[Ash]

I've tried one from each of the FF players. Don't like to own any of them personally. The joy of photography just isn't as pleasurable shooting with the current FF offerings. That's just me personally. The D800 is as good as it gets, but its weight is on the high side (not a big deal to me) and UI less friendly (more important to me) making it an awesome camera with nuances photographers accept to get the results it can give.

What we can do with the K-5 (and soon the K-3), we don't have an absolute pressing need for a hurried FF model from Pentax. It may as well be an impressive FF offering that gives people something to rave about and Pentax a highly marketable product.

[pentee]

If Pentax put out a full frame camera tomorrow, do you think you'd want one?

I know I would.

[aleonx3]

I've tried one from each of the FF players. Don't like to own any of them personally. The joy of photography just isn't as pleasurable shooting with the current FF offerings. That's just me personally. The D800 is as good as it gets, but its weight is on the high side (not a big deal to me) and UI less friendly (more important to me) making it an awesome camera with nuances photographers accept to get the results it can give.

What we can do with the K-5 (and soon the K-3), we don't have an absolute pressing need for a hurried FF model from Pentax. It may as well be an impressive FF offering that gives people something to rave about and Pentax a highly marketable product.

I would rather wait for Pentax FF than having one of the competitors mainly because between UI, build quality and ergonomics. Also, I rather have a Pentax FF which will be at least close to the AF speed as competitors (some may say it will never be on par). So, I am not in a rush to get one. My K-5 is serving me fine for now and my next camera may be the K-3 APS-C....

[RKKS08]

If Pentax put out a full frame camera tomorrow, do you think you'd want one?

Want: Of course. Of all my lenses, only the WR kit is APS-C only
Buy: No (maybe if and when prices for used ones drop below $1000, and I'm still around)

[aleonx3]

If Pentax put out a full frame camera tomorrow, do you think you'd want one?

I know I would.

No, because I would like you to test drive it first so they can clear any bugs.

[Digitalis]

I've tried one from each of the FF players.

Including Leica? sure the price is high, and the lenses aren't cheap either... but I actually enjoy using my M9 more than my D800 or D4 or my Cannon 1D cameras because the M9 is extremely compact considering the camera design for Leica camera bodies hasn't changed much since 1956.

[monochrome]

Some of the people dismissing FF and its market share remind of Nokia before the smart phone revolution.

I'll buy the analogy the day you can get some service provider to suibsidize the cost of my FF camera if I sign a 2-yrear contract.

[ElJamoquio]

ElJamoquio, still, most people won't pay that much (that was second hand, right?)

No, that was a new D600. $1996 or something like that with 24-85 f/3.5-4.5, pretty useless case and OK-ish memory card.

Used it today. The 24-85 with the D600 knocks the pants off of the K-5 and 16-50 IMO in terms of IQ.

As others have mentioned the user interface of the D600 is still painful to use. I still take my K-5 out when I want to take pictures for my enjoyment rather than ultimate IQ.

[Fontan]

645D is strong, but big, clumsy, slow, like giant Ajax, too expensive to feed, can wield only one weapon, his mace (or 55mm lens on 645D was the only one available for years) and it didn't achieve that level of inspiration in such an extent an FF camera (far more versatile Achilles) would do.

Just curious but do you own a 645d?

[Cynog Ap Brychan]

The 24-85 with the D600 knocks the pants off of the K-5 and 16-50 IMO in terms of IQ.

Interestingly, Amateur Photographer magazine recently did a comparison of the D600 with the K-5 IIs and the Fujifilm X-Pro-1. This is what they said: "However, consideration should be given as to whether the extra expense of switching to full frame is worth it given that the two cameras without anti-aliasing filters offer a performance that is not too far from that of the D600."

At the sizes I usually print or reproduce on screen, my D800 does not "knock the pants off" my K-5, though it does, of course, give me better resolution.

[Digitalis]

my D800 does not "knock the pants off" my K-5, though it does, of course, give me better resolution.

I came to the same conclusion - if you are using decent lenses there isn't all that much gained by the comparing D600 against the K5IIs - though the D800E does hold a resolution advantage over the K5IIs you have to pay big bucks to get the most out of that sensor. I have compared the D800 to the 645D and Leica S2, the 645D and S2 held a distinct advantage over the D800E to my eyes - because the lenses are typically better - especially the Leica lenses.

645D is strong, but big, clumsy, slow, like giant Ajax, too expensive to feed, can wield only one weapon, his mace (or 55mm lens on 645D was the only one available for years) and it didn't achieve that level of inspiration in such an extent an FF camera (far more versatile Achilles) would do.

