[monochrome]

I believe almost every real, full-time professional photographer who actually needs a 24x36 sensor digital camera already has one. It is probably good enough to do what job job needs to be done. A Pentax version won't be any better or cheaper or different in any material way that will earn a professional photographer more money. Incremental differences will be just that - incremental. They'll meet preferences, not needs.

Most of us aren't full time professional photographers. Therefore most of us don't actually need anything, unless photography is high on the list of psychological needs for self-actualization. We don't NEED any camera. We don't need a camera better than the one we have. We don't need a camera better than the next SmartPhone. We don't need a a specific branded camera. We don't need a full frame camera. We don't need a Pentax full frame camera.

Likewise, Ricoh doesn't NEED to do anything. Ricoh is doing just fine doing just what Ricoh is doing with its Imaging Division. Ricoh can keep doing just fine doing whatever Ricoh chooses to do with its Imaging Division for as long as Ricoh chooses to keep doing it. No Doom-certain future exists.

So let's call this what it is - A Pentax FF camera is a WANT. All the little justifications (upgrade path, credibility of Pentax, Ricoh Imaging survival, high-margin lens justification) are really self-enabling justifications to make us feel better about our self-centered, acquisitive, consumer product want. I can understand why those of us who have stuck around for years and years waiting to get what we want - that we think has been promised to us (maybe to shut us up for JUST A FEW MONTHS, PLEASE!!) - react the way we react.

Some of us have some kind of OCD response to any hint - here it is - sugar, chocolate - Oooh, Shiney, Me want. What I have isn't good enough.

Others won't play that game. No way they're sucking me in again. I'm going to feign disinterest (and hang on every word). What Ricoh do isn't good enough anyway. Pentax is dead - Doomed - anyway,

It is the rebel teens I really feel sorry for - the ones who cry and beg for attention and keep coming home with "something better than what you'd give me anyway". They're the ones who stir things up, and the gang lords down at the corner who want to groom these poor lads for their own nefarious reasons. Everybody else has a unique vision, or take, or energy, or mirrorless, or mount, or lenses, or pretty body anyway and Pentax missed their chance.

Always remember, it's just a want. You don't need it. A K-3 is just fine. You can do something else with your time. You can use another brand.

Or, you can wait.

---

Last edited by monochrome; 09-24-2014 at 09:34 AM.

[todd]

WANT

me wants it, my precious...
where is its!?

[bdery]

The question that I really want to see answered is "why do some people want a FF?

And please, don't tell me "because I want to use my FA31 the way it was intended". That's not an answer.

There could be a noise advantage to FF is the resolution remained low, but it doesn't, so the pixel pitch is near enough that of APS-C as to be relatively insignificant.

There is enough resolution in APS-C nowadays for most people. A few years back people would have jumped through hoops for a 24MP camera, regardless of the sensor size. Now it's common.

There are more MODERN lenses available in APS-C than FF with Pentax. Some of the FF designs from the 90's are really awful and should not be revived (see the FA zooms reviews here). Their APS-C replacements are much, much better.

The field of view of a lens on FF can be replicated by using another focal length on APS-C. Some people live in the past and find such things "unnatural" but that's not a reason in and by itself.

As others have stated, APS-C is cheaper, smaller, lighter. It is also just as good for taking pictures. I still don't know why people desire a FF that much.

EDIT : in 2014, if you REALLY need a larger sensor, what you NEED is not a FF. It's a medium format, and Pentax has got you covered.

[LFLee]

I think you misunderstand my needs and the purpose of my post.

My photography demands have been rather minimal until recently. The K10D has been adequate for it's main purpose, (documenting my
ceramic artwork), but it's limitations have frustrated me for some time, (low light AF and off camera flash support at the top of the list).
I've kept it so long because resolution has not been a problem. I am most definitely not a pixel peeper. Nonetheless, I've been looking
to upgrade for a couple years and have considered the K-7, K-5 and K-3 along the way, again more for the better AF performance than
for higher resolution, (not sure any of those bodes have better flash support ).

