[eurostar]

It never seems to end.

When people got their FF, it ended. If Pentax would have released a 16 or 24 Mp FF, or a 3000€ camera, it wouldn't have. But Ricoh nailed perfectly what the FF crowd wanted.

The top APS-C camera crowd wants top AF, big burst and buffer, and until they get that, it will not end.

[D1N0]

I think you'd have to sacrifice some of the burst rate (and buffer depth) for that - the K-3 is already more 20% more Mp than the D500 and 7Dii mentioned above

The Samsung NX-1 with 28mp sensor can shoot 15fps raw. The 24mp sony imx271 which is probably in the KP and K-70 can potentially shoot 19fps. Electronics are not the problem anymore as long as you choose the right setup. Cost deliberations and the problems 19fps mirror and shutter actuations present probably more so. It can be done, but at what price? You also need AF to keep up with the burst speed.

[ffking]

The Samsung NX-1 with 28mp sensor can shoot 15fps raw. The 24mp sony imx271 which is probably in the KP and K-70 can potentially shoot 19fps. Electronics are not the problem anymore as long as you choose the right setup. Cost deliberations and the problems 19fps mirror and shutter actuations present probably more so. It can be done, but at what price? You also need AF to keep up with the burst speed.

Ok - well, accepting that - and I'm not really a technical whizz - why do Nikon and Canon keep the Mp to +/- 20 on their machine guns - really interested to know, not arguing

[mee]

When people got their FF, it ended. If Pentax would have released a 16 or 24 Mp FF, or a 3000€ camera, it wouldn't have. But Ricoh nailed perfectly what the FF crowd wanted.

Except that convinced the bargain hunters and the retro crowd to start barking for FF bodies respective of their wants..

[RonHendriks1966]

Ok - well, accepting that - and I'm not really a technical whizz - why do Nikon and Canon keep the Mp to +/- 20 on their machine guns - really interested to know, not arguing

Keeping image files small, so you can work on them easily on a laptop and use less bandwidth on transferring them to your agency.

[thibs]

LOL, I've hiked in SA as well (Kruger, Drakensberg, a few times with the 150-450), but never hunted for my food...
My point is not related to how much who can carry, but rather that APS-C will always result in more compact and lighter kit, which will free up capacity for extra gear not possible within the same limits in case of FF, i.e. an extra macro, wide angle, wide aperture prime, ... (so many things imaginable). I admit it, I'm a gear freak so I always stuff my bags to the limit...

Wim

Edit: just realised that your location isn't South Africa (what I would shorten to SA), but South Australia... Sorry for the mistake, but I'll leave it in...

Always lighter? Yes but by how much? In the current situation, with Pentax lenses, that's fore sure.
But if the point of FF is not DOF (YMMV) then f/4 lenses would be a lot lighter. It'd still be heavier but maybe not by that much. And at that point other things might weight to the FF side (Mpix, DR...)

[D1N0]

Ok - well, accepting that - and I'm not really a technical whizz - why do Nikon and Canon keep the Mp to +/- 20 on their machine guns - really interested to know, not arguing

They are full frame. It's harder to make a fast full frame sensor than it is aps-c or m43. Read out times are longer because they are physically larger. Sony's 42mp full frame sensor can shoot at 12 fps. So in future we can expect higher megapixel counts in the Nikon D6 and Canon 1Dx MkIII in a few years using this technology. I guess it wasn't available yet for the D5.

[Ishpuini]

Always lighter? Yes but by how much? In the current situation, with Pentax lenses, that's fore sure.
But if the point of FF is not DOF (YMMV) then f/4 lenses would be a lot lighter. It'd still be heavier but maybe not by that much. And at that point other things might weight to the FF side (Mpix, DR...)

DOF is a relative thing. Personally, when I want shallow DOF for subject isolation, even on APS-C I prefer to stop down to f/3.5 or f/4 to have enough of my subject in focus against a OOF background. But as you say YMMV.

f/4 you say... Trouble is there are no modern best build quality WR fixed aperture f/4 zoom lenses made by Pentax for FF covering the 24-200mm range, nor are there similar f/2 lenses for APS-C covering the 16-135mm range for that matter. If you want that range in two WR fixed aperture zooms, f/2.8 is the only way to go in both formats... So in current practice, you end up comparing those regardless... Perhaps if Pentax would introduce these elusive f/4 zooms, I might reconsider...

