[Kunzite]

I don't know how many more times this needs to be repeated ...

Everything else being equal (i.e., equivalent lenses, same image quality), full frame lenses are cheaper (to build) than crop lenses.

No, only some of them are.

[ElJamoquio]

No, only some of them are.

Specifically, which lenses are you talking about that are more expensive for FF than APS-C? Are you assuming cropping is not a decent solution?

[Pål Jensen]

As I have written before, Pentax will have easier to compete in the $1500-2000 price range with a cheap FF rather than a expensive (and therefore high tech in every way) crop sensor camera. If the rumor is true and if Pentax is not too far behind this time, I'd say it's perfect for Pentax with its limited technology regarding AF and flash system.

But the problem for Pentax is the lack of FF lenses. Hence, it might be that Pentax target it at people that already own FF lenses and consequantly price it higher...

[Kunzite]

Let's say, DA* 200mm f/2.8 vs. DA* 300mm f/4 (they both cover "ff", right?)
Neither cropping nor jumping to an "equivalent" FF system are solutions, IMO - but compromises. Btw, in order to crop and get similar results from a 200mm I would need the D800, a 3000 euro camera. Nice!

[disya2]

Sorry for off-topic from lens equivalence. I saw that many people (here) are after dual-card SD slot.
Why? Speed? AFAIK writing simultaneously is slower. Reliability? I had a failed SD card only once through 5 years of digital cameras usage and it was a good lesson for me to not use cheap cards. Capacity? Modern SD cards are so cheap compared to offers 2-3 years back. You can get a 32Gb class 10 card for what you had to pay for 4GB card a few years back.
I don't want to outvoice anyone but rather get the idea behind dual slots. I see why I would have dual CF-SD slot but dual SD... So, please, tell what do you think are the benefits.

[Pål Jensen]

I don't know how many more times this needs to be repeated ...

Everything else being equal (i.e., equivalent lenses, same image quality), full frame lenses are cheaper (to build) than crop lenses.
.

This is cheating. Different format do not give same image quality. If they did having them would have been mostly pointless. With few exceptions, reasonable equal lenses for larger formats are more expensive than for smaller formats. This is obvious and also reflected in the price lists....

[Blue]

And presumably, bigger and heavier. That, I for one do not want!

Same with the camera: I didn't start off with ME/MX/ME Supers because I wanted large heavy Canikon type cameras OR lenses (think the 'M' series). K5 is definitely at my upper limit from that point of view.

But if Pentax do FF as a higher level alternative that's fine for those who want that, as long as they do not neglect advanced but smaller lighter APS-C models and lenses for folks like me.

If they ME/ME Super were large for you, did you carry an Auto 110? That said, the lens size argument isn't as much a problem with Pentax glass as you may think. Take a look at the relative size of lenses such as the FA 28/2.8, FA 35/2, FA 50/1.4, FA 43/1.9 LTD, FA 77/1.8 LTD and compare them to the DA 40 LTD, DA 70 LTD and DA* 55/1.4.

[Pål Jensen]

If they ME/ME Super were large for you, did you carry an Auto 110? That said, the lens size argument isn't as much a problem with Pentax glass as you may think. Take a look at the relative size of lenses such as the FA 28/2.8, FA 35/2, FA 50/1.4, FA 43/1.9 LTD, FA 77/1.8 LTD and compare them to the DA 40 LTD, DA 70 LTD and DA* 55/1.4.

..but when you come to longer telephotos, where people want magnification and speed for exposure, the difference becomes substantial. Also in price....

[eddie1960]

Sorry for off-topic from lens equivalence. I saw that many people (here) are after dual-card SD slot.
Why? Speed? AFAIK writing simultaneously is slower. Reliability? I had a failed SD card only once through 5 years of digital cameras usage and it was a good lesson for me to not use cheap cards. Capacity? Modern SD cards are so cheap compared to offers 2-3 years back. You can get a 32Gb class 10 card for what you had to pay for 4GB card a few years back.
I don't want to outvoice anyone but rather get the idea behind dual slots. I see why I would have dual CF-SD slot but dual SD... So, please, tell what do you think are the benefits.

Actually i''d like to see dual SD/XQD. CF will be replaced by XQD. XQD doesn't have the speed size limitations of SD

Dual slots are also popular with guys who shoot video. not for shooting simultaneous but so they don't have a card run out mid scene
Simultaneous writing is slower if processors don't change. I would think on a FF we would see a more advance prime engine yet again (say Dual Prime M processors for instance)

[eddie1960]

..but when you come to longer telephotos, where people want magnification and speed for exposure, the difference becomes substantial. Also in price....

