[aurele]

That's theoretically,how much exactly is the extra cost?

probably not a lot : around 100$ (including calibrating by human).

How much they make customer pay ? i guess between 300 to 500$. The 70-200 F4 from canon went to 600€ to 1050€ (street price in France) and the 70-200 f2.8 went to 1100 to 1900€ (this include also the new USM II motor and some new lens design).

Still, that's expensive

[Nicolas06]

There is nothing wrong with expensive full frame. If folks want to do it on the cheap, there are always the Tamron zooms (28-75, 70-200). But honestly, why would you spend two grand on a camera and then not get great glass to go with it?

(I mean other than the obvious fact that Pentaxians are cheap...)

One could consider it is cheaper to go FF and use an already great but still affordable lense closed down 1 stop more (like f/4 instead of f/2.8) than to pay the premium on all lenses to get max performance at wide appertures.

Primes like 85mm f/1.8 or 50mm f/1.8 are quite affordable and really really great at f/4. 70-200 f/2.8 from sigma and tamron are also quite good.

Also, while could spend more on same lenses and far less on the one that are less important for him. It look totally legitimate to me.

[Chris Mak]

Direct Drive DC Torque Motors | Kollmorgen | Brush DC Electric Motors

A different type of DC motor,looks like the type in the Pentax patent.

Is this not the same DC motor as the one used in the DA560mm?

Regards
Chris

[bwDraco]

Boom !
That's the point,for the hundreds of time :-)
And I prefer the body system,maximal optical quality and durability is only with a fix and stabil lens group.

To play devil's advocate, Canon says:

Image Stabilization: It Belongs In the Lens.
Because every lens is different, different lenses have different Optical Image Stabilizer needs.

—DragonLord

[monochrome]

One could consider it is cheaper to go FF and use an already great but still affordable lense closed down 1 stop more (like f/4 instead of f/2.8) than to pay the premium on all lenses to get max performance at wide appertures. . . . . .

If I'm going to pay for that nice, large, bright VF I don't want to immediately render a full stop of light unavailable to my viewing eye.

[Cambo]

who wanted an APS-C 150-450? But, nice setup for the new FF camera.

Nice stuff by Pentax, even thought they are doomed...DOOMED!!!

Cheers,
Cameron

[asahi man]

Don't worry, the D FA* 70-200mm f/2.8 will also be double the price of the DA* 60-250mm f/4.

Is this not the same DC motor as the one used in the DA560mm?

Regards
Chris

In the 560 is a small motor,looks more like the motor in the kit lens.

[ChristianRock]

If I'm going to pay for that nice, large, bright VF I don't want to immediately render a full stop of light unavailable to my viewing eye.

If you're closing down 1 stop you're still viewing at full aperture in the viewfinder, unless we're talking about an M42 lens.

[Nicolas06]

If I'm going to pay for that nice, large, bright VF I don't want to immediately render a full stop of light unavailable to my viewing eye.

How would you loose a stop from your bright VF with f/1.8 primes and f/2.8 zooms compared to that 70-200 ?

Anyway, even if one settle for an f/4 zoom, it is is own right to do so. The question was to understand why one could do that... not why you absolutely need f/2.8 on your FF.

[monochrome]

If you're closing down 1 stop you're still viewing at full aperture in the viewfinder, unless we're talking about an M42 lens.

I understand.

OVF is used wide open so when you use an f/1.8 prime or f/2.8 zoom at f/4, you'll keep the bright OVF fully working... And even the best lense even tend to render better at f/4 than f/2.8 anyway... this is not like there many lenses perfect when used at f/2.8 or faster.

I suppose I misunderstood the Reply. I thought you were advocating, to save money, buying an f/4 lens instead of an f/2.8 lens, since most of the time you'd close down the aperture anyway.

I rarely shoot wider than f/5.6 but I need the wider apertures for the VF.

[WillWeaverRVA]

Sigma and Tamron will probably bring out some more K-mount lenses once the FF body is on the shelves. So if it is too expensive, just get one of those.

It would be nice if Sigma started selling their 70-200mm OS HSM lens again in K-mount to compete with this one. As it stands it's almost $1000 cheaper than the Canon/Nikon/Sony equivalents and is FF compatible.

[D1N0]

F4 on the FF is equivalent to F2.8 on the APS-C So a F4 70-200 (Which Canonikon also make and are like the 50-135 F2.8 on aps-c). But if you want F1.8 prime brightness like on the K-3 You'll need an F2.8. Then again put on a 1.4 prime and you will go blind .

[derekkite]

I know FF should be expensive. BUT! why would anyone (non pentax) consider using pentax body and glass when C and N already have a pretty long history and many generations of digital full frame dslr? (Especially used top glass fir those two are plenty as well). If they are priced like CaNikon, honestly, and Pentaxian who is thinking of moving into Full frame now realize they don't need to wait for Pentax. Since the entry price will be the roughly the same no matter what brand you choose (and likely cheaper if you choose CaNikon, as used bodies are plentiful). Since I will be spending the same amount of money, I rather buy dslr that is in their 2nd or 3rd generations than a new comer and first one from Pentax.

If the pricing is high like this, they might just push Pentaxian who are waiting for full frame finally realized they don't have to stick with Pentax, after all these years. ..

It really depends on what they produce. The K-3 in it's class is probably the best value for the money.

I looked at the Nikon full frames. I'm not interested in the D600/610, I want resolution. The D800/810 is a monster, huge lenses, huge body. Stunning IQ, but the package wouldn't work for me. I'm not familiar with the Canon, but there are aspects such as noise and not being quite as good with their sensors. There is a place in the market for Pentax, and if they are on the ball they will hit it with a compelling offering.

I would buy if they offer me something. We will see if they do.

Reading the 645z reviews, a phrase shows up from time to time that is striking. Luscious files. That is what is moving those expensive boxes in spite of the various shortcomings. Watch for something similar with their full frame offerings.

I actually like buying into a company that is trying to get into a market that is occupied. They have to do better than the incumbents. We will see if Pentax manages that.

[clackers]

F4 on the FF is equivalent to F2.8 on the APS-C So a F4 70-200 (Which Canonikon also make and are like the 50-135 F2.8 on aps-c). But if you want F1.8 prime brightness like on the K-3 You'll need an F2.8.

Not for exposure.

F2.8 is f2.8 - no getting round it. :-)

[Chris Mak]

In the 560 is a small motor,looks more like the motor in the kit lens.

Strange then, considering the price of the DA560

Regards
Chris