[jogiba]

It is not the sensor alone, but the sensor plus the MF lenses and the overall photographic experience tied with both.
The sum is much greater than all parts.

That is the crucial point that non-photographers cannot comprehend or imagine what is the appeal about the digital MF.

I'd personally have the 645D variant with puny 16-20 megapickles MF-sized sensor and a bunch of 645 lenses than any FF with 100 megapickles.

Why is it people worship the 645D that they will never purchase because they will never have the money for it but hate full frame cameras that cost a fraction of what a 645D cost even though the full frame beats it in reviews.

[jsherman999]

Why is it people worship the 645D that they will never purchase because they will never have the money for it but hate full frame cameras that cost a fraction of what a 645D cost even though the full frame beats it in reviews.

*And* when the FF camera would share the same mount as their aps-c cameras.

Fantastic question.

.

[Pioneer]

The Pentax 645 and Pentax 6x7 series of cameras are both legends in the medium format world for very good reason. They are terrific cameras with an assortment of magnificent lenses. The 645D is just one more in that long line of great cameras. It is certainly expensive but the reason people love the camera goes beyond just megapixels. I will own one someday, right now is not the time. But occasionally I'll rent one for a few days and go nuts. Believe me, I have shot the Nikon D600 and the Canon EOS 1Ds MkIII, and the Pentax is a step up from either of those cameras.

Besides, having it in hand and actually using it and printing from it far exceeds any reviewer's report. Reviewers are really only people after all, and everyone has their own agenda. After a few years I have come to realize that they miss as many as they hit. Mostly because they really can only guess at what you or I are really going to like.

[_quicksilver_]

Why is it people worship the 645D that they will never purchase because they will never have the money for it but hate full frame cameras that cost a fraction of what a 645D cost even though the full frame beats it in reviews.

It´s because it says Pentax on the prism housing.

Once Pentax-Ricoh releases the FF camera, I´m quite sure we will see some changes in attitude.

[Clavius]

Why is it people worship the 645D that they will never purchase because they will never have the money for it but hate full frame cameras that cost a fraction of what a 645D cost even though the full frame beats it in reviews.

Pentaxians have been able to talk down each and every FF camera. I think this is the cause for the long delay in the K-mount FF camera. Obviously Pentax, Hoya and now Ricoh first want to know exactly what the Pentaxians want from it. And I don't blame them. I whish them luck figuring that out.

[Kunzite]

I don't remember such hate... where exactly is it hidden?

The claims I and few others made were:
+ that a "full frame" was unlikely at the moment (true, under Hoya)
+ that a "full frame" was not required for Pentax' survival (also true)
+ that most of us don't need a "full frame" camera
+ that an APS-C camera actually could have certain advantages over a larger format.
It was also said:
+ that a "full frame" is now quite likely, since Pentax said they're working on it
+ that a "full frame" would be a welcome addition to broaden Pentax' portfolio and to attract/keep high spending customers.
+ that one shouldn't request a "full frame" unless being prepared to pay for it (I am). Pentax won't undercut the cheapest model out there.
+ that Pentax is not doomed (and neither is Tokyo)
And other such things.

[Rondec]

Why is it people worship the 645D that they will never purchase because they will never have the money for it but hate full frame cameras that cost a fraction of what a 645D cost even though the full frame beats it in reviews.

You keep talking about full frame "beating" 645D. Reviews are concerned with a broad spectrum of things, including auto focus, frame rate, etc. However, if you mainly shoot portraiture and landscapes, these issues that are prominent in reviews may not be important to you. On the other hand, if everything I read about sensor size between APS-C and full frame is right, then certainly increasing sensor size again is beneficial.

I don't have money for either right now. If Ricoh comes out with a full frame camera, then we will have a different discussion (if I have better finances), but at this point I am satisfied with a K3 and dreaming of medium format someday...

Pentaxians have been able to talk down each and every FF camera. I think this is the cause for the long delay in the K-mount FF camera. Obviously Pentax, Hoya and now Ricoh first want to know exactly what the Pentaxians want from it. And I don't blame them. I whish them luck figuring that out.

Ricoh shouldn't care what Pentaxians want. If they are going to sell a full frame K Mount camera, it has to be to other people than just us. There just aren't enough of us, even if ten or fifteen percent of existing Pentax users buy a full frame camera, to make it worthwhile. There just isn't the margin in these cameras that there used to be.

[Clavius]

Ricoh shouldn't care what Pentaxians want. If they are going to sell a full frame K Mount camera, it has to be to other people than just us. There just aren't enough of us, even if ten or fifteen percent of existing Pentax users buy a full frame camera, to make it worthwhile. There just isn't the margin in these cameras that there used to be.

So true... But also the biggest problem: Why would a non-Pentaxian that wants/needs FF ever be interested in a camera that doesn't even exist yet? I understand that Pentax-fans dream about it, but others?! People that fall into your category already have their FF or are saving up for one that exists.

