[todd]

A cell phone camera is enough, with a thumb over one half of the sensor.

That sounds like an interesting mod! Is that so I can simulate pixie dust? Do I have to root my phone first?

[paulh]

I pretty much want nothing to do with what a teenage girl thinks is cool.

Imagine all the new full-frame selfies being posted to Facebook!

[richard balonglong]

What does it matter that these people have a full size 36mm sensor camera.


The images are the product of the photographer not the camera.


Thy will be producing rubbish compared to your images, and blaming the camera.


A good photographer doesn't need good equipment to produce great images, it just makes his task easier.


A bad photographer produces trash whatever he has.


As ive often said, if you want to upgrade and produce better images, upgrade the photographer not the equipment.


In other words learn to take better pictures.

What if the good, best, and artistic photographer wants specifically a 36mm (or 35mm) sensor camera for his masterpiece?

[eyeswideshut]

What if the good, best, and artistic photographer wants specifically a 36mm (or 35mm) sensor camera for his masterpiece?

Why, he'd use just such a camera.

[RyanW]

You people with the small sensor 10x8 and similar.

Get a real full frame
The Camera - Butterflies & Buffalo - Butterflies & Buffalo

[Kerrowdown]

I drive a Fit.

Is that like a Fiat?

[Kunzite]

Yes, but with missing parts

[boriscleto]

Is that like a Fiat?

Just a little bigger. And it actually runs.

[Big Dave]

Everyone is hung up on FF image superiority and the lack of need for it. Many of us want a FF so that our collection of legacy glass can be used as designed. I'm old and I don't have time to wast waiting for Pentax or anyone else to produce a dream camera. I will buy and use the equipment that meets my needs now and that I can afford. I have been using Pentax since I could afford one. It has the feature set that appeals to me and the right price. A couple of years ago I bought a used Canon FF for legacy glass use. I found that having both formats was a big plus for me. Now I have a Sony FF and it compliments my K5 II beautifully. Also I wanted to play with my fifty year old Canon 50mm f0.95 range finder lens, so now I'm happy. That is what it is all about, enjoying your hobby and spending time with friends with the same interests.

[wilton]

Everyone is hung up on FF image superiority and the lack of need for it. Many of us want a FF so that our collection of legacy glass can be used as designed. I'm old and I don't have time to wast waiting for Pentax or anyone else to produce a dream camera. I will buy and use the equipment that meets my needs now and that I can afford. I have been using Pentax since I could afford one. It has the feature set that appeals to me and the right price. A couple of years ago I bought a used Canon FF for legacy glass use. I found that having both formats was a big plus for me. Now I have a Sony FF and it compliments my K5 II beautifully. Also I wanted to play with my fifty year old Canon 50mm f0.95 range finder lens, so now I'm happy. That is what it is all about, enjoying your hobby and spending time with friends with the same interests.

I think that you have said it quite nicely, getting hung up on the superiority of FF is something we need not worry about too much; in many cases it really is a matter of horses for courses. But, the option to go with multiple formats (please don't list the Qs) with existing lens is one of the the things lacking from Pentax. For noobs like myself IQ is secondary right now as I spend time learning my lighting, composition and how to get the shot the way I want it. Yeah, I've seen the need for better glass at times but I recently ran a roll of film through a Pentax Z-70 I picked up and WOW, 35mm is wide, without the distortions. That's one of the reasons I want a FF. Sure, I could get wider of a crop body even without distortion but that means an arm and a leg for ultra-wide glass, my economic situation will not stand for that, lol.

But you are right, not many people are willing to sit around waiting (possibly in vain) for Pentax to make a FF camera and they're letting their wallets decide whose pie gets bigger at the expense of Pentax. IMHO, Pentax doesn't have to lead the race, they just need to be in the race for a chance of at the prize. The other side of the coin is that competition is good for us as consumers, it keeps innovation chugging along and really keeps prices in check. Just look at those markets that only have Canon and Nikon, the prices can be 2 to 3 times as much as North American prices.

On another note, f0.95 whoa! How's that making you fell ? Pics if you can, I don't see that being used wide open too often, eyes in focus but the nose and ears are a smear, lol.

[clockwork247]

Well, FF is kindda nice. The high ISO IQ is nice (and I know someone will yell at me for "who cares about ISO 1 kabillion), but look, being able to shoot in low light situation and produce usable images without strapping on a flash is awesome, and I can say that none of the crop sensor at this time matches the D800/D600, Sony 7S, canon 6D ect... in terms of high ISO performance.

At the same time, pentax just refuse to look at their competition. they have produce the same camera with little improvements over the year... have they thought about the flippy screen? that screen is very useful. Flash system, they are stuck in the stone age in terms of flashes, yes there are ways to walk around it, but for the money you guys are paying, it's sickening, if a chinese company can produce wireless radio trigger, pentax need to hire people to work on it, and not some lazy bum with an engineer degree that sits on his butts and collect the paycheck.

Pentax was the 1st camera I considered because of the forum, but the more I venture in, the more I grow to walk away from it... Yes you can produce wonderful images with pentax, but they sure as hell makes it harder for people to do it. It's ironic and most of their lens are made for FF, and they do not have a FF camera.

[Class A]

Full Frame? what a worthless and pointless expression.

It is not worthless because "full frame" mainly means that the sensor is not artificially smaller than what the mount was designed for.

The K-mount was designed for a 36mm x 24mm frame but due to cost reasons, APS-C DSLRs only use 24mm x 16mm of this frame. They crop, i.e., they don't use the full frame.

The fact that "full frame" is typically associated with the 135 format (36mm x 24mm) is less useful, although defensible because this format size has been vastly more popular than any of the larger ones.

