[pixelsaurus]

+1. Instead of whining, people just need to harden up. I have no issues with FF or APS. I have no intentions of jumping ship.

[Ex Finn.]

Been Pentax for 3 decades, what`s the hurry. I can wait for couple more years.

[Blue]

Been Pentax for 3 decades, what`s the hurry. I can wait for couple more years.

I still have a Pentax 110 that I started out on.

[monochrome]

Original-owner 1977 KX. Lots of other stuff. Even if I do eventually get a Nikon (not likely) I still have the Pentaxes. And the lenses.

[Ash]

And even us non-film SLR folk can wait.
Started off with a K100D as my first SLR cam, and there's been enough development in Pentax to stay well equipped in the digital era.
I see no need to switch to any other system even though I can.
K-5 and K-r are doing me well right now.
If a FF cam comes on board, sweet. I'll be keen on it. In the meantime, there's stuff to shoot with some great lenses on this fine system, and it still provides enjoyment. The AF deficiencies aren't crippling me much.
I'll wait.

[Greyser]

Whining about FF absence many forget about a few obvious things.
There are a few areas where APS-C has advantages over FF:

• Immediate 1.5x advantage when shooting small wildlife

• Smaller RAW files, meaning faster card writing speed

• More of frames per second of continues shooting

• Lens choice

• etc.

I'm not even really happy with semi guessed 24MP sensor due to problematic file size/writing speed ratio.

I've owned K-5 since December 2010 when most of these whiners instead of buying it were complaining about K-5 stain issue. I may even have a stained sensor (I stopped checking a while ago), but, if I mostly shoot at f/5.6-f//8, who cares, right? Not for this type of people, I guess

I have tremendous respect for the members of both Pentax forums who post amazing images still shoting with ist*, 10D, 20D, etc. The real truth and art are not in sensor size and MP numbers.

I'm not sure what body I'm going to by next. It might be K-5 IIs, I think.

[mee]

I'm not even really happy with semi guessed 24MP sensor due to problematic file size/writing speed ratio.

Can't one reduce the image size in the camera settings? If so, Wouldn't that increase the speed ratio?

[Class A]

There are a few areas where APS-C has advantages over FF:

• Immediate 1.5x advantage when shooting small wildlife

This is not an APS-C advantage. The K-5, for example, does not have a 1.5x "reach" advantage over the Nikon D800. The relevant spec here is pixel pitch and the latter is orthogonal to sensor size.

• Smaller RAW files, meaning faster card writing speed

If you are talking about keeping the pixel-pitch the same then yes. Otherwise a FF 12MP procuces smaller files than a 16.3 MP APS-C camera. Card writing speed is furthermore dependent on the processor technology. The 24MP FF Sony A900 easily beats a 6MP APS-C K100D.

• More of frames per second of continues shooting

Same as above.

• Lens choice

Really? How so?

• etc.

Eh, no.

APS-C really has no advantages over FF, except for price, but note that there is a threshold of IQ at which FF equipment becomes cheaper to make (and purchase).

I'm still shooting with a K100D, BTW, and I love it. That doesn't stop me from acknowledging the superiority of larger sensors, though.

[David&karen]

Aps-c allows deeper depth of field on wide angles with smaller and lighter lenses(what we need and use), is easier to carry and hold, usually costs less, and in Pentaxs case, IS is built into the body. If isolation of your subject is your goal this format may not work for you, but we do the occasional portrat with the 300da star, and I don't know anyone who carries around a 450-500 f4 on ff in their backpack on holiday for that use. For wide angle use, apsc is the bomb.

David

[repaap]

So, no advantages and not disadvantage either?

This is not an APS-C advantage. The K-5, for example, does not have a 1.5x "reach" advantage over the Nikon D800. The relevant spec here is pixel pitch and the latter is orthogonal to sensor size.

but I think that D800 has bigger files, than K-5, it would take more resourses for files and that new 24 FF is the same. It seems to be great now. I think that it can be way better too. K-5 IIs is propably best, by how far it can go. I suppose. For many it can be really good, if not the best solution. As so many other brands too.

let us see.

[bxf]

Just for the fun of it, I did a search on "K-5 II" and read some of he preliminary reports. Virtually without exception, the prevailing attitude is that Pentax took a great camera (probably best in class), and made it better (assuming it lives up to specs).

Why so much whining on these forums? We all know that a better camera is not going to make anyone a better photographer anyway!

[photoephemere]

agree

[Pål Jensen]

This is not an APS-C advantage. The K-5, for example, does not have a 1.5x "reach" advantage over the Nikon D800. The relevant spec here is pixel pitch and the latter is orthogonal to sensor size. .

This is like saying a Pentax LX have no reach advantage over a Pentax 67 when using the same film.

Of course APS has an advantage over D800. If you remove that advantage the D800 is not an FF camera anylonger and hence the comparison becomes meaningless.

You buy the D800 to get the FF advantage not to make it equal to an APS camera.

[Pål Jensen]

Aps-c allows deeper depth of field on wide angles with smaller and lighter lenses(what we need and use), is easier to carry and hold, usually costs less, and in Pentaxs case, IS is built into the body. If isolation of your subject is your goal this format may not work for you, but we do the occasional portrat with the 300da star, and I don't know anyone who carries around a 450-500 f4 on ff in their backpack on holiday for that use. For wide angle use, apsc is the bomb.

David

Also an FF camera need to increase ISO one stop in order to give the exact same image as on APS. This is a disadvantage.

[gazonk]

This is like saying a Pentax LX have no reach advantage over a Pentax 67 when using the same film.

Of course APS has an dvantage over D800. If you remove that advantage the D800 is not an FF camera anylonger and hence the comparison becomes meaningless.

I don't quite agree. Of course, if you're a birder, and almost exclusively shoot with long lenses, the D800 is probably a complete waste of money and bulk if you're fine with the K-5. But if you only use long lenses occasionally, the situation is different.

Suppose, for instance, that Pentax makes our dream camera, a K-5-like camera, not much larger, and with good viewfinder support for APS-C lenses. Further, suppose that it has the 36mp sensor so it's roughly equivalent to the K-5 when cropping.

Mostly I shoot with shorter lenses, but occasionally I use the DA55-300. I wouldn't even dream of replacing that lens with an equivalent FF-covering lens, so if I buy the hypothetical camera (the "k-1"), I would probably use it with a couple of new wide-angle to normal lenses, I would still use the DA70, which gives pretty nice results on FF, and I would use it cropped with the DA55-300. End results: I would get better results (in theory...) for most of my photography, and equivalent results when I use the long zoom.