[hoopsontoast]

The main reason I would like a FF (135) based camera as it would bridge the gap between the Pentax APS-C which stops at ~£1k for the K-3 (and is unlikely to get much higher/better in the future), and there is nothing until just under £7k for the 645Z. Thats a massive gap, and for a new user (the kind that Pentax want to get) there is no real potential upgrade path to lure you into the brand, as the K-3 does not give you a massive amount over the entry K-50 ~£500 for the average user other than the 24mp/better AF etc.

Even second hand, a K-5II is around the price of a new K-50, and a K-3 would be down to around £700 but other than that, the old 645D is still £2.5k+, and you would need to buy ALL new lenses.

A FF 135 camera would bridge this gap, give an intermediate step towards the 645 if you like, or as an upgrade path above the APS-C range that you can potentially still use a lot of your existing lenses with straight away.

[rullrich]

. Thats a massive gap, and for a new user (the kind that Pentax want to get) there is no real potential upgrade path to lure you into the brand, as the K-3 does not give you a massive amount over the entry K-50 ~£500 for the average user other than the 24mp/better AF etc.

But do you really think the "average user" would take that path (from FF to 645Z)? Maybe those driven by GAS and some pros, but surley not most; I would say most have got more than they ever need with an K-50/K-500

[hoopsontoast]

But do you really think the "average user" would take that path (from FF to 645Z)? Maybe those driven by GAS and some pros, but surley not most; I would say most have got more than they ever need with an K-50/K-500

Most would go from APS-C to FF, and possibly to 645 later, but at the moment, I would have thought most go from APS-C to FF (But Other Brands) or stay with their APS-C and don't go to 645. That's a guess.

For me, I have a S/H K-01, the K-3 does not offer much over a S/H K-5 that I would use, a FF on the other hand (low light/noise performance, bright OVF etc), should be enough of an upgrade that I would consider it.

The thing is, for Pentax, they need to get new customers. Now looking at the range compared to Canikon, there is no real upgrade potential, you see Pentax doing very well with its APS-C WR/Solid bodies, excellent range of primes (especially the DA Ltds), focus on lightwight/compact lenses etc. But there is nothing else there, Canon have the 6D at not much more than the K-3 to lure you, Nikon has the D610 as well to get you up towards their higher ranges.
Pentax has nothing, and the 645 range is far too high and different from the APS-C/FF potential ranges.

And don't call me Shirley.

[normhead]

But do you really think the "average user" would take that path (from FF to 645Z)? Maybe those driven by GAS and some pros, but surley not most; I would say most have got more than they ever need with an K-50/K-500

No but for many users the path from APS-c to 645z is pretty clear.... in the Pentax world an FF is an orphan format. The advantages of APS_c over FF are pretty clear (look in the 300mm plus club or the macro lens club) and the advantages of the 645z in resolution and low light performance is pretty clear... the FF is a compromise between the two.

The glass is not half empty with crop body ! To me, I believe I'll continue with it, and maybe in the future I'll get an illusive Pentax FF to compliment my crop body kit. But that FF had better blow my socks off, and maybe match or exceed the high ISO of the Canon 6D.

Canon 6D? The K-3 is already on par with the 6D, and has more resolution, if that's your concern buy a K-3.

[hoopsontoast]

135 FF would be a compromise, but also fill a gap:

APS-C Entry - Prosumer
K-500 ~£330 (Inc Lens Kit)
K-50 ~£380
K-3 ~£900

135 FF Prosumer - Professional
K-1 ~£2500 (for example)

645 Professional
645D ~£4200 (while still in stock)
645Z ~£6800

[normhead]

It comes down to whether you think it's a gap worth filling.
Obviously for some it is...
For others it's not....
As the video says... there's just not that much difference between APS_c and FF. You really have to be a nit picker with limited funds to appreciate FF over APS-c. And if you're that nit picky and niggling, you're going to want MF in the end anyway.

The only way I see FF as filling a gap, is if it's you're only system. It doesn't give you the portability or usability of APS-c and it doesn't give you the low light capacity or resolution of a 645z. But it is a great set of compromises for those who like that particular set of comprises. But there is no "preferred upgrade path that has to include FF. APS_c and MF is a perfectly acceptable kit, with no FF...and if you have those two, why would FF even be a consideration?

[Rondec]

It comes down to whether you think it's a gap worth filling.
Obviously for some it is...
For others it's not....
As the video says... there's just not that much difference between APS_c and FF. You really have to be a nit picker with limited funds to appreciate FF over APS-c. And if you're that nit picky and niggling, you're going to want MF in the end anyway.

The only way I see FF as filling a gap, is if it's you're only system. It doesn't give you the portability or usability of APS-c and it doesn't give you the low light capacity or resolution of a 645z. But it is a great set of compromises for those who like that particular set of comprises. But there is no "preferred upgrade path that has to include FF. APS_c and MF is a perfectly acceptable kit, with no FF...and if you have those two, why would FF even be a consideration?

