[thibs]

645D or 645Z ?

[rvannatta]

Certainly few people will purchase a full frame camera with the intention of mounting APS-C glass on it. I think the whole question here is whether a full frame camera will be larger than a K3. The assumption by full frame proponents is that the camera will be the same size and that glass will be similarly sized. I have a feeling, though, that Pentax is going to release a bunch of lenses with fast apertures (and large sizes) to go with the camera and that this will be anything but tiny.

---------- Post added 07-12-15 at 02:38 PM ----------



I guess I would just say that few request a sub-500 dollar full frame because they don't expect to see it (sub 2000 seems a stretch right now) and because people who have budget contraints are not really asking for full frame. Although there are plenty of folks who do believe that if Pentax just left video off, it would drop the price of the camera enough to get it into their budget.

Don't understand my remarks to bad mouth either the APS-c or the FF. If have 2 K-3's in the house and will find it hard to resist an FF
or what ever comes next after a K-3 --- assuming that it has some new bells and whistles... I have a small fortune invested in classic pentax glass
including some aluminum cased classics, but the sort of photo that follows won't get better with FF


This (hairy Woodpecker) was taken with the 300mm f2.8 with a K3 but simply isn't as long as I would like it. 600mm to 1000mm would have been better.



this latter photo (Western Tanager) with taken with my Pentax-A ---400 f/2.8 with a 2x-L extender and a sturdy tripod.

in birding there seem to be two rules for outstanding photos:

a) your lens is not too long.
b) if you are within the focal range of the lens you are not too close.

[philbaum]

The problem with all these predictions is that they are based on consumers wanting ultimate image quality, when what consumers want is cheap cameras. It is still awhile before we see a sub-500 dollar full frame camera and until that happens, I don't expect it to take over the market.

It must be understood that most of the cameras sold aren't top end APS-C either. The K30/50 probably out sold the K3 5 or 6 to 1. Maybe more. This is all based on price. And for many people the difference in sensor size isn't nearly as important as the difference of an extra 750 in their pocket.

Trouble is, there isn't just one type of consumer out there. Besides cost, there's consumers that care about size, weight, and how to manage travel. One gal in our photo club, decided to go on an African safari type trip with friends this last spring. Her travel gear was a D800 with a 70-200 lens and an I-phone. Thats it. The 70-200 was used for riding around in the safari wagon, the I-phone was used for every other photo. She's a petite woman and must be 70 plus.

The idea of one camera and many lenses to fit that camera is a bit old fashioned now. Many folks have 2 or more cameras with a favorite lens or two on both. With FF, you can have an expensive FF lens for a specific style of pictures, but still use that FF in crop mode for smaller lightweight crop lenses; or to get that edge for telephoto long-reach.

Its a "layered" photography world these days, we're not all doing the same things or using a single camera system, and if you are - there's nothing wrong with that either. I can't imagine someone buying a FF camera and using only FF lenses. Why would anyone want to be limited to just one camera - not that there isn't anything wrong with that. Its just that i do different kinds of shooting, and i have yet to find anything on the market that will do everything well.

[RustyToyotaVT]

You may speculate so.
But people now shooting FF have no intention to go APSC ever again in their life. Nobody of those *I* know, at least.

If anything, they add smaller than APSC gear to their arsenal, like L/RX100.

BTW, a pro-level 24-70/2.8 may be heavy and expensive. But I found it worth every penny. Between an RX100 24-70 and FF 24-70, there is no room for APSC. The RX100 is (in equivalent terms) an F/4.9-7.6 lens, the FF F/2.8 of course. An APSC kit zoom is worse, a DA* 16-50/2.8 is an F/4, just a bit better than the RX100.

So, the advantage of an APSC dSLR with zoom is that it is cheaper. Otherwise, it hase been eaten up from below and above. Already.

The only room for APSC I can see in the foreseeable future are pro-level APSC mirrorless cameras like NX1 or A7000. When they beat SLRs in something. But here again, cameras like the A7 may eat that cake too.

FWIW I know that this is not necessarily accurate, as I just sold off my entire Nikon full-frame system. Another friend is looking to ditch his for a Fuji mirrorless system. I got sick and tired of lugging that giant thing everywhere to go shoot, paying a small fortune for VERY heavy lenses, etc. And I had 0 interest in maintaining multiple systems.

I no longer do weddings and I primarily carry my camera when I'm outdoors. The Pentax system likely offers the best combination of widespread weather sealing, compact size, and ergonomics on the market today. The AF performance of the K3 is far better than past Pentax bodies which made the switch possible (finally good enough that I don't really miss the slightly better performance of the D700 AF).

