[Votesh]

I'm gonna make another "here's how I see it" post, even though this thread is full of them.

So, here's how I see it.
A FF body from Pentax would not be aimed at pros, whether it has largely pro specifications. Pentax is an almost completely amatuer brand today, which is not at all bad. It means that products can be tailored to the desires of an amateur.
Most pros, looking for pro systems, will stay in the canon or nikon camps. A FF from Pentax would, of course, appeal primarily to those already invested in Pentax equipment. It could also draw in new amateurs with money to spend and a desire to have a higher spec'd body, looking for a FF camera aimed specifically at the advanced amatuer market. For example, a body with a FF sensor that's the size of the K-7. I think the 5D MkII is the smallest FF DSLR currently available, and it is huge compared to the K-7.

To those saying there is no money to be made for Pentax by offering a FF camera, I would heartily disagree. They already have all of the know how. They have a well equipped MF DSLR, and well equipped APS-C DSLRs. As long as they don't try to match other brand's in largely unnecessary performance characteristics, R&D costs would be almost nothing. If they could find a way to fit a FF sensor into a current body design(a FF K-7 would make me weak in the knees) they wouldn't even need to change much in the production facilities. The larger mirror assembly and sensor assembly would be all they would need to produce that they aren't currently producing.

The K-7 was well received, and pretty successful at launch, at least for a high-end Pentax camera. That was at $1300. That's not too far from $2000, and obviously some people have that much, and more, to spend on a FF judging by the number of people jumping ship from Pentax to other brands for FF. Pentax/Hoya would merely need to make a profit from a FF camera for it to be a success. They wouldn't have to take market share from other brands, or build an army of professionals using Pentax gear for the camera to be a success.

I think the bottom line is that many FF cameras are sold to people that will never make a living off their photography. They just go to FF because they want to and can. These are the same people that Pentax could cater to. An advanced amateur offering meant to be used by advanced amateurs.

[justinr]

I'm gonna make another "here's how I see it" post, even though this thread is full of them.

So, here's how I see it.
A FF body from Pentax would not be aimed at pros, whether it has largely pro specifications. Pentax is an almost completely amatuer brand today, which is not at all bad. It means that products can be tailored to the desires of an amateur.
Most pros, looking for pro systems, will stay in the canon or nikon camps. A FF from Pentax would, of course, appeal primarily to those already invested in Pentax equipment. It could also draw in new amateurs with money to spend and a desire to have a higher spec'd body, looking for a FF camera aimed specifically at the advanced amatuer market. For example, a body with a FF sensor that's the size of the K-7. I think the 5D MkII is the smallest FF DSLR currently available, and it is huge compared to the K-7.

To those saying there is no money to be made for Pentax by offering a FF camera, I would heartily disagree. They already have all of the know how. They have a well equipped MF DSLR, and well equipped APS-C DSLRs. As long as they don't try to match other brand's in largely unnecessary performance characteristics, R&D costs would be almost nothing. If they could find a way to fit a FF sensor into a current body design(a FF K-7 would make me weak in the knees) they wouldn't even need to change much in the production facilities. The larger mirror assembly and sensor assembly would be all they would need to produce that they aren't currently producing.

The K-7 was well received, and pretty successful at launch, at least for a high-end Pentax camera. That was at $1300. That's not too far from $2000, and obviously some people have that much, and more, to spend on a FF judging by the number of people jumping ship from Pentax to other brands for FF. Pentax/Hoya would merely need to make a profit from a FF camera for it to be a success. They wouldn't have to take market share from other brands, or build an army of professionals using Pentax gear for the camera to be a success.

I think the bottom line is that many FF cameras are sold to people that will never make a living off their photography. They just go to FF because they want to and can. These are the same people that Pentax could cater to. An advanced amateur offering meant to be used by advanced amateurs.

I've just spent two days shooting on a professional basis with a K10, one was for some website shots and today was first communion pictures at the local church. Was this 'amateur' camera up to the task? Most certainly although there are aspects that could be improved. Indeed, so impressed am I by the camera that I'm seriously considering selling my Mamiya kit which is very much studio orientated and investing in some more Pentax glass and a K20 body whilst awaiting the arrival of full frame. I doubt that FF will ever match MF for the Wow factor but most of my work is away from the studio where speed is of the essence.

[benjikan]

ogl always posts his personal opinion as if it were a law of nature.

If ths forum had a "post-rewrite feature" (as it does have a post-ignore feature), I would prepend all ogl posts by "I am not sure but I think that maybe "

You would make a great police officer or prison guard ;-)

[youky63]

Hi Benji. Nice to find you here.
I think to know that you are a bit closer to the Gods (Hoya/Pentax) than us. ;-)
Did you hear anything about what can be the next high end camera? Pleeeaasseeeeee. ;-D
Best regards from a french expat'.

[philippe]

I wonder if FF is really that better than APS-C, considering the higher price.
Considerable good lenses, a thoughtful use and good PP is important too, regardless the sensor size.
Looking at Benjamin's pictures, I have no reasons to doubt the quality of a good and well used APS-C sensor.
I think that a good 'hand' is as important as good tool.
OK, there are always camera features that can be improved, but how far must or can one go?
Do we really have to spend or hardly earned pennies on pixels?
Are we going to make better pictures once we can hold a FF camera?
Is FF really the end of the world?
Do we really have to consume more?
What to do with the non FF camera's we have now?
Why can't we do more with what we have now?
Did we really explored the possibilities of or APS-C camera till the end?
Why can't we be happy with what we have?

I know, these are a lot of questions, who knows the answer?

