Originally posted by rustynail925 Yes i agree there are some more advantages on Full Frame but some disadvantages as well. Weight and size and price.. Thats why i think FF is overated. That said i also want to try my hands on it but for practicality the APS-C
is enough. There are so many complaints about Pentax not making it but i think
most users just wanted to try it but really dont need it.. just my opinion.
I for one, would only be interested in Pentax FF if the body was as small and light as the K-7, or a Leica M9.
I don't know any professionals who carry their FF digitals around everyday everywhere they go. With the K-7 and a Limited lens, that's exactly what i do, no camera bag necessary.
Canon, Sony and Nikon Full-Frame are all for a narrow set of (often pro) purposes. FF is this era's Medium Format, a deliberate tool. 645D and digital MF is even more niche, its this era's Large Format.
With Pentax, Leica, and Olympus it's a daily lifestyle. regardless of sensor size, as the mirrorless explosion has proven.
Just because your first film camera had 35mm film, doesn't mean your digital sensor must be too (would you want your old film ISO vs. digital APS-C ISO as well?). Technology naturally shrinks things all the time, it makes total sense that we can do more now with less physical space in our APS-C sensors than with a 35mm film plane.
until that digital FF camera gets to be the size of our old film FF cameras, count me out. like many other Pentaxians, if i'm going to bring a camera bag why stop at FF when that same bag would fit a 645D? I'm not shooting sports or wars in Iraq, despite what many people say, Pentax most definitely knows their market.