[Ash]

Why?
There are 24MP APS-C cameras already, but there are still quite a few APS-C cameras with clearly less megapixels, like the K5 IIs. Some of the FF sensor cameras "only" have 24mp, but surely they are not useless. I for one would take a 24mp FF camera, because the photos made with a larger sensor are likely to look better, anyway, even though there are ones with 36mp sensors. I believe a new sub-$2k FF body á la Canon 6D and Nikon D600, made by Pentax in the K5 style, would be a success.

Whether or not that kind of camera will ever come from Pentax is another story. Chances are they will stick with the crop sensor cameras.

I would agree with you, and 24Mp in a FF camera would suffice for me personally. But Pentax have to convince the greater community to buy their FF product, and I can see them fighting an uphill battle getting especially new clients to invest into their higher end more-expensive gear if it doesn't offer any more resolution to a competitor's 24Mp APS-C camera.

[Ash]

I would also argue that a FF camera would be closer to fruition since FF sensors are available now, and a compatible lens lineup can be built in stages. We have discussed many times how there are a number of lenses already available that are FF compatible, but Pentax can easily come out with a couple of zooms to kickstart the DFA lineup (like a 24-70 and 70-200).

[Kunzite]

Well, Pentax FF is even further away then APS-H. Not the FF body itself, they may be able to produce that in the next year or 5, but a lens lineup to go with it. Actually, an expensive custom made APS-H sensor would still be cheaper then developing a complete new FF lens lineup.

All right, I understand it now - you're talking about lenses.
However, I still believe a FF is much closer than the APS-H. First, because the body itself most likely can be launched sooner (Pentax declaring they're working on it, versus having to start working with a sensor manufacturer for an APS-H sensor). Second, because they can start with about a dozen FF-compatible lenses - the current, and 2-3 new ones; plus the 3rd-party. And third, because APS-H would also require a new lens line (even if more of the DAs could be used).

[Clavius]

Not just about lenses. We all know there are issues with the Pentax FF+SR combination. APSH would certainly not have those issues.

[Kunzite]

AFAIK the FF+SR issues are only speculation (and Sony had that working).

[tram57]

But why a custom made, low volume (thus expensive) APS-H sensor when there are FF sensors on the market?
It's risky to bet your future on such an odd format. That's exactly what Olympus did, with the 4/3: going with a slightly smaller sensor, which wasn't cheaper. They also tried to compensate through sheer optical quality. Guess what - 4/3 is dead now.
I would like a K-5 IIs-level (price and features) APS-H (with an excellent sensor) camera, if possible; but I'm afraid it's not. I believe it would rather compete with the entry level FFs, not much cheaper yet "inferior".

No, the DA 560mm (nor any other lens) will not gain any IQ by cropping it in camera (by using a smaller sensor), versus using the full image circle or cropping it in post.

No, it won't be better at tele than FF - since you can crop the FF to APS-H (or smaller) sizes, if you wish.

If they would do that, they will get a non-functional piece of a wafer with N Nokia 808 sensors You can't just cut the wafer as you wish.

One can only crop FF to APS-C without loosing resolution if the pixel density is the same (and the MP size of the sensor proportionally larger). So a 24MP FF cropped to APS-C would have a 12MP equivalent and would not have as high resolution as the K-5.

[v5planet]

On the island of Shikoku in Japan, there is a canonical Buddhist pilgrimage that takes the devout on a journey to the island's every corner. The pilgrim walks, trudging through forest and mountains and rain, to visit eighty-eight temples along his spiritual journey. Some pilgrims return to the trail at many points through their lives, walking the whole route again and again.

This thread is now 88 pages long. Have any pilgrims made the entire journey? Why does it feel like we've made it again and again and again...

[Ash]

One can only crop FF to APS-C without loosing resolution if the pixel density is the same (and the MP size of the sensor proportionally larger). So a 24MP FF cropped to APS-C would have a 12MP equivalent and would not have as high resolution as the K-5.

Resolution advantage is still an important consideration for a FF model, since current high-end APS-C resolution is topping 20Mp. It is not enough of an argument to say that 12Mp FF users are happy with their cameras and therefore 24Mp should be more than enough for a current FF camera. Unmet consumer demand can make an otherwise excellent product into a marginalised one.

[RonHendriks1966]

Not just about lenses. We all know there are issues with the Pentax FF+SR combination. APSH would certainly not have those issues.

Well, Pentax FF is even further away then APS-H. Not the FF body itself, they may be able to produce that in the next year or 5, but a lens lineup to go with it. Actually, an expensive custom made APS-H sensor would still be cheaper then developing a complete new FF lens lineup.

I think these are two important issues. An APS-H sensor would have some advantages in getting the camera to the market. Creating a unique future to the Pentax brand that can be promoted.

[RonHendriks1966]

Not quite. Same pixel density would make a 24Mp FF image equivalent to 16Mp APS-C image (crop factor is 1.5). Resolution advantage is still an important consideration for a FF model, since current high-end APS-C resolution is topping 20Mp. It is not enough of an argument to say that 12Mp FF users are happy with their cameras and therefore 24Mp should be more than enough for a current FF camera. Unmet consumer demand can make an otherwise excellent product into a marginalised one.

One can only crop FF to APS-C without loosing resolution if the pixel density is the same (and the MP size of the sensor proportionally larger). So a 24MP FF cropped to APS-C would have a 12MP equivalent and would not have as high resolution as the K-5.

