[ElJamoquio]

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

No argument here.

[Ash]

I personally don't need speed for UWA FLs. f/4 is plenty fast because after all, I'm not after subject isolation for landscapes and at f/5.6 I get very good portraits with the 12-24.

The 50-135 is optically excellent. I can't be sure if those for frame lenses that are equivalent to it match its IQ but for what it does (same with the 60-250), it's quite compact.

It's a moot point comparing a FF wide-normal zoom with three limited primes. You may as well compare it to the 16-50, which when combined with your K-5 is weather sealed. You wouldn't have that same confidence going out into dicey weather conditions using your Nikon combination.

[ElJamoquio]

It's a moot point comparing a FF wide-normal zoom with three limited primes.

The opposite, actually, it's incredibly pertinent - in fact it's everything to me. The Pentax + primes is the minimum req'd for me. The Nikon + zoom is more capable, though.

You may as well compare it to the 16-50

IQ wasn't thrilling, heavy, SDM was bad when I would've purchased it. The pentax combo is roughly (slightly heavier) the same weight as the Nikon combo, more expensive, and worse IQ. No thanks.

which when combined with your K-5 is weather sealed. You wouldn't have that same confidence going out into dicey weather conditions using your Nikon combination.

I have equal confidence. Both are weather sealed. There's a rumor here that the Pentax has great weather sealing - I have no complaints, and Pentax was a pioneer in this area - but I have no data showing that any other brand is inferior.

And of course the Pentax + primes (again, minimum req'd by me) are not weather sealed, as you know.

[tuco]

... I have no complaints, and Pentax was a pioneer in this area.

A moot point but back in the film days, Nikon made a very water resistant interchangeable lens, 35mm camera with ever better weather resistance than today's DSLRs by an order of magnitude. The Nikonos. And I wouldn't be surprised if someone even made one before the Nikonos too.

[ElJamoquio]

A moot point but back in the film days, Nikon made a very water resistant interchangeable lens, 35mm camera with ever better weather resistance than today's DSLRs by an order of magnitude. The Nikonos. And I wouldn't be surprised if someone even made one before the Nikonos too.

Sure! I had forgotten about those. Still, it was more of a 'waterproof' camera than today's everyday cameras that are weather resistant.

[tuco]

Sure! I had forgotten about those. Still, it was more of a 'waterproof' camera than today's everyday cameras that are weather resistant.

Yeah, they didn't have to contend with a LCD screen and a bunch of buttons back then too. But at least then they could tell you the limits of use. Today, how "wet" can we get our WR cameras? I mean, it is hard to quantify. Light rain, heavy rain, etc. I remember a post some years ago when the K5 came out. A guy put it in the shower and it did not survive. He had some trouble getting it fixed on the warranty too, IIRC.

[Pioneer]

Yeah, they didn't have to contend with a LCD screen and a bunch of buttons back then too. But at least then they could tell you the limits of use. Today, how "wet" can we get our WR cameras? I mean, it is hard to quantify. Light rain, heavy rain, etc. I remember a post some years ago when the K5 came out. A guy put it in the shower and it did not survive. He had some trouble getting it fixed on the warranty too, IIRC.

Probably forgot to ensure a WR lens was attached. Go to Reid Reviews and you can see a Pentax K5 being doused with a fire hose during a July 4th event but Sean had the sense to attach a weather resistant lens as well as a filter on the front of the lens.

I bought a K5iis recently to use while hiking. I've been out in the rain and been squirted down with a water hose while using my K7 but I don't personally see the need to take one into the shower.

[pinholecam]

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.

This is where I think Pentax can find a niche for themselves with a FF.
Pick up where the Df and A7/r missed.
Namely :

1. Better build (ie. more apparent 'worth')
2. Built in precision focusing screen
3. Better interface (already so with a K3)
4. SR (maybe)
5. Smallish K3 size

Basically a FF K3 will be in a position above the Df, A7, D610.
Lenses are already there to start off.
The FA limiteds work and work well on FF and very much a steal compared to what is charged for the likes of the Sony FE lenses.
Just need to add a UWA as a start.



I doubt FF will die out.
In fact, I think I see the opposite.
Manufacturers are pushing FF as the aps-c replacement for the enthusiast category.
This 1.5yrs alone, we have seen D610/A7(r)/6D
Four cameras aimed at a better price point then FF cameras were before.
Via parallel import sets the A7 is already avaliable for $13xx.

Smaller formats, especially m4/3 are trying to become the new pns.
However, that segment does not necessarily buy at launch, often at closeout.
They seldom buy lenses and don't upgrade every year or two.
So I doubt its money making given the yearly product cycles these cameras are in.

