[Ubuntu_user]

Yup, I want nothing more than a FF solution to put behind some of the great glass like the FA limited series.. I have one, I would definitely be buying the 31 and 77 if they came out with a FF camera.. but now I guess I'll be looking to spend that money on a new system and unfortunately new glass to go with it. I want a D800, but the 5D Mark II is dropping in price like crazy right now as the Mark III approaches.. time to look into what my 43 Ltd would do better mounted to, Nikon or Canon.

I absolutely love the FA 31mm... But I'm just waiting for the day I can use it in front of a FF sensor — cause that's really where it shines.

I'm thinking of maybe just selling all my APS-C gear, my K20d, my 50-135, my Sigma 8-16 etc, but keeping all my full frame glass, I can at least still use it on my KX. I figure my collection will get me a good ways towards a D800 body, it's the lenses that are gonna hurt. Makes me sick to my stomach. Pentax, I'm so pissed at you right now.

Yes, those Nikon lenses will leave much to be desired in your wallet. In fact, CaNikon have a notorious background for just plain taking your entire wallet away.
I really do believe that we'll see a FF from Pentax in the near future (>1 year, <3 years). In the mean time, I've decided to get everything out of my beloved K-5 that I possibly can.
btw, you might want to upgrade your K-x to a K-5 before you decide to jump into CaNikon. You might be pleasantly surprised!

[ElJamoquio]

That's what most would like to have for the K-01.

I don't think they want an adapter after they see how large, awkward, heavy, and expensive that same adapter is for Sony.

[Kunzite]

It' s Pentax to have spoken about a mirrorless 645D. And keeping the enormous 645 mirrobox, that'0s enopurmus even for today 44x33 sensor, I don't know how wise it would be. They could create a tube adapter for current 645D lenses, but they could also build a title/shift one, a thing that would be appreciated by the pro costumers of the MF. Shortening the registration distance, instantly, by Pentax or third parts, an adapter would permit the use of full frame lenses, not only Pentax, but of any makers, a thing that would be a plus for the many customers of the 645D that are into Canon and Nikon.

All right, get rid of one of the best reflex viewfinders, eventually replace it with a consumer-level EVF no better than the latest OLED blah blah thingie. Make sure you won't be ever able to use a full 645 frame sensor. And force all your customers to use adapters.
The benefit? Having an extremely expensive "FF" camera which won't AF with any ("FF") lens.
Wording it like this, it doesn't sound like such a good idea, don't you think?

[eddie1960]

All right, get rid of one of the best reflex viewfinders, eventually replace it with a consumer-level EVF no better than the latest OLED blah blah thingie. Make sure you won't be ever able to use a full 645 frame sensor. And force all your customers to use adapters.
The benefit? Having an extremely expensive "FF" camera which won't AF with any ("FF") lens.
Wording it like this, it doesn't sound like such a good idea, don't you think?

exactly, not a chance they will do away with the 645d design basics. I doubt any 546 user is concerned with size. it's just not an issue at that level for the most part.

a FF mirrorless though is a distinct possibility I think (and it is something that currently does not exist in the market. Even if sony launches a Nex a FF that uses a full line of legacy lenses in mirrorless form still won't exist (I don't consider the Sony SLT's mirrorless form they are dslrs without a good OVF )

[sandilands]

Just jumped back on this thread. Amazing that a non-committal letter from Pentax could stir up over 2400 posts.
I still can't see Pentax ever making a FF camera. The only true advantage of FF is to make slightly better use of legacy glass. Pentax wants to sell new cameras and NEW glass. Consumers want smaller, lighter cameras. APS sensors are excellent now and are only going to get better. There are mega-dollars of undepreciated investment in APS by the whole industry.
If you're holding your breath waiting for a FF body from Pentax, better buy some yellow filters as gifts to your family and friends, because your face is going to turn blue. (that's a joke.)

[markku55]

Just jumped back on this thread. Amazing that a non-committal letter from Pentax could stir up over 2400 posts.
I still can't see Pentax ever making a FF camera. The only true advantage of FF is to make slightly better use of legacy glass. Pentax wants to sell new cameras and NEW glass. Consumers want smaller, lighter cameras. APS sensors are excellent now and are only going to get better. There are mega-dollars of undepreciated investment in APS by the whole industry.
If you're holding your breath waiting for a FF body from Pentax, better buy some yellow filters as gifts to your family and friends, because your face is going to turn blue. (that's a joke.)