Wim

PS: this appears to be my 1000th post. Hurray for me!!

[thibs]

DOF is a relative thing. Personally, when I want shallow DOF for subject isolation, even on APS-C I prefer to stop down to f/3.5 or f/4 to have enough of my subject in focus against a OOF background. But as you say YMMV.

f/4 you say... Trouble is there are no modern best build quality WR fixed aperture f/4 zoom lenses made by Pentax for FF covering the 24-200mm range, nor are there similar f/2 lenses for APS-C covering the 16-135mm range for that matter. If you want that range in two WR fixed aperture zooms, f/2.8 is the only way to go in both formats... So in current practice, you end up comparing those regardless... Perhaps if Pentax would introduce these elusive f/4 zooms, I might reconsider...

Wim

PS: this appears to be my 1000th post. Hurray for me!!

Congrats

Yes, i'm very aware of that which is why I mentioned current situation. So it is more a consequence of limited choice rather than the sensor format.

[Pål Jensen]

Always lighter? Yes but by how much? In the current situation, with Pentax lenses, that's fore sure.
But if the point of FF is not DOF (YMMV) then f/4 lenses would be a lot lighter. It'd still be heavier but maybe not by that much. And at that point other things might weight to the FF side (Mpix, DR...)

You can carry a 15 Limited, 20-40, + the 55-300 at 900g. This cover focal length range for FF from 22-450mm without holes. Such a focal length range is impossible to get for FF at weight and size lever that is even close.
In APS land you can take with you lenses that will cover almost all needs in terms of angle of view without being bogged down...

[Tatouzou]

And for hiking... I invite anyone to hike up a mountain with a K-3II and a two lens set consisting of both DA*16-50/2.8 and DA*50-135/2.8 for instance. And then the same with the K-1 plus DFA24-70/2.8 and DFA70-200/2.8. In the first case I will have room in the bag for water and some food. In the latter case I will suffer a broken back and die of hunger and thirst... (ok I exaggerate, but you catch my drift)

rgds, Wim

As for me, I hike with K3 + 18-135 (+enventually DA15 for UWA). Much lighter and convenient kit than the two DFA f2.8 zooms, and no need to change lens in action. Sometimes I even take Kthe lighter K30 rather than K3.
IMO, the market will separate in two between compact APS-C (a la KP) with compact lenses (variable aperture zooms a la 18-135 or 16-85 and tiny primes like the DA limiteds, and bigger cameras, some of them FF, other APS-C, with big and heavy highgrade large aperture lenses (f2.8 on FF is F2 equivalent in APS-C, f1.4 in M43.
Among APS-C K-mount users, some will move to FF, others will do it but keep their APS-C body, others will stay APS-C only, other, who praise small and light solutions, are not interested in FF even if they can afford it and will (or already have) complement their gear with either M43 ILCs or 1" high end fixed lens compacts.
I am rather in this last category.

[GlassJunkie]

We are diehard APSc folks for several reasons, Weight, more weight, FPS, and wildlife. We shoot a lot of birds, so crop with good pixel pitch is important. So the K-3s are our go to's add a GPS and we're set.

We also shoot deep in the jungle or northern woods so light is a precious commodity. For long/light we use a Siggy 150-500 v2 or DA300 F4.x, for reg long PTX150-450 or FA300 F2.8, with HDTC1.4 if needed/able. For regular work DA* 16-50, 50-135, 60-250 and the 18-270 for walkaround.

I have seen exceptional center area results with FA* 80-200, 300, and 24-70 on our K-3s (although CA was a pain)... SO......

I took the plunge and went back to FF glass on K-3 (24-70, 70-200) to start, keeping the Da 12-24 for widies. These are obscenely sharp in the center, have no zoom creep (24-70 vs 16-50 and 60-250), no barrel wobble (16-50) and less calibration/ SDM maintenance (16-50) than the DA*s and F2,8 from 135-200 in the 2 lens DFA solution.... Weight is roughly the same (3DA* vs.2 DFAs) in the bag, got to recycle the 77mm filters. 3 Sell off vs 2 new buys ~$400 delta...