Now I have an AF-540 and a DA* 16-50 for any paid work I happen to do, and I use the 16-50, 18-135, and 55-300 when hiking, skiing, traveling, etc. I've got a few primes to use when I'm indoors in low light situations. Landscapes are my favorite anyway, so I rarely, if ever, shoot wide open; meaning that the additional depth of field in FF wasn't being utilized. I find the quality of my work to be just as good as with my Nikon system, so I'm a happy camper.

---

Last edited by RustyToyotaVT; 07-13-2015 at 12:55 PM.

[philbaum]

https://luminous-landscape.com/rantatorial/saying-good-bye/

Kevin is the CEO and publisher of the luminious landscape website and stuff. One of the best photography websites out there IMO.

Well written article. He has Fuji system, Olympus systems and Sony system. Was reluctant to give up his Nikon system, but decided to give it one last outing before selling it off. Obviously nostalgic about the Nikon system.

I wouldn't bet that the FF systems are going to kill-off APS systems. The fact that Sony is coming out with an A7000 camera, Nikon and Pentax will eventually follow-suit, tells me that these 3 companies still believe there is life in APs.

[Nicolas06]

There are often-mentioned natural differences: wide angle lenses are less bulky in FF, telephoto less so in APS. Depth of field differences make isolation for portraiture easier in FF, but macro work easier in APS. Especially if you prefer primes, with the traditionally smaller Pentax size, it might make sense to carry both FF and APS bodies. A 20mm can serve as a very wide angle or medium wide; a 55mm can be either a normal or short portrait lens; a 135mm is a medium or longish telephoto. The extra body effectively doubles the number of lenses/focal lengths in the kit. (No need to reply that I'm crazy: that's already well known).

Actual lenses being sold show that both WA AND tele are bigger on FF than on APSC and also noticably more expensive. The WA thing might be actually true for mirrorless FF of Sony, but in exchange their tele are even bigger.

Just see what a DA15 or DA70 provide in term of size/weight and we can discuss what FF 22mm and 105mm lenses on FF allows for the same weight/size/quality as what is available on APSC.

[Nicolas06]

You may speculate so.
But people now shooting FF have no intention to go APSC ever again in their life. Nobody of those *I* know, at least.

If anything, they add smaller than APSC gear to their arsenal, like L/RX100.

BTW, a pro-level 24-70/2.8 may be heavy and expensive. But I found it worth every penny. Between an RX100 24-70 and FF 24-70, there is no room for APSC. The RX100 is (in equivalent terms) an F/4.9-7.6 lens, the FF F/2.8 of course. An APSC kit zoom is worse, a DA* 16-50/2.8 is an F/4, just a bit better than the RX100.

So, the advantage of an APSC dSLR with zoom is that it is cheaper. Otherwise, it hase been eaten up from below and above. Already.

The only room for APSC I can see in the foreseeable future are pro-level APSC mirrorless cameras like NX1 or A7000. When they beat SLRs in something. But here again, cameras like the A7 may eat that cake too.

There more difference between APSC and 1" sensor than APSC and FF. The problem of RX100 is that yes it may match a K30 + 18-135 overall without providing the same range of focal length but it will never approach a K30 with just a DA50 f/1.8 in term of rendering, deph of field, low light capabilities. It will never allow good macro or wildlife.

The guys that take an FF want high quality, but they also buy a swiss knife... That what a DSLR really is and APSC DLSR are swiss knife too.

And when you really want quality, you go for digital MF, that still a significant improvement. That's not just the sensor size, but the quality the MF lenses provide. You aren't just going to get that on a small 35mm sensor.

[mee]

https://luminous-landscape.com/rantatorial/saying-good-bye/

Kevin is the CEO and publisher of the luminious landscape website and stuff. One of the best photography websites out there IMO.

Well written article. He has Fuji system, Olympus systems and Sony system. Was reluctant to give up his Nikon system, but decided to give it one last outing before selling it off. Obviously nostalgic about the Nikon system.

I wouldn't bet that the FF systems are going to kill-off APS systems. The fact that Sony is coming out with an A7000 camera, Nikon and Pentax will eventually follow-suit, tells me that these 3 companies still believe there is life in APs.

That article isn't about the author giving up on FF for APS-C cameras. Rather, it is about the author giving up on DSLRs and going for Mirrorless ILCs.

[philbaum]

That article isn't about the author giving up on FF for APS-C cameras. Rather, it is about the author giving up on DSLRs and going for Mirrorless ILCs.