As I mentioned elsewhere on the forum, my interest in photography for it's own sake reignited earlier this year. As such, an updated
body is beginning to appeal even more. And there is one clear advantage to FF for me; all my old wides will be wide again. The crop
factor of APS-C is useful at times, but I like to shoot wide and I've missed that on the K10D with all my old glass, (the widest lens I own is
a 24mm, so nothing is really wide on the K10D).

Lastly, I do NOT feel Pentax should NOT build a FF, (they should; I hate double negatives ). Nor do I have any intention to abandon
the brand. I am very much a fan of their approach and so long as they continue to make user cameras, not spec cameras, I'll buy
Pentax.

My post was intended as a reality check. Lots of people are barking, but what if the K-FF is released and it flops because it's too expensive,
too big, doesn't do 4k, too much like canikon, too little like canikon? Certainly that would do none of us any good.

It will be good. It's PENTAX. and it's why we choose PENTAX.

I am guilty for not "upgrading" to K-3 but personally don't see a point to upgrade from my K5 and K5IIs, unless it is a FF (or my camera stop working).

I will buy it if it is similar price (and exceed functionality) as the D750 (flip screen or not), that's the price range I have in mind for the Pentax FF.
(Like 645Z, the 2nd generation of FF may have a lower offering price).

[ElJamoquio]

The question that I really want to see answered is "why do some people want a FF?

And please, don't tell me "because I want to use my FA31 the way it was intended". That's not an answer.

There could be a noise advantage to FF is the resolution remained low, but it doesn't, so the pixel pitch is near enough that of APS-C as to be relatively insignificant.

There is enough resolution in APS-C nowadays for most people. A few years back people would have jumped through hoops for a 24MP camera, regardless of the sensor size. Now it's common.

There are more MODERN lenses available in APS-C than FF with Pentax. Some of the FF designs from the 90's are really awful and should not be revived (see the FA zooms reviews here). Their APS-C replacements are much, much better.

The field of view of a lens on FF can be replicated by using another focal length on APS-C. Some people live in the past and find such things "unnatural" but that's not a reason in and by itself.

As others have stated, APS-C is cheaper, smaller, lighter. It is also just as good for taking pictures. I still don't know why people desire a FF that much.

EDIT : in 2014, if you REALLY need a larger sensor, what you NEED is not a FF. It's a medium format, and Pentax has got you covered.

With available lenses, FF has better low-light capability than medium format.

FF is also much cheaper than medium format, and for the low-light capability that I require, FF was cheaper than either APS-C or medium format.

When 36x24 cameras were $3k plus it was a bit tough to jump to that sensor size for most people. Now that FF is $1500 it's much more attainable. When MF cameras are $2k I'll think about getting one.

[tvdtvdtvd]

The order I would place:

2. Pentax 70mm-200mm f1.4 Qty:1

Wow. We're talking, what?, soda keg dimensions.

[jsherman999]

I believe almost every real, full-time professional photographer who actually needs a 24x36 sensor digital camera already has one. It is probably good enough to do what job job needs to be done. A Pentax version won't be any better or cheaper or different in any material way that will earn a professional photographer more money. Incremental differences will be just that - incremental. They'll meet preferences, not needs.

Most of us aren't full time professional photographers. Therefore most of us don't actually need anything, unless photography is high on the list of psychological needs for self-actualization. We don't NEED any camera. We don't need a camera better than the one we have. We don't need a camera better than the next SmartPhone. We don't need a a specific branded camera. We don't need a full frame camera. We don't need a Pentax full frame camera.

Likewise, Ricoh doesn't NEED to do anything. Ricoh is doing just fine doing just what Ricoh is doing with its Imaging Division. Ricoh can keep doing just fine doing whatever Ricoh chooses to do with its Imaging Division for as long as Ricoh chooses to keep doing it. No Doom-certain future exists.

