[Enrique S Toso]

Im getting pro (Weddings). And im kind of depressed cause I want to sell all my gear more and more often and get a D610 . Dont wanna leave Pentax. Dont have the money for a 645Z (plus, its a tripod camera).

They need to make a FF. Why MF and no FF ?? .

[gazonk]

Dont have the money for a 645Z (plus, its a tripod camera).

I've never used a 645, so I've been wondering about this: Is a 645Z significantly more difficult to use without a tripod than, say, a Canon 1DX? The weight difference isn't big.

[ElJamoquio]

I think the 645z is hand holdable. Not sure about mirror slap but I held the 64d indoors in dim light and had good results.

A moot point really as I want to keep my kit under $10k.

[Pioneer]

The 645FD and Z are certainly handholdable. I shoot my 645Nii with no tripod from time to time and the pictures turn out quite well. Obviously though, the 645 series cameras produce such magnificent photographs that using a tripod each and every time you possibly can will markedly improve the chances that you will have very sharp results.

But that is also true of the higher megapixel full frame cameras. To get the very most out of the D800 it is well known that you need to use a tripod. Even with the K3 you should be using a tripod if you ever intend to enlarge your photographs to their full potential. Of course if you are only grabbing family snapshots that will be displayed at 4x6 you probably don't need to worry about it. But then you really didn't need to buy the K3 for those types of pictures and your are clogging up your computer memory for no reason.

[Chex]

Sometimes I wonder if Pentax's FF rumors and even that interview back in the day hinting about needing to develop a FF solution was nothing more than lip service.
Glad I have my D800 and all, but I really would be happier with a Pentax solution 36 or 24 MP range.

[ElJamoquio]

Sometimes I wonder if Pentax's FF rumors and even that interview back in the day hinting about needing to develop a FF solution was nothing more than lip service.
Glad I have my D800 and all, but I really would be happier with a Pentax solution 36 or 24 MP range.

Yup. I still expect a FF in September for Photokina, but in the meantime I'm selling ~1 lens/month.

[Tad1952]

Yup. I still expect a FF in September for Photokina, but in the meantime I'm selling ~1 lens/month.

I'm still unable to understand why - apart from those wanting an extreme wide angle - anyone wants a full frame. Are so many people making very large enlargements? Is it just gear freakiness? The K3 provides a resolution exceeding I ever achieved in film, and is quite compact. My telephotos have additional magnification, and the only way I lose out is at sub-19mm wide angle. What have I missed?

[ElJamoquio]

I'm still unable to understand why - apart from those wanting an extreme wide angle - anyone wants a full frame. Are so many people making very large enlargements? Is it just gear freakiness? The K3 provides a resolution exceeding I ever achieved in film, and is quite compact. My telephotos have additional magnification, and the only way I lose out is at sub-19mm wide angle. What have I missed?

Large enlargements, bigger viewfinder, lighter setup for me, cheaper setup for me.

[markac]

I'm still unable to understand why - apart from those wanting an extreme wide angle - anyone wants a full frame. Are so many people making very large enlargements? Is it just gear freakiness? The K3 provides a resolution exceeding I ever achieved in film, and is quite compact. My telephotos have additional magnification, and the only way I lose out is at sub-19mm wide angle. What have I missed?

Perhaps if APS-C had been treated as a new format instead of a sub format of 35mm full frame when it arrived, things would be different? But as most manufacturers then intended it mostly as a stop gap until full frame sensors were more reasonably priced (which they basically are now), many people actually feel like they now want the real thing. Whilst you may like the extra length that APS-C affords your lenses, sometimes it's quite nice if a 28mm lens actually behaves as a wide angle like it was designed and not as something that's more like a standard lens.

[easyreeder]

I'm still unable to understand why - apart from those wanting an extreme wide angle - anyone wants a full frame. Are so many people making very large enlargements? Is it just gear freakiness? The K3 provides a resolution exceeding I ever achieved in film, and is quite compact. My telephotos have additional magnification, and the only way I lose out is at sub-19mm wide angle. What have I missed?

Low light and noise. The crop factor also has to be applied to the aperture value, so your 1.4 is a 2.2, your 4 is a 6.4. More pixels in a smaller area means more noise (when there's noise). And the higher resolution isn't just to blow things up the size of buildings, it's so you have more information in post—to crop, apply effects, colors, whatever. And, as you say, the wide angle. And, back to the aperture, ff affords the shallow depth of field that one can achieve at very low apertures (while I tend to agree with you here, the dof conversation seems overstated, since Pentax has lenses that go crazy shallow).

[normhead]

Low light and noise. The crop factor also has to be applied to the aperture value, so your 1.4 is a 2.2, your 4 is a 6.4. More pixels in a smaller area means more noise (when there's noise). And the higher resolution isn't just to blow things up the size of buildings, it's so you have more information in post—to crop, apply effects, colors, whatever. And, as you say, the wide angle. And, back to the aperture, ff affords the shallow depth of field that one can achieve at very low apertures (while I tend to agree with you here, the dof conversation seems overstated, since Pentax has lenses that go crazy shallow).

I guess at this point, Pentax should have an FF, just because they exist. They are a camera company, camera companies make cameras, their current K-3 technology can easily be converted to a full frame system without developing everything from scratch. Sony, Canon and Nikon all have them. The sensors Sony makes are available to them, there just is no issue they couldn't overcome, accept maybe they lack the courage. I don't even want an FF and I can't see why they don't have one. If you can sell a $$7,500 MF camera you can surely sell a $3,000 35x24 camera.

