[Miserere]

Didn't notice it was a 2 year old post (not exactly expecting that)....but that does show just how far off anti-FF people have been (and still are) in their price predictions. Does anyone seriously think there won't be a $1500 FF DSLR on the market in two more years or less?

Who are these anti-FF people you speak of? I'm not interested in FF because I like my cameras small. And my lenses too. I'm not anti-FF, but I am against straining a company's resources to produce a product that isn't going to offer any significant advantages once the next generation of APS-C sensors hit the market.

I'd much rather have a high-end APS-C camera than a low-end full-frame one. And the former will likely always cost less than the latter to boot

That's just me

.

[stanleyk]

Who are these anti-FF people you speak of? I'm not interested in FF because I like my cameras small. And my lenses too.

Agreed. Why is someone "anti-full frame" just because they wouldn't buy one. I have no interest in one, but that doesn't mean I'm "anti-full frame."

I really agree on the size difference. I went hiking the other day with a guy who had one of the Cannon's. I didn't really pay attention to which model. The only thing I liked about it was the screen. Not the size of the screen but the definition on it. The camera was way too big for me though. It was huge compared to my K7. The screen wouldn't be a selling point for me though. I usually just look at the photos on my computer at home. I have kind of figured out of the over years how I like to expose/compose and rarely look at the view screen.

That still doesn't make me "anti-full frame." I just wouldn't buy one. No big deal.

[Pål Jensen]

Who are these anti-FF people you speak of? I'm not interested in FF because I like my cameras small.
.

Why do you assume a Pentax FF camera would be large? It would probably be no larger than a K-7; in fact it will be a K-7 (or K-8) with a larger sensor if it ever comes...

[Kunzite]

Hopefully, it would have a larger pentaprism - I wouldn't buy a FF camera with a tiny APS-C like viewfinder

[Art Vandelay II]

Who are these anti-FF people you speak of? I'm not interested in FF because I like my cameras small. And my lenses too. I'm not anti-FF, but I am against straining a company's resources to produce a product that isn't going to offer any significant advantages once the next generation of APS-C sensors hit the market.

I'd much rather have a high-end APS-C camera than a low-end full-frame one. And the former will likely always cost less than the latter to boot

By anti-full frame I simply meant those that don't want one, nor do they want Pentax to produce one for those of us that do...so yes, people like you are who I spoke of. Hmm, do you really think next generation APS-C will be close to the sensor Nikon is using in their D3S? That camera has usable ISO51,200. That is mind boggling. But high ISO aside, the two features that matter the most to me personally are large view finder and DOF control. Pentax is going to need to make an APS-C viewfinder with at least 1.2x magnification to compete with the worst of full frame viewfinders, let alone something like the Sony A900 has. Plus, some of us still shoot film, it would be nice for 50mm's to = 50mm's on both bodies.

Edit: I would like to add if Pentax puts a 1.2x view finder on the K-8 then I would be really happy with it probably buy one. So that is fine for now, but I do worry about the future when the cost difference between APS-C and FF is negligible. Once the price gap drops to $500 or so I wonder how many non-telephoto enthusiast will still buy D300's, K-7's, or Canon 7D's.

I really agree on the size difference. I went hiking the other day with a guy who had one of the Cannon's. I didn't really pay attention to which model. The only thing I liked about it was the screen. Not the size of the screen but the definition on it. The camera was way too big for me though.

Take a look at the Pentax MZ-S. That was Pentax's last high quality film camera, and it's smaller than a K-7. Canon and Nikon both make cameras large because they think they should. Their APS-C pro-grade cameras are just as large as their full frame cameras. Pentax has a different philosophy. They should be able to make one no larger than the K-7. As far as lens size goes, you won't notice a real size advantage there either until you get up over 135mm's. Fortunately for me I never go above that.

[alexfoto]

Less than $1500 (a lot less) now the FF are a lot overpriced.