So my wife is sticking with her lighter solution.... I get a better upper body workout with the 70-200, the option for FF... But what we really want K-3X with the following specs:

• APSC32-36MP (4/3 pixel pitch in an APSc sensor)
• Prime 3 or better
• Safox 12
• Phase and contrast AF
• 10+FPS
• DL190 Batts, with a battery grip that holds 2 batteries (3 on line for the field and cold weather)
• a Battery grip with ArcaSwiss grooves cut in it and a hand grip lug on it allowing for no add on plates...
• GPS (don't need the mini-flash)
• SR2 & Pixel shift
• K-1 LCD Screen mount vs KP mount
• Hot shoe cap with a Level in it (so I don't have to find on eBay), and yes, RUBBER
• LCD on RIght shoulder
• Really good WR (current level or better)
• OD Green body like the Leica R3 Safari (so I don't need a LensCoat cover)
• All for $1500 plus BG cost.

That should do it....

[mee]

I think your choice is in 32MP, 10 FPS, 1500 USD. Pick two.

[Tatouzou]

We are diehard APSc folks for several reasons, Weight, more weight, FPS, and wildlife. We shoot a lot of birds, so crop with good pixel pitch is important. So the K-3s are our go to's add a GPS and we're set.

We also shoot deep in the jungle or northern woods so light is a precious commodity. For long/light we use a Siggy 150-500 v2 or DA300 F4.x, for reg long PTX150-450 or FA300 F2.8, with HDTC1.4 if needed/able. For regular work DA* 16-50, 50-135, 60-250 and the 18-270 for walkaround.

I have seen exceptional center area results with FA* 80-200, 300, and 24-70 on our K-3s (although CA was a pain)... SO......

I took the plunge and went back to FF glass on K-3 (24-70, 70-200) to start, keeping the Da 12-24 for widies. These are obscenely sharp in the center, have no zoom creep (24-70 vs 16-50 and 60-250), no barrel wobble (16-50) and less calibration/ SDM maintenance (16-50) than the DA*s and F2,8 from 135-200 in the 2 lens DFA solution.... Weight is roughly the same (3DA* vs.2 DFAs) in the bag, got to recycle the 77mm filters. 3 Sell off vs 2 new buys ~$400 delta...

So my wife is sticking with her lighter solution.... I get a better upper body workout with the 70-200, the option for FF... We really want K-3X with the following specs:

• APSC32-36MP (4/3 pixel pitch in an APSc sensor)
• Prime 3 or better
• Safox 12
• Phase and contract AF
• 10+FPS
• DL190 Batts, with a battery grip that holds 2 batteries (3 on line for the field and cold weather)
• a Battery grip with ArcaSwiss grooves cut in it and a hand grip lug on it allowing for no add on plates...
• GPS (don't need the mini-flash)
• SR2 & Pixel shift
• K-1 LCD Screen mount vs KP mount
• Hot shoe cap with a Level in it (so I don't have to find on eBay), and yes, RUBBER
• LCD on RIght shoulder
• Really good WR (current level or better)
• OD Green body like the Leica R3 Safari (so I don't need a LensCoat cover)
• All for $1500 plus BG cost.

That should do it....

Such a camera would rather be priced around $2000.

And I dont think so many of us do need such high grade APS-C stuff, thus its potential marketshare cood be too tiny for Ricoh-Pentax to make money on it.
I dont understand people who claim for the most advanced features only a few photographers need but dont want to pay for it.

From a technical point of view, 32 MP pixel count in APS-C would lead to a higher density than in most recent M43 gear, which is 16MP with no AA filter. Which is roughly the same pixel density as K3.
Only a few recent flagships from Olympus and Panasonic are 20 MP.

IMO, 24 MP files are big enough and already allow a lot of cropping. Many of us complain that the 2010 K5 high ISO performance at 16MP was better than the 2013 K3 at 24 MP. IMO they are equivalent when watched at the same enlargement ratio, and more pixel wont necessarily imply more details on the picture, nor better IQ, just bigger files.

Sensor manufacturers need to offer very high density sensors for smartphones, which is the mass market.

