[monochrome]

Siince I'm not a pro I cannot say with authority whether a, say, wedding photographer can be more productive set-up-to-print with FF vs. APSc (and professional total throughput productivity should be the "ruling grade" in the decision) but as an interested and enthusiastic amateur I can say that I will rarely have a need to make a shot on a FF that I couldn't make K5 (or K3) APSc. Since I rarely print at all and never print for art or print sale I don't need the files either.

But I sure would (will?) enjoy a large viewfinder. If the Pentax offering has a feature set similar to a K5, though, I won't spend the money. It has to be truly top line and uncrippled.

---

Last edited by monochrome; 04-04-2013 at 07:14 PM.

[Ash]

But I sure would (will?) enjoy a large viewfinder

Therein lies a truly significant 'want' that in itself is a good reason for many enthusiasts to invest in a FF system.
Whether we 'need' the output differences or not over the APS-C output is another thing that has been debated ad nauseum without a unanimous advantage. Personal preference prevails, but there is no doubt, even just from a recent poll on what enthusiasts want on this forum alone (and it can be extrapolated to the general Pentaxian community), that a FF dSLR from Pentax would be invested in by a good proportion of customers.

[Class A]

That lens; and about fifty others in PK that are currently being marketed are in fact full frame - now.

It is not about the availability of lenses, but about allowing Pentax to profit not only from camera sales but also from lens sales.

Some month ago a design for a full frame 70-210 f2.8 zoom was patented by Pentax; apparently the full frame lenses are on the way...

A Pentax 70-210/2.8 with the IQ of the 50-135/2.8 would be very nice.

I migrated to a D600 and 28/50/85 1.8 G lenses, more than happy, but im still very much a PP

Good, good.

But on the other hand you loose one stop shutterspeed for the same DOF increasing the risk of subject blur and camera movement blur...
No free lunches...

You don't lose anything.

You simply increase ISO by a stop and because of the bigger sensor you can afford to without losing any IQ. The "lunch" isn't free anyhow because you are paying more for a larger sensor (and the surrounding camera).

[jon404]

As for a large optical viewfinder with overlaid info, you could put it on any camera, FF, APS-C, whatever.

FF hopefuls -- be careful what you wish for. You might just get it... 24 MP, all that. But. It just ups the ante. Harder to get things in focus... and digital is a harsh mistress... you can't conceal those imperfections the way we could with FF film, back when. FF may tempt you into photographic insanity -- endless pixelpeeping, endless complaints and whining as those new 200 ppi screens reveal that, time after time, you've failed to nail that focus. And FF without the Bayer filter... bon chance!

[Kunzite]

As for a large optical viewfinder with overlaid info, you could put it on any camera, FF, APS-C, whatever.

That's not true. In order to get a FF-sized viewfinder with a crop camera, you'd have to increase the magnification, and even considering perfect optics, you will get a darker viewfinder.
Also, a FF should be easier for precise focusing, either manual (larger, brighter viewfinder) or automatic.

[Paul Ewins]

But I sure would (will?) enjoy a large viewfinder. If the Pentax offering has a feature set similar to a K5, though, I won't spend the money. It has to be truly top line and uncrippled.

I'd love to have LX style interchangeable finders but they seem to have gone out of fashion so I don't expect it to happen. I wear glasses and anything that makes it easier to see through the finder would be most welcome. Using the LX with the FB/FC finder after the K5 is a revelation (or just a reminder of what we have lost).

[cali92rs]

FF hopefuls -- be careful what you wish for. You might just get it... 24 MP, all that. But. It just ups the ante. Harder to get things in focus... and digital is a harsh mistress... you can't conceal those imperfections the way we could with FF film, back when. FF may tempt you into photographic insanity -- endless pixelpeeping, endless complaints and whining as those new 200 ppi screens reveal that, time after time, you've failed to nail that focus. And FF without the Bayer filter... bon chance!

What do you mean? You make it sound like FF digital (and medium format digital) is a new technology. They have been around for many years and there are millions of photographs available online taken with FF and MF digital cameras that have nailed focus which you can blow up to 100% and see that they are perfectly sharp.

[monochrome]

I'd love to have LX style interchangeable finders but they seem to have gone out of fashion so I don't expect it to happen. I wear glasses and anything that makes it easier to see through the finder would be most welcome. Using the LX with the FB/FC finder after the K5 is a revelation (or just a reminder of what we have lost).

Asahiflex posited last year interchangeable viewfinders on a D2-LX FF could be the "Pentax Distinction."

I finally ponied up for an LX FA-1/FB-1/FC-1/FD-1 a year ago to help with my vision problems, and then a K-01 and Q. The FC-1 VF is like looking through a picture window, but also like a rifle sciope - not touching my face. The FD-1 has the wider diopter range I need - and face contact - but at a non-traditional angle from the face.

Since the LX viewfinders are different anyway I've spent a lot of time with LCD focusing. I'm doing pretty well nailing focus with the K-01 and Q using Focus Peaking and 2x or 4x mag, and learning how to stabilize the camera close to my body is just a matter of grip, arm position and practice.

