[alessandro63]

Do you really think Pentax could come in fighting Nikon and Canon, and also Sony (losing money there I suppose) with a 24*36 system, and I repeat system?
Where is a large part of the market going? Do Pentax have something there?
They know they can't compete in the 35mm FF pro segment, in fact they developed something different, the 645D. That is pro.
Being the sensors what they are becoming (more than enough for the pros), Canon and Nikon go on with the FF cameras JUST because many pros have huge investments in lenses, big and dear lenses. Look, pros don't pixel-peep. If the sensor gives what's enough for print, and that's happening, why big.
Yup, ok, a bit bold but that's my opinion.

[gawan]

Ewalk, thanks for the response!

In regards to a FF lens line-up, Pentax already has:

DA* 55mm f/1.4
DA* 60-250mm f/4
DA* 200mm f/2.8
DA* 300mm f/4
DFA 100mm f/2.8 Macro
FA 31mm f/1.8
FA 43mm f/1.9
FA 77mm f/1.8
FA 50mm f/1.4
FA 50mm f/2.8 Macro

that are all FF compatible. There are reports that the new DA-L 35mm f/2.4 is based on the old FA 35mm f/2 design - potentially being FF compatible as well.

Even some of the current DA Limited's (40mm and 70mm in particular) have decent performance on film bodies, so I'd even include those two on the list.

Pentax is honestly one "normal" zoom (24-70mm f/2.8) away from having a solid FF ready line-up.

I understand, but still I'd expect a line-up of FF lenses all of which have a modern ultrasonic AF (better than the current), so it is not complete in that sense at all. Until that time those you listed will have to do. Anyway I did not realize so many are potentially compatible, thanks for pointing it out!

A FF Pentax doesn't have to be "professional" by any means. An "enthusiast" FF from Pentax could do quiet well if there is a large enough consumer demand, judging by some of the comments on these very boards.

I sure hope you are right!

[ilya80]

I daresay that your daresay is sadly as irrelevant to what Hoya will procude as any daresay out there ( including mine )

Time to sell Pentax gear.

[XATN3q]

In regards to a FF lens line-up, Pentax already has:

DA* 55mm f/1.4
DA* 60-250mm f/4
DA* 200mm f/2.8
DA* 300mm f/4
DFA 100mm f/2.8 Macro
FA 31mm f/1.8
FA 43mm f/1.9
FA 77mm f/1.8
FA 50mm f/1.4
FA 50mm f/2.8 Macro

that are all FF compatible. There are reports that the new DA-L 35mm f/2.4 is based on the old FA 35mm f/2 design - potentially being FF compatible as well.

Even some of the current DA Limited's (40mm and 70mm in particular) have decent performance on film bodies, so I'd even include those two on the list.

Pentax is honestly one "normal" zoom (24-70mm f/2.8) away from having a solid FF ready line-up.



I think we'll see the start of that with the distribution of the 645D.



A FF Pentax doesn't have to be "professional" by any means. An "enthusiast" FF from Pentax could do quiet well if there is a large enough consumer demand, judging by some of the comments on these very boards.

that's 101% what is in my mind

One more I have to remind, Why do most you guys here think that a FF camera must be a "pro" camera? Let's think out of the box, why can't pentax just make a ff digital camera for: i.the one who can afford the price, ii.waiting for a ff digital camera for his/her lenses which were collected for years

---

Last edited by XATN3q; 09-11-2010 at 06:51 PM.

[ozlizard]

From a quick preusal of the comments so far in this thread I must admit that it doesnt look all that good for Pentaxians who have waited and are still waiting for a sign of a FF DSLR from Pentax.
It is true that the current aps-c cameras are becoming more sophistocated and if you want to go seriously pro then Pentax has the perfect option, the 645D. If I had the money I would buy one now, but that is a lot of $'s.
It really gets down to print size, as far as I am concerned that is the only limitation of my K20 for landsape work. I can print up to 36"x24" with fantastic results but I doubt I could go much bigger (and you know I want to!).
I don't know how many Pentax shooters are in a similar position, but eventulayy without a FF option we will have nowhere to go. Don't really see the point of upgrading to a K5 (more a sideways move than anything). Can't afford a 645D (plus lenses), so buying into another system (Sony 850?= + CZ lenses?) might be the only option. I don't even want to buy any more aps-c lenses for my K20 until I know what is going on.
At the moment my K20 is serving me well, but what do I do when I decide it's time to move up?

