[totsmuyco]

Nice looking and seems compact for a 400.

[Mistral75]

Nice looking and seems compact for a 400.

The Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM II is not that big either... as long as you stay at 100mm





From left to right:

• EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II USM
• EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS USM
• EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II USM

Photos above © The-Digital-Picture.com Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II USM Lens Review

[Rondec]

I should also point out that high-end is a moving target. Just 3 years I would have said that above $2,000 for a bundle was definitely high-end, and APS-C would top out ~$1,500.

Now anything above $1,500 is definitely high-end, so the bar is moving lower.

Why?

People are putting more disposable income into mobile devices meaning less for dedicated cameras. So the "new" high end is actually dropping target. To offset this Fuji, Oly, etc. have been making sure they have a lot of new gear right at that top bar, like Fuji's whole X-series of lenses. notice how they have not gone into what is now the stratosphere of the big tells, like the 100-400s (a recent Canon release). That is where the customer base shrinks not the low 1,000s per year. As an example, I suspect the Pentax 560mm might sell a few hundred/year. That tells you a lot about the price point issue because even if Pentax went FF, they might still NOT find enough people to buy into the system to sustain development.

FF will come when the whole sensor and supporting circuitry drops into Pentax's comfort zone. I used to think it was $1,500, but now I think it may need to go low enough to make the K-3 non-economical without a larger sensor.

I do NOT think the OVF is dead by any means. It still has certain advantages.

I guess I would worry more about Olympus, Panasonic and Fuji in the long run if APS-C camera prices keep crashing down. Who will really buy into a Fuji camera system for 2000 dollars if the rest of the APS-C market is selling for between 500 and 800 dollars for camera bodies alone, particularly knowing that there is no chance of Fuji sticking a larger sensor in their cameras in the future? The only answers I can see are small size (full frame mirrorless cameras aren't that much bigger than Fuji cameras, though), great lenses (all brands have good lenses at the top end) and voodoo sensor magic (I don't really buy it, but Fuji users seem to believe that their cameras have defeated the laws of physics).

The question to me is whether in the long term Pentax needs to look at a new mount, or if they can continue with the k mount (with some tweaking). You can still have a pretty small camera with a k mount and a full frame sensor, even keeping in body image stabilization. It doesn't feel like losing the k mount is worth it, even if it would save 10 or 15 mm in depth on the camera.

[monochrome]

^^^ Heh. My wife and I went to one of my son's Lacrosse games to watch him coach. I was shooting with my DA55~300 (I'd love to have a DA*300, but alas . . . .).

She asked, "What is that sticking out the end of your lens?"

[thibs]

Next hi end Pentax camera will have OVF and EVF together.
Only problem is their pacing, which is not reassuring. I feel devastated they keeping "medium level" cameras with little real advantage, and no features to talk about. Their value is inflated and unsubstantial, which to an enthusiast user looks like a joke.

You're talking about yourself. It is fine but puting words in the mouth of every enthusiast isn't exactly... I'd be pissed off (if I was calling myself an enthusiast).

---------- Post added 04-01-15 at 13:50 ----------

The Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM II is not that big either... as long as you stay at 100mm





From left to right:

• EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II USM
• EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS USM
• EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II USM

Photos above © The-Digital-Picture.com Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II USM Lens Review

What? Canon puts black hoods on those white L lenses? ROTFL

[Winder]

I guess I would worry more about Olympus, Panasonic and Fuji in the long run if APS-C camera prices keep crashing down. Who will really buy into a Fuji camera system for 2000 dollars if the rest of the APS-C market is selling for between 500 and 800 dollars for camera bodies alone, particularly knowing that there is no chance of Fuji sticking a larger sensor in their cameras in the future? The only answers I can see are small size (full frame mirrorless cameras aren't that much bigger than Fuji cameras, though), great lenses (all brands have good lenses at the top end) and voodoo sensor magic (I don't really buy it, but Fuji users seem to believe that their cameras have defeated the laws of physics).

The question to me is whether in the long term Pentax needs to look at a new mount, or if they can continue with the k mount (with some tweaking). You can still have a pretty small camera with a k mount and a full frame sensor, even keeping in body image stabilization. It doesn't feel like losing the k mount is worth it, even if it would save 10 or 15 mm in depth on the camera.

