[ElJamoquio]

I don't find an ASP-C DSLR to be a compromise.

Like many others I started my photo enthusiasm with 35 mm film...full frame.....as some say.

I've used and have medium format film, rangefinder 35mm film. Even point and shoot, 35 mm film....which I guess meets the def'n. of full frame.

Hard to think of my little Olympus Clamshell 35 mm as a full frame format though.

I've got tons of camera equipment...dating back to the late '60's when I first got into all this photography stuff.

But when I reflect back on my long association with photography.....I would have to say that the format I enjoy most, am very happy with...think can it get any better than this....is ASP-C format.

Currently I have 3 ASP-C DSLR bodies (all Pentax)...and about 12 lenses (11 Pentax, 1 Sigma)...which are mostly designed for ASP-C. The breakdown goes something like this...50 F 1.4 normal, 50 F 2.8 Macro, 150-500 (Sigma)...can be used on full format and ASP-C.

My 21, 40, 70 Limiteds...then my 12-24, 16-45, 18-55, 10-17, 18-135, 55-300 all are ASP-C format design. I know Falconeye has that excellent thread about which lenses can be used without issue on a full frame camera. I have reviewed it and it's informative.

But..... I really hope Ricoh keeps on making K-3 level ASP-C DSLR's with the Pentax brand.

I like ASP-C. I blow up to 8 X 10, 11 X 14 and even when I do the requisite pixel peeping....if the lighting and the photography things I was responsible for and were done well...then the end product the photograph is more than fine.

Also at 8 X 10 and 11 X 14...my ASP-C seems to be comparable to a full frame. Maybe, probably...a 5D2, 5D3 or a D 610 will have it all over my ASP-C stuff at poster size. But I dunno for sure. I've seen some of those poster sized photos from a full frame and let me tell you...I was not impressed.

Also my 300 lens is the 35 equivalent of 420 mm and my Bigma at 500mm is the 35 mm equivalent of 775mm or something.

My 12-24 at 12mm...maybe the 35mm equivalent of 18....but that's not far off the Canon L 17-40 mm on a 5D2. What is it...a silly mm as they used to say in those old cigarette adverts.

I like what Pentax has done with ASP-C. I like the lenses....especially those Limited Primes. I get great bokeh....a creamy like effect.

So not much to choose from in the old pluses and minus assessment between full frame and ASP-C.

Which reminds me...when is Ricoh going to let consumers know how good their gem of a product...the Pentax ASP-C DSLR system is....it's the best kept secret in cameradom.

But I digress.

FYI, the 40 and 70 are good on FF! ...as Falconeye's thread mentioned. Just don't want anyone to misinterpret that.

[Rondec]

Last time I checked the K-3+16-50 was more expensive than the D600+24-85.

It depends on the lenses you want. Certainly a K-500+18-55 is cheaper than any FF.

It depends on what focal lengths you use. Hard to compare Pentax lenses to Nikon anyway. The 16-50 used to run 600-ish dollars, at which point your APS-C camera would still be cheaper, as it would be if you used a Tamron 17-50 f2.8. On the other hand, if you decide that you want flagship, f2.8 zooms from Canon or Nikon, there is nothing cheap at all about full frame, as far as I can tell.

In addition, on the telephoto end, there is distinct advantage to going with APS-C, both with regard to cost of lenses and with regard to reach (a D800 give equivalent reach to a K5, for a cost, but doesn't match a K3).

As Norm says, every camera is a compromise, but APS-C isn't as bad as some make it out to be.

---------- Post added 04-22-14 at 04:31 PM ----------

FYI, the 40 and 70 are good on FF! ...as Falconeye's thread mentioned. Just don't want anyone to misinterpret that.

The 40 and 70 are pretty weak in the corners on full frame, particularly the 70. Not saying they can't be used stopped down a little, but they certainly aren't high caliber full frame lenses.

[Kunzite]

Not in the least. I think a mid-price normal zoom is the perfect comparator, I think it's the most common lens, outside of APS-C kits, out there.

You could compare the 50-135 to the canon 70-200 F/4. I'd guess the Canon would come out ahead but I haven't done the math. I don't think Nikon has a cheap zoom. You could compare the Sigma/Tamron F/2.8 zoom if you'd like.