I'd love an LX analog myself, but in actual practice it would be so expensive compared to coming LCD technology that I don't think it will happen. My bet is in 5 years many dSLR users will rarely use the viewfnder at all, and of course MILC's in a traditional body might have a very large EVF in a VF hump.

[Clavius]

My bet is in 5 years most camera users will rarely use the viewfnder.

That's why I would love to see Pentax introduce the EVF. Imagine peering down the VF of 'just' an APSC camera, smaller then any DSLR, and looking at a big bright Medium Format sized EVF screen. Being able to stabilize it against the face as any old fashioned camera.

Withou a replacement for the OVF, the VF will be gone in a few years.

[ElJamoquio]

As for a large optical viewfinder with overlaid info, you could put it on any camera, FF, APS-C, whatever.

FF hopefuls -- be careful what you wish for. You might just get it... 24 MP, all that. But. It just ups the ante. Harder to get things in focus... and digital is a harsh mistress... you can't conceal those imperfections the way we could with FF film, back when. FF may tempt you into photographic insanity -- endless pixelpeeping, endless complaints and whining as those new 200 ppi screens reveal that, time after time, you've failed to nail that focus. And FF without the Bayer filter... bon chance!

With the same lens and the same AF system, it's easier to get things in focus with FF. As others have mentioned, the APS-C viewfinder would be twice as dark as a FF viewfinder, all else the same.

I don't care what a pixel looks like, so I guess I'm OK with FF.

[northcoastgreg]

A further stop of DoF control cannot be emulated on APS-C, whereas focus stacking can solve any problem of insufficient DoF that FF has.

Well, if you're bring PP techniques into the fold, then that isn't true: DOF "control" (or rather "thin" DOF) is attainable by simply adding blur in post. My sister has sold literally hundreds of images used for bookcovers with that technique.

You simply increase ISO by a stop and because of the bigger sensor you can afford to without losing any IQ. The "lunch" isn't free anyhow because you are paying more for a larger sensor (and the surrounding camera).

True. The primary advantage of APS-C is price. But that's a very important advantage. It's the reason why FF has only 6% of the market, and why all those predictions about FF replacing APS-C, (predictions, moreover, dating at least from the introduction of the D3, more than 5 years ago) have failed to come even close to being true.

[Ash]

There are good reason why enthusiasts and pros alike buy FF cameras over APS-C, or I'd be agreeing with you Greg. And for the mere fact that dFF cameras are now more affordable than ever, this single digit market share the FFs have will no doubt be climbing in the coming years. Nevertheless, APS-C will always have a comfortable place in camera sales, never being greatly affected by FF probably because they keep getting both cheaper themselves, and more capable.

[cali92rs]

True. The primary advantage of APS-C is price. But that's a very important advantage. It's the reason why FF has only 6% of the market, and why all those predictions about FF replacing APS-C, (predictions, moreover, dating at least from the introduction of the D3, more than 5 years ago) have failed to come even close to being true.

Back when the D3 was released, the D700 (the "budget" FX) was about $3,000, the D300s (the "pro" DX) was about $1800.
Fast forward to today, the D600 is about $2000 is while the D7100 is about $1200. The price differential has shrunk 33% within only a few years. There is still a big difference between entry DX and entry FX...but the gap between enthusiast DX and FX is definitely shrinking. That is why Pentax has to be real careful with the "K-3" pricing. If they price it too high, like they did initially with the K-01 and Q, they will really screw themselves.

[Rondec]

Back when the D3 was released, the D700 (the "budget" FX) was about $3,000, the D300s (the "pro" DX) was about $1800.
Fast forward to today, the D600 is about $2000 is while the D7100 is about $1200. The price differential has shrunk 33% within only a few years. There is still a big difference between entry DX and entry FX...but the gap between enthusiast DX and FX is definitely shrinking. That is why Pentax has to be real careful with the "K-3" pricing. If they price it too high, like they did initially with the K-01 and Q, they will really screw themselves.

But the D700 has been selling for around 2000 for the last year, at least.

Don't get me wrong, I think I would buy a Pentax full frame in a heart beat, but I am honest and admit that there are a lot more people whose price range tops out below 1000 dollars then there are those who are willing to spend upwards of 2000 dollars (including glass). Reading internet forums just really gives us a skewed view of what the world of cameras really looks like. We are few compared to "regular" shooters and honestly, even here, I would doubt that more than 20 to 30 percent of people would be willing to buy a full frame camera for 2500 dollars.

[Cannikin]

The DOF and low light advantage of FF may theoretically be a little over 1 stop, but practically speaking the difference can be over 3 stops on the wide end. For example, what is the fastest AF "equivalent" of FF 24mm f/1.4? 16mm f/2.8 for APS-C I believe, which is over 3 stops difference when put on top of the native ~1 stop difference. Or that of 14-24mm f/2.8, which would be 8-16mm f/4.5-5.6.

When it comes to wider angle subject isolation (a big part of the "3D" look), or say night landscapes without star trails (where techniques such as longer exposure, star tracking or image stacking don't really work), FF has a huge advantage.