Fuji is banking on sensor technology (organic sensors) taking a big step forward. BSI and organic sensor run hotter than traditional CMOS and bigger sensors have more problems with heat. Samsung has improved its BSI technology enough to make a sensor as big as APS-C, but I don't know if they can make on as large as a FF without heat issues. Fuji is still struggling to make an APS-C organic sensor that runs cool enough and doesn't consume massive amounts of battery power. Because these sensors are always on and have to run at really high refresh rates for a high performance EVF they generate a lot more heat than a FF DSLR sensor. I think the shift in the market will be with FF traditional CMOS sensors falling in price and APS-C manufacturers will turn to high performance BSI or Organic sensors to justify the $1,600-$2,000 APS-C body. High performance FF sensor will come and push FF bodies back up to the $3,000-$5,000 range. Entry level FF will be traditional CMOS technology.

You will have BSI/Organic APS-C sensors competing with FF traditional CMOS technology sensors in the sub - $2,000 range. Traditional APS-C CMOS sensors will be entry level. Eventually BSI/Organic (or some other tech like Foveon) will make it way to FF and the $3,000 + bodies.

There is no voodoo in what Fuji is doing. The color array they are using is less prone to color noise at high ISO. Luminance noise is all you are really dealing with and that is much easier to clean up. The end result is that Fuji users are very happy with the color and IQ of the Fuji system regardless of the voodoo. When the K-5 came out and DPR and DxO pointed out that Pentax was applying in camera NR at high ISO (voodoo) Pentax users said, "who cares. The IQ is outstanding". Fuji users are saying the same thing.

Does Fuji "cheat" ISO? Not really. ISO 12232:2006 standard for well-exposed sRGB images at the various sensor sensitivity settings allows for the manufacture to determine what is "well-exposed". The ISO standard for digital isn't about sensitivity at all. Digital ISO is about signal amplification to achieve a metered brightness of approximately 46.6% in the sRBG color space.

[WPRESTO]

I am definitely not well versed in the electronics side of sensor technology, but here's my take in terms of sensor upgrade. APS-C sensors of about 20-24mp, and FF sensors of 36mp seem capable of recording more detail than the vast majority of lenses are capable of delivering. The area where sensor improvement is desired is therefore high ISO, low-light noise reduction and color retention. Significant improvements there will encourage at least this enthusiast to consider purchase of a new Pentax body (if it has a tilting screen). FF alone is not enough, and I'd opt for an improved APS-C over a full frame.

[Flugelbinder]

I am definitely not well versed in the electronics side of sensor technology, but here's my take in terms of sensor upgrade. APS-C sensors of about 20-24mp, and FF sensors of 36mp seem capable of recording more detail than the vast majority of lenses are capable of delivering. The area where sensor improvement is desired is therefore high ISO, low-light noise reduction and color retention. Significant improvements there will encourage at least this enthusiast to consider purchase of a new Pentax body (if it has a tilting screen). FF alone is not enough, and I'd opt for an improved APS-C over a full frame.

I'm with you!

[aurele]

I am definitely not well versed in the electronics side of sensor technology, but here's my take in terms of sensor upgrade. APS-C sensors of about 20-24mp, and FF sensors of 36mp seem capable of recording more detail than the vast majority of lenses are capable of delivering. The area where sensor improvement is desired is therefore high ISO, low-light noise reduction and color retention. Significant improvements there will encourage at least this enthusiast to consider purchase of a new Pentax body (if it has a tilting screen). FF alone is not enough, and I'd opt for an improved APS-C over a full frame.

I agree with you too. Better body (i.e.: with more feature oriented on the "use" and not necessarily on the pure sensor performance - tilt screen, double SD slot, UI user-friendly*, better Jpeg engine with film emulation in RAW format**, faster AF, easily selectable AF point ***, silent shutter like in the K5, ...).
This better ease of use will drive many "newbies" to Pentax : you always get the simplest body you can find at first when they all have the same spec'.
This also push you to get a newer body too (Canon refresh the 60-70D // 550-600-650-700D // (since T2i - for USA- or X4 - for japan) only with better interface / flip screen / AF but same sensor and same inside ! And a lot of people buy them inspite the fact they are not becoming "better" image wise ! Pentax can take some notes here !!

For the lenses, i don't think we've come in a territory where lenses are not good enought : i often use the DA*55 / DAL 35/2.4 / DA40 on film. I printed some 30*45cm - 12x18" prints - or 36 to 45mpx files when scanned - and there is always some more details to be found (and that's done with a very average film : Fuji C200 / Superia 200 / Kodak Portra 400 !!)