So let's call this what it is - A Pentax FF camera is a WANT. All the little justifications (upgrade path, credibility of Pentax, Ricoh Imaging survival, high-margin lens justification) are really self-enabling justifications to make us feel better about our self-centered, acquisitive, consumer product want. I can understand why those of us who have stuck around for years and years waiting to get what we want - that we think has been promised to us (maybe to shut us up for JUST A FEW MONTHS, PLEASE!!) - react the way we react.

Some of us have some kind of OCD response to any hint - here it is - sugar, chocolate - Oooh, Shiney, Me want. What I have isn't good enough.

Others won't play that game. No way they're sucking me in again. I'm going to feign disinterest (and hang on every word). What Ricoh do isn't good enough anyway. Pentax is dead - Doomed - anyway,

It is the rebel teens I really feel sorry for - the ones who cry and beg for attention and keep coming home with "something better than what you'd give me anyway". They're the ones who stir things up, and the gang lords down at the corner who want to groom these poor lads for their own nefarious reasons. Everybody else has a unique vision, or take, or energy, or mirrorless, or mount, or lenses, or pretty body anyway and Pentax missed their chance.

Always remember, it's just a want. You don't need it. A K-3 is just fine. You can do something else with your time. You can use another brand.

Or, you can wait.

Well-written and mirrors what I've been saying for years re need vs. want.

People sometimes run across this epiphany from another angle - some variation of: "Hey, you (I) don't *need* FF, right? So thus it doesn't even have to exist and anyone asking for it is some level of clueless about their own needs!"

...to which I always respond (since 2010 anyway,) "It's not about need, it's about want. And if you're honest with yourself, you'll realize that all your camera purchases are about want right now anyway."

One quibble with what you wrote - on the sliding scale of want vs. need, Ricoh's position is closer to need than a typical shooter's is - they have a monetary reason to offer FF, where a lack of action there could affect their bottom line and make the product they bought (K-mount DSLR) non-viable in the future. They won't go under if Pentax brand folds... but their situation is closer to the pro shooter who puts food on the table with the equipment - there is a tad more amount of need there than there is for any of us enthusiast-customers.


.

---------- Post added 09-24-14 at 12:24 PM ----------

There could be a noise advantage to FF is the resolution remained low, but it doesn't, so the pixel pitch is near enough that of APS-C as to be relatively insignificant.

That's a common misconception - noise differences with same-gen sensors are related to sensor area and the physical aperture used by the lens. The resolution does not need to remain 'low' to see the noise advantage of larger sensor. Witness the D800 vs. K5 or D7000 - same sensor/pixel tech, different sensor area, D800 has a bit more than a stop better image SNR performance than those two.

There is enough resolution in APS-C nowadays for most people.

You're skating close to a judgement call on need vs. want here. More MP, IMO, is almost always better for IQ - within reason and within current tech constraints.

There are more MODERN lenses available in APS-C than FF with Pentax. Some of the FF designs from the 90's are really awful and should not be revived (see the FA zooms reviews here).

True, but this argument falls apart if you just stay away from those bad zooms. Try a $150 FA 50 1.7 on a 36MP FF body - you will be transported into IQ nirvana. Then, once you're hooked, try the FA Limiteds to move into the heavy stuff.

EDIT : in 2014, if you REALLY need a larger sensor, what you NEED is not a FF. It's a medium format, and Pentax has got you covered.

At $12,000 for the body + one-lens kit! They've got you covered, all right

.

---

Last edited by jsherman999; 09-24-2014 at 11:29 AM.

[noser]

The field of view of a lens on FF can be replicated by using another focal length on APS-C. Some people live in the past and find such things "unnatural" but that's not a reason in and by itself.

Actually, this is exactly why I'd prefer a FF...

A couple of years ago I needed a fast normal lens; ie the APS-C equivalent of a 50mm. I looked at what was out there, and the Sigma 30/1.4 was the ticket. But I no longer use it for about half of the situations I wanted it for.

