[Rondec]

fwiw

It is my opinion that many DSLR users probably don’t need the level of equipment being produced today. That is not going to stop manufacturers from improving their products and people buying the latest and greatest equipment. We all benefit from this cycle. We all have different needs, desires, skill levels, dedication and monies to spend. I did not need FF, but went that route when the upgrade choices were between a K-5II and a D600. Below is the cost of my investment and suits my needs perfectly for a hobbyist. If/when I feel the need to improve my lens selection, it will be done. Landscape and macro are my preferences and while the 14-24 2.8 is on my desires list, I can’t justify it even though the money is in the bank. To each his own.

D600 $2103.99
Nikon 20mm F/2.8D $557.00
Nikon 35mm F/2D $225.00*
Nikon 50mm F/1.8D $124.95
Nikon 85mm F/1.8G $496.95
Nikon 105 f/2.8D $425.00*
Tamron 70-300mm F/4-5.6 $349.00
Metz ME50AF1N $208.75
------------------------------------------------
total $4365.69

*used

The problem is that even when Pentax makes a full frame camera, they will not have prices that match the ones you quoted. So unless someone owns a bunch of full frame primes/zooms, their out lay to get into a Pentax system is going to run a thousand more than what you spent.

[ElJamoquio]

Pentax K-1: $2500
Pentax 20mm F/2.8: $670 used
Pentax 31mm F/1.8: $1300
Pentax 50mm F/1.8: $247
Pentax 77mm f/1.8: $1050
Pentax 100mm F/2.8: $847
Tamron 70-300 F/4-5.6: 349
Metz: 208.75


Total 7,175.75

[jsherman999]

Pentax K-1: $2500
Pentax 20mm F/2.8: $670 used
Pentax 31mm F/1.8: $1300
Pentax 50mm F/1.8: $247
Pentax 77mm f/1.8: $1050
Pentax 100mm F/2.8: $847
Tamron 70-300 F/4-5.6: 349
Metz: 208.75


Total 7,175.75

You could probably pare that down a little bit:

FA 35 f/2 $400 (used) vs 31ltd ($1300 new)

The FA 35 f2 is more of a match for the Nikon 35 f2 than the 31ltd.

.

[Rondec]

You could probably pare that down a little bit:

FA 35 f/2 $400 (used) vs 31ltd ($1300 new)

The FA 35 f2 is more of a match for the Nikon 35 f2 than the 31ltd.

.

You could save too, by going with a used 100 macro or, a Tamron 90, but honestly, Pentax full frame is not going to be a discount special/cheap way to go.

[Kunzite]

honestly, Pentax full frame is not going to be a discount special/cheap way to go.

Indeed it won't. If they'll make it (which I believe is likely, but not in the near future) they'll ask full price instead of making it a bargain.
That's fine for me. High quality doesn't cope well with being cheap...

[pinholecam]

You guys just like to see the negative side of it.
The maths should be :

Pentax K-1: $2500
Sigma 12-24mm F/4.5-5.6: $699
All other lenses = 'free'

Total : $3119

The rest of the lenses any self respecting FF complainer here on PF will already have a few (if not a chest of them) and their costs catered for or long written off, esp since those lenses have been taking photos for the owner since Day1. (or did the owners get them so that they can sit on them and complain that Pentax has no FF for their lenses)

Only a FF UWA is needed and the Sigma fits the bill.
Quite a few (and probably many more) of the lenses will be ok for FF too (I've tried a few on the 5D).

[Kunzite]

I actually plan to slowly buy new, high quality lenses; that would be a positive. I don't care about cheap Sigma lenses
But then, I'm not a "FF complainer" - I would just like the better viewfinder.

[Digitalis]

you do have to take into account that millions of pentax and other K mount manufacturers lenses are designed to be used on 36X24mm format.

[Rondec]

You guys just like to see the negative side of it.
The maths should be :

Pentax K-1: $2500
Sigma 12-24mm F/4.5-5.6: $699
All other lenses = 'free'

Total : $3119

The rest of the lenses any self respecting FF complainer here on PF will already have a few (if not a chest of them) and their costs catered for or long written off, esp since those lenses have been taking photos for the owner since Day1. (or did the owners get them so that they can sit on them and complain that Pentax has no FF for their lenses)

Only a FF UWA is needed and the Sigma fits the bill.
Quite a few (and probably many more) of the lenses will be ok for FF too (I've tried a few on the 5D).

I guess, but if I get a full frame camera (I probably would). I am going to want a 24-70-ish f2.8 and a 70-200 f2.8 zooms to go with it. The way Ricoh is pricing things now, those two lenses will set me back about 4 grand.