Aps-c is better off in that it still sits as a 'very good enough' (for the money) segment for enthusiast and even laymen see it as such.
It will likely be pushed down to a lower price tier $700-$1000 price point.
The reality of wafer/sensor yields will always mean that its cheap (that gap may close with economy of scale) vs FF.
Its anyones guess right now if FF will edge out APS-C.
A aps-c camera (DSLR or MILC) at close out is a very attractive option to both layman and enthusiast.
Especially when they are 'good enough' in almost all practical aspects of photography.

[Ash]

The opposite, actually, it's incredibly pertinent - in fact it's everything to me. The Pentax + primes is the minimum req'd for me. The Nikon + zoom is more capable, though.



IQ wasn't thrilling, heavy, SDM was bad when I would've purchased it. The pentax combo is roughly (slightly heavier) the same weight as the Nikon combo, more expensive, and worse IQ. No thanks.



I have equal confidence. Both are weather sealed. There's a rumor here that the Pentax has great weather sealing - I have no complaints, and Pentax was a pioneer in this area - but I have no data showing that any other brand is inferior.

And of course the Pentax + primes (again, minimum req'd by me) are not weather sealed, as you know.

The Tamron 17-50 and Sigma 17-70 are lighter and at least as good optically to the Nikkor zoom. Only disadvantage is not being WR.

And as relevant as it is to you personally, it is still unfair to compare a single zoom to three primes. Either compare a single zoom to a single zoom, or 3 equivalent primes. I don't see the major advantage of the Nikkor notwithstanding the FF sensor behind it. But that's just me and clearly YMMV.

[ElJamoquio]

The Tamron 17-50 and Sigma 17-70 are lighter and at least as good optically to the Nikkor zoom.

Not really. The knocks on the Nikon are that it's distorted... easily corrected; and it vignettes wide open.... easily corrected. The nikon has poor resolution in the corners wide open but it still easily crushes almost any APS-C lens and certainly the lenses you list. The Nikon D600 the combo has better colors, allows lower ISO, etc., etc., etc.

And as relevant as it is to you personally, it is still unfair to compare a single zoom to three primes.

If you say so. Let's say I'm moving. I can rent a trailer and haul it with my car or I can rent a moving van. Either one has enough space, so I compare based on cost, ease of use, availability, etc.

I want to take a picture, with a certain SNR, certain rendering, certain color, certain sharpness. I have a threshold of quality and it was met with the K-5 and primes. It wasn't with the K-5 and zooms. I didn't expect it to be met by the Nikon 'kit' lens but it certainly was.

Either compare a single zoom to a single zoom, or 3 equivalent primes.

We did compare the K-5 + 16-50 to the D600 + 24-85. The Nikon combo is much sharper, much better colors, slightly lighter, much faster at the short end, slightly wider at the wide end, slightly longer at the long end, quite a bit longer at the long end with equivalent cropping, slightly lighter, and a bit less expensive (at least for what I paid, or would've paid, or compare the K-3 + 16-50).

Either way (your comparison or the actual comparison relevant to me) the FF comes out the winner... so I hope Pentax comes out with it's FF soon.

[philbaum]

I have to admit that all this re-iteration of the same opinions is getting tedious at best. What would be fun to hear though, before this thread is abandoned, is your best guess as to the FF percentage of ILC sales for 2014. I believe in 2013, the FF cameras owned 9 percent of unit sales - is that right?

I predict that for 2014, that number will be 15 percent?

Any other risk takers out there who will venture a sales percent for 2014?

[Clavius]

I have to admit that all this re-iteration of the same opinions is getting tedious at best. What would be fun to hear though, before this thread is abandoned, is your best guess as to the FF percentage of ILC sales for 2014. I believe in 2013, the FF cameras owned 9 percent of unit sales - is that right?

I predict that for 2014, that number will be 15 percent?

Any other risk takers out there who will venture a sales percent for 2014?

Yes, we've already reached the point where we all know eachothers opinions and preferences. We crossed that a while ago even before this thread. That by itself is the most important reason for Ricoh to release a K-mount FF. Just to turn all FF-moaning threads into relentless measurebating threads. May not be better, but it would be a change at least.

17% I say! Because of the current offerings of affordable FF that are only now starting to show their worth to all the hesitant people.

[Rondec]

This is where I think Pentax can find a niche for themselves with a FF.
Pick up where the Df and A7/r missed.
Namely :

1. Better build (ie. more apparent 'worth')
2. Built in precision focusing screen
3. Better interface (already so with a K3)
4. SR (maybe)
5. Smallish K3 size

Basically a FF K3 will be in a position above the Df, A7, D610.
Lenses are already there to start off.
The FA limiteds work and work well on FF and very much a steal compared to what is charged for the likes of the Sony FE lenses.
Just need to add a UWA as a start.