True, its not a pure example, but it does show a preference for EVF over OVF, for lower weight equipment over heavier equipment, by someone who could afford whatever he wishes to shoot. So sue me

[Qwntm]

No! FF is a frivolous distraction from more important APS-C development.

This!

[danny09]

Traditional DSLRs will certainly die a slow death eventually being replaced by Mirrorless cameras.We may also see a Medium Format sensor camera coming out the size of my galaxy note 2. If Sony could pack a Image Stabilized FF sensor in a small innocuous A7 series body how large will a Sony Medium Format camera be? As regards Image Quality and sensor size: Isnt Olympus, Panasonic breaking new ground with m4/3 sensors for all these years? Havent APSC sensors gotten better over past 10 years? Remember K100D? Now compare its output with the Nikon D7200. The D7200 DR and High ISO IQ is jaw-droppingly good. So is K3 IQ.The K3 Raw IQ easily rivals that of the A7 II.Dont believe? Check out DP Reviews Comparison tool. If Sony uses BSI(and other unannounced technology) in APSC sensors the IQ would best that of the A7 series cameras.
I am all for a Pentax FF but dont think it will find many takers besides the few thousand PF members. But Ricoh should do anything in their capacity to keep the Pentax brand afloat via money making product lines. But a DSLR body based path for a Pentax FF will be short lived. Simply because it is too bulky and exepensive for the bargain seeking audience that Pentax brand haa attracted in the past decade or so.

[Zygonyx]

No way.
No slow death versus mirrorless.
There will be more innovation also with DSLR, still selling 2 or 3 to 1 versus ml nowadays.
Only the lazy pays for compacity illusion and lost autonomy certitude.

[kenspo]

Only slow death for Pentax, is to stay with just aps-c. Luckily Ricoh see things in another and better way then most people on this forum

[Nicolas06]

No way.
No slow death versus mirrorless.
There will be more innovation also with DSLR, still selling 2 or 3 to 1 versus ml nowadays.
Only the lazy pays for compacity illusion and lost autonomy certitude.

This is what most people say when an innovation break the olds habbits. Not long ago in photography it was no way digital is going to replace film... Back in time people wanted faster horse and no way they would want a car powered by gazoline...

Even theses mirorless thing as they exist will be replaced. So for DSLR the question is not "if" but when.

For now I must admit there is not 1 serious mirrorless system that can replace current DSLR. Their registration distance is too short, the bodies are not that well suited for action/wildlife at all and they lack the huge echosystem DSLR have... They are expensive with somewhat low autonomy. But in 10 years?

[Rondec]

Traditional DSLRs will certainly die a slow death eventually being replaced by Mirrorless cameras.We may also see a Medium Format sensor camera coming out the size of my galaxy note 2. If Sony could pack a Image Stabilized FF sensor in a small innocuous A7 series body how large will a Sony Medium Format camera be? As regards Image Quality and sensor size: Isnt Olympus, Panasonic breaking new ground with m4/3 sensors for all these years? Havent APSC sensors gotten better over past 10 years? Remember K100D? Now compare its output with the Nikon D7200. The D7200 DR and High ISO IQ is jaw-droppingly good. So is K3 IQ.The K3 Raw IQ easily rivals that of the A7 II.Dont believe? Check out DP Reviews Comparison tool. If Sony uses BSI(and other unannounced technology) in APSC sensors the IQ would best that of the A7 series cameras.
I am all for a Pentax FF but dont think it will find many takers besides the few thousand PF members. But Ricoh should do anything in their capacity to keep the Pentax brand afloat via money making product lines. But a DSLR body based path for a Pentax FF will be short lived. Simply because it is too bulky and exepensive for the bargain seeking audience that Pentax brand haa attracted in the past decade or so.

The only way I see a "slow death" for SLRs is if cost wise they can't compete. I have been told many times that it is cheaper to make an EVF than to install an OVF. That may be true, but prices on similar mirrorless and SLR cameras at this point are awash, or the SLRs are actually cheaper. I don't know what will happen in ten years -- probably by that time most people will just be taking photos with their phones and traditional cameras will be super-niche market.

---------- Post added 07-14-15 at 06:11 AM ----------

Only slow death for Pentax, is to stay with just aps-c. Luckily Ricoh see things in another and better way then most people on this forum

I don't think Ricoh should just stay with APS-C. I just think the reports of the death of APS-C are exaggerated. As long as APS-C produces good image quality (it does) and offers cheaper cameras than full frame (it will for a long time) the majority of cameras sold will be APS-C, even if full frame cameras offer better image quality. That isn't to say that there isn't profit to be made on a good quality full frame camera with Pentax's own stamp on it. I just don't think it is likely to steal many sales away from lower end cameras.