Reach is only an apsc benefit when sensors aren't equivalent. the K5 has no better reach potential than the D800 does. a 24mp apsc gains ground here again though. Effectively though shooting in crop mode on a 24MP will satisfy many shooters for reach as the file size will still be respectable.
For guys shooting Wide FF has the benefit of more wide lenses, though that has mostly been addressed either through wide zooms or a couple of wide primes for apsc now. But I would have a hard time finding an apsc equivalent for low light street shooting to say even the lowly 14mm 2.8 Bower which is FF. I know of no 10mm 2.0 out there, and it would likely cost a fortune if it was

[Blue]

..but when you come to longer telephotos, where people want magnification and speed for exposure, the difference becomes substantial. Also in price....

Since there currently isn't anything beyond DA* 300/4 from Pentax, the argument is moot. We will see about the 560/5.6 when it is released. However, the D FA 100/2.8 WR is fairly small even compared to the Sigma 105/2.8 EX DG macro. The Sigma 180, 150 and 105 HSM macros will not offer a price advantage if they were offered in K-mount over the Nikon mount. Further more, the discontinued Sigma 105 was competitively priced. The FA* 600/4 was expensive because it was what it was.

The FA* 300/4.5 was actually lighter and slightly more compact than the DA* 300/4.

http://kmp.bdimitrov.de/lenses/primes/extreme-tele/FA300f4.5.html

http://kmp.bdimitrov.de/lenses/primes/extreme-tele/DA300f4.html

[Dave L]

If they ME/ME Super were large for you, did you carry an Auto 110? That said, the lens size argument isn't as much a problem with Pentax glass as you may think. Take a look at the relative size of lenses such as the FA 28/2.8, FA 35/2, FA 50/1.4, FA 43/1.9 LTD, FA 77/1.8 LTD and compare them to the DA 40 LTD, DA 70 LTD and DA* 55/1.4.

I seem to have worded that ambiguously. I did indeed have an ME, MX and ME Super, because their size and weight suited me, and their quality was high for the size, price and weight. Having said that, I have to confess that it is far easier for me to produce good photos these days with my larger heavier K5, even though I had a reasonable range of "M" lenses then (and I still have them). Also, I can produce much larger prints of acceptable quality now than in my manual days - everything is better for me, so I don't need FF.

So I hope Pentax APS-C development will continue but that they can be made lighter as my ME Super body weighs an ideal 485 grams, and my K5 body 740 grams, which is quite a big difference.

Others don't mind the extra weight, of course.

[Blue]

I seem to have worded that ambiguously. I did indeed have an ME, MX and ME Super, because their size and weight suited me, and their quality was high for the size, price and weight. Having said that, I have to confess that it is far easier for me to produce good photos these days with my larger heavier K5, even though I had a reasonable range of "M" lenses then (and I still have them). Also, I can produce much larger prints of acceptable quality now than in my manual days - everything is better for me, so I don't need FF.

Pentax APS-C DSLR is all I will ever need or want, preferably a bit lighter than K5 next time, as long as they keep the format going. MX: 520grams, K5 750 grams (with both ready for action) - quite a big difference already.

Others with different needs than me differ, of course.

The top aps-c dSLR are work horses for many of us. Smaller size has been a hall mark of Pentax over the years.

[Rondec]

Reach is only an apsc benefit when sensors aren't equivalent. the K5 has no better reach potential than the D800 does. a 24mp apsc gains ground here again though. Effectively though shooting in crop mode on a 24MP will satisfy many shooters for reach as the file size will still be respectable.
For guys shooting Wide FF has the benefit of more wide lenses, though that has mostly been addressed either through wide zooms or a couple of wide primes for apsc now. But I would have a hard time finding an apsc equivalent for low light street shooting to say even the lowly 14mm 2.8 Bower which is FF. I know of no 10mm 2.0 out there, and it would likely cost a fortune if it was

Right. If there is the same pixel density between APS-C and full frame, there will be no difference on cropping ability. Furthermore, as sensors become more pixel-dense, you reach a place where getting sharp photos at a pixel level becomes increasingly difficult. There is some benefit going from 16 megapixels to 24 megapixels (APS-C), but not as much as you would think, in real life shooting.

I really think that for middle focal lengths (30 to 100mm) there isn't that much difference between the two formats. However when you get wider than that, full frame really does have a significant advantage. On the long side, APS-C may have an advantage in some situations, but not as much as it once did.

[Dave L]

The top aps-c dSLR are work horses for many of us. Smaller size has been a hall mark of Pentax over the years.

Perhaps a KR replacement with no video and a smaller lighter battery and other components could be made significantly smaller and lighter than K5, that would appeal to some. Having the smallest lightest high quality APS-C DSLR could represent a nice return for some to the joys of ME Super days.