I doubt FF will die out.
In fact, I think I see the opposite.
Manufacturers are pushing FF as the aps-c replacement for the enthusiast category.
This 1.5yrs alone, we have seen D610/A7(r)/6D
Four cameras aimed at a better price point then FF cameras were before.
Via parallel import sets the A7 is already avaliable for $13xx.

Smaller formats, especially m4/3 are trying to become the new pns.
However, that segment does not necessarily buy at launch, often at closeout.
They seldom buy lenses and don't upgrade every year or two.
So I doubt its money making given the yearly product cycles these cameras are in.

Aps-c is better off in that it still sits as a 'very good enough' (for the money) segment for enthusiast and even laymen see it as such.
It will likely be pushed down to a lower price tier $700-$1000 price point.
The reality of wafer/sensor yields will always mean that its cheap (that gap may close with economy of scale) vs FF.
Its anyones guess right now if FF will edge out APS-C.
A aps-c camera (DSLR or MILC) at close out is a very attractive option to both layman and enthusiast.
Especially when they are 'good enough' in almost all practical aspects of photography.

Do you think this means the end of m4/3? There certainly won't be enough money in it for R and D if it is pushed into point and shoot range.

Obviously we are all speculating, but I do wonder if Olympus has painted themselves into a corner, with a mount and a series of lenses that aren't amenable to use with a larger sensor

[mecrox]

I have to admit that all this re-iteration of the same opinions is getting tedious at best. What would be fun to hear though, before this thread is abandoned, is your best guess as to the FF percentage of ILC sales for 2014. I believe in 2013, the FF cameras owned 9 percent of unit sales - is that right?

I predict that for 2014, that number will be 15 percent?

Any other risk takers out there who will venture a sales percent for 2014?

I'd say 12 per cent at best. Why = given the size of the DSLR market, you have to sell a lot of extra cameras to make even 1 per cent more of additional share. I think that FF will climb higher than that though not for a while and never that high. It might need a new generation of affordable, modestly sized cameras from more players and ones which are stocked in retail outlets. The D7000 level is the top of the line for the typical electronics outlet anywhere near here. FF isn't mainstream, is it.

Other things mentioned in this thread:

"Pentax FF" is a bit of a misnomer. The market has split up and it isn't a question of just one FF camera. A single camera isn't likely to capture all the Pentax users who'd like to move up to FF. If you were a Pentax marketing manager, what list of compelling reasons to move up to Pentax FF (as distinct from FF generally) could you really write into your selling copy for that launch campaign?

I've always thought that Olympus make absolutely super equipment. Their position may become very difficult if Panasonic start cutting back on m43 at mass-market retail.

I'm mulling over stepping out of Pentax at least for a while and either giving FF a whirl or moving sideways. It isn't the bodies, it's the lenses. Round here, the cost of new Pentax equipment is so high that I don't think I can really afford to run it anymore. Strange days when going FF from the usual suspects is more affordable than owning a Pentax APS-C kit but looking at the UK sticker prices for the better Pentax items, that's pretty well where we are now. Moving sideways is likely less than upgrading my present kit, too.

So: are there more advantages in moving up to FF than there are in moving down from FF to a smaller format? That too may weigh on FF's fortunes over the next few years.

[Clavius]

"Pentax FF" is a bit of a misnomer. The market has split up and it isn't a question of just one FF camera. A single camera isn't likely to capture all the Pentax users who'd like to move up to FF.

If there is anything we can learn from all the Pentax FF threads it is that there no one camera to please the Pentax users.

I'm mulling over stepping out of Pentax at least for a while and either giving FF a whirl or moving sideways. It isn't the bodies, it's the lenses. Round here, the cost of new Pentax equipment is so high that I don't think I can really afford to run it anymore. Strange days when going FF from the usual suspects is more affordable than owning a Pentax APS-C kit but looking at the UK sticker prices for the better Pentax items, that's pretty well where we are now. Moving sideways is likely less than upgrading my present kit, too.

So: are there more advantages in moving up to FF than there are in moving down from FF to a smaller format? That too may weigh on FF's fortunes over the next few years.

I actually ordered several Pentax lenses in the UK to have them sent to me in the Netherlands because they were cheaper. Imagine that! So I know how you feel.

Cost is exactly why I simply added another system (and another system) and kept my existing Pentax kit. Because it is good at what it does and the resale value is abysmal. Of course, now the A7r is always with me. And the bulky Pentax and Canon kits both stay at home, only to be used when I actually plan photography ahead. Which barely happens.