[fuent104]

You know what's crazy? A video-optimized camera would probably be enough to shake up the market. Something with great features, nice codec options, and in-camera RAW video, straight out of the box. The hardware in the 5D MKIII is enough to get it done, and that came out a couple years ago.

This would be like a gh4, only with much better image quality. There's nothing like it in the full frame market.

And yes, I think Ricoh's engineers are at least as capable as the guys at Magic Lantern, so none of this is impossible.

[mecrox]

FF sensors do offer a noticeable bump in image quality, without much of a burden increase in either price or weight if you buy the right lenses and bodies.

In other words, sure a Nikon D810 and a Tamron 15-30 2.8 weigh as much as a cinder block, but a Nikon D750 and a Rokinon 14mm f/2.8 weigh about the same as a Nikon D7200 and Rokinon 10mm f/2.8. A medium format system cannot claim that level of portability or affordability.

Some others have also touched on one of the things that Nikon guru Thom Hogan has written about many times: sensors don't cost that much. I mean sure, they're a significant portion of the cost of making a camera, but as a percentage of the final MSRP of the camera, it's probably far less than most of us would guess.

Which is why I say, just take the price of the K-3 II and add about $1000. That's all there is to it. Yes, they'll have to contend with lower sales volumes than Canon or Nikon's competing full-frame bodies, and even lower sales volumes than their own APS-C flagship. But ~$1000 is still more than enough to make up for any of that.

Keep in mind I know nothing about economics, marketing, and manufacturing, hahaha...

Whatever the cost of the sensor - I've no idea - my understanding is that companies long ago worked out that FF kit gives them better margins. This powerful economic attraction adds an element of "They would say that, wouldn't they" to all the claims they make about FF vs APS-C. Each to their own, of course: its a choice and not as if either is right or wrong. I'm just saying that no one really needs to feel third-best or deprived because they don't own a Nikon D810 or whatever. A good APS-C kit is still very, very capable and for the sake of sanity one really needs to stand well apart from gear frenzy. And as I said a few posts ago, if someone can afford an APS-C kit and a 645 kit too, then they have things pretty well taped. If I had that, I would simply never need FF for the kind of stuff I do.

I live in a big tourist town and we receive staggering numbers of visitors throughout the year, particularly from China and Japan for some reason. I don't see that many DSLRs in their hands and I see an FF DSLR pretty rarely. I've never seen a Nikon FF DSLR in the hands of a visitor which is something of a surprise. It's always a Canon one and usually the owner looks to be from Japan or (at a guess) Germany. Even so, passing thousands of tourists whenever I go to the city centre, I might see an FF DSLR one a week. Or take my local photographer friends including the town's Flickr group which meets regularly for drinkies and a photowalk. Of course, several people have an FF by now but fewer than one might suppose.

It's easy to get a rather skewed perspective on things like an internet photography forum. For countless millions of people, FF is far, far too expensive to consider and simply not needed or wanted. And, the crucial point, no one has to "make do" with a smaller format and put up with dodgy images. Superb work is produced every day on APS_C and similar (Olympus M43, e.g.). It's all down to what's behind the VF.

Anyway, I've had my say. Naturally, I'm thinking bonne chance to Ricoh with any FF but it is no magic bullet.

[Matthew Saville]

I live in a big tourist town and we receive staggering numbers of visitors throughout the year, particularly from China and Japan for some reason. I don't see that many DSLRs in their hands and I see an FF DSLR pretty rarely. I've never seen a Nikon FF DSLR in the hands of a visitor which is something of a surprise. It's always a Canon one and usually the owner looks to be from Japan or (at a guess) Germany. Even so, passing thousands of tourists whenever I go to the city centre, I might see an FF DSLR one a week. Or take my local photographer friends including the town's Flickr group which meets regularly for drinkies and a photowalk. Of course, several people have an FF by now but fewer than one might suppose.

