[jsherman999]

Basically they spend 3000 dollars for a D7000.

No. They will be spending $3000 to get:

1) a $1000 D7000 (in 'reach'/FOV, allowing easy/affordable transition from DX lenses),
2) a $2300 D700 (in size + price,)
3) a $5000 D3s (in DR and almost in 'high iso',)
4) a $7500 D3x (in resolution, low-ISO capability and AF)
5) a pro-level filmmaking tool

It's a very good bargain when you look at it that way.

---

Last edited by jsherman999; 02-20-2012 at 02:46 PM.

[Kunzite]

APS-C dSLRs are going to disappear, replaced by FF dSLRs and APS-C mirrorless. Nobody believed me. Now the D800 shows you how it feels like when it is happening.

No, they aren't and no, the D800 don't show such thing.

[falconeye]

No, they aren't and no, the D800 don't show such thing.

Let's have a look back at Photokina 2018

[Winder]

I keep saying this for the last two years now.

APS-C dSLRs are going to disappear, replaced by FF dSLRs and APS-C mirrorless. Nobody believed me. Now the D800 shows you how it feels like when it is happening.

It will accelerate when Nikon launches their own APS-C mirrorless. Sony may release both, an SLT and SLR full frame. But anyway, they already killed APS-C dSLRs for themselves too.

I think there will be a market for high performance APS-C with OVF. I agree that the K-r line is pretty much destine to be replaced with the K-01. A compact body with a really good OVF, great AF, and high performance sensor has a future. Canon is rumored to be working on a pro-grade APS-C. The sports and wildlife guys love the reach, and while I agree you can take a D800 and use the crop mode you still have a monster body to carry around. If I have to take 2 bodies on a 7 day backpacking trip I would much rather take a K-5s than take D800s. Two K-5 bodies set you back $2,200, while 2 D800s set you back $6,000. The IQ difference for prints is not significant enough for me to justify the cost.

[falconeye]

I think there will be a market for high performance APS-C with OVF. ... If I have to take 2 bodies on a 7 day backpacking trip I would much rather take a K-5s than take D800s.

Of course .. today.
But like 4/3 dSLRs are no smaller than APS-C, APS-C will soon be no smaller than FF (for smallest bodies, because the mount is the same). A professional APS-C will become a K-5/D7000/7D-sized FF body with small pixel pitch (like D800) in crop mode. IMHO. It simply would maximize income for the vendors.

[Winder]

Of course .. today.
But like 4/3 dSLRs are no smaller than APS-C, APS-C will soon be no smaller than FF (for smallest bodies, because the mount is the same). A professional APS-C will become a K-5/D7000/7D-sized FF body with small pixel pitch (like D800) in crop mode. IMHO. It simply would maximize income for the vendors.

Can Pentax develop CDAF that will work as fast as PDAF with the existing screw/SDM drive lenses? Without that ability I don't see EVIL replacing OVF in the upper end of the line. The current AF speed is not even fast enough to satisfy upper end users. They can not afford to slow down.

The only way I see Pentax moving to EVIL across the board is if a new mount is developed with lenses optimized for CDAF and that allow you to upgrade the lens firmware on camera.

[pz1fan]

The sports and wildlife guys love the reach, and while I agree you can take a D800 and use the crop mode you still have a monster body to carry around.

Monster body? Is the K20-D also a monster? Based on the specs, the D800 is no monster.

D800 dimensions: 5.7 x 4.8 x 3.2 in
K-5 dimensions: 5.2 x 3.8 x 2.9 in
K20-D dimensions: 5.6 x 4.0 x 2.8 in

Not that different in size without the battery grip.

[ManuH]

APS-C dSLRs are going to disappear, replaced by FF dSLRs and APS-C mirrorless. Nobody believed me. Now the D800 shows you how it feels like when it is happening.

I don't agree. The D800 still makes FF out of reach for many. I also got the impression that at one point FF would replace APS-C but only when entry-level FF would be sold at less than 2000$. The D800 means that APS-C DSLR still have a few years to live at least. And mirrorless is all nice but there are still technical hurdles (just like digital vs film at the beginning) that makes APS-C DSLR still a better choice *right now*. For the next 2-3 years we may well see the same 3 segments: 400-800$ for mirrorless, 500-1500$ for APS-C DSLR and 2500$+ for FF.

[Edvinas]

Not as sweet, since there is nothing similar from Nikon in terms of focal length, size, or build when compared to the Pentax limiteds. Of course, Nikon has other offerings that are more traditional and just as sweet, like their 35mm 1.4g or 85mm 1.4g, but if you thought the Limiteds were expensive, you'll be in for more sticker shock with Nikon.

Early reports say that their new 85mm f/1.8G is very good performer for it's $500 price tag. And it's weather sealed...

[Winder]

I think Sony has the ability and the need to make a full frame at $1,700.00 price point. The SLT will let them get there. They may not make a dime on that body but they will gain market share and pick up a lot of glass sales. I think Sony is in a position to have an entry level FF and a enthusiast level FF. OVF is not dead for Sony.

[solar1]

Nikon AF-S 85/1.8:

early reports say that their new 85mm f/1.8g is very good performer for it's $500 price tag. And it's weather sealed...

- -

[Chex]

The D800 helps bring FF to an affordable level.. mainly because it helps drop the D700's price to below $2000 for an entry level market... like the 5D Mark II being around the $2000 mark, the 5D Mark III on it's way this fall will most likely retail for $2800-$3300 area as well.. I would be surprised if it did not. I think that if APS-C is going to stay in the enthusiast/prosumer arena it will have to start increasing pixel pitch, but without sacrificing it ISO capabilities of the current Sony sensor in the K-5/D7000 to get there. I think 2012-2013 are going to be pretty interesting in camera developments...

[fast50]

Based on the specs, the D800 is no monster.

D800 dimensions: 5.7 x 4.8 x 3.2 in
K-5 dimensions: 5.2 x 3.8 x 2.9 in

Dimensions can be deceptive.

[Asahiflex]

Dimensions can be deceptive.

This. Please never look at the bare numbers when comparing camera sizes. It's all about relative sizes, not absolute numbers.

[bossa]

Pentax must be nuts not to try a FF in a K5 body. The comparison here clearly shows it would walk out the door. What fools they were to halt production on the FA series and design DA lenses.. they really should have not thrown away all that hard work to start over like that. They only need about 4 FF lenses to get the ball rolling anyway... why not give it a go?

I'd like to know if Ricoh is handing over the GXR to Pentax for a rework so as to become a Pentax camera. That camera could turn out to be the basis for a modular FF Pro system - in my mind anyway. If I have it right then all they need to get the ball rolling is a FF K-mount module. Surely that's not too hard?

PS: They still make FF lenses so what's the problem?

31LTD
77LTD
43LTD
FA50 F/1.4.
That's enough to start with.

Why not call it an LXD or a Pentax LX LTD?