[Peter Zack]

Well that's pushing it from any reviews I seen. That camera has usable 51,200 ISO if it's family snap shots but certainly not for professionally enlarged photos, which is what the camera was intended for. But at 12,800 and in some situations 25,600 it is usable. Plus "huge" is figurative. 25,600 to 51,200 is one stop. If ISO went 1,2,3,4,5,6,7 etc. it wouldn't appear to look/sound so impressive (or better since this is exponential: 1,2,4,8,16,32,64,128...). I wouldn't use the one stop and sacrifice that much detail/noise for a notch higher shutter speed.

I'm hoping that Pentax will introduce a good competitive FF body that stays in the line for 2 years or more. There's no reason that they have to drop and replace it as fast as the APSc models. The 5D has been around for quite awhile and still in heavy use. Like Nikon they can just tweak it and add a 'p' to the model number in 2-3 years instead of using huge sums of money to build a new body. Stretch the life so it pays for itself. (AKA PZ-1 and PZ-1p)

[Art Vandelay II]

If ISO went 1,2,3,4,5,6,7 etc.

I had that discussion with a friend a few months ago. I assume manufacturers didn't imagine that they'd have cameras with usable ISO12,800 when they first started making DSLR's, so that's why they stuck with the old film ISO ratings, as the D3s has shown there may be no limit to how high ISO can go. We may be looking at ISO204,800 in a few years. They need a new ISO standard for the digital era; this is getting out of control. 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128, 256, 512, etc. gets my vote.

And to answer your question, lets say Pentax made a 12mp K-7 with the K-X sensor, and a full frame K-8 with a 12mp sensor from the D3s (or even D700), then I'd pay $400-600 more for it myself. But that would mainly be for the better view finder and DOF control that I'd get with the FF k-8. High ISO is actually 3rd down my list of FF bonuses.

[Peter Zack]

The overall focus still has to be at the APSc level where the bulk of the sales will be.
Just looking at this small poll.
We have 163 votes
24 are yes under $1500.00 - they will not buy (a. the price will be higher and b. they really want it at $1000)
2 at any price were drinking and hit whatever button.
61 are not interested.
I submit that at least 30% who say they want one, are really doing some wishful thinking and not really going to get one (remember you may have to change all/many of your lenses!!!)

So that brings the really interested ones down to 53. Now chop that in half again when the rubber hits the road, this group don't really need one (especially if the next APSc has noise control and better AF with 5+ Fps like we've seen in the KX).

Many (most) will be serious when they make some money from photography. Just looking at my photo club, We have about 100 active members and some excellent cameras there. But from all those, there is only 1 FF body (D700) and the other Canon/Nikon owners there talk about FF because their brand has one, so it makes their 40D better somehow.

It's like saying a VW Golf is the best small car because they also own Lamborghini.

[Art Vandelay II]

(remember you may have to change all/many of your lenses!!!)

Not me, I sold off all my APS-C gear last year. I sincerely think in 2 years APS-C cameras like the K-7 will still be hovering around the $1000 mark because they can only make magnesium weather sealed bodies so cheap, no matter what size sensor they use. However, the big difference will be they'll have competition from $1500-1800 full frame DSLR's. I know people that shoot a lot of telephoto may never go back to full frame, but people like me that don't use telephoto lenses will. And I imagine people in your photo club that like to brag about their gear will too. Now with competition from EVIL's APS-C DSLR's are going to be attacked from both ends. It makes me wonder what the future of that format holds if EVIL's wipe out entry level DSLR's and the bulk of enthusiast and pro cameras go full frame. Plus, you know manufacturers would love for you to trash your APS-C gear and purchase new FF lenses. I'm sure marketing departments are already trying to come up with ways to entice people to switch.

[wowtip]

I'm going to pay around $1000 for the next camera body I buy in two or three years. Probably the same three or so years from that. If there's a full-frame body which also fits my other needs for that price, I might consider it.

Spot on. When I upgrade next time I would consider a FF body, iff it was somewhere in that region. But... I have some DA lenses that would probably be useless, and my favorite portrait Helios 44 lens would all of a sudden be a normal lens. My 200mm tele would be a what my 135mm is on my K20D today. Plus, they would all probably have slightly lower IQ.

