Originally posted by donaldchalfy To TJK911, Your comments are well said.
A point to ponder: How many people on this thread realize the quantum leap in price increase the consumer will incur for all the R&D, complete redesign of the camera itself, building lenses to accommodate that sort of sensor? Because if one thinks that the great Pentax legacy glass from the film days will work on a new FF sensor and give great results, one is sorely mistaken. Now, take into account the new experimentation regarding having or excluding a low pass filter, it takes it to a new level of design issues.
Here is the question: Is one able and willing to pay a substantial increase in price (prices on par with Canon's 5D MK III, Nikon's D800, and the appropriate glass to make it work to its fullest potential) for such a leap in technology in Pentax's line up of cameras, and is it fiscally sound for Pentax to take such a leap of faith in the hopes that it will be a hit for the Pentax market?
I look forward to what people have to say.
Yeah that's a very relevant question that I hear being echoed in the forums often: Will people actually be willing to purchase/pay for a $3,000 to $4,000 fullframe and $1,000+ per lens?
Personally, I'm setting aside some money every month and if plans go well, in about a year or so I'll be able to get a D800 with a 24-70 and 70-200. This was money originally meant for the FA triplets, but after some careful thinking, the lack of an FF future outweighed things for me.
There's just a very distinctive IQ difference between APS-C and FF, and while for many average shooters it doesn't matter all that much, I can't exactly compete/compare with the other photojournalists I know that shoot with 1Ds and all. At first I didn't mind the slight APS-C handicap, but after shooting alongside FF shooters for a year or so...
FF won't be the savior that will immediately bring Pentax/Ricoh up into the limelight again, but it will stop the hemorrhaging that Pentax is going through though.