[tonyjayice]

For a long time I obsessed over Full Frame. However, do I really need it? I carry my aging K10D everywhere with me. Hiking in the mountains, in my airplane and, rarely do I get into my car without it.
A while back on a hike in the High Peaks of New York I slipped and fell. Yes I managed to keep my camera from hitting the ground, at the expense of my elbows (which are still sore). It made me realize that it is only a matter of time before something disastrous occurs. Do I really want to be carrying $5,000 worth of camera and lens around?

I do want the lower noise and greater depth of field. It would be wonderful to go back to the days where I could walk around with my 50/1.4 and not have the field of view so narrow.

After all this time I guess my big complaint is not knowing what Rocoh/Pentax is planning for the future. I'm not talking the secret specs of future camera, only the general plan for camera formats. It seems all other manufacturers have made this clear. If I knew FF was in the future for Pentax I could plan accordingly.

Friends have D700 and 5DmkII and they are great cameras. But I like everything about my Pentax. It is so well designed and thought out.
At this point my plans are to wait and see what is next. If it is an APS-C well then that is what my next camera will be.

I just want to keep photography fun and do the best I can.

Same Here! .. I love my k20 and always will ..

[Winder]

this is the real reason for FF. you can't replicate the reasonably fast lenses at anywhere near a sane price in apsc. or the fast wides. I'd love a 24 f 2 equivalent in apsc (a 16 f1.4 say) Given the size of my already big 14 2.8 (21 f4. ??ff) i can't see it being smaller than a large beercan though, where the 24 while large is still reasonable to use

For long lenses I can live with the apsc lengths though many would like the long fast glass from the past. i just have little use for it. Good fast wides and normals though i can use. (FF 50 1.4 would need a 35 0.95 - I can imagine what that would cost. the Leica 50 0.95 sells for over 10,000 and sells used for close to 14,000 due to the long wait list. We won't even talk about what the equivalent for the a*50 1.2 would be - a 35 0.8)

Any one of these if made would make a FF alternative look cheap

This is why Olympus 4/3 glass was so expensive. The image from a 4/3 sensor has to be enlarged 4x to equal the output of a FF. You have to have really sharp lenses to match IQ and you have to have really fast lenses.

I would love to see Pentax put some really high quality glass on the market. IMHO glass is much more important than sensor size.

Not too long ago 35mm film was the amateur format and if you weren't shooting at least 6x4.5 you were just playing around.

[eddie1960]

This is why Olympus 4/3 glass was so expensive. The image from a 4/3 sensor has to be enlarged 4x to equal the output of a FF. You have to have really sharp lenses to match IQ and you have to have really fast lenses.

I would love to see Pentax put some really high quality glass on the market. IMHO glass is much more important than sensor size.

Not too long ago 35mm film was the amateur format and if you weren't shooting at least 6x4.5 you were just playing around.

I agree on the need for some lenses to fill holes, but think it is probably easier and cheaper to fill a number of those holes on FF.
Some of the 4/3 glass while quite nice looking still didn't hit Ff equivalents ( The 14-35 f2 when translated to FF is a modest 28-70 f4 but sells at $2300 - if building a 28-70 for Ff you could likely build an F2 constant for the same price and outperform the Oly)
Olympus made a huge error with 4/3 IMO. m4/3 being marketed as an entry level and mid level camera works but without the upgrade path for anyone who is getting serious
the oly $7000 300 2.8 would be a 600 5.6 on ff and that's about what a 600 4.0 for FF sells for.

APSC is a pretty good compromise but there are some serious advantages on the lens side for FF. long Telephotos and small pancake primes are the biggest apsC advantages but there are some pretty Small primes in the FA ltd for FF

I think they work well as complimentary systems

[Aristophanes]

Olympus made a huge error with 4/3 IMO

At the time sensor prices and compactness were seen as the major barriers/upsells to DSLRs. At least Olympus went one way with it to m43.

APSC is a pretty good compromise but there are some serious advantages on the lens side for FF. long Telephotos and small pancake primes are the biggest apsC advantages but there are some pretty Small primes in the FA ltd for FF

Here's what Nikon and Canon love: they get to sell those who want telecentricity get APS-C along with a smaller form factor. The 'zoom' factor sells as many cameras as megapixels ever did.

And you are tempted to upscale for wider angles and better DOF and NR control to FF. Makes you a 'prosumer'.

This all spurs not only additional sales of bodies, but of lenses as well.

APS-C has spurred a tremendous (and profitable) interest in macro. Witness the DA 35 Ltd. And also bird photography with that convenient 1.5 crop factor and much smaller lenses. Witness the DA 55-300, a stunning lens for the price and a value the 135 format could never accomplish.

There's a lot of $$ to be made selling 1 person two (or more) cameras.

[Winder]

I agree on the need for some lenses to fill holes, but think it is probably easier and cheaper to fill a number of those holes on FF.
Some of the 4/3 glass while quite nice looking still didn't hit Ff equivalents ( The 14-35 f2 when translated to FF is a modest 28-70 f4 but sells at $2300 - if building a 28-70 for Ff you could likely build an F2 constant for the same price and outperform the Oly)
Olympus made a huge error with 4/3 IMO. m4/3 being marketed as an entry level and mid level camera works but without the upgrade path for anyone who is getting serious
the oly $7000 300 2.8 would be a 600 5.6 on ff and that's about what a 600 4.0 for FF sells for.

