[Gooshin]

Firstly, you don't need to refer to me as an idiot. I don't believe the number of posts I've made on this forum has any correlation with my understanding of photography..

where do you see me mention anything about your post count?

My point remains simple: Full-frame makes sense for Nikon and Canon. They have a large line of lenses in production, and can easily support producing two dozen lenses.

Pentax cannot.

says you, are you a pentax employee, how are you so sure.

Showing me pictures of all your old taks and 3rd party MF lenses doesn't provide a single reason why Pentax should manufacture a FF camera.

you questioned the size of FF lenses, and the existence of a pentax FF system, while somewhat backwards its not "mystical".

Yes -- FA and FA* lenses look great -- but most of them are out of production. Didn't you get that memo? That means Pentax doesn't make a cent for ANY FA* lens sold.

How would you go about marketing that?

pentax has been marketing for years their backward compatibility, personally i believe that pentax marketers are fully aware that pentax users will experiment with old glass

just take a look at this forum, every day someone obtains some old glass from other people.

also as i said, almost every DA lens above 40mm covers a full frame circle.

regardless, even if the current lens strategy is dictating a move away from full frame, why should this take away from our desire to have one?

It would be like if Canon went to APS-C with their EOS system -- and then years later came out with a full-frame camera that took advantage of full-frame FD lenses.

Sure, lots of people have old full-frame lenses around (and the first line of limiteds are all full-frame, I'm aware)

But, Pentax CANNOT release a full-frame camera unless they are currently producing a line of full-frame lenses! How could ANYONE disagree with that statement?

That's why this argument seems so ridiculous -- it would be SUICIDE for Pentax to produce a full-frame body.

it would be an unorthodox decision in light of what we know, but i do not agree that it is suicide

there are enough 645D rumors, pentax eventually will put something out, and we are not out of our minds at asking for it.

.................................

And, again, how would Pentax explain that in the manual?

"The following DA* lenses may be used in full-frame mode:
300/4 at all apertures (vignetting may occur)
16-50/2.8 at 24.5mm or greater, at f/8.0
50-135/2.8 at f/4.0 or higher
12-24/4 at 19mm or greater, at f/10"

I'm completely making up the numbers -- but that's essentially what it would be like, right?

That is one hell of a hack, if you ask me! Professional photographers wouldn't spend a dime on a camera that requires so much explanation to do anything.

Ridiculous.

no, it would be like Nikon, where you just get a reduced effective MP, the camera will crop out the darker areas of non compatable lenses.

And stop with the personal attacks. Thanks for your understanding.

you called me a fan boy and then told me to shut the **** up

that shit dont roll lightly with me, while i havent been around the pentax scene as long as others, i have stuck around on this forum through every major wave of "news" since sep 2007.

what you are saying is nothing new to me, these arguments have been beaten to death.

bottom line is that the current set of circumstances would make the emergence of a FF pentax sometime this year doubtful, however this does not mean that we cant hope and ask for one

and it most certainly does not mean that one is better than the other, so this whole fanboy bull shit is out of line.

[*isteve]

btw now that i think about it, i cant recall you ever posting anything worth looking at, not a single personal post in the photo section.

I'm not the only one am I? And I am not the one telling everyone to shut up, so my talent is not the point at issue here.

i also noticed you like to follow Ben's links alot...

The relevance of this is what exactly? He and I are good friends and I helped him out on a shoot once. Ask him if you like. He's seen my portfolio, and we talk a lot about photography.

your 35 years of experience... what are they, exactly?

Very interesting for the most part.

I have 15 years experience of playing hockey, but you dont see me in the NHL now do you?

No, but it explains a lot about your style of argument. And it still does not entitle you to tell people to shut up.

And remind me again what does this have to do with the factual truth that there is more depth of field control in a FF camera over an APS-C camera, are you saying that i'm WRONG, and its NOT true?

Factual truth? Is there another kind?

Please read some of my posts in this thread if you know what I actually think.

And remind me again, why does it mean Pentax should make a full frame camera?

[Gooshin]

I'm not the only one am I? And I am not the one telling everyone to shut up, so my talent is not the point at issue here.

please quote me in this thread telling everyone to shut up

And remind me again, why does it mean Pentax should make a full frame camera?

why, you're just going to roll your eyes and tell me to buy a Nikon, LAFFF

[PentaxPoke]

(chewing popcorn....)

(Says with mouth full) Boy nothing gets an entertaining "discussion" rolling faster than FF vs. APS-C!


(...continues chewing...)

[ilya80]

bottom line is that the current set of circumstances would make the emergence of a FF pentax sometime this year doubtful, however this does not mean that we cant hope and ask for one

God bless you! I`m not alone

[Gooshin]

god bless you! I`m not alone :d

славо богу! гыгыгы

[Sean Nelson]

You guys are a riot...

If you're like me and don't feel the need for FF, that's fine. Other people want it, for whatever reason (it almost doesnt matter why). They have a right to want it. Wanting it doesn't make them idiots.

