[Emacs]

That's not a technically distinctive or impressive image example by any means. Your standards must be pretty low

but I can't see that it could not have been taken on apsc,

LOL
Every time someone insisted on something like that ended with tons of smeared or/either overprocessed APS-C pictures but nothing that really rivals FF IQ.
I don't pray for FF quality. I just think the FF sized sensor is the minimal sized one that can produce decent results. The difference is easily noticeable with WA lenses or fast lenses wide open. I repeat, even my uberexpensive summilux 35 asph fle mounted at NEX-5N can't match canon 50f L used on FF camera (and of course the lux 50asph is better on M9 as well), although this lux 35 is MUCH better than any other 30-35mm lens.

[ihasa]

My point was not to deny the advantage of FF - it was specific to that shot, reproduced at that size.

[Emacs]

Oh, I forget to add. With PP you can lift up local contrast for picture to look sharp enough. But it works damn bad for skin (and details still missed, of course), inperfections become really annoying.
And pictures looks flat as well (flatness is measured as a difference between mean local contrast of DOF and one of OOF areas. With larger sensor you likely to have higher local contrast in DOF as well as smoother OOF for equivalent lenses). It's not about blurred to death bokeh. It's all about higher microcontrast and details.

[Mistral75]

Take a look at picture (not mine, just an example, taken by my friend):

It was taken with either 85/1.2 or 70-200 f2.8L IS II, I don't know exactly. I see no way I could take a picture with the same crispness with APS-C and any lens. Still, I find $2k 50 f1.2L being a better performer than my $6k Summilux 35 ASPH FLE on NEX.
The difference is easily seen when shooting wide open, when lenses are usually can't resolve sensor. In this case the gap is really dramatic.

This shot is technically so distinctive that you cannot even specify whether it was taken by a 85mm f/1.2 or a 70-200mm f/2.8...

[Unsinkable II]

Sony has a 24mp sensor in its A77 and A65 SLT cameras. While those cameras are appealing in many ways - not the least for their full-frame sized OLED EVFs - noise at ISOs above 1600 is a known issue. On the other hand, resolution and image quality at low ISOs is stellar. Still, Sony has just brought out the A57 - which is basically an A65 with a 16mp sensor (probably the same one that's in the K-01 and K30) . I think that pretty much says it all. Be careful for what you wish for Pentax.

Sony might perhaps be wishing they'd bought Pentax rather than Minolta. Pentax seem to get more out of the same Sony sensors than Nikon or Sony themselves.

[mickey]

if Pentax did go FF would I buy one? well here is a theory..
Suppose Pentax DID releas a FF camera.... If it is in the $4000.00 plus price range... the answer is no. Too pricey for me and many others, they will sell less than the k-01, to the typical Pentax user base and will likely NOT bring masses of new users to the brand.

So what might work? IF Pentax took the styling from the Mz5n, and the same features as k30 and added a flip out lcd, dropped the mechanical IS and went with a digital IS scheme, scrapped the weather sealing and offered it at $2400.00 or less... then yes If the image quality was there, and the high iso equalled or exceeded the k-5's but with a higher resolution and better af plus video capabilities, I could see me paying that much happily... retro styling, basic features.... a good studio/wedding camera...

add weather sealing and sensor shake IS to the mix and up the price on a later model, sure why not... but entry to FF had better be a real bargain price wise or they won't help the company...

I think this is exactly why Pentax won't be releasing a FF model anytime soon.
People who "need" a FF camera then set themselves other little luxuries like flip out LCD, and have a price set out in their minds.
Pentax has to put out a FF camera that will shift far less units than the k-5 and, dare I say, its successor.
For its market share, I doubt FF will happen anytime soon.

[zmohie]

pentax has almost ..all the mounts from the small sensor Q to the big MF/. If they have made all these cameras/ 2 mirrorless ,aps/c,MF/ Why they insist on not releasing a FF.cant imagine they have not the resources.

[Emacs]

This shot is technically so distinctive that you cannot even specify whether it was taken by a 85mm f/1.2 or a 70-200mm f/2.8...

The 70-200 f2.8L IS II has excellent IQ, And the DOF looks like it was shot at f≥2.8 (I mean it was slower than f2.8), so it's hard to tell what the lens was used. I guess it was zoom because I was shooting with it a couple of hours earlier (he was trying out his new 5d mk iii), but not sure, since he usually carries these two and we had parted before he took this photo.