As I said, I don't want one, I have everything I need in APS-c and I'd want the 31,43,77 and an ultra wide combo if I went FF, and they aren't cheep. But should there be one? Of course there should. At this point the question is not "how could they do it?" The question is "What in heavens name is preventing it from happening?"

[rawr]

The question is "What in heavens name is preventing it from happening?"

It's easy to agree.

Although I confess to knowing very little about manufacturing cameras, I can't see any engineering (or marketing) reasons why it hasn't happened already. Now more than ever (perhaps) all the tech, all the parts, all the production know-how, is there. Certainly a Pentax FF should be doable in 2014 I would have thought, without bankrupting the company, or other such risks.

A camera like the K-3 already has many superior specs to either of the current budget FF's from Sony or Canon like the A7 and 6D (better fps/AF sensitivity/metering, stabilization etc). All it lacks is a larger sensor.

[Poit]

It's easy to agree.

Although I confess to knowing very little about manufacturing cameras, I can't see any engineering (or marketing) reasons why it hasn't happened already. Now more than ever (perhaps) all the tech, all the parts, all the production know-how, is there. Certainly a Pentax FF should be doable in 2014 I would have thought, without bankrupting the company, or other such risks.

A camera like the K-3 already has many superior specs to either of the current budget FF's from Sony or Canon like the A7 and 6D (better fps/AF sensitivity/metering, stabilization etc). All it lacks is a larger sensor.

From my reading of the situation, it's not so much the camera body that causes a problem, but the lens lineup.

I read an interview a year or two ago (but can't find it again) where the guy said, essentially, that FF would entail an entirely new range of lenses, and for a relatively small company that's no small thing to achieve in terms of development, and the available manufacturing capacity. I think his words were "we already have a lot going on".

I agree with you and everyone else, they certainly have the capability to do it, but those comments about capacity (and specifically around lenses) niggle in the back of my mind...

---------- Post added 06-18-14 at 03:18 PM ----------

Im getting pro (Weddings). And im kind of depressed cause I want to sell all my gear more and more often and get a D610 . Dont wanna leave Pentax. Dont have the money for a 645Z (plus, its a tripod camera).

They need to make a FF. Why MF and no FF ?? .

I shoot weddings too, and would dearly love a Pentax FF for the benefits it would offer (at a much lower price than the 645).

I guess we just have to wait and see if they've listened and are willing to bring a wedding photographers dream to the table, or jump ship. I'm willing to wait another while, the K3 is still a good camera, and whilst I don't have the full creative range available, it's adequate for the time being, and I still have happy customers

[easyreeder]

I'm still unable to understand why - apart from those wanting an extreme wide angle - anyone wants a full frame. Are so many people making very large enlargements? Is it just gear freakiness? The K3 provides a resolution exceeding I ever achieved in film, and is quite compact. My telephotos have additional magnification, and the only way I lose out is at sub-19mm wide angle. What have I missed?

Low light, open apertures, and wide angle. It's true, one doesn't need all of that all the time. But it's not insignificant. In terms of the resolution, we're talking about more information in post as well as larger enlargements. I do think it's fair to say many of the gains are in the video side (although there might be a trade off with rolling shutter, where Pentax has not been particularly strong). The Pentax APSC stills, in all but the conditions mentioned above, are pretty fantastic.

I went and played with the Sony A99 yesterday. The update on that camera will have everything we're talking about here. I didn't love the feel of the camera, or the lenses. But we're using Sony sensors in the Pentax, and I want a full frame camera with internal image stabilization that has great low light capabilities (which probably means full frame). I suppose at a certain point it's about the tech, as much as I revel in the K mount (new and old lenses). I've only been using Pentax for two years, so I don't know the whole history of this, but if there's no FF announcement by the end of the year I'm out. And I think I'm fairly typical of the market. Maybe there's some cost to putting out a FF, but the lack of a FF, in the long haul, will cost the company a huge chunk of its market—and I don't think Pentax can afford that.

[Enrique S Toso]

The problem of been pro and the APS-C body, as many said, is the crop factor in the aperture. The most fast lens you can have with an aps-c body, is "just" F2.1. Ok, that should be enough light, but its full sharpness point will be around F6.5 (in REAL terms..the display will tell you it is F4.something). In this point, I prolly have to shoot with more external light (speedlights on softboxes, = more mess) or use high ISO

The other problem is that lenses become expensive, since you need almost all of them to be F2.8.

K3 is amazing, but is a camera made for war photoperiodism or something like that, and its by far the best APS-C of the market (Nikon D7100??? pffff).

So, if you are a pro photojournalist, u can have the K3, if you are a product/studio/fashion photographer, you should (must?) get the 645D/Z. But for the @#$@#$ weddings, you need to shoot a lot of pictures (as in photojournalism) with the IQ of a studio photographer, cause nowdays, every bride, wants the pictures of his wedding look like the ones of the Dolce&Gabanna ads in his Cosmo magazine.

Finally, I saw the specs of the 645z....I worked a lot in a studio with Hasselblad H3D and Mamiya RZ67 with PhaseOne digiback, mostly wine bottles photography. And I used to think that MF was just for studio. But then I see those FPS, those ISO, that fullHD video (why not 4K!!!!??), than non AA filter, etc, etc. And it is not quite different than D800 (main Nikon used by poor wedding photoslaves), and if I see the price, I would recomend it for some colleagues (those wedding photo-rockstars with 2 D4s bodys).

Since Im a pro noob/poor photoslave, i want a full frame Pentax, period.