[Ratmagiclady]

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.

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.

It may eventually just come down to the *lenses.* One thing about APS-C that I love is that actually the short tele FOV's I prefer basically still have normal-lens DOF's (perfectly workable for me, actually. ) ....which means a smaller package for 75 percent of my shooting... Money could get a 31 Limited, which'd be the wideish normal which is my preferred way of doing fifteen-to-twenty persent of the rest. And smaller than my big Sigma 28/1.8. Huge to present any subject with, but all in all, the combination's a lot lighter than the 35/2, 50 1.2, and 85/1.8 I carry for Canon FD.

Puts the speed where I need it most, too. If they'd just find a way to really magnify that APS-C *finder* and really dial in the manual focus, I might not even really *want* to switch if the workable high-ISO gap closes.

What Pentax *really* needs to do next is fast normals: maybe 'true' normals: an affordable/small DA WR one, say: a 30 1.8 or a re-clothed 35/2, (Do the same for the FA 50, while they're at it: that ain't broke) and like a DA* 28/ 1.4. Bing.




If I were a big wide angle fan, I'd be screaming for FF just on the size of lenses, though. I can have a 21 Limited that'll be the out-of-my-blessed-way-till-I-ask little utilitarian wide, sharpness, please, (Niceness *is* nice. Usually if I go that wide, it's either cause it's the only way to get the angle, or cause I'm actually having a moment. Then I want preeeetty. ....only thing that bothers me is that they cost. (Maybe a non-Limited version would help there, too. )

Sometimes I do think the Internet 'Bokeh Competition' thing seems pretty out of hand, these days. (I do suppose it's more prominent on a computer screen, admittedly) Nice to have, but: I have a 50 1.2 for my old Canons to nail my point of focus in the dim, not cause I routinely run around sticking 50mm lenses, wide open, in the faces of unsuspecting people aiming for just that one eyelash or anything.

[Miserere]

By the time that happens I'd be willing to bet the price difference in the two formats will be almost non-existent.

Maybe there will be an APS-C resurgence at that time with new, dedicated mounts (smaller registration distance and all that). I don't think APS-C has been exploited to its fullest, and Pentax have been the ones to exploit it the most.

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?

Errmmm...never?

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.

A few quick calculations of VF sizes in ascending order:

Canon 7D: 329 sq.mm
Nikon D90: 336 sq.mm
Pentax K-7: 336 sq.mm
Nikon D300s: 351 sq.mm
Nikon D700: 589 sq.mm
Canon 5D mkII: 601 sq.mm
Canon 1Ds mkIII: 657 sq.mm
Pentax ME Super: 755 sq.mm
Pentax LX: 764 sq.mm (with FA-1 finder)
Olympus OM-1: 771 sq.mm
Pentax MX: 796 sq.mm

So as far as FF digital SLRs go, the 1Ds mkIII has a nice VF, but compared to an old-school film SLR, it's still got a lot to learn. And if you liked the Canon 7D's VF, you should also like the K-7's.

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.

That would be because the latter is less than 50% of the former, per my list above

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.

Leicas don't have AF motors to deal with. Then again, neither do Canons, and that doesn't stop them making huge cameras

My personal favorite lens is still the humble 50mm f/1.4, first off Pentax doesn't even have an equivalent for APS-C.

A big complaint of mine. Pentax should have an affordable, reasonably fast normal lens available for APS-C. A DA 28mm f/1.8 would be nice. Not DA*, no Ltd.

.

[Art Vandelay II]

A few quick calculations of VF sizes in ascending order:

Canon 7D: 329 sq.mm
Nikon D90: 336 sq.mm
Pentax K-7: 336 sq.mm
Nikon D300s: 351 sq.mm
Nikon D700: 589 sq.mm
Canon 5D mkII: 601 sq.mm
Canon 1Ds mkIII: 657 sq.mm
Pentax ME Super: 755 sq.mm
Pentax LX: 764 sq.mm (with FA-1 finder)
Olympus OM-1: 771 sq.mm
Pentax MX: 796 sq.mm

So as far as FF digital SLRs go, the 1Ds mkIII has a nice VF, but compared to an old-school film SLR, it's still got a lot to learn. And if you liked the Canon 7D's VF, you should also like the K-7's.

You and DPR need to have a death match, according to them the K-7's VF is the equivalent to .61x in full frame terms where as the D300 and Canon 7D are both at .63x. They say the best in the DSLR world is currently the Canon 1Ds at .76x. I've tried out every one of those cameras; hell, I've tried out pretty much every DSLR on the market; and while none can compare to the Pentax LX the Canon 1Ds is very very nice. The K-7 has by far and away my favorite body size and ergo's, but to be honest the VF just didn't impress me. It was by no means bad, but I thought both the 7D and the D300 looked bigger and brighter....of course none held a candle to the Sony A850.

