[nosnoop]

Just goes to show once again how pathetically incompetent his arm chair analyses are.

I don't care much about his analysis, but the release of those lenses does NOT prove or disprove his claims. Those products already in the pipeline would get released regardless, and it will take some time to wind down their FF products if it turns out to be true.

[Urkeldaedalus]

Thom Hogan's Sony rumors may be true, but I don't trust him on anything outside of Nikon rumors, where he has a vested interest to be correct. This sounds a little too close to Internet corporate skullduggery to me -- much like the ever persistent rumors that Pentax will cease to be.

The only reason anybody believe this particular rumor is that Sony has been so incompetent with their strategy in the last year that doing something that makes no sense isn't out of the question. Let's see if they can manage to avoid screwing up the momentum they have with the NEX.

[goubejp]

Sorry if you understood me like that, it was not my meanings. Many people here have already spend more money in Pentax glasses and bodies that I will never do. I was just saying that there is people (including me) that are ready to spend quite a lot of money for a FF system. Because we need it.
I exactely do what you say: I do not compare FF and APS-C by numbers (DxO) but by actual results. And what I can see is that no actual APS-C body can give me as much as a FF body would do. I need 6400 isos to be clean (noise, color variations, DR), with the possibility to use 12800 isos. I want one of these very large OVF. I want the ability to get details from under- and over-exposed area on my pictures by PP, even more than 2EV difference without revealing hidden noise (D700 does easily). And I would not be against the possibility to have all of this with a sensor of 20+ Mpxls. I would even add (cherry on the cake) that I would love a sensor without low pass filter to get real details of landscape when watching them at 100%, just as the 645D.
I agree it is impossible to get such a body. But at least some of this points could be easily improved compare to actual offer. Just by upgrading APS-C sensor with FF sensor. If not Pentax, then I could move to Canon. I always loved their L lenses. If they decide to give the ergonomics of 7D (closer to Pentax and much better than any other Canon body before, even Canonist agree on that) to their new high end models, it would probably be the end of my (short) Pentaxist life.

My 2 cents about FF:
I have read the photozone lens tests on Canon - lenses tested on full frame; it's a pity - if you consider the wide angle under 50 mm - where theorically the full frame has an advantage - none of the lenses exceeds 3 stars; vignetting sometimes reaches 3 EV - yes there you need a sensor to recover 2 EV of underexposure to fix that; and to get acceptable results you have to stop down at 5.6 - tell me about the tiny depth of field of full frame. Only Nikon seems to have been able to design good zooms for full frame - but these are only zooms, not primes, none beyond f2.8... so what is the advantage of using full frame with poor lenses ?
Another story coming from real experience; the wedding of my nephew last year; I know very well the professional who was in charge of the wedding, and of course as a serious professional he uses Canon full frame - and he took some time to explain why. And guess what, he uses a 28-150 Canon zoom... I was there with 2 Pentax bodies, one with the FA*85, one with the FA 31 limited; for the price of the Canon full frame I could afford 4 Pentax bodies... the comparison between the images produces by the serious full frame and the amateur body... the bokey of the Canon zoom is just horrible, I used the FA84 at F2 400 iso in the wedding room without flash - as he had to push the Canon to 1600 or 3200 iso as he was obliged to use the zoom at f4; what body do you think took the best pictures ?
Regards

[Pentaxor]

My 2 cents about FF:
I have read the photozone lens tests on Canon - lenses tested on full frame; it's a pity - if you consider the wide angle under 50 mm - where theorically the full frame has an advantage - none of the lenses exceeds 3 stars; vignetting sometimes reaches 3 EV - yes there you need a sensor to recover 2 EV of underexposure to fix that; and to get acceptable results you have to stop down at 5.6 - tell me about the tiny depth of field of full frame. Only Nikon seems to have been able to design good zooms for full frame - but these are only zooms, not primes, none beyond f2.8... so what is the advantage of using full frame with poor lenses ?
Another story coming from real experience; the wedding of my nephew last year; I know very well the professional who was in charge of the wedding, and of course as a serious professional he uses Canon full frame - and he took some time to explain why. And guess what, he uses a 28-150 Canon zoom... I was there with 2 Pentax bodies, one with the FA*85, one with the FA 31 limited; for the price of the Canon full frame I could afford 4 Pentax bodies... the comparison between the images produces by the serious full frame and the amateur body... the bokey of the Canon zoom is just horrible, I used the FA84 at F2 400 iso in the wedding room without flash - as he had to push the Canon to 1600 or 3200 iso as he was obliged to use the zoom at f4; what body do you think took the best pictures ?
Regards