It's easy to get a rather skewed perspective on things like an internet photography forum. For countless millions of people, FF is far, far too expensive to consider and simply not needed or wanted. And, the crucial point, no one has to "make do" with a smaller format and put up with dodgy images. Superb work is produced every day on APS_C and similar (Olympus M43, e.g.). It's all down to what's behind the VF.

I agree with you that the internet in general is hardly a good "pulse" for the global markets. I also agree with you that for millions of "photographers" worldwide, full-frame is a luxury.

I also live in a tourist town, however, (Anaheim, California / Los Angeles) ...and I frequent a lot of public, tourist-y places. (Disneyland, the beach, etc.) I'm also a full-time wedding photographer.

DSLRs are extremely common here, though outnumbered by cell phones they still seem to outnumber mirrorless cameras.

I watched over the past ~10 years as Canon rebels went from being 90% of what I'd see, to less than 50% as Nikon's beginner cameras proliferated. Canon hit a brick wall with their 18 MP APS-C sensor, and have basically been rehashing the same camera over and over again for quite a few generations now, just adding a couple new bells or whistles each time.

Mirrorless cameras are becoming much more abundant, of course, and may soon surpass DSLRs in common sightings around here. But full-frame? While "common" in the upper-middle-class corner of the planet I find myself in, they're still a minority, to be sure. And they always will be.

This is why I never listen when "the internet" claims full-frame systems to be the harbinger of death to APS-C. That is laughable. Today's APS-C sensors are more than 75-90% of photographers will ever need. Yes, the difference will always be there, and for those who push the envelope in bizarre ways, full-frame is a tool worth investing in.

This is partly why I am "blindly" beginning to switch my Nikon gear to Pentax. The K-3 II already offers more versatility than any of my Nikons ever did, crop or full-frame. A "perfect" full-frame Pentax at a decent price will only be the icing on the cake.

[Rondec]

It is by no means an "APS-C optimized" kit as the mount size and mirror box are from an FF system.

If you are using FA Ltds then these are FF lenses that will perform better on an FF sensor.

I'm happy for you that APS-C is all you need, but that doesn't mean that crop-sensor cameras (I'm talking about an FF design which uses too small a sensor for cost saving reasons only) are "optimal" and that bigger sensors do not provide an advantage. They do, even if your experiments don't show that. Which is fine, BTW. Again, I'm happy for you, just don't try to extrapolate your finding to general facts.

Optimized for APS-C means, I suppose a new smaller mount, maybe with a shorter registration distance, a la Fuji?

I use the DA * zooms, which (I guess) are optimized for APS-C. They certainly don't cover a full frame image circle. The same with the DA limiteds. Pentax has made smaller bodies like the K-01 and the K-S1, although they don't seem to sell very well.

I guess when I come down to it, if someone comes to me and is interested in buying a new ILC, as of right now, I recommend an APS-C camera, even if they might get a little performance boost getting full frame. In order to truly see benefit from full frame, you need faster lenses. If you are shooting f2.8 lenses on APS-C and you get f4 lenses on full frame, there may be a small boost in image quality, but it won't be huge. In addition, you do need longer lenses if you are shooting wildlife/sports. Crop heavily and you end up with the same "problems" that you have with APS-C of seeing your lens aberrations, etc.

I am really not anti-full frame. I personally would like one. I just continue to think that APS-C offers a pretty good solution with regard to performance and price for the average photographer at this point. It has never been this cheap to enter the SLR market before with some very nice crop frame cameras.

[JPT]

The one DSLR system that was designed from the ground up around a smaller sensor than FF was 4/3 (not micro). That was a little smaller than the legacy mount systems, but not much. I don't think the size and weight savings are in the mirror box, but in the prism and the associated lenses.

I've got nothing against FF cameras at all. I just think that APS-C cameras are very useful as well, and more attainable for most people.