Can a FF produce better images?

Yes, but unlike you seem to believe the reason is not a better use of low light.

It is particularly not true that you can replicate an image made with an FF camera with an APS-C camera if you have sufficient light.

Of course there will always be debates about that and that's the fun part of a forum like this.

Some arguments are debatable but there is also plain physics which cannot be ignored.

One can, for instance, debate whether one can recognise a special quality in this collection of full frame shots.

I do, and I suggest for everyone who does not, they should leave FF enthusiasts alone unless they find scientific proof that FF enthusiasts are fooling themselves. I don't suggest to embark on the latter journey because there are physical facts that make larger formats superiour.

A few, often not considered, advantages are:

• better dynamic range
• more difference between the sharpest and fuzziest areas of an image. We pay a lot of money for this quality in lenses; a format change gives a boost to all our (FF-capable) lenses.
• nicer viewfinder
• lenses are cheaper (when comparing equivalent specifications).
• more lens choices (as in "faster lenses available" == "more DOF control").

I invite everyone to read Falk (falconeye)'s full story.

Can a FF produce better images?

Yes (see above).

The quality of the photographer is a completely different discussion. How good or bad you are as a photographer does not determine what good or bad gear you are allowed to have and vice versa. However, better gear does not limit one as a photographer as much, but worse gear can. So there is no point in arguing against better gear.

[Imageman]

It is not worthless because "full frame" mainly means that the sensor is not artificially smaller than what the mount was designed for.

The K-mount was designed for a 36mm x 24mm frame but due to cost reasons, APS-C DSLRs only use 24mm x 16mm of this frame. They crop, i.e., they don't use the full frame.

The fact that "full frame" is typically associated with the 135 format (36mm x 24mm) is less useful, although defensible because this format size has been vastly more popular than any of the larger ones.

You cannot make such statements that the 135 format was vastly more popular than any other format. It just isn't true and its indefensible. It was very popular for a short period that's all.


Lets put it into some perspective with some history.


Until Kodak came along the only camera formats were huge compared to the humble 135, The entire world was equipped with large format daguerreotype calotype tintype wetplate dry plate etc etc.


Millions upon millions of cameras were sold in those sizes.


Later Kodak marketed the brownie 6x6cm roll film, this took over as the most popular format size. Kodak equipped the world with roll film cameras, were talking millions upon millions of cameras possibly running into hundreds of millions, One single model of brownie alone sold over 10 million units, and there were many other models of brownie sold.


All in all an unspeakable number of 6x6 roll film cameras were sold world wide, far outstripping the puny sales of 35mm cameras by comparison. Every household in the world it seemed had a brownie, in my own family we had 3 box brownies, and 3 other 6x6 roll film cameras as well. My first camera was a roll film 6x6 cm camera. I have owned more roll film cameras than I have 35mm cameras, in 645, 6x6, 6x7, and 6x9 formats. Box cameras folding cameras and TLRs.


Sure 35mm cameras sold in huge numbers, but only between 1965 and 1995. Before 1965, roll film cameras held their own in volume sales, and after 1995 digital cameras ate into the 35mm market share.


Can we stop trying to justify calling the tiny 35mm camera "Full Frame" there really isn't any justification. 35mm was always a miniature camera format, and in my view it still is.


I am not suggesting that this miniature format cannot produce excellent images, I just cannot accept that a format that is a mere 5% of the size of a studio camera format can be in any way described as "Full Frame"


Only in photography is this somehow acceptable, would you call a 308mm cartridge, a 300, a 7.62mm a 5.56 mm or a .50 cartridge "standard" and a 0.22 "Full Size".


Would you accept that a 350 cu inch v8 and a 455 cu inch v8 are "standard" engines and a 200 cu inch is a "Full Size" engine.


Would 20,000 dollars 40,000 dollars and 80,000 dollars be "standard pay" and 5,000 dollars "Full Pay"


Its time to call a horse a horse and abandon this misleading name.

[Class A]

You cannot make such statements that the 135 format was vastly more popular than any other format.

I did not make that statement.

Please read and quote carefully.

All in all an unspeakable number of 6x6 roll film cameras were sold world wide, far outstripping the puny sales of 35mm cameras by comparison.

Do you have any hard figures to support your claim?

According to Wikipedia:

" It [135 format] quickly grew in popularity, surpassing 120 film by the late 1960s to become the most popular photographic film size."

Now Wikipedia could be wrong about this, but your claims about "unspeakable numbers" have even less weight, AFAIC, unless you corroborate them with some hard numbers / evidence.

Can we stop trying to justify calling the tiny 35mm camera "Full Frame" there really isn't any justification.

There is a justification.

I explained it in my previous post. The main point about the term "full frame" is that the sensor has the full size as designed for the mount.

I would agree with you that it does not make sense to glorify the 135 format as authoritative in any sense -- apart from its popularity -- but the term "full frame" makes technical sense with respect to mount specification.

[Poit]

90% of the people using Pentax don't need a FF body. They don't even need APS-C. M4/3 would be more than enough or even a bridge camera.

The problem I see with this, and the original post, is that it only contemplates existing Pentax users (ie do we really want a FF).

If all of our selfish desires for the brand are to stand a chance of being realised, we should understand that Pentax (as it currently stands) is not an attractive offering for many photographers (be it real or perceived).

Regardless of whether we want or need a FF (I am in the camp of needing one, happy to explain), it is in our interest that Pentax caters to photographers (read non Pentax users) who do know how to get the best out of a FF camera, so the brand may attract more users.

Attractiveness to the photography world, as whole, is key to the future viability Pentax future (I'm stopping short of using the word 'doomed' here ).