If the APS-C DSLRs were still a bit cheaper (and as competent as K20D/K-7)... I would probably stay.

[Ratmagiclady]

I would pay zip for full frame. They actually would have to pay me if they wanted me to use a full frame...

If the payment came in the form of an FA 77 or a fast 85, I could probably be convinced.

I don't really think it's the time, though: even a full-priced K7 would be a huge fortune to me: I certainly wouldn't pay even that kind of money for less of a camera overall, or one that wouldn't be doing a lot of other things well, at this point. If the money were there, I would prefer something top-shelf, even if it cost that. Pentax is better off waiting till the technology gap closes more, then doing it really right. If they can make something of K7 quality with a beautiful finder and get it under two grand, they might well be somewhere. I figure, by then, FF will either be a lot cheaper or rendered unnecessary by some other advance.

[stanleyk]

Art- Valid point on the size.

My limit on a camera body is around $1,000. So I guess if Pentax made a full frame camera the size of a K7 at no more than $1100, sure I would buy one. But it won't bother me if they don't. Given my skill level I'm not sure I would know the difference. :-)

I'm certainly not opposed to Pentax making one, but I just wouldn't run out an buy it. I just didn't get the anti full frame thing.

I'm really happy with the K7. I got the Kx because of the $640 55-300mm lens deal on Amazon. I was planning on buying the 55-300. I just didn't need a really expensive long lens because like you I rarely use anything above that DA 70mm, but wanted an inexpensive option in case I wanted too. The 55-300 was going for around $350 so I figured for $300 extra dollars getting the Kx (given the good reviews on this forum) was a pretty good deal. Anyway, I haven't used the Kx but a couple of times but it seems like a nice camera too.

I hope Pentax does make a full frame because so many people on the forum seem to want one. I just doubt I would buy one.

[Miserere]

By anti-full frame I simply meant those that don't want one, nor do they want Pentax to produce one for those of us that do...so yes, people like you are who I spoke of.

Ha ha ha, yes, I guess it is me you speak of

Hmm, do you really think next generation APS-C will be close to the sensor Nikon is using in their D3S? That camera has usable ISO51,200. That is mind boggling.

FF will always have a 1.5 stop advantage in noise, that's just simple Physics, so I don't think the next generation APS-C will rival FF sensors. However, I do think that new technologies (like back-illuminated sensors) will make APS-C sensors at least as good as today's D3s. When an APS-C sensor is good enough to shoot at ISO 51,200 with good IQ, will we want to pay $2,000 more for a FF? I shoot at high ISO A LOT, and from what I've seen, the K-x sensor is nearly as sensitive as I'd need; 1 more stop of improvement and I'd probably not buy another camera for many, many years.

But high ISO aside, the two features that matter the most to me personally are large view finder and DOF control. Pentax is going to need to make an APS-C viewfinder with at least 1.2x magnification to compete with the worst of full frame viewfinders, let alone something like the Sony A900 has. Plus, some of us still shoot film, it would be nice for 50mm's to = 50mm's on both bodies.

I have not looked through a Canon's FF VF, but I've looked through a D700 a number of times (and the 5D's VF is similar): It's disappointing. Comparing side by side with my K10D, there was little difference between the VFs. I had initially also wanted a FF camera for the VF until I actually used one (I have a lot of manual focus lenses). These are not manual-focus film SLR VFs in these cameras!. Take a look at this VF size chart, compare the D700 to the K20D. Even the Sony A900, reputedly one of the best DSLR VFs, isn't that much larger than the K20D. Now compare the FF DSLR VFs to the Olympus OM-1. For further comparison, the OM-1 had 0.92 (magnification) x 93% (coverage), while the Pentax MX had 0.97 x 95%, so it would be even larger on that chart.

If Pentax puts out a FF camera, they better give it something like the MX VF, because otherwise there'll be no point in buying it if you want better manual focusing. It's cheaper to just get a 1.2x diopter for $20, which is what I've done on my K10D. Incidentally, it'll be very expensive to achieve an MX-like VF, so I would fully expect Pentax's FF DSLR to be something like 0.70 x 95% (similar to a D700 or 5D).