For some people FF will be more expensive. For others it will be cheaper.... but there's a myth out there that FF is inherently more expensive, and clearly for some population that isn't true.

But only one lens is a mid-price normal zoom, and that's intentional. And there's also a myth that it's inherently cheaper; it's usually build by the implicit assumption that one thing matter the most.
You found a limited niche in which "full frame" is indeed cheaper, and that's it. In the real life, people are usually spending more for "full frame".

[ElJamoquio]

OK? So the 300 F/4 is $200 more than the 200 F/2.8. Is that the advantage of APS-C? $200 on one telephoto?

I look at other systems and I don't see a price penalty for moderate level FF against top level APS-C.

If you're going for moderate level APS-C then great. If you're going for a mix then take a look at the lenses you'd buy. Sometimes it comes out differently - I chose K-5 over a 5DII.

[aleonx3]

OK? .... Sometimes it comes out differently - I chose K-5 over a 5DII.

Even though it is APS-C, I too still prefer k-5 because 5DII is chunkier and not so nice ergonomically... eg. change iso, hit button with index finger, then turn the front dial with index finger - too clumsy whereas in k-5, one motion with both index finger and thumb.
Sorry, I change the subject....

It is a matter of preference when it comes to FF vs APS-C.... if Pentax/Ricoh comes out with FF in the future, I would be interested but probably not 'need' it right away.

[Rondec]

OK? So the 300 F/4 is $200 more than the 200 F/2.8. Is that the advantage of APS-C? $200 on one telephoto?

I look at other systems and I don't see a price penalty for moderate level FF against top level APS-C.

If you're going for moderate level APS-C then great. If you're going for a mix then take a look at the lenses you'd buy. Sometimes it comes out differently - I chose K-5 over a 5DII.

The problem that I have is that there are so few APS-C specific lenses in the Nikon/Canon world, other than a handful of zooms. What, Nikon has a 35mm f1.8? I can't think of another one. There certainly aren't "top level" APS-C lenses available from other brands.

Comparing apples to apples, Pentax certainly won't even have a 70-200 f4 zoom available for a full frame camera they would release and they will charge between 2000 and 2500 for a 70-200 f2.8. There is going to be a significant mark up for full frame stuff -- there already is, if you compare the FA limiteds and the DA limiteds.

[ElJamoquio]

The problem that I have is that there are so few APS-C specific lenses in the Nikon/Canon world, other than a handful of zooms. What, Nikon has a 35mm f1.8? I can't think of another one. There certainly aren't "top level" APS-C lenses available from other brands.

Comparing apples to apples, Pentax certainly won't even have a 70-200 f4 zoom available for a full frame camera they would release and they will charge between 2000 and 2500 for a 70-200 f2.8. There is going to be a significant mark up for full frame stuff -- there already is, if you compare the FA limiteds and the DA limiteds.

I would certainly expect Pentax to charge $2000-$2500 for a top notch 50-135 F/1.8. Probably $2500 as the 50-135 f/2.8 is ~$1400. Pentax would also charge a bit more than Nikon, and I think Nikon wants ~$2500 for their 70-200 F/2.8.

I think Pentax is instead going to bring out a 70-200 F/4 with the FF. I hope they bring out a F/2.8 but I'm a bit of a pessimist when predicting Pentax lens speeds.

Nikon has the 35mm F/1.8, 55-200, 18-200, 18-300, 10-24, 18-55, 18-140, 16-85, 40, 85, 10.5, 17-55, 55-300, 18-105, 12-24, might have missed one or two. So that's 15 lenses. I wouldn't call that a handful.

In Pentax world, there's about the same number of lenses that would be designated APS-C only. There's the 35mm Macro, 15, 21, 12-24, 18-55, 18-135, 55-300, 50-200, 50-135, 60-250, 16-50, 17-70 if it's still made, 14 if it's still made, 20-40. Probably missing a few. That's 14, but I'm probably missing a couple as I said.

[Rondec]

I would certainly expect Pentax to charge $2000-$2500 for a top notch 50-135 F/1.8. Probably $2500 as the 50-135 f/2.8 is ~$1400. Pentax would also charge a bit more than Nikon, and I think Nikon wants ~$2500 for their 70-200 F/2.8.