question is, which lenses took the best pictures? FA*85 and FA31? cmon, you can't be serious. it's not even a fair comparison to start off really and what particular Canon dslr was he using? although to start with, it's a Canon, so that alone could already be a reason. I would think differently if it were a D700 or D3 that he used and struggled with and produced subpar images compared to the Pentax.

[ghelary]

My 2 cents about FF:
I have read the photozone lens tests on Canon - lenses tested on full frame; it's a pity - if you consider the wide angle under 50 mm - where theorically the full frame has an advantage - none of the lenses exceeds 3 stars; vignetting sometimes reaches 3 EV - yes there you need a sensor to recover 2 EV of underexposure to fix that; and to get acceptable results you have to stop down at 5.6 - tell me about the tiny depth of field of full frame. Only Nikon seems to have been able to design good zooms for full frame - but these are only zooms, not primes, none beyond f2.8... so what is the advantage of using full frame with poor lenses ?
Another story coming from real experience; the wedding of my nephew last year; I know very well the professional who was in charge of the wedding, and of course as a serious professional he uses Canon full frame - and he took some time to explain why. And guess what, he uses a 28-150 Canon zoom... I was there with 2 Pentax bodies, one with the FA*85, one with the FA 31 limited; for the price of the Canon full frame I could afford 4 Pentax bodies... the comparison between the images produces by the serious full frame and the amateur body... the bokey of the Canon zoom is just horrible, I used the FA84 at F2 400 iso in the wedding room without flash - as he had to push the Canon to 1600 or 3200 iso as he was obliged to use the zoom at f4; what body do you think took the best pictures ?
Regards

Nikon have released a 24/1.4 FF, at 2000€/$ it's not a cheap one, but they do have ultra-fast wide angles.

Now when properly paired with lenses, a 5DmkII do produce superior results to what can a Pentax APSC. One of my closest buddy photographer uses the 28-70mm f/2.8 L with his 5DmkII and considers it a superior lens to the more modern 24-70 f2.8 L. He has been recently professionally shooting thousands of picture in a burlesque cabaret (very dim light) with superb results. My K20D would have been giving up on much better conditions (and I do have 31/1.8, 43/1.9 and 50/1.4)

Now, I don't envy his equipment as mine is much more compact and that's more important in my photography than low light performance or massive prints.

Some people may think thay need FF, but they have to keep in mind that FF system (body + lenses) is very significantly bigger than APSC.

Personnally I think that both are relevant and will stay relevant.

[youky63]

My 2 cents about FF:
I have read the photozone lens tests on Canon - lenses tested on full frame; it's a pity - if you consider the wide angle under 50 mm - where theorically the full frame has an advantage - none of the lenses exceeds 3 stars; vignetting sometimes reaches 3 EV - yes there you need a sensor to recover 2 EV of underexposure to fix that; and to get acceptable results you have to stop down at 5.6 - tell me about the tiny depth of field of full frame. Only Nikon seems to have been able to design good zooms for full frame - but these are only zooms, not primes, none beyond f2.8... so what is the advantage of using full frame with poor lenses ?
Another story coming from real experience; the wedding of my nephew last year; I know very well the professional who was in charge of the wedding, and of course as a serious professional he uses Canon full frame - and he took some time to explain why. And guess what, he uses a 28-150 Canon zoom... I was there with 2 Pentax bodies, one with the FA*85, one with the FA 31 limited; for the price of the Canon full frame I could afford 4 Pentax bodies... the comparison between the images produces by the serious full frame and the amateur body... the bokey of the Canon zoom is just horrible, I used the FA84 at F2 400 iso in the wedding room without flash - as he had to push the Canon to 1600 or 3200 iso as he was obliged to use the zoom at f4; what body do you think took the best pictures ?
Regards

