[tclausen]

The market for a $2,000 full frame that also shoots HD video and takes standard DSLR lenses is 1000x larger than a $7,000 645D that takes $5,000 wide angle lens . BTW the DxOMark for the D600 is 94 vs 82 for the 645D .

No idea who DxOMark is, or why I should care what he thinks on this matter

[Sandy Hancock]

(without having to put up with the limitations of film)
I want my FA31 to be a (kick-arse) wide angle lens.
I want my FA43 to be a (true) normal.
I want my FA77 to be a (shortish) portrait lens.
I want my future 85mm f/1.4 to be what it should be.
I want Canon and Nikon to feel some real pressure.
I would still keep a high end APS-C body for the big-time telephoto stuff.

[top-quark]

Real advantages of a 35mm DSLR:

• Turns lenses that are a "meh" focal length on APS-C (e.g. 20mm, 24mm) into the (ultra) wide-angle lenses that they were designed to be
• Bigger, brighter viewfinder (since the size of the OVF roughly correlates with the sensor size; not always though - an Olympus E-5 has same size viewfinder as a Pentax K-5)
• Typically one stop advantage for low light performance, dynamic range, etc. over an APS-C sensor of the same generation
• Slight to moderate increase in resolution, again only true when considering the same generation
• Typically very high-end bodies so have high-end features unrelated to the sensor size.

Illusionary advantages of a 35mm DSLR:

• More bokeh!

It is true that there are no constant F2.8 ultra-wide zooms for APS-C, while every manufacturer of 35mm DSLRs offers at least one model. However, I think the laws that make this so are economic rather than physical, APS-C users being more cost conscious / weight conscious than their 35mm-toting counterparts. You can, however, get a constant F4 ultrawide for any mount you care to mention and Sigma make a constant F3.5 model for a number of mounts, including K-mount. Besides which, I can't really see the point of constant F2.8 when your use case is more like F8. There is no ultrawide focal length range for a 35mm sensor that does not have an equivalent for a smaller sensor (e.g. Panasonic 7-14mm for mft and Sigma 8-16mm for APS-C).

[jogiba]

No idea who DxOMark is, or why I should care what he thinks on this matter

[jogiba]

(without having to put up with the limitations of film)
I want my FA31 to be a (kick-arse) wide angle lens.
I want my FA43 to be a (true) normal.
I want my FA77 to be a (shortish) portrait lens.
I want my future 85mm f/1.4 to be what it should be.
I want Canon and Nikon to feel some real pressure.
I would still keep a high end APS-C body for the big-time telephoto stuff.

[Sandy Hancock]

I'm not sure whether you're posting that to confirm or refute my comments.
I'll take it as confirmation that there is room for both sensor formats, and Pentax would be well advised to cater for that.

[LaurenOE]

I want a FF for all the technical reasons, obviously, but I am also looking for vindication/fulfillment of a promise made to me in 2000/2001 when I was about to abandon Pentax at the dawn of the DSLR age.

While I had been a Pentax SLR shooter since the 80s, it was during the early 2000s when I could have jumped ship. The promise Pentax made to me, was to stick it out, and I did. I knew that the ONLY reason that we did not get a FF DSLR Pentax back then, was because of Phillips screwing Pentax over with a crappy sensor and cost. The promise finally came from Pentax with the first (technically not, but I digress) Pentax DSLR, the *istD.

The *istD has a FF mirror box and was three years out from the FF announcement. The *istD was going to be FF, but even then, Pentax could not source a FF sensor.

Regardless, I bought the *istD and when comparing it to the last of the Pentax film cameras of the day, I realized that Pentax was back in the game in terms of quality and build.

The *istD was THAT good compared to the Optios and other Pentax offerings at the time. Using the *istD, I knew Pentax was screwed over and bullied, and had to deal with the realities of a few makers of sensors. To this day, Pentax has to deal with the sensor cartel/cabal and the heavy weights in the industry. It annoys me, that to stay competitive, Pentax *has* to produce toys or products that are quirky or niche to avoid crushing themselves to oblivion if they offend Canikony.

I thought things would finally change with the Samsung alliance, but they too screwed Pentax with the K7 sensor. I thought Kodak would ultimately be a sensor-savior to Pentax, but that didn't play out either.

It's not that Pentax doesn't want to give us a FF, it's because others want to keep Pentax down.
Hopefully, when someone can deliver sensors without having Canikony control the source, is when Pentax will rise and win the "game".

So I suppose I signed on, and stayed because I like an underdog, and I am a loyal person and I hate bullies - Canikony.

So when the FF comes - aside from the benefits of the technical - I will rush out and buy one.

[LaurenOE]

Further, if you think about all the upheavals that Pentax has gone through, just to be where Pentax is today, is remarkable for a company to do this. It's extraordinary.

I love a good story and being part of Pentax is one of the best.