APSC is a pretty good compromise but there are some serious advantages on the lens side for FF. long Telephotos and small pancake primes are the biggest apsC advantages but there are some pretty Small primes in the FA ltd for FF

I think they work well as complimentary systems

Olympus screwed up in many ways. IF they had came out with a 4/3 format sensor with a @550mm^2 surface area I think they would have had a really strong system. The current 225mm^2 sensor is just too small for the current technology level. If they had a Foveon type sensor that did not require a color/AA/IR filter they could be competitive.

[jsherman999]

...
There's a lot of $$ to be made selling 1 person two (or more) cameras.

Exactly. Another reason why FF Pentax is probably in Ricoh's plans.

[aheadfordinci]

Not that I could buy a digital FF, but I really hope that if they actually do it, Pentax would design something less cumbersome and more light than the mock up in the Facebook page.

[Macario]

Well for (ultra) wide angle it is absolutely so that a camera with bigger sensor and more pixels (for detail) would be the perfect solution. (or even better a 645D for landscaping, but expensive)

For the telework it works against you since you need longer lenses. To have a better image quality and save those tele-options without lagging around 600mm lenses I still am in favor for an APS-H sensor.

So from me still a vote for making one camera with the option of wich sensor to order for us users between Full Frame and APS-H.

I stumbled across this new photo site (other forum):
The 45 Most Powerful Images Of 2011
The demands for news- and sportsimages are at a very high standard on the Image Quality side. So if Pentax wants to go forward and have a place in the professional section for news- and (not directly professional) sportsimaging (wich also done a lot by local journalists with a lower budget) the there is a need for a next step to top the already very good IQ from K-5. That is a step beyond APS-C.

I did look at the list, and the pics are amazing. But I do not think there is one photo there that could not have been made with the K-5. Even almost all do not have that shallow DOF. I think that most of them are shot between 5.6 and 8.0.

[Spare Tire]

if building a 28-70 for Ff you could likely build an F2 constant for the same price and outperform the Oly

There are no f2 constant zoom on the market, for APS or FF. Olympus is the only one and that's because they have a small sensor to cover.

[Class A]

For the telework it works against you since you need longer lenses. To have a better image quality and save those tele-options without lagging around 600mm lenses I still am in favor for an APS-H sensor.

If an APS-H sensor and an FF sensor have the same pixel-pitch (i.e., the same number of pixels per unit area) then you can just crop an FF-sensor image to APS-H size and have the same "tele advantage".

... And also bird photography with that convenient 1.5 crop factor and much smaller lenses.

See above. The crop factor does not create a "tele advantage". Higher pixel-pitch sensors do.

In other words, FF is not disadvantaged when it comes to long lenses, as long as APS-C pixel pitchs are carried over to FF sensors.

The only reasons I can see why one would lower pixel pitch when going to FF are:

• keeping file size within bounds. Retaining the K-5's pixel pitch implies a 36.7MP FF sensor.
• achieve a higher frames per second rate. For any given image engine, moving less data implies faster processing.

(Noise is not a reason. Image noise is not affected by pixel pitch.)

[Class A]

Sigma is doing a 30mm f/1.4 for a reasonable price, if only pentax did that as well.

Why does Pentax need to do one as well? In what way do you want it to be different to the Sigma 30/1.4?

[Winder]

There are no f2 constant zoom on the market, for APS or FF. Olympus is the only one and that's because they have a small sensor to cover.

The Olympus 14-35 and the 35-100 are both big enough to have been f/1.4 constant zooms. Over on the Olympus forums there is a lot of speculation that Olympus had intended them to be F/1.4 to match the FF zooms. They are bigger/heavier/more expensive than the Canon or Nikon counterparts.

Pentax could make a 50-135 f/2 for APS-C that would be the same size as the 35-100 f/2. Both of those lenses are a telecentric design which adds to the size and cost. It would be a $2,000 zoom and there would not be a size or weight saving over the 70-200 f/2.8. Is that something that Pentax users would buy? If Pentax plans to make APS-C their "professional" option then I think they need to.

My 35-100 f/2 was a really good lens. Even wide open it was really, really sharp. My 14-35 was good, but it did not focus consistently in low-light even though it had the newer SWD AF. The 150mm f/2 is just an amazing piece of glass.

Hopefully we will see a revival of the high end Pentax glass in the near future.

[Asahiflex]

Why does Pentax need to do one as well? In what way do you want it to be different to the Sigma 30/1.4?

I use my DA* 55/1.4 SDM as a walkaround lens, so it was not hard for me to figure out that a DA* 30 would be weathersealed too. Make it every bit as good as the FA31 and we have a bestseller...

[RonHendriks1966]

If an APS-H sensor and an FF sensor have the same pixel-pitch (i.e., the same number of pixels per unit area) then you can just crop an FF-sensor image to APS-H size and have the same "tele advantage".

The only reasons I can see why one would lower pixel pitch when going to FF are:

• keeping file size within bounds. Retaining the K-5's pixel pitch implies a 36.7MP FF sensor.
• achieve a higher frames per second rate. For any given image engine, moving less data implies faster processing.

(Noise is not a reason. Image noise is not affected by pixel pitch.)

Well I want a one stop advantage in hi-iso and there will an APS-H with 16 megapixel (or even a few less) outperforme the K-5 APS-C sensor (if the manufactor knows what he is doing).

I'm at the time not very interested in RAW files that are 45 MB large due to the amount of pixels.

[Anvh]

Why does Pentax need to do one as well? In what way do you want it to be different to the Sigma 30/1.4?

There was more in that comment.
There was a DA*30 on the roadmap once so it isn't unthinkable there is a DA*30 design out there and hopefully they can make it for a good price.
The weather sealing and the compatibility is a plus over sigma then.