[ihasa]

pentax has almost ..all the mounts from the small sensor Q to the big MF/. If they have made all these cameras/ 2 mirrorless ,aps/c,MF/ Why they insist on not releasing a FF.cant imagine they have not the resources.

They already produce k-mount cameras and full frame lenses though. They also have a huge range of existing, tried and tested, lens designs to draw on from the film era. It's not a huge leap really. I guess it comes down to market positioning.

[eddie1960]

Yes, some pros need to print very large prints, and thats the only reason to go with FF. How many of you here are making money from photography? How many of you print over 16x20? Sure some do, but not a large number of people. I .

Actually the ability to print large prints is low on the list. the ability to build better lower price wide angles, the DOF difference
the big 1 in my opinion is the ability to acheive the same dof on equivalent lenses, but with the Ff lens stopped down to it's optimal performance area
so as an example you can shoot the da* 50-135 @ 135 f2.8 or a 70-200 2.8 @ 200 f4.0. the Ff should perform better because you are shooting optimized (or f4 on the DA* and 5.6 on the FF lens) some DOF but for the in focus areas sharper. particularly important if you are placing the primary subject of to the side rather than in the center

If the FF sensor has enough pixels you can of course crop it to the same performance as the apsc camera (ie d800 crops to d7000). if it is a 24mp ff it will print better than a 24mp apsc because the pixel density is lower and will have less noise.

there are lots of reasons to want one, and many to be happy with an apsc. Ultimately though by not making a FF Pentax limits their market. Thing is from all the rumours on upcoming FF this will be the year FF starts impacting upper level apsc due to price drops. If the D600 is indeed a FF D7000 and it sells for the rumoured $1500 it will be a category killer. Personally i think it is more likely to be 1999, but it is still going to bleed enthusiast dollars away from the other brands if they don't have an offering to compete.
As time goes on this will become a massive issue for Pentax because like it or not this is the way the market will head and Pentax will end up marginalized (even more than they already are)

[Unsinkable II]

Deary me...

Sensors are getting cheaper. Some berk here recently said that a FF sensor was 10X the cost of APS-C. Nonsense.

Prices are coming down, and performance is going up. Take your choice.

I do this for fun, so small is good.

[eddie1960]

Deary me...

Sensors are getting cheaper. Some berk here recently said that a FF sensor was 10X the cost of APS-C. Nonsense.

Prices are coming down, and performance is going up. Take your choice.

I do this for fun, so small is good.

Certainly a couple of years back 10x was a good estimate ($500 versus 50 for instance) Heck the 645D sensor was supposedly around $3000 sensor only back at the release (I imagine it has dropped now)

My guess is to release a D 600 at the price range rumoured Nikon must be getting them for $250 or less, or taking a big margin hit to be made up on volume

[Biro]

Deary me...

Sensors are getting cheaper. Some berk here recently said that a FF sensor was 10X the cost of APS-C. Nonsense.

Prices are coming down, and performance is going up. Take your choice.

I do this for fun, so small is good.

I'm with you 100%. I actually hope my fellow Pentaxians who pine for a FF camera get their wish. I want everyone to be happy. But I personally have no need for anything larger than APS-C. Of course if the FF body were priced the same as, say, a K30 body, I might find that hard to resist. But it literally would have to be that cheap. And I'm pretty sure that's not going to happen.

[Simen1]

The possibility of a 24 MP sensor doesn't have me jumping with joy either after looking at what Nikon has produced with D3200 noise wise. Reasonable but not on the same level as the 16MP sensor.

I dont think its that bad. Sony NEX 7 uses the same 24 Mp sensor as D3200 and it achieves quite well over at Dxomark. Enabling ISO 80 would probably get it past K-5 on the total Dxomark score. Small noise trade off to get a small resolution trade in. The Nex 7 does even better on color accuracy then the mighty K-5.

[eddie1960]

I dont think its that bad. Sony NEX 7 uses the same 24 Mp sensor as D3200 and it achieves quite well over at Dxomark. Enabling ISO 80 would probably get it past K-5 on the total Dxomark score. Small noise trade off to get a small resolution trade in. The Nex 7 does even better on color accuracy then the mighty K-5.

Add in that the 3200 is entry level and will be crippled in more ways than one, and that pentax historically has outdone sony with the same sensor. the 24mp aspc could be a good evolution from the k5 (not the revolution the K5 was though AFAIAC)
What i'm really itching to see is the 24mp Sony FF sensor. It's a sweet spot. big enough to crop practically to apsc sizes for da lenses and small enough that there should still be speed unlike the D800
in the right body it could be a real winner