I think the big thing is that both would be k mount cameras, whereas the 645 has a separate mount. While it is better in some respects than a full sized k mount sensor, it might just as we'll be an EOS mount because I'd need to get all new glass for it, which I wouldn't with full frame k mount.

So, yes, I think it could fill a gap, particularly if Pentax picks the right sensor.

[ElJamoquio]

As the video says... there's just not that much difference between APS_c and FF. You really have to be a nit picker with limited funds to appreciate FF over APS-c. And if you're that nit picky and niggling, you're going to want MF in the end anyway.

In practice, FF has better low light ability than MF, which matters to a lot of people.

FF is about 60-70% of the way between APS-C and MF. There's nit pickers and nit pickers.

Of course, you're right, if you have limited funds, you're best best is FF over APS-C and MF, both more expensive.

[normhead]

I think the big thing is that both would be k mount cameras, whereas the 645 has a separate mount. While it is better in some respects than a full sized k mount sensor, it might just as we'll be an EOS mount because I'd need to get all new glass for it, which I wouldn't with full frame k mount.

So, yes, I think it could fill a gap, particularly if Pentax picks the right sensor.

And I'm sure many will agree with you... but just saying... it's not a given that it will be that way. The assumption that it's right for one makes it right for all is to be avoided. And saying it's a necessary upgrade path, isn't necessarily so.

Buying a D810 is all new lenses, but better pro lens options available than on a Pentax. For those who have the lenses, a Pentax FF would be a great second body. But the likelihood of the system equalling what Canon and Nikon have in FF is unlikely. APS-c and MF are the Pentax niche.. the likelihood of them filling someone else's niche with superior product is extremely unlikely.

There is nothing in Pentax land that equals the Nikkor 14-24, 24-70 and 70-200. Pentax has a few great primes for landscape shooters. But, as has been frequently noted, for all but landscape, Pentax is probably never going to be up to speed, in FF.


But then you and I both shoot a lot of landscape.... it's a conundrum. If an FF with the equivalent of the D810 sensor came out, we might "have" to buy one.

It's a very small market... those with enough limited or DA* Pentax FF primes, who won't want the superior Nikkor zooms. The recent results of a DA*55 1.4 compared to other FF primes being currently released is not the slightest little bit encouraging.

It often pains me to see people avoiding buying what they need, because they think Pentax might make what they want. I think we're pretty much certain Pentax will release something.... but will it be what you want? If you have a 31, 43 and 77 ltd, and don't want top shelf FF zooms, I suspect it will. Anyone else is dreaming.

[Kunzite]

There is nothing in Pentax land that equals the Nikkor 14-24, 24-70 and 70-200.

Hmm...

[normhead]

Hmm...

I was speaking of currently available... I know the FA* 80-200 is a great lens....but, second hand, they are more than the Nikon 70-200 new. And whether it's a better lens, I'll leave that to the debaters.

[Kunzite]

I know and you are of course correct, Pentax has no 70-200mm. And the past doesn't matter. But, hmm...

[Rondec]

And I'm sure many will agree with you... but just saying... it's not a given that it will be that way. The assumption that it's right for one makes it right for all is to be avoided. And saying it's a necessary upgrade path, isn't necessarily so.

Buying a D810 is all new lenses, but better pro lens options available than on a Pentax. For those who have the lenses, a Pentax FF would be a great second body. But the likelihood of the system equalling what Canon and Nikon have in FF is unlikely. APS-c and MF are the Pentax niche.. the likelihood of them filling someone else's niche with superior product is extremely unlikely.

There is nothing in Pentax land that equals the Nikkor 14-24, 24-70 and 70-200. Pentax has a few great primes for landscape shooters. But, as has been frequently noted, for all but landscape, Pentax is probably never going to be up to speed, in FF.


But then you and I both shoot a lot of landscape.... it's a conundrum. If an FF with the equivalent of the D810 sensor came out, we might "have" to buy one.

It's a very small market... those with enough limited or DA* Pentax FF primes, who won't want the superior Nikkor zooms. The recent results of a DA*55 1.4 compared to other FF primes being currently released is not the slightest little bit encouraging.

It often pains me to see people avoiding buying what they need, because they think Pentax might make what they want. I think we're pretty much certain Pentax will release something.... but will it be what you want? If you have a 31, 43 and 77 ltd, and don't want top shelf FF zooms, I suspect it will. Anyone else is dreaming.

I just don't see a future (until my kids move away from home and the youngest is three), where I can buy a medium format digital camera. But, I can easily see one in which I buy a Pentax full frame and in which I use the FA limiteds, DA *55, DFA 100, DA *200 on it. I would need a DFA * 24-70-ish zoom and a 20mm-ish prime (could be f4 like the DA 15 without any problem). As you say, I shoot landscape and shoot stopped down a lot and I just don't need to have Otus level of performance out of my lenses.

