[philbaum]

I must be the only person who likes to take photos at night.
I was out with a friend taking pics, we both had 50mm 1.4 but I have a pentax kr and he has a 5d mark ii. I was amazed at how much more light his camera was taking in. That was the point where I started to ask questions about what I could do differently if I could put my pentax lense on a full frame camera.

Its only about 1 stop of light different. So with a FF, one could shoot at F4 but an aps lens would need to be at F2.8.

But if one is a night landscape shooter, a tripod solves the problem - unless you need to freeze the subject movement.

If you're talking about street shooting at night, then its a definite plus. Except that larger cameras tend to draw more attention to the shooter in some situations. Ah, pros and cons to everything.

[canonguy]

I also think that FF will diminish.....for a couple of reasons.. MP counts are TOO DAMN high already....at above 16MP, you have to cut you picture down to even print it or email it. My understanding is you only need 300ln/in to achieve best printing. With improvements in APS-c sensors - full frame isnt needed because more quality and resolution can be achieved than you could possible take advantage of. In other owrds the capacity of the camera far exceeeds that capacity of any photographer! The requirement for 35mm film (which was too damn small for large prints) doesnt have to be the requirement for new digital sensors. Are you saying that just because we have alot of old lenses and lens designs and an investment in engineeering - we need to make the sensor the same size it was in the 1930's through 1990's??? Really? What this is really about is sales and $$$ - photographers dont need FF, but rather manufacturers need it ot make more profits! Lets instead take advantage of the APS-c for smaller cameras (who WANTS to cary around a HUGE Nikon F-5 or EOS 1v??) with incredible capabilities like th K-5IIs or the K-3

[ElJamoquio]

I just don't personally think that most people wake up in the morning wondering when full frame will be cheap enough to buy it. Yes, there are people for whom that is the driving focus of their life

Uh... I've never heard of a person like that. Who has sensor size as the driving focus of their life?

[ElJamoquio]

I also think that FF will diminish.....for a couple of reasons.. MP counts are TOO DAMN high already....at above 16MP, you have to cut you picture down to even print it or email it. My understanding is you only need 300ln/in to achieve best printing. With improvements in APS-c sensors - full frame isnt needed because more quality and resolution can be achieved than you could possible take advantage of. In other owrds the capacity of the camera far exceeeds that capacity of any photographer! The requirement for 35mm film (which was too damn small for large prints) doesnt have to be the requirement for new digital sensors. Are you saying that just because we have alot of old lenses and lens designs and an investment in engineeering - we need to make the sensor the same size it was in the 1930's through 1990's??? Really? What this is really about is sales and $$$ - photographers dont need FF, but rather manufacturers need it ot make more profits! Lets instead take advantage of the APS-c for smaller cameras (who WANTS to cary around a HUGE Nikon F-5 or EOS 1v??) with incredible capabilities like th K-5IIs or the K-3

My APS-C 'required' kit is more expensive than my FF kit.

Enthusiast-level APS-C cameras (7D, D7100) and Enthusiast-level FF cameras (D610, 6D) are generally the same size.

YMMV.

[Rondec]

Uh... I've never heard of a person like that. Who has sensor size as the driving focus of their life?

/slight exaggeration, as is very common on this section of the forum/

[monochrome]

I'm pretty cheap and pretty weird. I still have and like to use FF manual lenses. In fact I just bought another one yesterday that I've considered for a long time. I don't fit the profile of a modern camera and lens buyer and it is not likely any new camera will be designed for me or people like me, but I was absolutely certain I needed a FF Pentax.

I got a K3. I'm just beginning to dig in to its capabilities. Metering manual lenses seems to be very, very good. The new VF and diopter are good enough that I don't need additional adapters and I can shoot wtih my right eye again, which is a big deal (and on and on for about 25 things that astonish me about the K3). I can see getting a DA* 60~250 and maybe the DA15 Ltd. and stopping right where I am for a long time.

I'm not so sure any more I need FF unless IQ is as good as a D800/e, it costs a few hundred dollars less, is smaller and offers me more or better use of my old lenses. Even that would be a 'want' camera, not a 'need' camera.

I suppose the question is really whether the sum of potential customers who actually need FF, plus those who want and can afford FF but don't really need it - whether that group of people is large enough to support Canon, Nikon, Sony and Pentax - and all the additional lenses Sony and Pentax would need to produce - or would the competition just fragment the market to the point that no one makes any money.

[Rondec]

I'm pretty cheap and pretty weird. I still have and like to use FF manual lenses. In fact I just bought another one yesterday that I've considered for a long time. I don't fit the profile of a modern camera and lens buyer and it is not likely any new camera will be designed for me or people like me, but I was absolutely certain I needed a FF Pentax.

I got a K3. I'm just beginning to dig in to its capabilities. Metering manual lenses seems to be very, very good. The new VF and diopter are good enough that I don't need additional adapters and I can shoot wtih my right eye again, which is a big deal (and on and on for about 25 things that astonish me about the K3). I can see getting a DA* 60~250 and maybe the DA15 Ltd. and stopping right where I am for a long time.

I'm not so sure any more I need FF unless IQ is as good as a D800/e, it costs a few hundred dollars less, is smaller and offers me more or better use of my old lenses. Even that would be a 'want' camera, not a 'need' camera.