[*isteve]

You and DPR need to have a death match, according to them the K-7's VF is the equivalent to .61x in full frame terms where as the D300 and Canon 7D are both at .63x. They say the best in the DSLR world is currently the Canon 1Ds at .76x. I've tried out every one of those cameras; hell, I've tried out pretty much every DSLR on the market; and while none can compare to the Pentax LX the Canon 1Ds is very very nice. The K-7 has by far and away my favorite body size and ergo's, but to be honest the VF just didn't impress me. It was by no means bad, but I thought both the 7D and the D300 looked bigger and brighter....of course none held a candle to the Sony A850.

Pentax deliberately adding matting to the K7 VF to make critical focus easier to see, albeit slightly darker. This was a deliberate choice.

[jogiba]

Canon EOS-5D Mark II Digital SLR Camera Body Kit,- USA Warranty - with Sandisk 16GB Extreme IV CF Memory Card, Slinger Camera Bag $2,500
ICA5DM2C Canon EOS-5D Mark II Digital SLR Camera Body Kit,- USA Warranty - with Sandisk 16GB Extreme IV CF Memory Card, Slinger Camera Bag

I would pay $2,500 for a Pentax version.

[awo425]

I would pay up to $2000 for a Pentax FF body if Pentax will also ditch SAFOX for something that actually works.
Otherwise, why would I even bother, there are D700, 5D2 and a bunch of Sonyes out there, and prices for lenses at this point are not in favor of Pentax?

[Light_Horseman]

Price is not the issue.. features and performance are what counts. A Pentax FF camera has to beat a 5DII in features, IQ and performance (AF) and must have a non-crippled K mount.

Pentax has always been a leader in price and it's eventual FF camera will no doubt do the same.

[pasipasi]

I switched to digital FF to get the same fov/dof from 24/2.8, 35/2, 50/1.4 and 135/2.8 as I get from film. It's something that can't be achieved with APS-C.

As a wide shooter, fast wides aren't really small or cheap on the small sensor. I got my 24/2.8 Nikkor for around 120eur. How much would a 16/2.8 cost, let alone a 16/1.8 to get the same dof? This 24mm lens was made between 1972-74, has good coating and works in Av mode with matrix metering on my D700. The crippled Pentax mount can't do that.

There's a neat focusing aid in this Nikon body that I didn't know of until I tried one. There's an arrow showing which way to turn the focusing ring in the viewfinder. I've had split screens in my Pentax bodies but I don't think I need one now.

Other thing that suprised me was the screw drive focusing engine. It's almost silent with the 35/2D Nikkor. Quieter than Canon's I believe, but A LOT quieter than Pentax's. Where's the noise coming from?

[mattdm]

There's a neat focusing aid in this Nikon body that I didn't know of until I tried one. There's an arrow showing which way to turn the focusing ring in the viewfinder. I've had split screens in my Pentax bodies but I don't think I need one now.

Yeah; Pentax should absolutely copy this.

[Art Vandelay II]

Yep, even my 10 year old Nikon F100 has that same manual focus aide. Using manual focus lenses is a joy with it. However, I've noticed they leave that feature out in their APS-C cameras. Not even the D300s has that feature. It just has a blinking AF confirmation dot without the arrows telling you which way to turn the focus ring. Sony has managed to fit something similar in both the A700 and A900, so I guess that is just a marketing choice by Nikon.

Either way, I've owned range finders, split-prism SLR's, DSLR's and an EVIL and I have to say by far the easiest and most accurate to manual focus with are EVIL's since they can magnify part of the image to 7x or 10x.

[ilya80]

Well,

With my Cosina i need to turn the ring counter-clockwise to focus closer, while on my A 50 i need to turn the focus ring clockwise. Man it screws me all over.

[whatever7]

The sensor supplier (Sony) will make sure its not the cheapest FF SLR on the market. So no surprise on price here.

[Miserere]

The sensor supplier (Sony) will make sure its not the cheapest FF SLR on the market. So no surprise on price here.

I don't think Sony cares--they win either way. By supplying Pentax with FF sensors they're increasing the number they need to produce, meaning the ones they keep for themselves will be cheaper, and the surplus is bought by Pentax, so it's a win-win situation for Sony. They had no problem letting Pentax sell their 6MP and 10MP cameras with Sony sensors for cheaper than the competition and themselves.

.

[Photomy]

it will be 5-10 years before FF reaches the $2500-$1500 marks. FF is a pro feature, so bodies with FF will have all the other bells and whistles that go along with pro gear.

The first $1500 FF camera would be interesting, but it will oudoubtedly be an intro level, plastic body with very few features, no vertical grip, pentamirror viewfinder, lower FPS, slower af....bla bla bla. I'm not interested in a intro level FF camera at all.

Sony A850 already goes for $2,000 or slightly less.

[Photomy]

The difference between a good APS-C and a similar specd FF seems to be about $900 to $1,000 of you look at Nikon and Canon.