[Christopher M.W.T]

I'd pay attention to THIS post. Cosina and Zeiss and always add back K-mount later, if they need. Right now they don't see a need.

To be honest I think "big deal?"

Whilst CZ lenses are very nice, they are quite overpriced IMHO and they don't even offer AF.


Yes i'll probably be crucified for saying that, but at the end of the day they are a Niche market product, trying to make lenses for an even smaller niche market.

[uchinakuri]

I thought the advantage of FF cameras was not just the print size, but also the fact that the FF sensor can catch a lot more light, so you can shoot in situations where APS-C cameras would have to bump up the ISO. I know APS-C cameras are improving in ISO, but still not up to what FF can do.

What I dont yet understand is, and if someone can explain to me, is whether sensor size affects the AF? Like, for example, I have a K-x and it is really horrible in low-light situations in terms of AF. In low light situations, I have to basically use manual focus, because the AF is just completely useless. But if I *do* manage to get a good capture with MF, then the noise control is quite good. Is the fact that the Kx has to hunt in low light to AF a result of poor AF algorithms or is it also partly due to the APS-C sensor not catching enough light? Both?

Last week, I was at a friend's party, held in a sort of outdoor bar-type place, which was very dimly lit. I had my K-x and FA77 and AF couldnt focus at all. Meanwhile, a friend had his D700 and had zero problems with AF and was able to shoot at a much lower ISO. I know it's unfair to compare a K-x to a D700, but well, it's just re-telling my story.

So for me, at that time it wasn't about print sizes, but it was about the fact that I was missing shots! That bummed me out. I'm a n00b, admittedly, though.

[farhagh]

Pentax has a reputation to make cheaper camera from the same sensor base, like the 645 vs S2, the Kx vs D90.

Kx vs D90? How come?

[youky63]

I thought the advantage of FF cameras was not just the print size, but also the fact that the FF sensor can catch a lot more light, so you can shoot in situations where APS-C cameras would have to bump up the ISO. I know APS-C cameras are improving in ISO, but still not up to what FF can do.

What I dont yet understand is, and if someone can explain to me, is whether sensor size affects the AF? Like, for example, I have a K-x and it is really horrible in low-light situations in terms of AF. In low light situations, I have to basically use manual focus, because the AF is just completely useless. But if I *do* manage to get a good capture with MF, then the noise control is quite good. Is the fact that the Kx has to hunt in low light to AF a result of poor AF algorithms or is it also partly due to the APS-C sensor not catching enough light? Both?

Last week, I was at a friend's party, held in a sort of outdoor bar-type place, which was very dimly lit. I had my K-x and FA77 and AF couldnt focus at all. Meanwhile, a friend had his D700 and had zero problems with AF and was able to shoot at a much lower ISO. I know it's unfair to compare a K-x to a D700, but well, it's just re-telling my story.

So for me, at that time it wasn't about print sizes, but it was about the fact that I was missing shots! That bummed me out. I'm a n00b, admittedly, though.

AF performance is dependant of many factors, but not sensor size since sensor is not involved in AF.
Your friend using D700 as a better AF module (little sensor only used for focussing) able to catch more light for difficult focus (sensitivity of f/2.8 I guess on central cross-type point vs only f/5.6 for Pentax systems). And algorythms (software driving the AF) of Nikon are known to be the best ones, for sport, predicitve AF and also low light conditions.
Another possible difference was maybe the lenses you were using. If you were using the kit lens (max opening f/3.5) while your friend was using a f/1.4 lens, his AF module was getting about 3 more time light than yours, making AF much more easier.

[uchinakuri]

Another possible difference was maybe the lenses you were using. If you were using the kit lens (max opening f/3.5) while your friend was using a f/1.4 lens, his AF module was getting about 3 more time light than yours, making AF much more easier.

Thanks for the explanation! It cleared up a lot of things!