--

* I don't think the Pentax UI is bad at all. In fact i think this "INFO" button is just a awesome idea.
** Fuji gain a lot of customer thanks to it's Velvia / Provia Jpeg rendering done "in body". The blue are beautiful and let the pictures pop a lot more, even if everything is average on the picture.
*** I found the canon way of select the focusing point (with a joystick - Canon 40D. I don't know for newer body) to be very efficient : you can select any point without removing the eye from the VF.

[Uluru]

If the FF comes with 36MP, it is already better than having a K5II and a separate FF. Because the APS-C area inside the 36MP FF is some 16MP. In addition, FF can use 95% of all lenses ever produced by Pentax, in their native focal lengths.
Isn't that amazing?

Thus no matter what the APS-C camera has, the FF is already a more versatile camera and a superior product for a Pentax enthusiast: both with FF lenses and with APS-C lenses on it. With crop lenses, it is same as having a K50/K5/K5II type of machine in hands.

24MP inside the K-3 is already an overkill for a crop sensor using current tech. Not to mention that cropping of a 36MP FF image, one has much more room to play, and explore all the crops in between FF and APS-C, so anything from full 36 MP, down to 16MP is readily available on an FF camera — all using one of 22+ million FF lenses already made for Pentax. No such possibility ever existed on a crop-camera.

[mee]

I am definitely not well versed in the electronics side of sensor technology, but here's my take in terms of sensor upgrade. APS-C sensors of about 20-24mp, and FF sensors of 36mp seem capable of recording more detail than the vast majority of lenses are capable of delivering. The area where sensor improvement is desired is therefore high ISO, low-light noise reduction and color retention. Significant improvements there will encourage at least this enthusiast to consider purchase of a new Pentax body (if it has a tilting screen). FF alone is not enough, and I'd opt for an improved APS-C over a full frame.

If Pentax could, some how, improve IQ at high ISO then that takes a large part of the allure of FF away for me. They'd have to increase the detail while decreasing the noise above ISO 1600 to about 6400 (basically make ISO 6400 look what current ISO 1600 looks and on up)

That and increased resolution which I'm not certain is that big of a situation.

Adam performed a test between a D800, K50, and a Q7 awhile back. While the Q7 was easily the worst of the bunch in terms of detail, I actually picked the K-50 at least once out of the set as the D800 and several others were really close.

That might be because of noise reduction or jpg compression though.

I wonder how many here NEED the Pentax digital FF body only because they don't have it. Once they get it (if ever) will it be as valued?

[normhead]

Oh come one, what's with you guys. APS-c uses every one of the K-mount lenses ever made, FF cameras won't use many DA lenses.

A 36 mp camera in crop mode is 16 MP. A k-3 is still 24 MP packed into the area of the crop sensor. More magnification. Once pixels are captured, there's no difference whatever size crop they came from.

A superior product... only for those who didn't buy what they needed the first time out. For those of us who bought into APS-c because of the strengths of APS-c, and FF doesn't change anything.

You guys and your Full Frame wet dreams, keep it real. if you can't make a case without the non-sense, you really don't have a case do you?

As for lenses over matching sensors. Absolute non-sense. My DA*60-250 with a 1.7 converter is still razor sharp. The K-3 sensor can handle 1.5 magnificstion, which means you can got to 50 MP in a DA* and gain resolution all the way. Maybe some of your cheaper glass will drop off. My consumer A-400 doesn't do as well with a TC, so maybe some lenses can't handle a 50 MP sensor, but I'm sure any DA* can.

I know you think you sound smart, but all I really here you guys saying here is "We don't really have enough experience with Pentax gear to understand the strengths and limitations."

Well anyway, 'nuf said, feel free to wander back into Full Frame la, la land.

If you can't get narrow enough DoF with an APS-c, FF will save a few shots for you.
If you need more resolution than what you have in APS-c for landscape MF is the ticket, but FF is the a good compromise, if you're willing to compromise.
If you want maximum resolution in the are of the crop sensor, APS-c is the way to go.

You can make a case for FF without trying to get folks to look at the world through your reality distortion field.

[starjedi]

If the FF comes with 36MP, it is already better than having a K5II and a separate FF. Because the APS-C area inside the 36MP FF is some 16MP. In addition, FF can use 95% of all lenses ever produced by Pentax, in their native focal lengths.
Isn't that amazing?

