DR, user interface and related features, HDR, ISO performance (including ISO80), etc) and Pentax has done so much of this correct on the K5.
Certainly hope to see more improvements like better in-camera NR algo ( like what JohnBee has done on the ISO 12800 and above picts)
Max flash sync speed would be welcome as well.

So, for me, FF can well wait, if Pentax has limited RnD resources between these improvements vs FF.

[jogiba]

My 28-300mm and other FF lenses don't have the 1.5x APS-C crop factor to deal with when used on a FF bodies.

[Wheatfield]

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.

1) This is not a factual statement.
2) Yes, but does it matter at this point? APS-C has certainly gotten to the point where the results are virtually indistinguishable from 135 format (which is the correct term for what you are calling FF)
3) Yes, it would be nice so see the 31 and 77 fringing on larger sensor cameras, but they aren't going to sell a lot of 135 format SLRs with a 3 lens line up, and as the local rep told me yesterday, they have holes to fill in APS-C, they have the 645 format to flesh out lenses for, and frankly, the 645 is their answer to every one else's 135 format cameras.

[ogl]

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.

So do I. But I plan to buy K-5 now.

[ogl]

1) This is not a factual statement.

I don't want to upset you. But it's factual. It's physics.

[Black_ronin]

Seems most people wanting Pentax FF are not pragmatics. Hoya in business not to satisfy every Joe's wish/desire but to make money. How many of you know exactly what percentage FF cameras have in photography market? How much of that market can Pentax FF potentially gain?

The gap between FF and latest APS-C became so marginal that by the time many of you "grow-up" for it there will be even better new APS-C waiting for you. Arguably, bigger sensor is better, so why stuck in FF? By that logic people can "grow" for medium frame. And then they would complain that there is no 20 inch sensor cause they "outgrown" medium frame?

In reality majority of photographic needs, including pros, can be covered by current APS-C. In future the sensors may get even smaller and cell phones will bit them in IQ too.

Many of you complain about DOF. Well, think about lenses which looks like huge dragonfly eyes, lens made of thousands micro lenses which has it's own aperture and DoF. That lens can do "magic" that non of your current super lenses can do. It's for future though.

For now "magic" can be done through software. Imagine this: camera takes the sharpest images of each wall in it's AF sensor points. So you will have one multi-layered image. Then in special software you control which layer you want the sharpest and how smooth you want transition to other layers. Or make all layers sharp. Whatever you feel like doing. "Ow, but it won't be art anymore" some may complain. The same people felt similar when market shifted from film to digital sensors. But seems many are happy now.

There is nothing revolutionary in FF body right now. Industry should come up with super sensor and other significant upgrades from APS-C body to justify production of FF. Till then let Pentax make money as they can. Hoya is corporation first of all and more pragmatic then most of us. Stop complaining about lack of Pentax FF and switch to other brand if you think they satisfy your "needs". Life is too short to complain about FF in forums.

What i WOULD LIKE (not need) from Pentax is better/faster lenses that no competitors can match. But it is just wish.

[deadwolfbones]

Honestly, with the quality I've seen from the K-5 so far, I don't really need a Pentax FF camera. However, I'd still like to see what my FF K-mount lenses could do on one, and more importantly I'd love a FF viewfinder.

But hey, that's why I have a D700.

[montygo4]

Hi, I'm a newbie. I'm selling my 5d mkII not for a 1d but for a k5. Why? because FF is overrated and have hundred reasons to be attracted by Pentax.
Have a little challenge for everybody : have a look at my site : Stephan Darding - Photography . Some photos were shot with a D90 and others with the 5D mkII. Since we're in a DOF issue, I challenge you which ones were taken by which camera. I'm telling you, FF is overrated...

[robgo2]

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.

This may not be correct. At low ISOs, the K-5 probably has a greater DR than the D700. Looking at some of the many photos that are now available on the web, I am astonished by how much shadow detail is present in scenes where the light is very challenging.

Rob

[cbaytan]

Do you see a lot of landscape pictures with razor thin DoF?

What razor thin DOF? Isn't an FF digital has the same DOF with a film camera? If so I've seen tons of FF landscape photos (film and digital) none of them had razor thin DOF.

[Asahiflex]

This may not be correct. At low ISOs, the K-5 probably has a greater DR than the D700. Looking at some of the many photos that are now available on the web, I am astonished by how much shadow detail is present in scenes where the light is very challenging.

Rob

I stand corrected; indeed, according to GordonBGood on the Dpreview forum the K-5 could have 14 stops of DR at ISO 80. That's indeed remarkable. What's happened with Pentax? They seem to do many things right lately. Very un-Pentax

[dgaies]

What razor thin DOF? Isn't an FF digital has the same DOF with a film camera? If so I've seen tons of FF landscape photos (film and digital) none of them had razor thin DOF.

I think he meant you don't need the "razor thin" DOF that FF bodies are capable of for landscape work. I don't think that was meant to imply you can't get large DOF with FF.

[Winder]

I think he meant you don't need the "razor thin" DOF that FF bodies are capable of for landscape work. I don't think that was meant to imply you can't get large DOF with FF.

Thank you! That is what I meant to say.

Neither landscape nor macro work benefit from the thinner DoF of 135mm. Even sports work is better served with more DoF. Commercial photographers and studio photographers usually have complete control over lighting and background so blurring the background is not as important. Even environmental portraits need a good bit of DoF. If you blur out the environment its not really an environmental portrait.

Outside of the high paying field of fine art photography there is not much use for really thin DoF. APS-C and fast glass is more than capable of creating the DoF desired for wedding and portrait work, and if you are not willing to spend the money of fast glass then you wouldn't be buying a 135mm system anyway.

The reason people in these fields chose 135mm is because traditionally APS-C has not been able to offer the SUFFICIENT dynamic range or the high ISO range of 135mm bodies, but that is changing and SUFFICIENT is the key word. There is a point of diminishing returns for high ISO and DR. I know there is someone out there who NEEDs 256,000,000 ISO so he can lock himself in a dark closet and take pictures of his pecker all day, but I hope he is in the minority.