I think Pentax is instead going to bring out a 70-200 F/4 with the FF. I hope they bring out a F/2.8 but I'm a bit of a pessimist when predicting Pentax lens speeds.

Nikon has the 35mm F/1.8, 55-200, 18-200, 18-300, 10-24, 18-55, 18-140, 16-85, 40, 85, 10.5, 17-55, 55-300, 18-105, 12-24, might have missed one or two. So that's 15 lenses. I wouldn't call that a handful.

In Pentax world, there's about the same number of lenses that would be designated APS-C only. There's the 35mm Macro, 15, 21, 12-24, 18-55, 18-135, 55-300, 50-200, 50-135, 60-250, 16-50, 17-70 if it's still made, 14 if it's still made, 20-40. Probably missing a few. That's 14, but I'm probably missing a couple as I said.

Sure. I'm just not particularly a zoom guy, so the lenses I see there are the 10.5, 35, and 40. I wasn't aware that NIkon made a Dx specific 85mm.

As to your numbers, I would put all of the DA limiteds under APS-C specific. Sure, the DA 40 and DA 70 are halfway usable on full frame, but I still wouldn't consider them full frame lenses.

[cali92rs]

Why not include some of the "plastic fantastic" primes? Pentax has the 35 f2.4, and 50mm f1.7.
Nikon has the "D" series which autofocus, are cheap for their speed, lightweight, and are still being made: 20mm f/2.8, 24mm f2.8, 28mm f/2.8, 35mm f/2, 50mm f/1.8, 60mm f/2.8, 85mm f/1.8

Those arent "APS-C specific"...but...who cares? They work on DX.

[Rondec]

Why not include some of the "plastic fantastic" primes? Pentax has the 35 f2.4, and 50mm f1.7.
Nikon has the "D" series which autofocus, are cheap for their speed, lightweight, and are still being made: 20mm f/2.8, 24mm f2.8, 28mm f/2.8, 35mm f/2, 50mm f/1.8, 60mm f/2.8, 85mm f/1.8

Those arent "APS-C specific"...but...who cares? They work on DX.

The problem is that full frame folks say that there are no full frame "equivalent" lenses out there. So, the 35 f2.4 and 50 f1.8 lenses are full frame lenses, meaning that you would need a 30-ish f1.2 and 20-ish f1.8 on APS-C to match them.

[ElJamoquio]

Why not include some of the "plastic fantastic" primes? Pentax has the 35 f2.4, and 50mm f1.7.
Nikon has the "D" series which autofocus, are cheap for their speed, lightweight, and are still being made: 20mm f/2.8, 24mm f2.8, 28mm f/2.8, 35mm f/2, 50mm f/1.8, 60mm f/2.8, 85mm f/1.8

Those arent "APS-C specific"...but...who cares? They work on DX.

I was talking about APS-C only lenses.

Due to the optical designs involved, that usually ends up meaning primes < 35mm and pretty-much every zoom.

The lenses you mention, if they were designed by a company that had a FF camera, would be labeled FF lenses IMO.

[northcoastgreg]

but there's a myth out there that FF is inherently more expensive, and clearly for some population that isn't true.

But that's sort of like saying "There's a myth out there that Ferari's are inherently more expensive" than cheaper cars (like my old Nissan pickup) on the grounds that it would cost me even more money to make my Nissan go as fast as a Ferari. It's a fallacious argument based on the notion that a less expensive product should be "equivalent" to more expensive product.

A Pentax FF camera will likely be around $2,500. However superior FF may be to APS-C, I cannot currently justify spending that much money on a camera, particularly when I getting stuff out of my $800 K-5iis that more or less matches what other local photographers are getting from their Canon FFs.

I heard that a FF camera will attract 1.5 times as many chicks as an aps-c camera.

If FF cameras really were chick magnets, that would easily be the number one reason to get one. In absence of that, I would content that the number one reason for FF is that gives one an excuse to buy more glass. I'm surprised FF advocates don't make more use of this one.

[mecrox]

The problem that I have is that there are so few APS-C specific lenses in the Nikon/Canon world, other than a handful of zooms. What, Nikon has a 35mm f1.8? I can't think of another one. There certainly aren't "top level" APS-C lenses available from other brands.