Then, they make larger sensors with the same technology and sell them to camera manufacturers because it is a good marketing argument, when nothing else has really improved, to sell new advanced cameras to pros and enthusiasts photographers.

If you look at Canon, which, by far, leads the market, they sell top grade gear to pro, at very high price. It is the best argument for their reputation, exactly like F1 domination is part of the appeal of Mercedes cars. But they make most of their sales with entry level and mid-range stuff. And so does Nikon.

Most of us dont need more pixels nor big and heavy glass.

The strength of Ricoh-Pentax is in offering the best ergonomy for outdoors photographers.

Most of them are not working for a BBC video production which allows them to go with so much gear, and so heavy, they need sherpas to carry it. A few are pro that may sell to National Geographic or its siblings, but are hiking alone, carrying al their gear on their back.

Most are only enthusiast hobbyists, and for them, the best camera is the one they have with them, not the one they live at home or in their hotel room. That is where Ricoh-Pentax gets most of its sales.

[GlassJunkie]

i think your choice is in 32mp, 10 fps, 1500 usd. Pick two.

$1579 usd

---------- Post added 02-10-17 at 09:50 AM ----------

Such a camera would rather be priced around $2000.

From a technical point of view, 32 MP pixel count in APS-C would lead to a higher density than in most recent M43 gear, which is 16MP with no AA filter. Which is roughly the same pixel density as K3.
Only a few recent flagships from Olympus and Panasonic are 20 MP. The pixel density/ area of a 16mp M43 times ~2 (area variant of APSc to M43) takes me to ~30-32 MP.

IMO, 24 MP files are big enough and already allow a lot of cropping. Many of us complain that the 2010 K5 high ISO performance at 16MP was better than the 2013 K3 at 24 MP. IMO they are equivalent when watched at the same enlargement ratio, and more pixel wont necessarily imply more details on the picture, nor better IQ, just bigger files. If one is looking at Birds in flight with long reach, both resolution and lens reach (magnification matter) in our PP 24mp is the bare minimum, because you lose 40-60% of each frame due to distance.

Sensor manufacturers need to offer very high density sensors for smartphones, which is the mass market. Agreed that the pixel density is in the market, but not yet in an APSc chip.

Then, they make larger sensors with the same technology and sell them to camera manufacturers because it is a good marketing argument, when nothing else has really improved, to sell new advanced cameras to pros and enthusiasts photographers. Simple math, tale a 24mp APSc sensor and make it full frame, you are at ~50mp. Hence getting ~30MP on APSC using M43 is also doable.

If you look at Canon, which, by far, leads the market, they sell top grade gear to pro, at very high price. It is the best argument for their reputation, exactly like F1 domination is part of the appeal of Mercedes cars. But they make most of their sales with entry level and mid-range stuff. And so does Nikon. Yes, but Canon makes crap cameras and Nikons glass is better suited for paperweights. IMO

Most of us dont need more pixels nor big and heavy glass. Agreed, which makes KP (I like it) for those folks, with APSc Glass, up to and including DA* lenses which are great.)

The strength of Ricoh-Pentax is in offering the best ergonomy for outdoors photographers. Yes, and that's why I want a next gen K-3 (smaller body without K-1 Pixel density loss) to have a few more features. I am figuring a K-3x upgrade would cost less than K-1 at $1899 USD.

Most of them are not working for a BBC video production which allows them to go with so much gear, and so heavy, they need sherpas to carry it. A few are pro that may sell to National Geographic or its siblings, but are hiking alone, carrying al their gear on their back. Hence my comment on swapping out 3 DA* for 2 DFA, trying to keep bag weight the same/ lower. I don't have sherpas either...

Most are only enthusiast hobbyists, and for them, the best camera is the one they have with them, not the one they live at home or in their hotel room. That is where Ricoh-Pentax gets most of its sales.

In the US, maybe, but there are MANY pros that use Pentax, first and foremost because of the glass. If Pentax continues on 2 strategic fronts it discussed several years ago, they will begin to move to a "premium positioning" in DSLR and focusing on wildlife photographers, which will skew toward APSc (for the reasons you stated- size/ reach). My post was to share my "wishlist" for the specs I would like to see,,, At the lowest practical price...