[jogiba]

Pentaxians have been able to talk down each and every FF camera. I think this is the cause for the long delay in the K-mount FF camera. Obviously Pentax, Hoya and now Ricoh first want to know exactly what the Pentaxians want from it. And I don't blame them. I whish them luck figuring that out.

I guess there will never be a full frame Pentax because Pentax fanboys hate full frame cameras and Ricoh knows that. So I guess it's APS-C , $10,000 645D II with $5,000 wide angles and nothing in between.

[Kunzite]

Am I right to think that "full frame hating Pentax fanboy" and "Yeti" are interchangeable (except Yeti is seen from time to time)?

Ricoh shouldn't care what Pentaxians want. If they are going to sell a full frame K Mount camera, it has to be to other people than just us. There just aren't enough of us, even if ten or fifteen percent of existing Pentax users buy a full frame camera, to make it worthwhile. There just isn't the margin in these cameras that there used to be.

I disagree: Ricoh Imaging does care a lot about what we want. I mean, about those with realistic wishes - and prepared to spend for them (and I like to think I meet both criteria).
Expanding the user base might be necessary, to make the "full frame" project viable. But don't expect a strategy based on targeting new users while ignoring the user base.

[Parry]

I guess there will never be a full frame Pentax because Pentax fanboys hate full frame cameras and Ricoh knows that. So I guess it's APS-C , $10,000 645D II with $5,000 wide angles and nothing in between.

I don't think it matters really.

There's options out there. It's a shame Ricoh won't do it, but it's not the end of the world. It just means a change when it comes to upgrade time. Perhaps sell the Pentax gear, perhaps keep it.

I like the lens options for Nikon FF, especially the 85/1.4G and 135/2 DC, also the Sigma Art primes. Looking at the results from these lenses on a D800e you can't compare them with anything Pentax has to offer. Which is fair enough because it's a lot more expensive and you can only squeeze so much out of smaller sensors and cheaper lenses.

[Rondec]

Am I right to think that "full frame hating Pentax fanboy" and "Yeti" are interchangeable (except Yeti is seen from time to time)?


I disagree: Ricoh Imaging does care a lot about what we want. I mean, about those with realistic wishes - and prepared to spend for them (and I like to think I meet both criteria).
Expanding the user base might be necessary, to make the "full frame" project viable. But don't expect a strategy based on targeting new users while ignoring the user base.

I agree with regard to APS-C line up.

I just think with regard to a full frame project, there needs to be a broader appeal. Focusing on making the camera better compatible with older lenses seems to be a big theme on the forum, but I just don't think something like that would bring in many outside users.

[jogiba]

I don't think it matters really.

There's options out there. It's a shame Ricoh won't do it, but it's not the end of the world. It just means a change when it comes to upgrade time. Perhaps sell the Pentax gear, perhaps keep it.

I like the lens options for Nikon FF, especially the 85/1.4G and 135/2 DC, also the Sigma Art primes. Looking at the results from these lenses on a D800e you can't compare them with anything Pentax has to offer. Which is fair enough because it's a lot more expensive and you can only squeeze so much out of smaller sensors and cheaper lenses.

I also think the D800e with 14-24mm F2.8 is a much better combo for landscape work than the 645D 25mm F4 combo that costs much more.

[Parry]

I also think the D800e with 14-24mm F2.8 is a much better combo for landscape work than the 645D 25mm F4 combo that costs much more.

I think this is probably right. If you read some of the pro-photog forums quite a few dumped their super expensive MF gear for the D800e with happy results.

I'm not a landscape photographer, but if I do landscape I tend to use sharp telephoto primes with low distortion and a multi-row pano head to place the nodal point correctly to avoid parallax, then stitch. I rather like UWA for those 'perspective' shots and the Siggy 8-16 is great for this. I have a 15mm Limited but never really got on with it that well.

The 14-24/2.8 would be pretty well down the shopping list for me. Have to prioritize because none of this, regardless of brand, is cheap.

[Rondec]

I think this is probably right. If you read some of the pro-photog forums quite a few dumped their super expensive MF gear for the D800e with happy results.

I'm not a landscape photographer, but if I do landscape I tend to use sharp telephoto primes with low distortion and a multi-row pano head to place the nodal point correctly to avoid parallax, then stitch. I rather like UWA for those 'perspective' shots and the Siggy 8-16 is great for this. I have a 15mm Limited but never really got on with it that well.

The 14-24/2.8 would be pretty well down the shopping list for me. Have to prioritize because none of this, regardless of brand, is cheap.

The one thing that is left out of this comparison is resolution. Dynamic range is decent on all these cameras. But Phase One, at 60 megapixels, is definitely going to beat up full frame cameras for applications that require high resolution (I wouldn't print big enough to appreciate this, but still). Medium format lenses are pretty amazing in their rendering as well.

I feel like I am driven to extremes by people in the forum who really pound the full frame drum. I like full frame. I probably want one. I just don't see people posting photos taken with their K3s that suffer because of too much depth of field, that would have benefited from one stop less depth of field.