[jogiba]

I'm not sure whether you're posting that to confirm or refute my comments.
I'll take it as confirmation that there is room for both sensor formats, and Pentax would be well advised to cater for that.

I agree with you. I want my fast full frame 24mm, 35mm, 50mm and 85mm F1.4 lenses to have their native FF FOV.

[Aristophanes]

It's not that Pentax doesn't want to give us a FF, it's because others want to keep Pentax down.

A bit overwrought, don't you think?

Pentax made errors and had to sell itself as a brand to stay alive as an engineering project.

FF is a problem because small market share = small volume sales. In turn leading to losses because the cost of an FF system will only sell a few thousand units/year for Pentax.

Pentax has made serous mistakes at marketing and management, both before and after Hoya. The Q is one I definitely see. The K-01 while interesting had no market future and took up resources. The lens line-up is a mess with no focus (sic). I mean there is a 31, 3 35,s, 2 40's, 1 43, 3 50's, and a 55mm. Lenses that look to be FF are still labelled DA while the macros still get the DFA label. Some lenses get the * treatment but underperform while the WR aspect is all over the map, but we can get colours galore, but never consistently between model changes. Video is under-served, tethering was there, now it's gone, but now we're in a wired world and it still doesn't show up. And the flash system is obsolete to the point of embarrassment.

It's a brand all over the map, from pricing on. At least the engineering is still sound. Even when the under-sized the Q's sensor they still got the body right for classic photographic use.

So FF will come when they clean house and the price drops to reasonable levels.

[LaurenOE]

A bit overwrought, don't you think?

Pentax made errors and had to sell itself as a brand to stay alive as an engineering project.

FF is a problem because small market share = small volume sales. In turn leading to losses because the cost of an FF system will only sell a few thousand units/year for Pentax.

Pentax has made serous mistakes at marketing and management, both before and after Hoya. The Q is one I definitely see. The K-01 while interesting had no market future and took up resources. The lens line-up is a mess with no focus (sic). I mean there is a 31, 3 35,s, 2 40's, 1 43, 3 50's, and a 55mm. Lenses that look to be FF are still labelled DA while the macros still get the DFA label. Some lenses get the * treatment but underperform while the WR aspect is all over the map, but we can get colours galore, but never consistently between model changes. Video is under-served, tethering was there, now it's gone, but now we're in a wired world and it still doesn't show up. And the flash system is obsolete to the point of embarrassment.

It's a brand all over the map, from pricing on. At least the engineering is still sound. Even when the under-sized the Q's sensor they still got the body right for classic photographic use.

So FF will come when they clean house and the price drops to reasonable levels.

Agree 100%. The Pentax leading up to and around 2000-2001 was overtook with plastic crap and poor marketing/business decisions.

However, the ELE (Extinction Level Event) came when the DSLR sensor game became obvious and stacked against Pentax. You can trace everything back during that time. Because of that ELE, everything else in the Pentax ecosystem was thrown into chaos. The "Sensor Crater" can still be seen, in the fragmented nature of what Pentax sells. Evolution being what it is, we have what we have, as the adaptations of Pentax assured their survival.

What keeps Pentax viable? Their sound engineering is the core of their DNA along with their will to survive in a very hostile environment.

So, I'm with you 100% in terms of cleaning house and fixing things. I've been banned from the Pentax FB page because I am pulling my hair out over their marketing and business decisions.

However, I don't have faith in Pentax marketing, I have knowledge of the DNA of Pentax and THAT keeps me here.

[LaurenOE]

Sometimes I think about the guy or team who had the chutzpah, to say *no* to the MZ-D. At some point in whatever conference room they stood and floated career-ending decisions. Who ever it was, they cared about Pentax - and us.

Over at Contax, they didn't have the same level of integrity, and took the company down as they went ahead with the Phillips sensor.

So for the OP of this thread, yes, you can debate the technical merits of FF, but what I offer is some of the emotional context of your "Holy Grail" religious metaphor for those of us who do not know what religious metaphors are about.

I do not seek a "Holy Grail". I see something Darwinian in how Pentax survives and what holding a Pentax FF in my hands will mean.

Science, Engineering and natural selection will bring us the FF from Pentax.

[Class A]

Lots of incorrect statements again...

Here's a good discussion of the topic: LumoLabs -- True reasons for Full Frame -- Whitepaper

[RonHendriks1966]

I would want one because I have a full range off FF lenses to work with from 31 up to 300mm.

[johnmflores]

(without having to put up with the limitations of film)
I want my FA31 to be a (kick-arse) wide angle lens.
I want my FA43 to be a (true) normal.
I want my FA77 to be a (shortish) portrait lens.
I want my future 85mm f/1.4 to be what it should be.
I want Canon and Nikon to feel some real pressure.
I would still keep a high end APS-C body for the big-time telephoto stuff.

I would LOVE to shoot my FA31, FA43, M50/1.7 and Super Takumar 50/1.4 at their original focal lengths. Do I NEED to? But it would be great to have the option.