[Rondec]

Btw, Rick Sammon shoots also with Canon's AP-C for NG!

Crazy.

[MarkJerling]

While you're saving the forum from me.... who's saving the forum from you? Save the forum from yourself. And I'll do my best to save the forum from myself.

Do you listen to yourself Norm?

[Aksel]

Crazy.

Here, he describes that he comes with two cameras: FF with wide and APS-C with tele lenses.

You Tube

You Tube

[wilton]

With the exception of Norm and ClassA going at each other, this has been a great discussion. What I seem to be getting from the group ist that there is no real need for a FF camera but it seems like many people really, really want one. The other thing that I'm getting out of this discussion is that there are very different needs and styles and the question of whether someone needs a FF or not is really impossible to answer yes or no.
On the flip side of FF there is the Q. I think I've handled just one and I didn't like it but, I'm thinking about some nature shots and I'm thinking, "would a FF or APS-C give me better closeups when I crop or should I get a Q, a 300mm and a converter?". This discussion is making me think more about using a camera for a particular purpose rather than just one camera for all photos. Think about it, a Q with a 300mm lens is equivalent to using 1700mm on a FF, I could not afford a lens of that length in a month of years. (OK so some people are going to start talking all this jazz about there is no such thing as a crop factor blah blah, let's head off that debate before it starts.)
I think that my ultimate setup would be FF with a 17-40mm and a 24-70mm for my landscape/environmental stuff and a APS-C with a 18-135mm for my day-to-day stuff. I want a FF, not need just want, something between 14MP and 22MP would satisfy the need for speed but enough to crop just a bit to perfect the frame when necessary. Maybe a 14MP sensor with ISO 25 (where I'm from shooting at night is not safe) and I'd love to shoot midday, I have summer all year long.

[ElJamoquio]

Between no-auto-focus and... less expensive adapters, I had better luck cropping a K-5 image than I did coupling the Q to the DA*300.

YMMV.

[Rondec]

With the exception of Norm and ClassA going at each other, this has been a great discussion. What I seem to be getting from the group ist that there is no real need for a FF camera but it seems like many people really, really want one. The other thing that I'm getting out of this discussion is that there are very different needs and styles and the question of whether someone needs a FF or not is really impossible to answer yes or no.
On the flip side of FF there is the Q. I think I've handled just one and I didn't like it but, I'm thinking about some nature shots and I'm thinking, "would a FF or APS-C give me better closeups when I crop or should I get a Q, a 300mm and a converter?". This discussion is making me think more about using a camera for a particular purpose rather than just one camera for all photos. Think about it, a Q with a 300mm lens is equivalent to using 1700mm on a FF, I could not afford a lens of that length in a month of years. (OK so some people are going to start talking all this jazz about there is no such thing as a crop factor blah blah, let's head off that debate before it starts.)
I think that my ultimate setup would be FF with a 17-40mm and a 24-70mm for my landscape/environmental stuff and a APS-C with a 18-135mm for my day-to-day stuff. I want a FF, not need just want, something between 14MP and 22MP would satisfy the need for speed but enough to crop just a bit to perfect the frame when necessary. Maybe a 14MP sensor with ISO 25 (where I'm from shooting at night is not safe) and I'd love to shoot midday, I have summer all year long.

Ever sensor size/camera is a compromise. If, you had a full frame camera that had the same pixel density as the K3, same frame rate, same size, had SR on the sensor, and cost the same, there would be no question as to which camera to get (assuming you have a couple of 5 TB hard drives sitting around waiting to be filled). But to this point, not all of those things are available and so different people make different decisions. There have been folks who have left Pentax due to lack of full frame and there have been others who bought Pentax because Nikon never released a true D300 sequel.

In theory, there isn't any down side to full frame, but in practice, there are things that low end full frame doesn't do as well as APS-C. As to whether or not someone "needs" full frame is something only they can answer.

[Nicolas06]

Ever sensor size/camera is a compromise. If, you had a full frame camera that had the same pixel density as the K3, same frame rate, same size, had SR on the sensor, and cost the same, there would be no question as to which camera to get (assuming you have a couple of 5 TB hard drives sitting around waiting to be filled). But to this point, not all of those things are available and so different people make different decisions. There have been folks who have left Pentax due to lack of full frame and there have been others who bought Pentax because Nikon never released a true D300 sequel.

In theory, there isn't any down side to full frame, but in practice, there are things that low end full frame doesn't do as well as APS-C. As to whether or not someone "needs" full frame is something only they can answer.

Of course it is a compromize ! A friend of mine is looking for a good Camera. As a victim to marketing he saw A7s that has so better high iso performance (he like to take photo in the night). The thing is A7s is just a little better than D600 or base A7.

A7 in fact look very good: FF for the price of K3. And it is very small. So it seems to fit every possible feature box you could find (except an optical view finder of course).

I taken a look at the optical system when I saw that the Zeiss zoom what only f/4. There virtually no echo system for this camera. The best zoom are f/3.5-5.6 or just f/4. There is one f/2.8 prime... and one f/1.8 55mm prime. While I no doubt this is fantastic quality, thoses lenses are quite expensive (800€ each one at least).

In the end the f/4 lens is big and make the camera bulky anyway. no WR. And if you shoot only f/4 max apperture... Well you might do as well in low light with half the isos, an entry level €400 reflex and a €300 f/2.8 tamron.

You could adapt to other lens, but this is expensive if you want AF, and add to the size of the thing.

In the end, Sony made lot of noise speaking of their low res A7s, and while I have no doubt it is a good camera it will be less efficiant in many occasion than most other FF for low light just because there is no fast optics for it anyway. That might not be needed to have f/2.8 but it the same argument as APSC vs FF... But this time it is too FF and this A7r is on the bad side of comparison.