Thus no matter what the APS-C camera has, the FF is already a more versatile camera and a superior product for a Pentax enthusiast: both with FF lenses and with APS-C lenses on it. With crop lenses, it is same as having a K50/K5/K5II type of machine in hands.

24MP inside the K-3 is already an overkill for a crop sensor using current tech. Not to mention that cropping of a 36MP FF image, one has much more room to play, and explore all the crops in between FF and APS-C, so anything from full 36 MP, down to 16MP is readily available on an FF camera — all using one of 22+ million FF lenses already made for Pentax. No such possibility ever existed on a crop-camera.

For most of people, FF is also an overkill :-)

[WPRESTO]

When I started photography and had not yet purchased my first 35mm camera (I was using a hand-me-down Zeiss folder that used 620 film) there was still a lingering debate about whether "miniature" cameras had a place in pro-photographer hands, with the possible exception of street photographers such as Cartier-Bresson. Most photojournalists, sport and studio photographers, and even some street photographers were still using and swearing by 4X5 press or view cameras cameras (or 8X10 for deliberative work), and most pros sneered at 35mm format as incapable of recording the detail and tonal range of a "professional" camera. Compared to 4X5 versus 35mm, debating the merits of FF versus APS-C seems like a tempest in a teapot, or the hypo tray. We, and I include myself, complain about the noise in images recorded above ISO 800. Have we all forgotten what grain and color was like in ISO 1600 film?

[Rondec]

Fuji is banking on sensor technology (organic sensors) taking a big step forward. BSI and organic sensor run hotter than traditional CMOS and bigger sensors have more problems with heat. Samsung has improved its BSI technology enough to make a sensor as big as APS-C, but I don't know if they can make on as large as a FF without heat issues. Fuji is still struggling to make an APS-C organic sensor that runs cool enough and doesn't consume massive amounts of battery power. Because these sensors are always on and have to run at really high refresh rates for a high performance EVF they generate a lot more heat than a FF DSLR sensor. I think the shift in the market will be with FF traditional CMOS sensors falling in price and APS-C manufacturers will turn to high performance BSI or Organic sensors to justify the $1,600-$2,000 APS-C body. High performance FF sensor will come and push FF bodies back up to the $3,000-$5,000 range. Entry level FF will be traditional CMOS technology.

You will have BSI/Organic APS-C sensors competing with FF traditional CMOS technology sensors in the sub - $2,000 range. Traditional APS-C CMOS sensors will be entry level. Eventually BSI/Organic (or some other tech like Foveon) will make it way to FF and the $3,000 + bodies.

There is no voodoo in what Fuji is doing. The color array they are using is less prone to color noise at high ISO. Luminance noise is all you are really dealing with and that is much easier to clean up. The end result is that Fuji users are very happy with the color and IQ of the Fuji system regardless of the voodoo. When the K-5 came out and DPR and DxO pointed out that Pentax was applying in camera NR at high ISO (voodoo) Pentax users said, "who cares. The IQ is outstanding". Fuji users are saying the same thing.

Does Fuji "cheat" ISO? Not really. ISO 12232:2006 standard for well-exposed sRGB images at the various sensor sensitivity settings allows for the manufacture to determine what is "well-exposed". The ISO standard for digital isn't about sensitivity at all. Digital ISO is about signal amplification to achieve a metered brightness of approximately 46.6% in the sRBG color space.

I know Fuji is banking on better sensors coming out in APS-C, but all of the brands out there will eventually have this sort of tech available. Sony, Samsung, even Canon are probably working on it now and when it's available for APS-C, it will probably come to full frame within a year.

When I said "voodoo," I meant more the outrageous claims that some Fuji users talk about "my XT-1 performs better at iso 6400 than my K5 did at iso 800." Somehow the X Trans sensor defeats the laws of physics and the Fuji cameras actually perform better than full frame cameras. Probably not.

Fuji does have really nice jpegs and they have done a good job of controlling noise, but there is no two to three stop difference in high iso performance versus other 16 megapixel APS-C sensor cameras out there.

Fuji is currently and will continue to be a niche brand. I think they are fine with that and can make money selling in their current volumes. People are buying in for the glass, which looks awesome. I just wonder if crop cameras are going to be squeezed hard in the future by both full frame mirrorless and SLRs and that could cut profits considerably.