Thanks for the story. But how can you compare pictures taken from 2 of the best pentax (FA ) lenses with a probably terrible Canon L (yes there is bad ones, ecpecially long ones). If this pro was using a 5DII with a 135 f/2, then there were no competition anymore.
For wide lens with more than 3 stars, I advise you to check to Samyang 14mm. I will buy it with my next FF, wathever brand it will be.
I am Pentaxian, I can live with primes, even if mot Pentax ones. Zoom are sometime bad, but then do not say that tehy are all bad. Just take a look of the 70-200 L!
Then I know that a FF (especially the actual ones) are bigger and heavier. But if it is the price for higher IQ, I am ok with it. I need good (very) low light portrait shoot (I usually shoot f/1.4 iso 1600 1/15sec with my K20D which is usually not enough). And would also love a lot of pixels fir landscape. So I think 5DII would fit perfectly, especially with the good and not too much expensive (compared to Nikon) Canon L lens line up (furthermore mostly stabilized, not true for Nikon). But sure if Pentax announce a FF, I will take a look before switching.

[Fl_Gulfer]

The only people that NEED FF are the people that think it will make them take better pictures, everyone else just wants to keep up with the Jones. 80% of the rest of the shooters what small good cameras.
There are plenty of pros that still shoot with Pentax and are now happy as pigs in the mud that the 645D has hit the market and they could care less if Pentax is coming out with a FF camera.
Most of us know that they arn't going to come out with a FF camera when they know they can't make any money with one.
The rest of us would like a improved K-7 and a better selection of WR lenses and LONG Lenses.

---

Last edited by Fl_Gulfer; 07-30-2010 at 07:45 PM.

[Belnan]

For the few that start with pentax gear and want to become professional, should they sell there pentax gear and buy a nikon? Why does pentax have to make a huge profit from a full frame camera? Pentax is a well regarded brand, I think more so than sony in DSLR's. I am positive that a large number of people don't buy into pentax because there is no upgrade path. Pentax is only hurting themselves by not offering a full frame camera.

[Rondec]

What percentage of professionals shoot full frame? My feeling is that it is actually a significant minority. Most of the pros I know shoot crop frame and shoot pretty old cameras at that. They use a lot of flash and are very good with lighting. The idea that to be professional you need full frame is getting old.

[Belnan]

You definately don't need a full frame camera to shoot as a professional, but it is a nice option to have for those who want it. Perhaps if Pentax can come up with a great APS-C camera that shoot well in low light and has a very good autofocus system etc. everyone will be happy. I have a friend who shoots professionally with a d700 and the results are fantastic, she said going from the d300 to the d700 was like night and day. She is doing very well, mostly because of her skill but a part of her success is because of her camera choice. However, Pentax will continue to make great cameras and lenses and over time the diferences between one camera brand and another will become smaller and smaller. Then what you have left is basically camera features, design and glass in which case pentax looks pretty good.

[stanleyk]

What percentage of professionals shoot full frame? My feeling is that it is actually a significant minority. Most of the pros I know shoot crop frame and shoot pretty old cameras at that. They use a lot of flash and are very good with lighting. The idea that to be professional you need full frame is getting old.

You are basically correct depending on how you define professional. And you are 100% correct on this: "The idea that to be professional you need full frame is getting old."

I'm guessing and I could be wrong that most of the people pining for FF cameras don't pay their mortgage, health insurance and kids tuition with their photography. I couldn't call someone a "professional" photographer unless that's their primary source of income. Nothing wrong with FF cameras by they way. In fact Nikon and Canon make very good ones.

I'd be willing to bet Pentax isn't going to make one anytime soon though. I hope they do, not because I would buy one but because it might mean they are doing well.

That said, I think they would do better financially with something like the E-P2/E-PL1. Who knows, maybe they can do both.