I suppose the question is really whether the sum of potential customers who actually need FF, plus those who want and can afford FF but don't really need it - whether that group of people is large enough to support Canon, Nikon, Sony and Pentax - and all the additional lenses Sony and Pentax would need to produce - or would the competition just fragment the market to the point that no one makes any money.

People do ask me to recommend cameras frequently (and want to know what I shoot with, since it takes such good photos). I tend to stay brand neutral. I ask people what sort of photography they are interested in, etc and almost universally recommend something along the line of a Pentax K50, or Nikon D5200/D7000. 500 dollars just buys so much camera these days.

And that isn't even counting the used market. K5s that are in nice condition are selling for 400-ish dollars. It is hard to recommend someone to go out and spend 1500 dollars on gear, particularly if someone isn't particularly interested in learning photography.

[monochrome]

particularly if someone isn't particularly interested in learning photography.

I ask myself all the time if that group includes me.

[Ash]

my D600 kit is lighter than my K-5 kit

Which primes do you carry around? Ltd primes are smallest and lightest in their class. The D600 is both heavier and larger than the K-5 (4.4" vs 3.8" and 850g vs 740g). Sounds like D600 with primes would be considerably heavier. Taking the 85/1.8G, 50/1.4D and 35/1.8G would be at least slightly heavier than the DA 21/40/70, which are very portable.

[ElJamoquio]

Which primes do you carry around? Ltd primes are smallest and lightest in their class. The D600 is both heavier and larger than the K-5 (4.4" vs 3.8" and 850g vs 740g). Sounds like D600 with primes would be considerably heavier. Taking the 85/1.8G, 50/1.4D and 35/1.8G would be at least slightly heavier than the DA 21/40/70, which are very portable.

With the Pentax, I'd usually carry the K-5+15+31+pouch to hold... and let's say the 70mm for sake of argument, or even nothing else, just those two. (In reality I'd usually carry a 70-200, or 100, or 8-16 instead of the 15, though).

With the Nikon, I carry around the D600+24-85. Don't need an extra bag or pouch or anything. I don't have a nikon prime any more. About once a month I try to convince myself I need one for indoors and aquariums and late sunsets and what-not, but in reality I'd be better served with a 14-24 or 70-200 or 120-300. I have a bigger sensor, I just don't need the extra aperture that APS-C needs to fill my requirements. The D600 is bigger, sure, but these days it's on my hip, not in my panniers, so I don't really care.

Pentax's FF will likely be the same size as the K-3, just like the 6D was the same (actually slightly smaller) as the 7D and the D600 was the same (actually slightly larger) than the D7000.

[Ash]

You can bet that if Pentax were to come out with a FF camera it would be the lightest and smallest in its class.
But right now, the Pentax K-5 + Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 (1.18kg) or Sigma 17-70 (1.21kg) would still be lighter to your Nikon D600 + 24-85 (1.32kg), granted not by much, but there you go, and I'm comparing most equivalent lenses together rather than trying to compare primes with zooms.

That kind of added weight (100-200g) wouldn't sway me personally, but bringing a kit of telephoto + UWA lenses starts to add up. The DA 12-24 for example, as bulky as it is, is quite light in comparison to its competition.

[ElJamoquio]

You can bet that if Pentax were to come out with a FF camera it would be the lightest and smallest in its class.
But right now, the Pentax K-5 + Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 (1.18kg) or Sigma 17-70 (1.21kg) would still be lighter to your Nikon D600 + 24-85 (1.32kg), granted not by much, but there you go, and I'm comparing most equivalent lenses together rather than trying to compare primes with zooms.

I appreciate that, but in reality I wasn't all that enamored with any of the zoom lenses on APS-C outside of the 70-200 (a FF lens) and the 8-16. Maybe the 55-300, too.

The reason I do compare the primes to the zooms is that, for me, the zooms weren't getting it done, IQ wise (and sometimes speed-wise), so I went primes. With FF I didn't have to, which was an unexpected development... I just got the 24-85 because it was the same price as body-only, and figured it might come in handy sometimes - I never expected it to become my most-used lens.

Heck I can get a 24-70 F/2.8 that is faster than the 21, 31, 43, etc, put together. Is it more weight? It depends on what you're comparing. For me, what made an 'adequate' kit was lighter on FF than APS-C.

That kind of added weight (100-200g) wouldn't sway me personally, but bringing a kit of telephoto + UWA lenses starts to add up. The DA 12-24 for example, as bulky as it is, is quite light in comparison to its competition.

You will likely be able to use the 12-24 in crop mode if you'd like. It's a slow lens so there's not really a comparable lens on FF. In general, though, where there's a comparison on between both, FF is lighter at the wider to normal to slight telephoto range. Usually the 70-200 f/4 lenses are about the same weight (slightly lighter?) and cheaper than the 50-135 f/2.8 lenses as well, if I recall correctly.

I dunno, I kinda bristle at 'FF is heavier! FF is more expensive!' comments. What are you trying to do? I don't think I'm unique...

[tuco]

You can bet that if Pentax were to come out with a FF camera it would be the lightest and smallest in its class.

I have no doubt about that. However, already the FF Df is lighter than the K3. So perhaps Ricoh would have to utilize more polycarbonates.

[ElJamoquio]

I think that's a different 'class' than the K3/FF would be, personally.

Like Ash, a few grams here and there wouldn't sway me, anyway.

[tuco]

The Df is a DSLR mirror and all with every feature a DSLR has except video.