[Angevinn]

The price of FF is coming down. The next generation of FF DSLR's is rumored to be much more affordable. APS-C DSLR's dropped in price over time, there is no reason why FF DSLR's won't follow.

I always saw APS-C as a compromise. The cost of FF sensors was too expensive at the time, now that sensor prices are coming down quite a bit FF will be more affordable to the masses.

FF (24x36) has been the dominant format for almost 90 years, ( I believe the first 35mm camera was shown in the 1920's). I believe the market is just correcting itself now that FF sensors are easier and less expensive to fabricate. There are benefits to a larger sensor.

More than likely Pentax will allow DA lenses to be used on a FF DSLR under a crop mode like Nikon does. The APS-C market will not disappear, I'm sure Pentax is still going to support it with models like the K-X and K-7.

Bring on the FF DSLR Pentax and some new D-FA lenses!!!

I wonder if FF is really that better than APS-C, considering the higher price.
Considerable good lenses, a thoughtful use and good PP is important too, regardless the sensor size.
Looking at Benjamin's pictures, I have no reasons to doubt the quality of a good and well used APS-C sensor.
I think that a good 'hand' is as important as good tool.
OK, there are always camera features that can be improved, but how far must or can one go?
Do we really have to spend or hardly earned pennies on pixels?
Are we going to make better pictures once we can hold a FF camera?
Is FF really the end of the world?
Do we really have to consume more?
What to do with the non FF camera's we have now?
Why can't we do more with what we have now?
Did we really explored the possibilities of or APS-C camera till the end?
Why can't we be happy with what we have?

I know, these are a lot of questions, who knows the answer?

[RuiC]

You would make a great police officer or prison guard ;-)

Yes, he is FalconEye. There is a reason for that.

[tokyoso]

If there is going to be a Pentax model above K-7, would K-7 prices drop considerably? Currently it's sporting roughly $800 brand new , body only, but something substantially higher would cost ?

[24X36NOW]

If there is going to be a Pentax model above K-7, would K-7 prices drop considerably? Currently it's sporting roughly $800 brand new , body only, but something substantially higher would cost ?

I'd say the upgraded K7 will probably be at the same initial price point, with K7 prices falling as they already have, due to the fact that it has been out for a while. As for something above the upgraded K7, I can only see that being a FF dSLR, since once you upgrade the K7, there's really no room left for anything "higher" for Pentax.

[thibs]

Well, Pentax may have other ideas (why not after all?) like an SLR optimized for Video (even a different shape) with optimized lenses etc, 1080p@24/30/60 fps etc. Coupled with good VF and high speed sensor (Samsung 10 fps?), better flash (wireless management) and complete tethering, 1/250 Flash sync... that would be a nice upgrade, and not FF.

I wouldn't mind much personally, but it still would be a nice upgrade.

[lurchlarson]

The main benefit I can see with FF (beyond the bragging rights) is that the DOF is shallower. I'm ok with Pentax sticking with APS-C. They just need a camera that they market as a full-pro camera. Olympus has the E3 which has a smaller sensor than even APS-C and they are well respected.

As long as the sensor gets the job done, who cares what size it is? Other than those that want an expensive, heavy accessory.

[Pentaxor]

The main benefit I can see with FF (beyond the bragging rights) is that the DOF is shallower. I'm ok with Pentax sticking with APS-C. They just need a camera that they market as a full-pro camera. Olympus has the E3 which has a smaller sensor than even APS-C and they are well respected.

As long as the sensor gets the job done, who cares what size it is? Other than those that want an expensive, heavy accessory.

you are forgetting another important element that contribute to shallow DOF. it's called as FOV.

this is the reason why still many dslr users don't prefer or use the cute little m4/3 cameras. they are just too darn small (sensors). it is more about photography needs rather than getting respect or bragging rights.

a FF doesn't need to be expensive nor heavy at all. it's the extras that makes the FF dslrs heavy nowadays, except Leica maybe, which is ridiculously expensive.

[Rondec]

you are forgetting another important element that contribute to shallow DOF. it's called as FOV.

this is the reason why still many dslr users don't prefer or use the cute little m4/3 cameras. they are just too darn small (sensors). it is more about photography needs rather than getting respect or bragging rights.

a FF doesn't need to be expensive nor heavy at all. it's the extras that makes the FF dslrs heavy nowadays, except Leica maybe, which is ridiculously expensive.

I think the list of reasons for full frame includes shallow depth of field, better high iso and reasonably priced wide angle lenses. The biggest negative is the size. I am sure that Pentax could decrease the size somewhat over the D700/5D, but it is guaranteed to be bigger than APS-C (and the lenses would be as well).

The extras are often why folks really want full frame -- faster auto focus, more buttons, better tracking algorithims. These are things that are often restricted on CAnon/NIkon's lower end cameras.

[Pentaxor]

Yes, I agree also with the High ISO especially for higher MP count FF cameras. although I'm quite wondering why the A850/A900 which are FF cameras, aren't as good as it's other FF competitors in terms of High ISO rendering.

as far as size reduction is concerned, a mirrorless EVIL design would definitely make it a lot smaller and cheaper too. although AF may still need some improvement and also the issue with regards to lens mount compatibility may arise. it is highly possible that Pentax might consider building a new mount and a new series of lens and/or build an AF adapter for the K-mount lenses as well.

I really wish that, from the historical perspective in the future (if there was such a thing), Pentax would make K-7 the greatest of the smaller sensor camera of all time before the industry moved on to larger sensors, whatever that will be. I really think that they should move on. They should play with EVIL or whatever in regards to the smaller sensor like APS-C so that they can justify to continue producing DA ltds line-up.

It is time.