Edit: I would like to add if Pentax puts a 1.2x view finder on the K-8 then I would be really happy with it probably buy one. So that is fine for now, but I do worry about the future when the cost difference between APS-C and FF is negligible. Once the price gap drops to $500 or so I wonder how many non-telephoto enthusiast will still buy D300's, K-7's, or Canon 7D's.

I agree with the 1.2x VF on the K-8. I would add my own 1.2x diopter and probably be quite happy with manual focusing (after swapping out the focus screen). But I don't think we'll reach a $500 price gap for equally spec'd cameras. If there were a FF at $1,800 vs the K-8 at $1,300, then the FF would have much lower fps, smaller buffer, probably no video, possibly lower sync speed, and a few other concessions. For some people this wouldn't matter because they just have to have FF, but for others it would.

Take a look at the Pentax MZ-S. That was Pentax's last high quality film camera, and it's smaller than a K-7. Canon and Nikon both make cameras large because they think they should. Their APS-C pro-grade cameras are just as large as their full frame cameras. Pentax has a different philosophy. They should be able to make one no larger than the K-7. As far as lens size goes, you won't notice a real size advantage there either until you get up over 135mm's. Fortunately for me I never go above that.

DSLRs are larger than film camera because there is a lot of extra stuff that needs to go inside the body, and a FF DSLR has a larger shutter and shutter mechanism than an APS-C one (and larger sensor, of course). If Pentax could fit a FF sensor inside a K-7 body, that would be great as far as I'm concerned...but you know there are plenty of people who think the K-7 is too small and the K10/20D are the perfect size. You can't please everyone!

As far as lens size is concerned, yes, a 50mm f/1.4 will always be more or less the same size, but what I meant was that a 50mm f/1.4 on APS-C will be smaller than a 75mm f/1.4 on FF (and both give the same FoV). This doesn't quite work for very wide angle lenses, but it does for my most used focal lengths (I'm not really a wide guy). Yes, the benefit here is mostly to longer FL shooters. People who like wide angle need not read this paragraph!

Art, I'm not against Pentax giving us a FF camera, but I don't want them to do it if they're going to half-ass it and further sacrifice advances to their APS-C line. As someone who likes the advantages of APS-C, I don't want to be left with no options. Pentax cannot put out a K-8 for $1,300, and also a FF for $2,000, because very few people will buy the FF. The K-7 is already a great APS-C camera, if they tweak it and add a K-x level sensor in the K-8, we'll have an extraordinary camera at a great price. What will we get for $700 more? A few extra pixels and 1.5 stops in high ISO performance (and less FPS and whatever else they've cut down to meet the $2,000 price tag).

In order to sell FF cameras in significant enough numbers to recover investment costs, Pentax would have to make their $2,000 FF really attractive, and you do that by making the next camera down not look quite so good. So maybe you cut out the high level APS-C camera from your range and just have a beginners model (K-x level), an intermediate model (a K300D) and make your FF the top of the line which all the bells and whistles previously found on the K-7. The problem is that adding bells and whistles to a FF (as in fast FPS) is going to be difficult (if not impossible) if they're selling them at $2,000. But if they price them so they don't lose money (say $2,500-3,000) then they won't sell any. Classic Catch 22.

So maybe Pentax need to have a high performance APS-C and a lower-performance FF in the line up at the same time after all. But then we're back to why people would buy a lower performing, more expensive camera simply because it's FF.

I just don't see the numbers adding up right now. Maybe in 2-4 years time FF sensors will be cheap enough that it all computes, but right now I don't see it.

It's not that I don't want you or the other guys to be deprived of a FF camera, Art; it's that I don't want a FF to become the albatross around Pentax's neck.

.

[Art Vandelay II]

Excellent post Miserere, and I agree with a lot of what you said, but I will touch on a few things.

When an APS-C sensor is good enough to shoot at ISO 51,200 with good IQ, will we want to pay $2,000 more for a FF?

