[justinr]

Whatever happened to flash photography?... two good flashes are the reason I am not selling my K20D just yet. ISO 400 is my top ISO usually...

FOV is the reason I'd want FF, but now that I'm into film photography, I've got FF

Inverse square law is the answer to that one. A flash may light the subject but kill the background or other features you may want to retain, such as a candle flame in the foreground.

[justinr]

?? I don't know what you are doing, but ISO 3200 usually looks pretty good to me on the K-5. Even printed A4. Obviously not viewed 100% on the monitor though, but any other usage can give good results.

I'd agree, although there will be a bit of noise visible in the darker regions, the K5 was very good at this sort of thing but others have caught up.

[Ed n Georgia]

I personally believe that Pentax will never add a FF body to their line up.

why?

Every lens that Pentax has introduced over the last 8 years has been optimized for APS-C sensors. As such, Pentax(Ricoh) would have to introduce a full line of Lens capable of being used on FF Bodies. Yes, those great old lens everyone has laying around will work just fine, but not everyone owns them.

Pentax can just "re-introduce" those lens and start construction again as the glass in the elements has been outlawed in Europe. So, Pentax(Ricoh) would have to drop a huge bundle into re-developement of lens to work with a FF Body.

I just don't see that happening.

[justinr]

I personally believe that Pentax will never add a FF body to their line up.

why?

Every lens that Pentax has introduced over the last 8 years has been optimized for APS-C sensors. As such, Pentax(Ricoh) would have to introduce a full line of Lens capable of being used on FF Bodies. Yes, those great old lens everyone has laying around will work just fine, but not everyone owns them.

Pentax can just "re-introduce" those lens and start construction again as the glass in the elements has been outlawed in Europe. So, Pentax(Ricoh) would have to drop a huge bundle into re-developement of lens to work with a FF Body.

I just don't see that happening.

Would you say the lens situation is why Pentax haven't brought out FF? I can well imagine they might have the camera all ready for production but its gathering dust on a shelf somewhere because the investment in lens development is simply too big a step to take.

[ElJamoquio]

I personally believe that Pentax will never add a FF body to their line up.

why?

Every lens that Pentax has introduced over the last 8 years has been optimized for APS-C sensors. As such, Pentax(Ricoh) would have to introduce a full line of Lens capable of being used on FF Bodies. Yes, those great old lens everyone has laying around will work just fine, but not everyone owns them.

Pentax can just "re-introduce" those lens and start construction again as the glass in the elements has been outlawed in Europe. So, Pentax(Ricoh) would have to drop a huge bundle into re-developement of lens to work with a FF Body.

I just don't see that happening.

'Optimized'

Pentax has plenty of FF capable lenses, around ten or so. Still more than the Q has.

I dunno, I still think the 'old' tech 31mm, 100mm, etc, are pretty good lenses that don't really need re-development.

[wigelII]

I respect your opinion but disagree. I think ISo3200 looks noticeably inferior to lower ISO's, for instance, in how vivid colors are and how sharp the image is (or how noise free it is, if you don't take out the noise), on 8x12 (about A4).

Right now I like printing at 10x15 (A3ish) or 12x18, and I'm not going to try that at ISO3200, or even ISO1600. It's OK at ISO400.

I was sorting pictures last year - admittedly pixel peeping a bit (but for a big print, 24x36) - and I couldn't figure out why half the pics were good and half were noticeably inferior.

The ISO100 pics were good, the ISO200 weren't.

I (often) print pictures taken with my K5 at iso 3200 (after post processing in Capture One) at A2 format (16.5 x 23.4 in) on baryta paper for expositions. Never got any remarks or complaints.

[Rondec]

ISO3200 is indeed crappy IQ.

Unfortunately, at 100mm, the fastest lens I have is 2.8.

At FF, 155mm, the fastest lens I have is 2.8.

As DOF was fine either way I'd have shot the FF at F/2.8 and ISO3200. ISO3200 on a FF sensor is approx. the same as ISO1300 or so on an APS-C. ISO1600 is not perfect of course but is OK for small prints IMO. ISO3200 is only good for the web in my view.

Why were you shooting with such long lenses? When I shoot at aquariums (or is it aquaria?), I use lenses between 30 and 70mm and there are plenty of fast options from Sigma and Pentax in those ranges..

[bossa]

I personally believe that Pentax will never add a FF body to their line up.

why?

Every lens that Pentax has introduced over the last 8 years has been optimized for APS-C sensors. As such, Pentax(Ricoh) would have to introduce a full line of Lens capable of being used on FF Bodies. Yes, those great old lens everyone has laying around will work just fine, but not everyone owns them.