I do own a bunch of full frame compatible primes (FA 31, FA 77, DA *55, DFA 100, DA *200), but the zooms are where the big cost is and will be to go full frame. Not trying to be negative, just honest.

[pinholecam]

I guess, but if I get a full frame camera (I probably would). I am going to want a 24-70-ish f2.8 and a 70-200 f2.8 zooms to go with it. The way Ricoh is pricing things now, those two lenses will set me back about 4 grand.

I do own a bunch of full frame compatible primes (FA 31, FA 77, DA *55, DFA 100, DA *200), but the zooms are where the big cost is and will be to go full frame. Not trying to be negative, just honest.

Indeed (agree with the costs of new+fast OEM zooms).
And that's the case for Canikon too.
Furthermore, those fast zooms are massive sledgehammers in size/weight.
I had the chance to try out the D700 and D600 with 14-24/2.8 a while back.
The size/weight really beat down my enthusiasm.
(do note that this is all in my context or a small build (but fit) foot travelling shooter; totally different from one who can hop on and off a SUV from point A to B)


Like it is even for aps-c now, its probably wise to mix and match the best of what OEM and 3rd party (and even legacy) can offer in terms of price/performance.
A FF camera will not be cheap.
I think we are bluffing ourselves if we think it will be.
If we can leverage on our existing lenses, that is best and keeps costs down.
Thats one of the point of holding on to those lenses in the first place.

[DanWeso]

I guess, but if I get a full frame camera (I probably would). I am going to want a 24-70-ish f2.8 and a 70-200 f2.8 zooms to go with it. The way Ricoh is pricing things now, those two lenses will set me back about 4 grand.

I do own a bunch of full frame compatible primes (FA 31, FA 77, DA *55, DFA 100, DA *200), but the zooms are where the big cost is and will be to go full frame. Not trying to be negative, just honest.

You are right that the fast zooms is where the costs are. Had fast zooms been a requirement, I don’t think I would have made the switch.

[marcelezaaa]

There are some very interesting posts on this thread, that somehow show why Pentax FF is not real (yet).
But I really think a Pentax FF would be a great thing for Pentax, even with a relatively samall volume sales, as mentioned before.
There would be a chain of events that would end up helping every one down the line. Most professional photographers use Canon or Nikon (when not medium-format) because of theirs Full-frame Sensors, although Pentax shows clearly that can compete at the same level (if not better) of Canikon(y). If there was more professional photographers using Pentax, there would be a stronger pressure for other products and accessories that are now only compatible with Canikon. I believe the Flash system would be also better. More people, seeing that professionals use Pentax, would also by Pentax. Again, more money for Pentax, more development, more nice cameras and lenses for all of us.
Besides that, (and there is where I find myself right now) knowing that there is a FF option, in case a amateur would later like to go further with photography, would help to decide for Pentax in the first place.

I, for exemplo, have to decide if I stay with Pentax or move to Nikon (before I buy more lenses, and flashes) and I staying with Pentax hoping that a full-frame is coming soon...

anyway... I think a Pentax FF would be great even for those who will not buy it...
(this is my first post, i hope I am not doing anything wrong...)

[Imcalfin]

Most professional photographers use Canon or Nikon (when not medium-format) because of theirs Full-frame Sensors*snip*

The vastly larger ecosystem based around Canon and Nikon products is probably the biggest reason for their current dominance. Professional level service arrangements, better availability of rental/loaner equipment and exotic optics should you need them are powerful incentives to go with the major brands.

Canon and Nikon do also make some rather nice camera equipment.

[ElJamoquio]

The vastly larger ecosystem based around Canon and Nikon products is probably the biggest reason for their current dominance.

You need both flour and sugar to bake a cake.


You need both professional-level support and professional-level equipment to have a significant presence in the professional market.

[normhead]

I think you 'get' equivalence very well, Norm, you just seem to get very agitated when its described in a precise way and when it can be used to give examples of occasions where it doesn't favor your current format. You should get over that.

.

What I get annoyed at is people thinking they can demonstrate "equivalence" with a bunch of numbers. As I always say, show us a few pictures, everyone will figure it out. If you can't show a couple of comparative pictures to make your point, maybe you don't have a point. I've yet to see a decent set of comparative images that where someone took the best image they could using a specific system, demonstrating that what can be done on FF can't be done on APS-c. There are a number of images you've posted that I know are FF images that couldn't have been done on APS-c... so I'm not saying it can't be done. But, if you're going to try and make the case, it needs to be explained visually. Most people have no idea what the numbers mean. That what rots my socks.