By the time that happens I'd be willing to bet the price difference in the two formats will be almost non-existent. The price gap is already extremely close in comparable cameras. The D300 and D700 is the most obvious comparison. One is $2500 the other is $1700. That gap will only get closer...if it doesn't it will be due to a marketing decision so they can get a higher mark up on the FF option. Sooner or later the sensor cost itself will be negligible, at which point the manufacturing cost will be virtually the same for both.

I also agree, that cameras are pretty much as good as anyone needs already, but when was the last time anyone settled for just what they need?

I have not looked through a Canon's FF VF, but I've looked through a D700 a number of times (and the 5D's VF is similar): It's disappointing. Comparing side by side with my K10D, there was little difference between the VFs.

I've spent a lot of time researching all the FF cameras on the market because I obviously want one, the D700 and 5D Mk II are both ok, but nothing special. The Canon 7D can easily hang with them (which is the best APS-C VF I've tested), but if compared to the Sony A900/850 or especially the Canon 1Ds then it's not close. The 1Ds is an especially nice VF. That's a great diagram, thanks for sharing it. That shows another problem I have, my film camera is a Pentax LX, which has a VF about the size of the Olympus OM1 (I also have a Nikon F100 which is about the same as a Sony A850), when I switch back to an APS-C DSLR after using it I feel like I'm blind.

DSLRs are larger than film camera because there is a lot of extra stuff that needs to go inside the body, and a FF DSLR has a larger shutter and shutter mechanism than an APS-C one (and larger sensor, of course).

I used to think that way, but I think Leica has proven a digital full frame camera can be made as small as its film counterpart with the Leica M9. Given, it doesn't have SR built in, so that might add a bit of bulk, but that's ok. I don't mind slightly larger, I just want a a full frame option that's smaller than the boat anchors Canikon is producing.

As far as lens size is concerned, yes, a 50mm f/1.4 will always be more or less the same size, but what I meant was that a 50mm f/1.4 on APS-C will be smaller than a 75mm f/1.4 on FF (and both give the same FoV). This doesn't quite work for very wide angle lenses, but it does for my most used focal lengths (I'm not really a wide guy). Yes, the benefit here is mostly to longer FL shooters. People who like wide angle need not read this paragraph!

Only problem there is concern to DOF. APS-C 50mm does not = 75mm full frame in that regard. Given, a 50mm f/1.4 is plenty shallow for portrait use on an APS-C camera, but too much DOF does become problematic on wide angles. My personal favorite lens is still the humble 50mm f/1.4, first off Pentax doesn't even have an equivalent for APS-C. Secondly, they'd need to make something like a 32mm f/1.2 to equal the basic 50mm/1.4 in FF land (that would make up for the extra ISO stop and DOF). A 32mm f/1.2 would be ridiculously expensive, and probably even larger than a FF 50mm/1.4. Besides, I already own a 50mmf/1.4, paying $800+ for a 32mm/1.2 would wipe out all the cost savings of buying an APS-C camera in the first place.

So maybe you cut out the high level APS-C camera from your range and just have a beginners model (K-x level), an intermediate model (a K300D) and make your FF the top of the line which all the bells and whistles previously found on the K-7.

I may be wrong, but I think that's exactly where the market will go eventually. That's if EVIL's don't wipe APS-C DSLR's off the map all together. Seems like a lot of Pentaxians are happy with APS-C, but Canikon users speak of APS-C like a stepping stone until FF price comes down. I hear many say they've bought their last APS-C camera. And once Canikon starts making $1500 FF cameras I wonder how Pentax will compete with that.

I just don't see the numbers adding up right now. Maybe in 2-4 years time FF sensors will be cheap enough that it all computes, but right now I don't see it.

I'm afraid you're right, and I really need another large sensor digital. My only digital at the moment is a Canon G10, which obviously doesn't cut it any time I need DOF control. Sometime in the next few months I'm going to have to bight the bullet and buy something as a stop gap. I'll probably end up getting a K7 because it checks enough boxes for me, but still, I won't be happy with it and I'll still be watching all the rumor sites waiting for a FF Pentax or even a digital version of the Nikon F3.