[Anvh]

depends if details are lost or not.
Lenses do need to be able to resolve more resolution with APS-C like you say but primes at least don't have a problem with that.

[ElJamoquio]

depends if details are lost or not.
Lenses do need to be able to resolve more resolution with APS-C like you say but primes at least don't have a problem with that.

Check out photozone.

Even with equal MP's, even with good primes, APS-C cameras can only resolve (on a linear basis) about 65% as well as FF cameras.

[Rev163]

Are very recent comments from Ricoh / Pentax reps about 'looking seriously at FF' worth getting excited about?

[Anvh]

Check out photozone.

Even with equal MP's, even with good primes, APS-C cameras can only resolve (on a linear basis) about 65% as well as FF cameras.

But we haven't yet reached the limit of APS-C density though so i wonder where that differences comes from.
The lens maybe?

[mee]

Are very recent comments from Ricoh / Pentax reps about 'looking seriously at FF' worth getting excited about?

No. No vague comments from any reps from any company are worth getting excited over.

[ElJamoquio]

No. No vague comments from any reps from any company are worth getting excited over.

Of course.

How about when a Pentax rep says 'next summer there'll be a FF'?

[24X36NOW]

Dear Pentax, pray I don't find a hack saw.

[24X36NOW]

but who of those have a 645 camera


If FF is needed for professional image, wouldn't 645 be even better?

That system is both too limited and too expensive, not to mention limited functionally (e.g., ISO range, frame rate) compared with FF. On an image quality basis, it's better, but the limitations make it impractical for most.

[24X36NOW]

You've got a point there. In fact, after I purchased my Canon FF, I found out that I still need my crop factor of 1.5 for birding and macros, I miss them. So, the grass may not be as green as it seems in the neighbors.

You can crop any time you like for the same framing as APS-C offers. The bigger frame gives you more flexibility to get precisely the crop you need.

[24X36NOW]

Pentax FF might be nice but the cost of setting up such a line now will be high and the competition is very fierce in such a small market.

The "small market" is a growing one. Pentax would do itself a huge, and probably fatal, disservice by waiting until the market has grown before it participates in it.

I don't believe Pentax can make FF series work if the only ones buying them are the ones owning older Pentax glass they want to use, the amount of those people who have those lenses and are willing to pay for such FF is low and since they already own lenses Pentax won't sell many new ones.

I've heard this (sorry, idiotic) argument a thousand times. Seems you think that Pentax is better off selling NOTHING than selling camera bodies, and happily waving farewell to those customers that become Nikon or Canon customers as a result. Hey, the people that "already own" APS-C cameras "already own lenses" too, so maybe Pentax shouldn't make any more APS-C cameras either, by that brilliant (not) logic. News flash: Pentax makes money if they sell camera bodies, camera batteries, camera battery grips, extra battery chargers, remote release cords, etc. Lenses are not the only commodity that Pentax makes a profit selling. If they want to "grow" their market share, they need to appeal to a wider audience, and keep what is left of their customer base from leaving, and that means FF. As far as lens sales go, if they retain their customers that want FF, they have a chance to sell them new lenses down the road. If they continue to let those customers move to Nikon and Canon, they have essentially no chance to sell them anything at all. What sounds smarter to you??

If Pentax want to have FF they either need to create a nice market or steal away some souls form Nikon or Canon, well good luck with that i say....

If Pentax wants to continue to make K-mount dSLRs of any variety, they need to do that anyway. You're also forgetting Sony, which is ripe to lose customers based on their bone-headed "SLT-only" "EVF only" strategy. Pentax can either snatch up some of those potential "converts" now, or stand by like onlookers on the dock waving hankies as they bid those potential customers farewell on their journey to become Nikon and Canon customers as well.

[24X36NOW]

Sorry but i can not follow you there.
Since when does focal length equal magnification?

Since there were lenses and cameras?

Longer focal length = higher magnification of subject. Is there a mystery to that?

[24X36NOW]

perhaps they should just watch and see these two catching all the fish.

That seems to be the "strategy" recommended by many here. You mean it doesn't sound brilliant to you?!

[24X36NOW]

There are 17: http://www.pentax.jp/english/products/lens/645_Mount_Lens.pdf

You can find a whopping TWO 645 lenses in stock at B&H. Charts do not available lenses make, unfortunately.

[24X36NOW]

Sony brought out a FF several years ago to compete with Nikon and Canon and what happend with that?

Sony brought out a FF with a poor sensor, so few bought it.

In addition, Sony abandoned its mount in the manual focus to autofocus transition, and lost a lot of its customer base in the process. Their AF "legacy" glass consists mostly of cheap consumer grade glass, and there's not a big contingent of installed user base pining for Sony's FF offerings as there would be for Pentax, which can mount every manual focus lens and autofocus lens Pentax ever made, pretty much.

In short, Sony's lack of success does NOT provide any predictive value for the prospects of success for a Pentax FF dSLR.

[24X36NOW]

Check out photozone.

Even with equal MP's, even with good primes, APS-C cameras can only resolve (on a linear basis) about 65% as well as FF cameras.

Check our DxO Mark, too. Even with less pixels (12MP FF vs. 16MP APS-C), FF resolves as much or more, even in the corners. Ah, but the APS-C marketing campaign myths are hard to kill.

DxOMark - Compare lenses