Start counting again. This would give 10 megapixel, cropped to APS-C.

A FF 24mp sensor has 6 micron pixels and thus about 3900x2600=10,1 megapixel on the smaller aps-c sensorsize.

[IchabodCrane]

Not quite. Same pixel density would make a 24Mp FF image equivalent to 16Mp APS-C image (crop factor is 1.5). Resolution advantage is still an important consideration for a FF model, since current high-end APS-C resolution is topping 20Mp. It is not enough of an argument to say that 12Mp FF users are happy with their cameras and therefore 24Mp should be more than enough for a current FF camera. Unmet consumer demand can make an otherwise excellent product into a marginalised one.

35 mm has an image area of 864 mm^2 whereas APS-C is 370 mm^2. That's a ratio of 2.335:1 so 24 MP FF cropped to APS-C captures about 10.3 MP. The "crop factor" is the square root of the image size ratio which works out to 1.53 (it's a square root as you're going from two dimensions to one).

[EchoOscar]

I would agree with you, and 24Mp in a FF camera would suffice for me personally. But Pentax have to convince the greater community to buy their FF product, and I can see them fighting an uphill battle getting especially new clients to invest into their higher end more-expensive gear if it doesn't offer any more resolution to a competitor's 24Mp APS-C camera.

Umm... I think that depends on whom they are selling/marketing that (proverbial) FF camera to.
If the main target of their marketing were pixel peepers, measurebators, hipsters, posers and other camera geeks, then probably yes, they'd be fighting an uphill battle.

On the other hand, if they were to aim it for photographers instead, a K5 IIs with a 24mp FF sensor, a new processor and just minor tweaks and updates, equipped with a price tag matching or close to Canon 6D would be almost perfect. It would no doubt sell reasonably well, in relative terms, of course. Pentax still have some of their old brand power left.

However, Pentax as a brand would not attract the aforementioned members of the mainstream masses, anyway, even with a 36mp sensor á la Nikon D800. But a weather sealed full frame Pentax, possibly even without a low-pass filter and a competitive price tag would probably lure the smaller herds of photography enthusiasts and even outdoorsy pros quite nicely.

I believe the key here is the attractive enough pricing, rather than the megapixel arms race. Which would not fit the image of either Pentax or Ricoh that well, anyway.The underdog with a limited marketing might has to be either cheaper, or better/different enough.

Case in point, Pentax K-5, which is as good a cameras as its Canikon and Sony equivalents, and has got rather positive reviews in the media. Instead of going for the highest possible megapixel count, it opted for proper weather sealing and nice ergonomics instead. It was a bit too pricey to compete with the mighty two or even three at first, but now the K5 (IIs) is much more attractive in that sense, as well as the K-30, although a bit too late to make a major dent in the DSLR market.

Case in point #2, Nikon D600 and Canon 6D. No self-respecting and pixel-peeping camera geek will settle for anything less than the D800, even if they he'd only shoot brick walls. A bunch of active shooters and enthusiast, however, will and do, and are quite happy with their choices, despite the shamefully low megapixel count. I believe quite a few potential Pentax (FF) buyers are now going for those two cameras, rather than for the D800, which costs significantly more.

Well, this is all just hot air and speculation, anyway. Apparently the most likely outcome is that we will not see a full frame Pentax DSLR any time soon, if at all. But we'll see, hopefully I'm wrong about it, but I won't be holding my breath. On the other hand, chances are the possible FF Pentax won't be a DSLR. I think a full frame compact might be one possibility, too. Maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, but some day in the near future.

[Digitalis]

10-22 is not 10-22. it's strange 13-28.

In case you haven't noticed some lens manufacturers have come out with weirder focal lengths than that... 31,43,77 - ring a bell?

I still like the APS-H idea, because lets face it. We could have that in this lifetime. It could be built straight into an existing body, and work on most existing DA, and all FA and DFA lenses. Whilst a full set of Pentax FF gear is so extremely far away.

I also neglected to mention the Leica M8 used an APS-H sensor from Kodak with a 1.33XFOV crop. Personally I think APS-H would be a better idea for a K-01 type camera,that can be built from the ground up around that specific sensor size. But not a DSLR, I think it would be better for Pentax to just bite the FX format bullet and make a FX format camera worth a damn - instead of giving us an in-between APS-H format - bigger than APS-C but smaller than FX. however a Pentax K-01 type camera with an APS-H Monochrome sensor would be rather interesting....

Personally I don't have anything against APS-H cameras, I still use my 1D cameras quite a bit for sports though my D3s and D4 have been getting more use lately. I use my Leica M8* but I do prefer the M9

*though the reason why I don't use my M8 more is the continuing problem with UV/IR contamination, which means that the lenses I can use the UV/IR cut filters on the M8 reduces my choice in lenses I can use.

[Cannikin]

Not quite. Same pixel density would make a 24Mp FF image equivalent to 16Mp APS-C image (crop factor is 1.5).

Er... not really.

Hint: number of pixels is directly proportional to area. Area = Length x Width.

[ozlizard]

There is absolutely no point in Pentax producing anything less than a minimum 36mp full frame.
At the moment there is only one other out there (D800) and if Pentax can produce something slightly out of left field with such a camera, they may get some market share.

Of course if they leave it too long (not Pentax, surely?), they will get left behind in this area once again.
Producing a 24mp full frame is already 1-2 years too late, and will be just playing catch up.

Pentax needs to be an innovator not a follower.