But if you really do want it, WHY are you clinging to a camera manufacturer that has repeatedly said it's not in that business? Sell your camera and lenses and move to a brand that has it. Duh!

What's that you say? You like the lenses (or whatever else it is that's keeping you stuck on Pentax)? Well I'm afraid you're just going to have to choose one or the other, because right now you can't have both. Sorry folks, that's just life, and it's not very productive or fulfilling to b*tch and complain about it.

[Gooshin]

You guys are a riot...

If you're like me and don't feel the need for FF, that's fine. Other people want it, for whatever reason (it almost doesnt matter why). They have a right to want it. Wanting it doesn't make them idiots.

But if you really do want it, WHY are you clinging to a camera manufacturer that has repeatedly said it's not in that business? Sell your camera and lenses and move to a brand that has it. Duh!

What's that you say? You like the lenses (or whatever else it is that's keeping you stuck on Pentax)? Well I'm afraid you're just going to have to choose one or the other, because right now you can't have both. Sorry folks, that's just life, and it's not very productive or fulfilling to b*tch and complain about it.

what will you say if pentax unveils a 645D sometime this year?

[ilya80]

You guys are a riot...

But if you really do want it, WHY are you clinging to a camera manufacturer that has repeatedly said it's not in that business? Sell your camera and lenses and move to a brand that has it. Duh!

There is *no way* I`m selling either FA77 or FA31 over anything.

What's that you say? You like the lenses (or whatever else it is that's keeping you stuck on Pentax)? Well I'm afraid you're just going to have to choose one or the other, because right now you can't have both. Sorry folks, that's just life, and it's not very productive or fulfilling to b*tch and complain about it.

Well I`m not even complaining much anyway. I`m just expressing my interest and would gladly prove it with a buck if I ever get the chance.

Hope Pentax aknowledges there is some demand for K-mount FF camera.

[jsherman999]

truth be told we can only assume what the real deal is.

pentax has a small market share, but they have no problems churing out 1-2 new cameras per year!

they are steadily introducing new lenses, some slower than others, but still at a steady pace

and with the recent price hikes across the board, they just may be able to price it at a competetive point and not worry about losing money.

now if only they stopped bothering to redesign the body and just focus on changing the internals, they might save even more money (personal opinion)

so really, IS pentax doing "bad" ??

on the other hand, with all the 645D rumors, perhaps their strategy will be to just skip the whole FF phase, i dunno.

we'll see.

This, ultimately, is true.

I'm one of those who has been assuming that FF would be a money-loser for Pentax for several years after R&D ended, but it may not be - it may just be that Hoya doesn't want to fund it right now, and especially doesn't want to fund a lens-line refresh.

It may actually be profitable right away, just not profitable enough for them - their (Hoya's) money could make better gains elsewhere.

FF is probably at least marginally profitable for Nikon/Canon/Sony and would be for Pentax too... But Ned's not getting his money for FF in 2009, 2010, and probably not 2011.


.

[wll]

This, ultimately, is true.

But Ned's not getting his money for FF in 2009, 2010, and probably not 2011.


.

By 2011 who knows what new technology will be out there, I think sensor technology will drastically improve and the sensor size will be a moot point. I think we will have more resolution, better DR and a host user features that are a pipe dream today.

As posted many months ago lens technology will evolve, (liquid lenses, etc, etc) and the lenses of today may become dinosaurs ---- we just have to wait and see.


wll

[Mountain Vision]

People don't like change. It's that simple.

They feel like 35mm was magic for film, so why shouldn't it be for digital. My opinion is that of the newer generation of photographers (ones that never owned photo gear before a DSLR) they don't have a "magic" format in there minds. If APS-C is what they grew up on, they will find FF the "weird format". Just like the old timers have an issue with APS-C.

I felt that way for a long time, but that was before digital wide angles were avail. Since then I have moved on because I like the strengths of APS-C on digital.

Personally, I feel like it will be smaller formats (APS-C, 4/3) for our DSLRs, and then larger formats like the 645D for fine art photography and areas where 100+MB files and the extra resolution are necessary.

I don't however think breaking people down into groups is relevant. Just like with 35mm and LF, MF film there will be people that either use both, or use the "wrong" format for the genre.

There was an article in PopPhoto some time ago on Andrew Kornylak (sp??) he went the extra step to tote Pentax medium format (645 and possible 67 IIRC), to technical rock climbing and bouldering locations, he even toted lighting equipment. One could definitely argue he was a moron (not literally, and his work is top notch) for using the "wrong" system/format. But he got great shots!!! I don't personally know Andrew but I do come in contact with him on climbing forums, and he currently shoots digital and very little film.

So before we go, all landscape photographers will be shooting 645D or larger sensors my point was simply that I think the middle size FF sensor will be the one to disappear in a few years since it offers less advantages in a 3 sensor size war (4 sensors if you count compacts) assuming the technology continues to move in the direction it is, rather than deviate into something completely different.