Oh, and I made a mistake. I wasnt using the FA77, I was using the FA50 1.4 wide open. Anyway, back to the original discussion:

People in above posts have been saying, "We dont need FF coz I dont print larger than xyz" So I've always thought that the advantage of FF is not just print size, but also being able to shoot at lower ISO in low-light situations compared to APS-C. Is this not the case?

[Inspector 17]

Thanks for the explanation! It cleared up a lot of things!

Oh, and I made a mistake. I wasnt using the FA77, I was using the FA50 1.4 wide open. Anyway, back to the original discussion:

People in above posts have been saying, "We dont need FF coz I dont print larger than xyz" So I've always thought that the advantage of FF is not just print size, but also being able to shoot at lower ISO in low-light situations compared to APS-C. Is this not the case?

There are a couple of other advantages of FF:

1 Better larger viewfinder - focusing, composition, MF all benefit

2 More presence and depth of photos as DOF has more gradations from and to and then away from focus "point"

BOTH of these are my reasons for wanting FF

[XATN3q]

Kx vs D90? How come?

it is rumored that Kx and D90 having same sensor from Sony. However, like in the computers, same CPU but different results, now you have "same same" sensor but different price (and other things )


a quote from other thread, I think the $16xx~$17XX price is more suitable for a pentax FF than a APS-C size

That being said, it feels like Pentax is really lost the track of where it's going.... K5 will be what ~1800$CAN for the body up here? That is from a advanced-amateur-oriented brand? WTF??? Unless Pentax is aiming the US market where most "advanced-amateurs" and soccer-moms can afford a D700.... but then again.... a non-FF body at the FF price.... WTF???? on paper it could be the mother of all camera bodies... But in real life - good luck selling a well-equipped Chevy at Mercedes prices...

[Aristophanes]

To be honest I think "big deal?"

Whilst CZ lenses are very nice, they are quite overpriced IMHO and they don't even offer AF.


Yes i'll probably be crucified for saying that, but at the end of the day they are a Niche market product, trying to make lenses for an even smaller niche market.

CZ and other 3rd party lenses outside of Sigma and Tamron are a very, very small fraction of the overall market. Teeny tiny, really. That's just the market reality. They have pretty much zero impact on a brand's sink or swim or profitability.

[Blue]

CZ and other 3rd party lenses outside of Sigma and Tamron are a very, very small fraction of the overall market. Teeny tiny, really. That's just the market reality. They have pretty much zero impact on a brand's sink or swim or profitability.

Sigma and Tammy are scaling back. Sigma seems to be canceling the 105mm macro and BH lists it as discontinued. When is the last time Tammy came out with a prime with PKA mount? For every prime sigma comes out with for PKA, they cancel 3. 3rd party options aren't what they used to be. However, like someone once said, who buys Pentax to run solely Sigma.

[weikle]

I thought the advantage of FF cameras was not just the print size, but also the fact that the FF sensor can catch a lot more light, so you can shoot in situations where APS-C cameras would have to bump up the ISO. I know APS-C cameras are improving in ISO, but still not up to what FF can do.

What I dont yet understand is, and if someone can explain to me, is whether sensor size affects the AF? Like, for example, I have a K-x and it is really horrible in low-light situations in terms of AF. In low light situations, I have to basically use manual focus, because the AF is just completely useless. But if I *do* manage to get a good capture with MF, then the noise control is quite good. Is the fact that the Kx has to hunt in low light to AF a result of poor AF algorithms or is it also partly due to the APS-C sensor not catching enough light? Both?

Last week, I was at a friend's party, held in a sort of outdoor bar-type place, which was very dimly lit. I had my K-x and FA77 and AF couldnt focus at all. Meanwhile, a friend had his D700 and had zero problems with AF and was able to shoot at a much lower ISO. I know it's unfair to compare a K-x to a D700, but well, it's just re-telling my story.

So for me, at that time it wasn't about print sizes, but it was about the fact that I was missing shots! That bummed me out. I'm a n00b, admittedly, though.

The AF performance in low light situations of Pentax has been a weakness for a long time,it's relevant to many factors including algorithms and components comprehensive performance,however IMO,it nearly has nothing to do with sensor size.