As to lenses, I am not a current market for Pentax. I have all the primes/zooms that I currently need and unless Pentax would release a new full frame camera or, update some of their current zooms (new motors/coatings) I am not particularly in the market for new lenses.

[mecrox]

And I'm sure many will agree with you... but just saying... it's not a given that it will be that way. The assumption that it's right for one makes it right for all is to be avoided. And saying it's a necessary upgrade path, isn't necessarily so.

Buying a D810 is all new lenses, but better pro lens options available than on a Pentax. For those who have the lenses, a Pentax FF would be a great second body. But the likelihood of the system equalling what Canon and Nikon have in FF is unlikely. APS-c and MF are the Pentax niche.. the likelihood of them filling someone else's niche with superior product is extremely unlikely.

There is nothing in Pentax land that equals the Nikkor 14-24, 24-70 and 70-200. Pentax has a few great primes for landscape shooters. But, as has been frequently noted, for all but landscape, Pentax is probably never going to be up to speed, in FF.


But then you and I both shoot a lot of landscape.... it's a conundrum. If an FF with the equivalent of the D810 sensor came out, we might "have" to buy one.

It's a very small market... those with enough limited or DA* Pentax FF primes, who won't want the superior Nikkor zooms. The recent results of a DA*55 1.4 compared to other FF primes being currently released is not the slightest little bit encouraging.

It often pains me to see people avoiding buying what they need, because they think Pentax might make what they want. I think we're pretty much certain Pentax will release something.... but will it be what you want? If you have a 31, 43 and 77 ltd, and don't want top shelf FF zooms, I suspect it will. Anyone else is dreaming.

Well, on a self-interested note, what is driving me to eye up other brands increasingly strongly is the lack of a good APS-C wide-angle zoom at a sensible price (i.e. a fair bang/buck ratio even if expensive). In my book, the DA 12-24mm fails on both counts, at least here. It's very hard for an APS-C zoom at this focal length to match something like the FF 16-35mm class from Canonikon, but if it can't then that's one less reason to hang on, I guess. The new Canon 16-35mm f4 lens is one of their top performers, at least apparently, but while more expensive than the DA 12-24mm it is not outrageously so really, again at least here. The old value question doesn't really add up that well for APS-C at this level, I think. Fuji lenses seem even more expensive. I mean, one does have to ask at some stage "What am I really getting for my 500/750/1000 bucks with no upgrade path in many cases?"

If I was really wealthy I could run two systems. As it is, I'm finding it hard to ignore what is happening elsewhere. When all is said and done, I'm not comfortable with forking out between 500 and 1000 pounds per lens on what I'm not 100 per cent happy with.

i don't mind if Pentax do or do not come out with an FF camera, but whatever they decide, my feeling is that they really really have to sort out their lens offering or they will lose quite a few enthusiasts anyway. It's not only all about the DA Limiteds. For example, I've tried photographing the interiors of old country churches, a favourite subject, with the DA 15mm but beyond the centre of the frame I've found it simply too soft when there's a lot of detail around no matter what aperture I or framing point I choose.

[Nicolas06]

There is nothing in Pentax land that equals the Nikkor 14-24, 24-70 and 70-200.

That's true but Pentax can easily produce any common optics they have already produced in the past with just enough improvements to get good picture quality and decent AF out of it. And if one is not available, we have the latest sigma/tamron that are really good challenger... Indeed the Pentax could be simply rebadged latest tamrons with better build quality!

---------- Post added 07-29-14 at 11:49 PM ----------

Well, on a self-interested note, what is driving me to eye up other brands increasingly strongly is the lack of a good APS-C wide-angle zoom at a sensible price (i.e. a fair bang/buck ratio even if expensive). In my book, the DA 12-24mm fails on both counts, at least here. It's very hard for an APS-C zoom at this focal length to match something like the FF 16-35mm class from Canonikon

Sigma 8-16 & Pentax 12-24 are very well seen and offer good quality. On alternative, Samyang is making one of the best wide angle prime in term of sharpness and apperture for a bargain... And here AF is not really needed.

It is not perfect, true, but that's not that bad. My main problem with theses zooms & primes is they are too big... And going FF will not help on this.

But yes, due to being mirrorless Fuji has no problem designing good and small wide angle for APSC.

---------- Post added 07-29-14 at 11:54 PM ----------

I use the FA limiteds, DA *55, DFA 100, DA *200 on it. I would need a DFA * 24-70-ish zoom and a 20mm-ish prime (could be f4 like the DA 15 without any problem).

Many are dreaming also on DA lenses on FF. I mean only FA & DFA are FF compatible. Even if they work on film, they may have very low border quality & vigneting... And Pentax could legitimally limit them to APSC by design when mounted on their latest AF body. Would they do not, this would not make the borders good anyway.