There are other lenses available for the Pentax 645D, I have quite a few of them including the DFA55 f/2.8 and the DFA25mm f/4 ASPH - not to mention a heap of legacy glass. I don't consider the 645D big or clumsy, actually I consider it to be extremely well designed. The fact that you think the 645D as Big, slow and clumsy with limited lens choices speaks volumes of your own experience (lack thereof) with the camera and the Pentax 645 system as a whole.

I think using characters from the Iliad as an analogy for camera formats is a poor choice.

[Raffwal]

Until last year I was really waiting and hoping for a FF Pentax. Month after month, year after year ... nothing. Meanwhile camera technology has advanced so much that I ended up going m43 and my OM-D is good enough for my use. I have to say that nowadays I read the eternal FF Pentax threads for comedy value only - and they never disappoint me. Half of the posters see it coming just behind the corner, year after year. The other half finds all kinds of reasons why it is not needed or would be in fact bad.

Keep it up, guys!

[mecrox]

C'mon, bringing Homer into the discussion is a lot more enjoyable than the course of most threads on the internet which have brought in the Nazis by reply #33.

I don't have a view on FF since the size and weight are not for me. I'm more interested in seeing sophisticated in-cam electronics and ingenious sensors arrive so that all the tricks and more currently available on high-end compacts and the Nikon 1 series, e.g., are incorporated into cams with an APS-C (or poss m43) sensor which can deliver even more than now. Pack all of that into something the size and shape of a Fuji X series or similar at most, and I'm done. In fact, I'd say 19 out of every 20 camera-users would be. What's becoming clear at the moment anyway is that there's no particularly "cheap" solution with FF. If you want something markedly better than the best of APS-C (which I would) then you need to spend $$$ on buying a camera with a superior sensor and more $$$ on superior lenses to go with it. For landscape and studio folks who can afford it, sure - probably a no-brainer. But otherwise ... hmmn, I'm OK walking into a rough scene for some street action with $500 or $1000 in my hands and still small enough to stick under a jacket but not $5000' worth of hulking beast thanks.

[Kunzite]

Did you forget about Sony? Obviously, not everyone has $2,000.00 for a full frame camera, but there should be one in the stable. Not having one is a loosing strategy. Try one of the other manufacturer's FF. I guarantee you'll want one.
It's a whole other world!

What about them? They had a digital FF from 2008. By the way, their first two FF models weren't really winners.
I agree that Pentax should make a K-mount FF DSLR, if/when possible; but not necessarily a $2000 one (maybe they should target higher-end than D600).
Do you honestly believe I haven't tried FF cameras? It's irrelevant, anyway, as I was only countering your false claim, that FF is mainstream.

FF is not about being competitive alone — it is an excuse that I'm personally being bored to death hearing over and over again.

FF development is all about keeping your own user base more homogenous and more inspired. It's something like a Trojan war, with Greeks having Achilles among them. Smart man Odysseus pursued and insisted to have him fighting, because he knew that Achilles alone will wage the war for them — not because all Greeks (APS-C cameras) are lame fighters, but because they needed a morale boost from someone they considered half-god and a role-model, someone of their own blood. Someone they believed more than their own king (K-mount).

645D is strong, but big, clumsy, slow, like giant Ajax, too expensive to feed, can wield only one weapon, his mace (or 55mm lens on 645D was the only one available for years) and it didn't achieve that level of inspiration in such an extent an FF camera (far more versatile Achilles) would do.

This comparison between Trojan war and Pentax situation is almost scarily analogous.

What's your point, that Pentax could afford to not be competitive? Please rethink.

An appeal to emotion can't persuade me, for two reasons:
1. It's a logical fallacy, thus rejected
2. I'm not arguing against a Pentax FF

It's amazing how people even today are arguing against a success story (i.e. the 645D). Could it be another emotional factor, like "Pentax dared not to make precisely what I wanted"? FFS, Pentax have a competitive advantage in the DMF market; they are able to push it forward by themselves (making it relatively more affordable, the recent inclusion of stabilization - and they won't stop here). In the mean time, e.g. Hasselblad is busy launching disguised NEX-7s.
DMF is a dream market for Pentax (as well as a traditional one).

Some of the people dismissing FF and its market share

That FF still is single digit is, AFAIK, a fact. I'm guilty of dismissing imagination and replace it with facts, all right.
By the way, FF didn't get cheaper from 2009 (A850, $2000 MSRP). Oops, I did it again

[Ash]

Including Leica? sure the price is high, and the lenses aren't cheap either... but I actually enjoy using my M9 more than my D800 or D4 or my Cannon 1D cameras because the M9 is extremely compact considering the camera design for Leica camera bodies hasn't changed much since 1956.

I neglected to include Leica in my list of FF toying around, unintentionally. It is a niche camera that I hadn't even tried in my hands but would be interested to do so if I can find one in the shops I visit. I wouldn't be buying one though.