It's a terrific lens, but in some close up portraiture work the distortion bugs me. It's not like a fisheye or anything, but it's just not as flattering - doubly so if the subject has any even slightly exaggerated features. So for that I still use one of the 50's. I don't get the inclusion of the environment to the same degree as a 30 would, but it's a workable stopgap, stylistically.

Then I started looking to change up the style a bit, and wanted something like the look and FoV of an 85mm on FF at longer working distances, where the tele look would give a nice subject isolation. Oh wait, 50mm again, right?

Nope. The math says it's close - but any of the 1.2/1.4/1.7/1.8/whatever 50's I have don't appear to have the wide open sharpness of anyones 85mm. I can get pretty close at f/2 actually; the slightly sharper edges get a bit more pop, but it's just not the same bokeh vs pop of the 85's.

So... does the math of equivalence support my case?

Nope. All the math says I'm a wrong, dumb, old-fashioned fossil. By the numbers I should be able to shoot APS-C.

But my style and interpretation of the look - most especially of facial feature proportions - says otherwise.

[Clavius]

Actually, this is exactly why I'd prefer a FF...

A couple of years ago I needed a fast normal lens; ie the APS-C equivalent of a 50mm. I looked at what was out there, and the Sigma 30/1.4 was the ticket. But I no longer use it for about half of the situations I wanted it for.

It's a terrific lens, but in some close up portraiture work the distortion bugs me. It's not like a fisheye or anything, but it's just not as flattering - doubly so if the subject has any even slightly exaggerated features. So for that I still use one of the 50's. I don't get the inclusion of the environment to the same degree as a 30 would, but it's a workable stopgap, stylistically.

Then I started looking to change up the style a bit, and wanted something like the look and FoV of an 85mm on FF at longer working distances, where the tele look would give a nice subject isolation. Oh wait, 50mm again, right?

Nope. The math says it's close - but any of the 1.2/1.4/1.7/1.8/whatever 50's I have don't appear to have the wide open sharpness of anyones 85mm. I can get pretty close at f/2 actually; the slightly sharper edges get a bit more pop, but it's just not the same bokeh vs pop of the 85's.

So... does the math of equivalence support my case?

Nope. All the math says I'm a wrong, dumb, old-fashioned fossil. By the numbers I should be able to shoot APS-C.

But my style and interpretation of the look - most especially of facial feature proportions - says otherwise.

That is not old fashioned; it is simply fact. It gets even more prominent when you go even wider. Might not be your style, but does prove the point. The edges and corners of a 15mm on APS-C are extremely stretched. But the edges and corners of the 21mm on 35mm still look realistic.

I hated using APS-C in my studio. The size of which is perfect... for an FF format camera. When using APS-C my back is up against the wall very quickly. Unless I use wider lenses, and turn everybody into hamster-faces.

[bdery]

Actually, this is exactly why I'd prefer a FF...

A couple of years ago I needed a fast normal lens; ie the APS-C equivalent of a 50mm. I looked at what was out there, and the Sigma 30/1.4 was the ticket. But I no longer use it for about half of the situations I wanted it for.

It's a terrific lens, but in some close up portraiture work the distortion bugs me. It's not like a fisheye or anything, but it's just not as flattering - doubly so if the subject has any even slightly exaggerated features. So for that I still use one of the 50's. I don't get the inclusion of the environment to the same degree as a 30 would, but it's a workable stopgap, stylistically.

Then I started looking to change up the style a bit, and wanted something like the look and FoV of an 85mm on FF at longer working distances, where the tele look would give a nice subject isolation. Oh wait, 50mm again, right?

Nope. The math says it's close - but any of the 1.2/1.4/1.7/1.8/whatever 50's I have don't appear to have the wide open sharpness of anyones 85mm. I can get pretty close at f/2 actually; the slightly sharper edges get a bit more pop, but it's just not the same bokeh vs pop of the 85's.

So... does the math of equivalence support my case?

