[normhead]

There are so many 3rd party lenses made with in OS or VC or whatever they call it, I think I'd rather have backwards compatability than SR if it came to that. SR can be problematic. I have many images taken with the 18-135 which is prone to vignetting, where because of SR, all the vignetting is at the top of the image, or the bottom of the image. The sensor shift in SR is definitely the culprit here. I wouldn't be completely unhappy seeing SR disappear in an FF camera if it meant we could still use all the legacy lenses. Loss of backwards compatability is too high a price to pay for something that has other technical solutions. IF FF means I can't use the same lenses, my 35 2.4 , FA 50, A-400 etc. I won't be buying. At that point, if I have to buy all new lenses, I'll evaluate what's on the market and buy what I think is the best option at the moment..or more likely, I'll just stay with APS-c.

[Clavius]

Tthe only thing he more than hinted was the development of a FF DSLR.

Actually, he more then hinted towards the development of mirrorless FF, not DSLR:

北沢 645 ですが、そのうちミラーレスを作りたいですね。 理由は一眼レフのミラーショックです。この微振動ってかなり画質に影響しているんです。 将来的にはフルサイズや645でミラーレス化をねらいたいなと思います。
Kitazawa: Well, regarding the 645, sooner or later we will want to make it into a mirrorless. The reason is the mirror shock inherent to SLRs. Those very tiny vibrations do have an effect on the final image. I think in the future I would like to pursue mirrorless full-frame and 645 cameras.

ー　それはウソです（笑）。ペンタックスがフルサイズで勝負をするなら、一眼レフじゃなくてミラーレスで勝負したほうが勝ち目はある。 ミラーレスのフルサイズっていうのはいまのところはライかだけ。それをペンタックスの技術でフルサイズを出すってことは期待大ですね。
-- Now that's a lie (laughter). If Pentax is to enter the full frame battle, it looks like the path to victory will be with mirrorless rather than SLR. Right now Leica is the only one offering a full-frame mirrorless camera. There's a big expectation that Pentax will use its efforts to release a camera in that space.

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-news-rumors/168982-translation-kit...interview.html

In one of those interview translations there was hinting towards larger image circle DA lenses to accomodate SR. That means FF lenses would need a larger image circle then the standard FF image circle to accomodate SR too. It's not rocket science.

[Kunzite]

Who said that, the second paragraph I mean? Kitazawa-san, who was talking about how a mirrorless 645D would make sense (due to MF DSLR specific issues), or the interviewer? My impression is that it's the interviewer, which makes your "proof" null and void.
The interviewer was strongly pushing the discussion towards MILCs, but that's not the same as Pentax committing to that path.

You'd better read this interview:
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-news-rumors/201538-dc-watch-interv...velopment.html
Or this one:
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-news-rumors/209035-pentax-plan-201...translate.html
"-- Has the development of FF started?
Kitazawa - Basically, yes. "
"We did consider mirror-less FF till last year, but if you asked me, I'd lean towards SLR FF."
"Kitazawa - That's one of the biggest concerns. Pentax has not changed the mount in so long, we gained the reputation of "no nonsense interchangeability". We think that this is one of the main aspect that keeps bringing our customers back …."

[ElJamoquio]

Miscalculated. 24Mp FF = 10.7Mp APS-C (24 divided by 1.5 squared). My bad. Therefore 36Mp FF would be the only FF that would make sense for Pentax to top the K-5 and provide a marketable resolution advantage.

36MP on FF (50% more pixels linearly) provides about 5-20% more linear resolving power than 24MP. Unless you're severely cropping I don't think it provides that much difference in practice.

[Uluru]

Actually, he more then hinted towards the development of mirrorless FF, not DSLR:

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-news-rumors/168982-translation-kit...interview.html

In one of those interview translations there was hinting towards larger image circle DA lenses to accomodate SR. That means FF lenses would need a larger image circle then the standard FF image circle to accomodate SR too. It's not rocket science.

No, no, and no. The SR movement needed is negligible. Current FF lenses will do well on SR enabled FF DSLR from Pentax.
And the SR is also a reason why an FF Pentax may come a bit later. For each new sensor size, an appropriate SR needs to be designed, developed and fine tuned. Canon and Nikon don't have such problems.

[Ash]

36MP on FF (50% more pixels linearly) provides about 5-20% more linear resolving power than 24MP. Unless you're severely cropping I don't think it provides that much difference in practice.

Ah, now we're talking about the law of diminishing returns.
Well that's true. And I've said it before, but the discerning buyer will say 24Mp is enough for a FF camera, whereas the greater market needs to be convinced of this since numbers mean so much to them. The D800 is in many ways a more appealing tool than the D600, and not just for the resolution - but the market demand for both these tools indicates they both have a place in the higher end customer base.

[thibs]

There are so many 3rd party lenses made with in OS or VC or whatever they call it, I think I'd rather have backwards compatability than SR if it came to that. SR can be problematic. I have many images taken with the 18-135 which is prone to vignetting, where because of SR, all the vignetting is at the top of the image, or the bottom of the image. The sensor shift in SR is definitely the culprit here. I wouldn't be completely unhappy seeing SR disappear in an FF camera if it meant we could still use all the legacy lenses. Loss of backwards compatability is too high a price to pay for something that has other technical solutions. IF FF means I can't use the same lenses, my 35 2.4 , FA 50, A-400 etc. I won't be buying. At that point, if I have to buy all new lenses, I'll evaluate what's on the market and buy what I think is the best option at the moment..or more likely, I'll just stay with APS-c.

I hear you and basically agree. But market want a stabilization tech: if not the sensor, it will be the lenses.
Only some lenses will get it, and those lenses will be even more expensive than current pricing.