[goubejp]

Mmm right now a FF Pentax camera would be what a marketing guy call a "me too" product. Meaning not better for sure that high end Nikon and Canon product, not cheaper that the FF Sony - which was not a success anyway. Obviously they made the choice of the 645D instead of the FF - and it looks a good choice; they have changed the game in this segment with a camera at an affordable price compared to Hasselblad and others, with SLR technology. With this camera they can expect taking customers to Nikon and Canon - they would certainly not achieved that with a full frame camera. A 645D for landscape and studio combined with an APS-C for action shots and tele lenses looks good, doesn't it ?

[asw66]

I think it's almost certain that an FF body is on Pentax's roadmap; the only question is when it will be released. We have already seen that the 645D and K7 share some technologies, so Pentax clearly have a strategy of re-using technologies in different bodies.

Since Pentax are already sharing technologies from APS-C to MF, it's hard to see why they wouldn't have similar plans for a FF body.

Many respondents have made arguments that boil down to some variation of "I don't want FF, so I hope that Pentax doesn't waste resources on such a product." But that's not taking the right perspective, is it? From the point of view of a corporate strategy, the cost of developing a FF body is going to be considerably less than, say, developing an EVIL/MILC body.

In addition, the mere existence of an FF product lends appeal to Pentax's APS-C bodies, since people can buy into the Pentax system knowing that there is a clear upgrade path. So the importance of FF is somewhat greater than a simple observation of FF market share might indicate.

There are, moreover, good reasons for thinking that the FF market is poised for considerable growth. Many people have stated in these forums and elsewhere that the incremental improvements we're seeing in APS-C bodies are not compelling enough to warrant an upgrade. Pentax would be acutely aware of all this, of course.

As I said, when it comes to FF, the question is not if, but when.

[Rondec]

You are basically correct depending on how you define professional. And you are 100% correct on this: "The idea that to be professional you need full frame is getting old."

I'm guessing and I could be wrong that most of the people pining for FF cameras don't pay their mortgage, health insurance and kids tuition with their photography. I couldn't call someone a "professional" photographer unless that's their primary source of income. Nothing wrong with FF cameras by they way. In fact Nikon and Canon make very good ones.

I'd be willing to bet Pentax isn't going to make one anytime soon though. I hope they do, not because I would buy one but because it might mean they are doing well.

That said, I think they would do better financially with something like the E-P2/E-PL1. Who knows, maybe they can do both.

The people I am talking about make their livings shooting photographs. Whether it is senior pictures, family photos, weddings. There is an idea floating around that pros have a huge well of money that they expense out every year to buy new equipment and they are always standing in line for the next full frame camera and wide angle lens.

Sure, there are some people like Jasmine Star and David Ziser who make big money at photography and always have the latest equipment, but in most parts of the country, photographers scrape buy and work really hard to make a living. Every new item they purchase means a little less income and so it has to be considered carefully.

Most full frame cameras are sold to wealthy amateurs who do a little shooting on the side for pay, perhaps, but do not use photography as the source of their income.

[DogLover]

Mmm right now a FF Pentax camera would be what a marketing guy call a "me too" product. Meaning not better for sure that high end Nikon and Canon product, not cheaper that the FF Sony - which was not a success anyway. Obviously they made the choice of the 645D instead of the FF - and it looks a good choice; they have changed the game in this segment with a camera at an affordable price compared to Hasselblad and others, with SLR technology. With this camera they can expect taking customers to Nikon and Canon - they would certainly not achieved that with a full frame camera. A 645D for landscape and studio combined with an APS-C for action shots and tele lenses looks good, doesn't it ?

There's a heck of a lot of truth in this post. I would add, though, that an EVIL/mirrorless camera for Pentax would also be a me-too product, yet one that Pentax has an excellent shot at hitting a home run with. If they could retain the traditional Pentax strengths (in-body SR, weather sealing) along with a K-mount so that it could use all of the existing compact, high-quality Pentax lenses, then that camera has potential to be a game-changer. Especially if they can figure out how to incorporate a decent VF. As far as I'm concerned, they could use some of the space that a flash would take up, but on-board flash seems to be important for sales in this market.