[vinzer]

thats exactly my point! Only the other camp doesnt seem to get it.

why must there be "FF Fanboys or APS fanboys", why cant people come to terms that both formats have their place, and that some people would prefer one format over another, to a greater degree than others.

and why is demanding that pentax, a company deeply rooted in the photography world, make a FF camera is "taboo", damn right they should make one, and cater to a wider customer base.

2000 dollars, no problem! Pro gear, pro prices, i think its fair (even if my wallet doesn't agree)

APS-C is not "the future", its just another format, with its own advantages and limitations.

there is no right answer.

my insults are for the idiots, and my diagrams are to showcase the pro/cons of each format.

I do wish Pentax caters to a lot of users' FF whims, but $2000 for a *Pentax* FF DSLR may not be economically feasible as of yet. Canon and Nikon can price at the ~$2500 because there are a lot of pros who almost automatically would buy those cameras, not to mention serious hobbyists. Those two can spread the cost to recoup R&D amongst many prospective buyers, a luxury Pentax does not have.

I really do think that if it's as easy and cheap to make and research FF sensors and cameras as well as an updated FF lens line, then Pentax would've gone and done FF already. It would foster goodwill among those holding on to their old glass, and they would be seen as still being able to keep up with the big manufacturers.

When the technology is cheap enough that they won't have to rely on and assume huge sales numbers, I'm pretty sure Pentax would be there.

It may be the case that if Pentax offered an FF DSLR, it might get new users into the fold, but it didn't work out well for Sony, thus far. It's pretty hard to knock off user perception of Canon and Nikon. The 645D might make people notice Pentax, especially if it undercuts Phase One and Hasselblad pricing, but until it becomes widely available (read: outside Japan), it won't help Pentax's rep one bit.

[*isteve]

please quote me in this thread telling everyone to shut up

A small selection from the last page only....

"i really do wish people like you would just keep their mouths shut, you're worse than the people that start these threads".

"first of all, you're an idiot".

"my insults are for the idiots"

"again, if you think its "little", then you dont shoot these images enough, and consequently should have no say in the matter".

You see, its not your point I object to so much, as the way you put it across. Anyone and everyone who disagrees with you is either an idiot or does not understand.

Sometime you have something useful to say, but sometimes you say REALLY dumb stuff which is a total giveaway.

I wouldnt mind that, but your attitude sucks and therefore you attract less than sympathetic responses. Perhaps after 48 years of being alive, you may figure that out.

[jay]

pentax has a small market share, but they have no problems churing out 1-2 new cameras per year!

they are steadily introducing new lenses, some slower than others, but still at a steady pace

Coming out with different-colors of K-m's that are just K200D varieties isn't really remarkable. Especially considering the cameras mostly replace existing models. Same with lenses. They'll phase out the 50/1.4 eventually -- in favor of the 55/1.4. Who knows if they're still producing it.

Even if they come out with a new body every year, that offers no proof that they have the manufacturing force to actually create production runs of more than three or so cameras at a time.

And, more importantly, the lenses. Each lens has to have its own assembly process -- that's why it's so costly to introduce a new lens (as opposed to REPLACING an existing lens)

It would be one thing if Pentax REPLACED all their DA* lenses with full-frame versions -- their current production facilities could handle the production of the new lenses.

Even though -- remember -- they'd have to re-tool the entire plant, which would be incredibly costly. Not to mention all the R&D that would have to go into developing these new optics.

So they're obviously not going to do that (remember -- who is their target? who are they going after? people who want rugged, small, light D-SLRs they can take anywhere with them.)

Right now, Pentax has the K20D, the K200D, and the K-m.

Let's see what Canon has in store:

1Ds Mk III, 1D Mk III, 5D, 50D, 40D, Rebel T1i, Rebel XSi, Rebel XTi, Rebel XS.

That's what they have IN PRODUCTION right now. I count 63 lenses in their arsenal.

obviously, they have the resources to dedicate at least one body (actually two) to full-frame. All of their L-series glass is full-frame, because they've chosen to transition it over with their film system.

My point is -- it's not necessarily wrong to want a full-frame camera. But if that's what you think you need, you're in the wrong camp. Pentax just doesn't have the resources to produce that -- and you haven't offered any shred of evidence suggesting otherwise.

Not to mention, again:

THEY DON'T HAVE THE LENSES.

Maybe if I type it in capital letters it'll stand out and someone will comment on it.

DA* lenses -- even the telephoto ones -- exhibit unacceptable vignetting. They don't produce FA lenses anymore, and they obviously don't have the resources to bring them back into production.

They already have a DA line, a DA-limited line, a DA* line and a few old FA lenses still around. They're reinvigorating their medium format system -- which should have calmed you down, but apparently hasn't.

So, my question -- how do you expect Pentax to release a full-frame body, plus an entire line of full-frame lenses, in addition to their APS-C system (which they're already sruggling to meet deadlines) AND their medium-format system?

That's THREE systems. Canon and Nikon have two. And these companies are both at least 20 times larger than Pentax and have tremendous market share.

Answer me that, and then we'll talk.

on the other hand, with all the 645D rumors, perhaps their strategy will be to just skip the whole FF phase...

Yes.