Comparing apples to apples, Pentax certainly won't even have a 70-200 f4 zoom available for a full frame camera they would release and they will charge between 2000 and 2500 for a 70-200 f2.8. There is going to be a significant mark up for full frame stuff -- there already is, if you compare the FA limiteds and the DA limiteds.

Pentax might like to have a mark-up for FF - who would not - but will folks be prepared to pay it?

There's a risk here: once an FF camera is released, if one is released, a magic spell will be broken. All those fully priced APS-C-only lenses might easily not look such good value any longer, so either sales or profits on the APS-C lines would suffer or both. At the same time, it's not going to look good if Pentax price FF-capable lenses at a premium to their existing APS-C ones, unless the APS-C ones are considerably reduced in price. After all, these will now only work in crop mode on that new Pentax FF flagship camera, so folks will ask themselves why a Pentax crop-mode lens costs as much as or more than a full-frame lens from other makers. Consider some examples: the DA Limited lenses are around £400-500 here. Are Pentax really going to make it, say, £800 for an FF-capable prime lens? Or that DA* 16-50mm for £819 or maybe the new DA 20-40mm for £739. Might that mean that an FF 24-70mm F4 would be well north of £1000? It's hard to see anyone paying those prices. Just look at the competition for a start. Nikon's 24-70mm f2.8 lens, a fully pro offering, is about £1250 but a few weeks ago it was on special offer for nearer £1000. That's an f2.8 lens.

Nikon and Canon both had to negotiate this Rubicon, I guess, and they both seem to have concluded that it was better to put the R&D funds into FF-capable lenses and let the APS-C-only ones more or less tick over for not too much money. Some might say wither on the vine.

Either way, once FF is put into the mix, APS-C starts to look a little less attractive, a little less deserving of premium pricing. That's a very risky place for Pentax to be, at a guess. They don't have the market share and comparatively huge volumes of Canonikon to bolster them.

Somehow, I guess Pentax need to come up with a very powerful reason for people to choose a Pentax FF camera - and one that won't devalue their core APS-C lines. Otherwise, it's hard to see how the comparisons will look all that favourable when looking over the market and deciding which brand to go for.

This is all a very tricky business. We can't be at all sure it's even doable. There are alternatives, of course, even if they are widely derided. For example, a 36mpx FF Ricoh GR with a fixed 35mm lens but two high-quality slip-over adapters for say 24mm and 50mm. Plenty of mpx to crop on what would probably be the world's smallest FF camera. Just another move in the theoretical chess game.

[cali92rs]

There's a risk here: once an FF camera is released, if one is released, a magic spell will be broken. All those fully priced APS-C-only lenses might easily not look such good value any longer, so either sales or profits on the APS-C lines would suffer or both. At the same time, it's not going to look good if Pentax price FF-capable lenses at a premium to their existing APS-C ones, unless the APS-C ones are considerably reduced in price. After all, these will now only work in crop mode on that new Pentax FF flagship camera, so folks will ask themselves why a Pentax crop-mode lens costs as much as or more than a full-frame lens from other makers. Consider some examples: the DA Limited lenses are around £400-500 here. Are Pentax really going to make it, say, £800 for an FF-capable prime lens? Or that DA* 16-50mm for £819 or maybe the new DA 20-40mm for £739. Might that mean that an FF 24-70mm F4 would be well north of £1000? It's hard to see anyone paying those prices. Just look at the competition for a start. Nikon's 24-70mm f2.8 lens, a fully pro offering, is about £1250 but a few weeks ago it was on special offer for nearer £1000. That's an f2.8 lens.

That's a really good point.
The question is, how many people really have shelled out the money for a full price DA* 16-50mm.
Same for the DA 20-40mm. Both lenses are real polarizing even in this tiny community of Pentax die hards. I doubt they barely moved the needle at all for the general public.

[ElJamoquio]

But that's sort of like saying "There's a myth out there that Ferari's are inherently more expensive" than cheaper cars (like my old Nissan pickup) on the grounds that it would cost me even more money to make my Nissan go as fast as a Ferari.

More like 'a new Ford Focus is more expensive than a new Ford Fiesta'. What do you want to do? How many people do you want to carry semi-comfortably?

Your Nissan/Ferrari is more like a Phase 1 vs Brownie comparison in my view.