[thibs]

Ah, now we're talking about the law of diminishing returns.
Well that's true. And I've said it before, but the discerning buyer will say 24Mp is enough for a FF camera, whereas the greater market needs to be convinced of this since numbers mean so much to them. The D800 is in many ways a more appealing tool than the D600, and not just for the resolution - but the market demand for both these tools indicates they both have a place in the higher end customer base.

Agreed but let's not forget that this data is derived from the current D800 sensor. A sensor isn't another one.
A new 36Mpix sensor 2 years from now should bring better resolution IMO. This changes nothing to the current situation (basically D600 sensor vs D800 sensor) but we should pay attention to our conclusions.

Also, internal processing has much influence as well know, Pentax delivering always better than others with a given sensor.

[Ash]

Pentax PRIME processing with the current D800 sensor sounds like a fine proposition.

[thibs]

Pentax PRIME processing with the current D800 sensor sounds like a fine proposition.

Indeed but I doubt Pentax would enter FF arena with such a sensor. I'd bet on 24Mpix.
If it really sells well (relatively speaking) a 36Mpix may come. But that would need a very heavy commitment: warranty, lenses etc.

[normhead]

Indeed but I doubt Pentax would enter FF arena with such a sensor. I'd bet on 24Mpix.
If it really sells well (relatively speaking) a 36Mpix may come. But that would need a very heavy commitment: warranty, lenses etc.

OK, so they come out with a 24 Mp FF, and a 24 MP APS-c and I have DA lenses... why would I go with the FF?
Personally, I think they have to offer 36+ MP in an FF just to stay in the game. Otherwise they'll always be playing catch up.
Nikon, has the 14-24, 24-70 and 70-200 lenses, that while expensive, have the resolution to squeeze the most out of an FF sensor.
Pentax has?

All Pentax needs to sell me an FF would be a couple decent landscape lenses to go with it. Apart from the FA 31, maybe the 43, what have we got? The 21 and 15 are APS-c.

Maybe Pentax taking on the D600 market instead of the D800 market would be a smart move, I just don't see it being meaningful for myself. Having a Pentax version of a camera I wouldn't buy, doesn't help me. If I'm going to have double the sensor, I'd like double the resolution, a 24 MP FF doesn't give me that. The D800 comes a lot closer.

OK I'll compromise, give me 30MP and I'll give it a shot.

[thibs]

OK, so they come out with a 24 Mp FF, and a 24 MP APS-c and I have DA lenses... why would I go with the FF?
Personally, I think they have to offer 36+ MP in an FF just to stay in the game. Otherwise they'll always be playing catch up.
Nikon, has the 14-24, 24-70 and 70-200 lenses, that while expensive, have the resolution to squeeze the most out of an FF sensor.
Pentax has?

All Pentax needs to sell me an FF would be a couple decent landscape lenses to go with it. Apart from the FA 31, maybe the 43, what have we got? The 21 and 15 are APS-c.

Maybe Pentax taking on the D600 market instead of the D800 market would be a smart move, I just don't see it being meaningful for myself. Having a Pentax version of a camera I wouldn't buy, doesn't help me. If I'm going to have double the sensor, I'd like double the resolution, a 24 MP FF doesn't give me that. The D800 comes a lot closer.

OK I'll compromise, give me 30MP and I'll give it a shot.

Yep, this is the analysis done by most. Certainly me too.
But Ricoh may think differently: not by having their FF replace your APS cam but add on it.

Nikon's interest is to have Nikonians buy both D600 and supposed D400.
Ricoh may want us to buy both APS K3 and FF K1, both 24Mpix.
Maybe not.
But I fear that, even if they wanted, the 36Mpix camera would be way too expensive for most Pentaxian to buy on top of new lenses.

[ElJamoquio]

Yep, this is the analysis done by most. Certainly me too.

The cheapest I've seen the D800 is ~$2800 (but i haven't been paying attention, so I could be way off). The cheapest I've seen the D600 for is $2k with a $500 lens.

For me the extra $1300 for:

1) an estimated increase in linear resolving power of 5-20% (positive)
2) 1/8000 (positive)
2) heavier camera (negative for me)
3) larger camera (negative for me)

...wasn't worth it. In fact it wasn't even a contest.

[tram57]

As the discussion continues regarding the best sensor area (APS-C v APS-H v FF) and the best sensor pixel count (16 v 20 v 24 v 36) I think it would be interesting to have some shots comparing an APS-C 24MP sensor (e.g. D7100) shot with a 24mm lens compared to a FF 24MP sensor (e.g. D600) shot with a 35-36mm lens at high iso. At low ISO I would think that the resolution would be about the same but that at higher ISO then benefits of having a more optimal pixel pitch/density would favor the larger sensor. I would expect APS-H to be intermediate in this regard. For any number of pixels, the larger the sensor the better.

[Clavius]

No, no, and no. The SR movement needed is negligible. Current FF lenses will do well on SR enabled FF DSLR from Pentax.
And the SR is also a reason why an FF Pentax may come a bit later. For each new sensor size, an appropriate SR needs to be designed, developed and fine tuned. Canon and Nikon don't have such problems.

Hopefully, you are correct. But without any arguments at all you won't convince me.

Please explain why the image circle of DA lenses is slightly bigger then the APS-C sensor demands. If it is not to accommodate the moving sensor, then what is it for? Pentax is not known to make things any bigger then they have to be.

If the image circle of DA lenses has to be bigger then the APS-C area to accommodate the SR, then why wouldn't the same thing count for FX lenses on FF sensor?