[Poit]

What I seem to be getting from the group ist that there is no real need for a FF camera but it seems like many people really, really want one.

For reasons I've explained ad infinitum, and regardless of what people here want or need, Pentax needs a decent FF system.

[volley]

For reasons I've explained ad infinitum, and regardless of what people here want or need, Pentax needs a decent FF system.

Seems I've missed your explanation, can you repeat? I assume Pentax is doomed otherwise?

[osv]

For reasons I've explained ad infinitum, and regardless of what people here want or need, Pentax needs a decent FF system.

they wouldn't do it right... it would be just another ovf failure, and canikon already has the market for obsolete ff ovf cameras sewed up.

how many of you people that want ff have pixel-peeped your pentax lenses on a 36mp sensor? guess what, vignetting and field curvature are much bigger issues than you would have guessed.

yesterday i tested five 28mm primes... three of 'em were 28/3.5 lenses, and they were all so dark in the corners that i would rate 'em not usable wide open... we are talking corners down -3.6 to -4.0 stops, in imatest... it was like shooting through a porthole window.

the two 28/2.0 vivitars that i looked at were bright enough, but field curvature made 'em unusable at anything wider than f/8.

be careful what you wish for.

[Nicolas06]

they wouldn't do it right... it would be just another ovf failure, and canikon already has the market for obsolete ff ovf cameras sewed up.

how many of you people that want ff have pixel-peeped your pentax lenses on a 36mp sensor? guess what, vignetting and field curvature are much bigger issues than you would have guessed.

yesterday i tested five 28mm primes... three of 'em were 28/3.5 lenses, and they were all so dark in the corners that i would rate 'em not usable wide open... we are talking corners down -3.6 to -4.0 stops, in imatest... it was like shooting through a porthole window.

the two 28/2.0 vivitars that i looked at were bright enough, but field curvature made 'em unusable at anything wider than f/8.

be careful what you wish for.

That's why Pentax need FF in fact. Many Pentaxian don't feel the need to upgrade anymore their K5-K3-K30 bodies; Thoses are good enough. But many have some calling for FF, be it rational or not.

It is not that FF is necessary to their clients, but at least the one spending the most on lenses want to spend their money on a Pentax FF body with Pentax FF lenses. There is sure a potential for making money!

[rawr]

This discussion goes round and round. Oh well, why not ...

Quite aside from all the optical issues (focal length, viewfinder size etc), FF has technical strengths due to sensor size that are well measured - eg better high ISO - and which are useful to many photographers.

If the costs aren't going to be astronomical for Pentax - and users - then FF is the sort of thing that seems logical and affordable for them to do. Especially nowadays, when Sony seems to be running their factories hot churning out FF sensors in 2 or 3 basic sizes. At probably very competitive prices in volume too, since some of their lines - eg the 24MP and 36MP sensors - are very mature. So Pentax would be buying those very decent sensors at the bottom of their price curve.

It may also be a necessary Pentax consideration that APS-C seems to be hitting a brick wall going past 24MP. For several years no one has put out a APS-C camera that goes beyond that. Any shooter today who wants > 24 MB (for whatever reason) has no other option but FF (or with a big price jump, MF).

[Rondec]

This discussion goes round and round. Oh well, why not ...

Quite aside from all the optical issues (focal length, viewfinder size etc), FF has technical strengths due to sensor size that are well measured - eg better high ISO - and which are useful to many photographers.

If the costs aren't going to be astronomical for Pentax - and users - then FF is the sort of thing that seems logical and affordable for them to do. Especially nowadays, when Sony seems to be running their factories hot churning out FF sensors in 2 or 3 basic sizes. At probably very competitive prices in volume too, since some of their lines - eg the 24MP and 36MP sensors - are very mature. So Pentax would be buying those very decent sensors at the bottom of their price curve.

It may also be a necessary Pentax consideration that APS-C seems to be hitting a brick wall going past 24MP. For several years no one has put out a APS-C camera that goes beyond that. Any shooter today who wants > 24 MB (for whatever reason) has no other option but FF (or with a big price jump, MF).

This whole conversation is one about what is "good enough" for the average user. APS-C with a kit lens a couple of primes? A full frame camera with f4 zooms? A full frame camera with 36 megapixels and f2.8 zooms? It is the sort of thing that no one can answer for anyone else.

It does feel like the market (Sony, Canon, Nikon) wants to shift photographers to full frame, even if they are relatively satisfied with crop formats. They can do this by making sure best lenses are full frame compatible and limiting glass for crop formats and by limiting features on crop format cameras. Eventually the market will split, probably abandoning upper end APS-C and reserving smaller sensors for low end, entry level cameras -- probably a lot of them being mirrorless. But that future is still a little ways off.

[jsherman999]

For reasons I've explained ad infinitum, and regardless of what people here want or need, Pentax needs a decent FF system.

+1.

Anyone who shoots K-mount - even aps-c shooters who have no intention of buying an FF system - should hope Pentax introduces an FF body.

[Rondec]

+1.

Anyone who shoots K-mount - even aps-c shooters who have no intention of buying an FF system - should hope Pentax introduces an FF body.

I don't honestly know what to hope for. I want whatever will keep Pentax viable and keep good products coming down the pipeline -- that is to say, something that sells well.

I have been told in many threads that a mirrorless full frame camera with a different mount, but would allow use of K mount lenses with an adapter is the answer. SLRs are a shrinking market. But I don't really know the market. My fear would be that Ricoh would release a camera that matches up fairly poorly against Nikon/Canon options, be priced a little too high, get poor reviews and would then be a failure.