You might have right, some professionals have told that they will not continue using FF because of they do not get any advantage of that compared to APS-C and for sure in close future even m4/3 size.
I'm thinking to buy a good FF body for my Sony/Minolta lenses, and might still buy a good wideangle for static ladscapes etc. For all other purposes the new Olympus OM-D (EM5) would be good enough and much smaller than APS-C cameras and especially lenses, I do not understand why APS-C lenses are as big as FF lenses, at least when I compare the old AF Minolta lenses with them.

[Clavius]

You might have right, some professionals have told that they will not continue using FF because of they do not get any advantage of that compared to APS-C and for sure in close future even m4/3 size.

But that will not last. We cannot put more resolution on the same APSC or m4/3 sensors, because eventually diffraction will come into play. Eventually, bigger (sensors) will still be better.

[markku55]

But that will not last. We cannot put more resolution on the same APSC or m4/3 sensors, because eventually diffraction will come into play. Eventually, bigger (sensors) will still be better.

You have right, but some of the professionals are happy with 12Mp in a FF already now (Nikon D3S), is that too much for m4/3 because of diffraction

[gazonk]

(I don't consider the Sony SLT's mirrorless form they are dslrs without a good OVF )

A77 looks like it's a K10D that was fed too much steroids when compared to the K-5: Compare camera dimensions side by side

[Clavius]

A77 looks like it's a K10D that was fed too much steroids when compared to the K-5: Compare camera dimensions side by side

That A77 does look like it will fit my hands better. To bad it's SLT, which isn't good for IQ.

[gazonk]

That A77 does look like it will fit my hands better. To bad it's SLT, which isn't good for IQ.

Despite having large hands, I'm not 100% happy with the grip on my K10D. It's too "flat" compared to K100D (and K-5, which I have just held, not used).

[Clavius]

Despite having large hands, I'm not 100% happy with the grip on my K10D. It's too "flat" compared to K100D (and K-5, which I have just held, not used).

K5 is OK if you attach the grip.

[falconeye]

some of the professionals are happy with 12Mp in a FF

So what?

If my customer demands 12MP I'll be happy too. But enthusiast photographers are their own customers and they demand more than most customers would ever do. It's a hobby, you know ...

If you dig a bit deeper into the issue, you'll find that higher MP are a stretch for the mechanical tolerances a camera is built with today. Lens calibration, the lens optical formula, lens focus worm gear, mount-sensor parallelism, AF focus detection precision, AF calibration, spherical abberation in AF measurements, shutter-induced blur, shake, ... I could go on forever.

And these problems increase with the first, second or even third power of magnification required, i.e., the inverse of sensor size.

This is the real challenge, to meet the precision requirements of high MP cameras in the future.

Today 4/3 goes up to 12/16MP, APSC to 16/24MP, FF to 36MP and MF to 40/80MP. All of these numbers being a stretch already. The D700's 12MP are reasonable for a FF actually.

True, 8MP are enough for 90% of applications. But this being a hobby, I predict that all enthusiast amateurs eventually upgrade to FF because of the extra resolution which simply requires it.

[gazonk]

True, 8MP are enough for 90% of applications.

I don't know - it's just barely enough for a 1080p TV (or iPad 3 - rumors will have it!), since you will benefit from 4 sensor pixels for each screen pixels (after all sensor pixels are R, G or B and not RGB!). Want some room for cropping? Suddenly 16mp may seem limiting...

Who knows, maybe just in a few years many will have 8K screens at home? With 33mp screens, you should ideally work with at least 132mp cameras...

Or what about A3 electronic picture frames with 300ppi? Again, with 4 camera pixels per image pixel you'll need a 69mp camera.

[falconeye]

I don't know - it's just barely enough for a 1080p TV

It is what our eye can see.

Everything beyond is due to one reason or another. And because it is a hobby. Personally, I feel the strong desire to shoot at nothing less than 100MP