Pentax can just "re-introduce" those lens and start construction again as the glass in the elements has been outlawed in Europe. So, Pentax(Ricoh) would have to drop a huge bundle into re-developement of lens to work with a FF Body.

I just don't see that happening.

I have a sneaking suspicion that Pentax will release a FF body within months and offer it as a collectable with a three lens limited set.

[Barry Pearson]

Every lens that Pentax has introduced over the last 8 years has been optimized for APS-C sensors. As such, Pentax(Ricoh) would have to introduce a full line of Lens capable of being used on FF Bodies. Yes, those great old lens everyone has laying around will work just fine, but not everyone owns them.

Pentax can just "re-introduce" those lens and start construction again as the glass in the elements has been outlawed in Europe. So, Pentax(Ricoh) would have to drop a huge bundle into re-developement of lens to work with a FF Body.

There are some more recent Pentax lenses suitable for FF - don't be mislead by the "DA" or "DA*" identity. See this analysis.

But, yes, there are several FF zooms that would be needed. There won't be mass sales of an FF camera based on short to medium primes (whether old or new), nor based on what other lens makers offer. Ricoh/Pentax needs its own FF lenses.

[mythguy9]

Pentax has plenty of FF capable lenses

...and legacy lenses from the 35mm era, if some of you don't mind manual functions (I certainly don't, though acknowledging lack of modern coating etc. that certainly could use some updating).

Just curious: if Pentax releases FF and then encourage third-party lens makers to produce K-mount FF lenses, would it be bad for company image/business? There are already Sigma and Tamron FF lenses, don't think making a K-mount counterpart without optical stabiliser would be difficult....

[Rondec]

...and legacy lenses from the 35mm era, if some of you don't mind manual functions (I certainly don't, though acknowledging lack of modern coating etc. that certainly could use some updating).

Just curious: if Pentax releases FF and then encourage third-party lens makers to produce K-mount FF lenses, would it be bad for company image/business? There are already Sigma and Tamron FF lenses, don't think making a K-mount counterpart without optical stabiliser would be difficult....

I think most camera companies make more money on glass, than on the camera bodies. If Pentax would make full frame, they would release it with a minimum of four lenses -- kit lens, 24-70 f2.8, 70-200 f2.8 and full frame 70-300 variable aperture telephoto. That's not impossible by any means and Pentax has a good library of lenses to delve into to produce modern lenses for such a camera, but they certainly aren't going to build a camera and tell people: "Just look for deals on old lenses or Sigma lenses while we figure out what lenses we will build."

[mythguy9]

I think most camera companies make more money on glass, than on the camera bodies. If Pentax would make full frame, they would release it with a minimum of four lenses -- kit lens, 24-70 f2.8, 70-200 f2.8 and full frame 70-300 variable aperture telephoto. That's not impossible by any means and Pentax has a good library of lenses to delve into to produce modern lenses for such a camera, but they certainly aren't going to build a camera and tell people: "Just look for deals on old lenses or Sigma lenses while we figure out what lenses we will build."

but they certainly aren't going to build a camera and tell people: "Just look for deals on old lenses or Sigma lenses while we figure out what lenses we will build."

You're right. People like me who are hanging onto old glasses have slightly different reason to wait for FF, that is to use our lenses at the original focal length, not very much into the "advantages of FF" debate.

Another slightly crazy idea, is that Pentax will make a FF sensor digital back for our old Pentax bodies like the K1000, but that is another story...

I will not get tired of waiting for a FF, since I'm occupied with the current experience with my K5 coupled with old lenses which is fun and motivating.

[jogiba]

Another slightly crazy idea, is that Pentax will make a FF sensor digital back for our old Pentax bodies like the K1000, but that is another story...

A $2,000 FF back for a $50 camera, right. BTW there is a $1,700 FF back for PK mount lenses coming out in 48 hours.

[rawr]

for PK mount lenses

...only with adapters.
With some limitations, of course - like no AF, and no auto aperture. And the image quality issues that come with adapters too ...

So it's still a long way from a proper Pentax FF solution.

[jogiba]

...only with adapters.
With some limitations, of course - like no AF, and no auto aperture. And the image quality issues that come with adapters too ...

So it's still a long way from a proper Pentax FF solution.

That is with adapters having .7x focal reducer for APS-C NEX cameras not full frame sensor E mount cameras that have great image quality with no image quality issues using full frame DSLR lenses with DSLR- E mount adapters.