[stevebrot]

I look at jsherman's shots, and I think, if I took that type of picture, I'd want that camera.

Of course, we all know that Jay has the reputation of delivering incredible results with a wide assortment of gear.

Steve

[ElJamoquio]

Don't diss IR. I guess you have never really looked at how IR do their tests. They focus bracket manually until they get the sharpest result from their test bench.

I never found their test procedure. I will continue to 'diss' IR as long as they have results that don't match up to the rest of the world.

[rawr]

I never found their test procedure. I will continue to 'diss' IR as long as they have results that don't match up to the rest of the world.

OK I found some more info on how they test.
They discuss most of their test procedures here, inc resolution tests:
Imaging Resource Digital Camera Test Methods

and here:
Digital Tips - The Imaging Resource Finding the Right Digital Camera Article

I think a relevant excerpt is:

"At its most extreme, you can use the ISO 12233 target to extract a full "spatial frequency response" (SFR) curve for a camera/sensor system. While this is absolutely the most accurate and comprehensive test of a camera's resolution performance, it's also by FAR the most time-consuming: Computing the SFR requires capturing 9 separate images of another, gray-scale target, measuring and averaging the gray-scale tonal response of the camera, then using that information to modify the tonal balance of the resolution target itself. Finally, a Photoshop plug-in can be used to extract the SFR data, which in turn can be loaded into a spreadsheet program for graphing and display. We figure this would take us at least another 2-4 hours per camera to execute, and just don't have the time to devote to it.

Fortunately, your own eyeballs can tell you quite a bit about how well a camera does with this target, just by looking at the output. The number values next to the resolution wedges refer to resolution in units of line pairs per picture height. This is an excellent, consistent measure of camera resolution, but the term undoubtedly requires a little explanation for the uninitiated.

The dilemma for the standards-makers was to define a resolution measurement that would apply equally well to cameras with a variety of sensor sizes and different height-to-width ratios. The goal was to express resolution relative to the total image area, not pixels, since the number of pixels involved could change significantly from camera to camera. Rather than expressing resolution as a number of pixels, the standards committee decided to measure resolution in terms of the number of pairs of black/white lines across the image area that the camera could distinguish. To avoid confusion with cameras having different width/height ratios, the "fineness" of the line pairs was expressed in terms of how many of them would fit across the picture from top to bottom. Thus, the term "line pairs per picture height," or "lp/ph." (Note though, that the reference to picture height only refers to the size of the lines, not to the direction the measurement is being made in. That is, even when resolution is being measured along the long axis of the camera's frame, the results are still expressed in lp/ph.) When the target is properly framed in the image, the numbers adjacent to the resolution elements indicate the pattern "pitch" in hundreds of line pairs per picture height. (That is, "5" on the target means 500 lp/ph.)

Confused? Look at the adjacent (to the right and below) resolution target clips: Both show the same resolution, the one on the right showing how well the camera does in the horizontal direction, while the one below shows the results in the vertical direction. (Note that we're concerned with how many lines the camera can resolve across the pattern. As a result, the "tall" pattern shows resolution in the horizontal direction, and the "wide" one in the vertical direction.)"

tl;dr - they just look at the images on their ISO 12233 test target and visually read the resolution off the resolution target clip indicators.

[Macario]

When I need a new camera, and it is available and I can afford it, then yes.
To buy it just because it is FF and pentax finally released it, no.

[phoenixvision]

For me Pentax full frame is the holy grail of digital. I am devoted to my k5. It has proven itself time and again to be top of its class......

[FlickPhotos]

I did not vote, but I would get one. I have a K-5 and am holding out for a FF Pentax.

[Phii Mii]

Earlier I said that I wouldn't because the K-5 has all I need but there is one thing that would make me consider buying a Pentax FF and that is focus peaking.

[jpzk]

Seems that the poll is now closed .... I hadn't time to vote but my answer would be "No", I wouldn't buy a "full frame" camera.

Just one thought though:

REALLY now .... how many among the hundreds of "I want a full frame" posters on this forum will ACTUALLY buy a "full frame" if it ever materializes?

My guess is that only a very small percentage would actually follow up on their talks.
So, how many will "walk their talk" ?

JP

[Parallax]

Seems that the poll is now closed .... I hadn't time to vote but my answer would be "No", I wouldn't buy a "full frame" camera.

Just one thought though:

REALLY now .... how many among the hundreds of "I want a full frame" posters on this forum will ACTUALLY buy a "full frame" if it ever materializes?

My guess is that only a very small percentage would actually follow up on their talks.
So, how many will "walk their talk" ?

JP

I suspect you're right, and of the few who do, only a very small percentage would actually see a difference.
If your needs require the capability of DOF so shallow that if you focus on a freckle the skin it's on is out of focus, then you certainly need an f1.2 lens and a 24x36 sensor. Otherwise, contrary to the opinions of FF proponents, it is possible to take fairly decent photos with an APS-c camera. (Or so I've heard)

[cali92rs]

I wouldve bought one before my wife became pregnant. ..funny how that shrinks your camera budget

[Pål Jensen]

I would consider a 36mp Pentax FF if I cannot afford a 645DII. Preferably I want a 24mp APS camera, a new FF 645D body (already have four 645 lenses) and a Q7. FF falls between chairs.....

[jpzk]

I suspect you're right, and of the few who do, only a very small percentage would actually see a difference.
If your needs require the capability of DOF so shallow that if you focus on a freckle the skin it's on is out of focus, then you certainly need an f1.2 lens and a 24x36 sensor. Otherwise, contrary to the opinions of FF proponents, it is possible to take fairly decent photos with an APS-c camera. (Or so I've heard)

It would/will be very interesting to find out how many "I wanna a full frame" sayers here on PF will buy one, once (and "if") Pentax produces such a camera.
My guess: less than 50.

Whether the full frame buyers will notice a real difference in their photography ... I have no idea.

I am quite happy with the APS-C format.

JP

[Tesla]

It would/will be very interesting to find out how many "I wanna a full frame" sayers here on PF will buy one, once (and "if") Pentax produces such a camera.
My guess: less than 50.

Whether the full frame buyers will notice a real difference in their photography ... I have no idea.

I am quite happy with the APS-C format.

JP

I'm sure the price will be a factor.

[Ash]

I'm keen on a FF camera, personally, but I'm not waiting with bated breath over it.
Mainly it would be for my more professional jobs rather than my candid photography.
The K-5 IIs is more camera than I'd hoped for in an APS-C.
The desire for more resolution in professional applications is where I would find virtue in a 36Mp 24x36 format.
Essentially like having the K-5 IIs with wider viewing and no loss of IQ.

Having said that, and even though I am very likely to purchase a FF camera that has specifications that eclipses the K-5 IIs, what I have right now in the K-5 IIs and K-r serves me very very well, even for the professional applications. There are very few times I have found that despite the best of my abilities, the image resolution wasn't as much as I'd have liked.

I do figure that there would be a few in a similar boat here, and many outside the forum, and more still who would find themselves investing in a FF camera without the need to (i.e. amateur photographers happy to spend that kind of money on a tool that gives them considerable joy in the vocation of photography).

[robgo2]

Not long ago, I was on the "APS-C is good enough" side of this discussion, but having acquired a Sony RX1, I now see the tremendous IQ advantages of a larger sensor. (Of course the RX1's utterly superb 35mm Zeiss lens has something to do with it.) However, if Pentax does enter the FF market, I want it to be with a compact camera roughly the size of the K-5 and hopefully, with in-body SR. That is a camera that I would strongly consider buying. I think that my FA Limiteds would like it.

Rob