[kenspo]

Just had a chat with Ricoh. Pentax Japan are holding the cards VERY tight here. So only FEW knows..Everything else is just speculations. But both me and Ricoh are pretty certain on what they will deliver with the FF. I know a few bits and pieces already, but if i share that information already, they will hunt me down..haha!

[repaap]

Kenspo, do youfeel like taking a chance and live dangerously?
Ireally have a feeling that it will be great. Have to increase my FF budget thou.

---------- Post added 07-10-15 at 13:55 ----------

Edit: are you Kenspo one of those 'FEW'?

[D1N0]

Most important are the sensor and the AF-system. (AF is probably the most important part, because the sensor will be another excellent one from Sony, even if it is the 24mp. I don't really care about it because I mainly shoot legacy pre -AF glass). Other stuff the sr with pixel shift, the articulating screen, mandatory wifi-nfc maybe gps. It will have to have a prime IV (whatever the underlying chip is).

[repaap]

If AF is even little better than K-3, it will be enough for me. I suppose that they will have new focus engine and focus points for this one. And that will be improved to 645...as K-3 system is in Z.

[kenspo]

Kenspo, do youfeel like taking a chance and live dangerously?
Ireally have a feeling that it will be great. Have to increase my FF budget thou.

---------- Post added 07-10-15 at 13:55 ----------

Edit: are you Kenspo one of those 'FEW'?

Im not the one of those with most info..But some i know I know what Ricoh in Europe know..haha

[repaap]

Im not the one of those with most info..But some i know I know what Ricoh in Europe know..haha

Hmmm. Must wait then.

[Class A]

What pulled my chain was the phrase "little to be said for crop sensor cameras", which is a bit provocative to say on a Pentax DSLR forum, seeing as we have mostly bought into that kind of system, having weighed the pros and cons quite carefully.

I'm sorry if my phrase rubbed you or anyone else the wrong way.

There are a lot of fantastic APS-C cameras and Pentax produces some of the best (for certain purposes).

There is nothing wrong about APS-C as a sensor size per se.

What I meant to object to is the idea that a crop-sensor design is superior to using a full-frame sensor design. Here, "crop-sensor" could refer to the original Q sensor (who was smaller than its successors), an APS-C sensor in an otherwise 135 format camera, or a digital 645 sensor that only provides ~63% of a full-frame MF sensor.

If an APS-C sized sensor is used then ideally the mount size, etc. should have the respective dimensions. While it is nice that one can use existing FF lenses on an APS-C crop-sensor camera and the current Pentax DSLRs are excellent photographic tools, AFAIC, one should not suddenly mistake a cost saving stop-gap solution with an "optimal" tool.

[IchabodCrane]

I think there's quite a lot to be said for APS-C cameras. The way I see it, you get 95% of the capability for half the cost and 2/3 of the weight. You might argue about the 95% part but I don't see many situations where printed output from a D750 would be noticeably better than that from a K-3 if both cameras were used correctly.

That argument cuts both ways. There are plenty of people out there who think m4/3 offers the best balance of size and weight versus IQ. Who am I to say they are wrong?

[reytor]

If an APS-C sized sensor is used then ideally the mount size, etc. should have the respective dimensions. While it is nice that one can use existing FF lenses on an APS-C crop-sensor camera and the current Pentax DSLRs are excellent photographic tools, AFAIC, one should not suddenly mistake a cost saving stop-gap solution with an "optimal" tool.

... you need to remember that SR require bigger than APS-C circle mount to work. So while K-mount is bigger than needed, it's not that much bigger.
How the old design FF frame lenses work with the new FF camera's SR is still unknown.

[D1N0]

... you need to remember that SR require bigger than APS-C circle mount to work. So while K-mount is bigger than needed, it's not that much bigger.
How the old design FF frame lenses work with the new FF camera's SR is still unknown.

Shouldn't be unknown as Sony A850 A900 A99 and A7-II and A7r-II have sr.