Nope. All the math says I'm a wrong, dumb, old-fashioned fossil. By the numbers I should be able to shoot APS-C.

But my style and interpretation of the look - most especially of facial feature proportions - says otherwise.

I did not call anyone a fossil.

Essentially, you are saying that you are used to a specific type of rendering, and find it hard to obtain nowadays. I understand that it might bother you. However it is not in itself a reason to require a full frame camera. And that's my whole point. Tools evolve, you might loose some things and you also gain others.

You mention that you do not get the exact look that you are used to. Fine. Does that mean that it is not possible to make great portraits with an APS-C camera? I'm sure you'll agree it is not so.

In my view, the question now is : should a small company, doing good on APS-C, divert its limited resources to create a FF body and a decent set of lenses, to please a vocal but essentially marginal amount of users who miss a specific type of rendering? I mean no disrespect in writing this but I really believe the answer is no.

[normhead]

Actually, this is exactly why I'd prefer a FF...

A couple of years ago I needed a fast normal lens; ie the APS-C equivalent of a 50mm. I looked at what was out there, and the Sigma 30/1.4 was the ticket. But I no longer use it for about half of the situations I wanted it for.

It's a terrific lens, but in some close up portraiture work the distortion bugs me. It's not like a fisheye or anything, but it's just not as flattering - doubly so if the subject has any even slightly exaggerated features. So for that I still use one of the 50's. I don't get the inclusion of the environment to the same degree as a 30 would, but it's a workable stopgap, stylistically.

Then I started looking to change up the style a bit, and wanted something like the look and FoV of an 85mm on FF at longer working distances, where the tele look would give a nice subject isolation. Oh wait, 50mm again, right?

Nope. The math says it's close - but any of the 1.2/1.4/1.7/1.8/whatever 50's I have don't appear to have the wide open sharpness of anyones 85mm. I can get pretty close at f/2 actually; the slightly sharper edges get a bit more pop, but it's just not the same bokeh vs pop of the 85's.

So... does the math of equivalence support my case?

Nope. All the math says I'm a wrong, dumb, old-fashioned fossil. By the numbers I should be able to shoot APS-C.

But my style and interpretation of the look - most especially of facial feature proportions - says otherwise.

Folks like you should have FF. For folks like me, it's different. I don't live at FF 50mm. I understand that it was "the standard" for many years, hence the fossil part, but the days of a 50mm lens being the standard on a camera are long gone. The problem isn't with the theory of equivalence, which is a rough guide at best. The problem is that a 35mm lens doesn't render like a 50. That is the part where equivalence tells you what the equivalent field of View is, but not how the image will be rendered. I've seen multiple images demonstrating the difference between 35 and 50 mm for portraits.

But that isn't true for everyone.

My favourite lens for portraits were 85-105 for portraits on 35mm. I use 70 on APS-c and just love it... so your disappointments is a function of your preference in lenses. As a standard lens, I rarely take my 35, I like my 21 ltd.

So, you're only a fossil in the sense that what you expect from a lens is probably being determined by preferences based on the kit lens of another age. I always tended more towards wide angle for standard and telephoto for portrait, and for landscape, I'm not convinced it makes any difference. So not having a 35 be a 50 isn't a factor for me. I never like 50s all that much to start with.

And you're definitely not alone in this. There are many who voice the same complaint. one of the weaknesses of APS-c is a 35, no matter how hard it tries, can't be a 50. Just for some of us we weren't in love with the 50 so it doesn't really matter. For others, that was their sweet spot. For myself I just love the 50 as a short telephoto fast zoom. Telephoto was always my style.

You could always try a 40 instead of a 35 for your standard type lens, maybe even the 43.

But these days FFs are so cheap something like a 6D or D610 is pretty much a no brainer as long as you don't care about telephoto, which you clearly don't.

[monochrome]

hated using APS-C in my studio. The size of which is perfect... for an FF format camera. When using APS-C my back is up against the wall very quickly. Unless I use wider lenses, and turn everybody into hamster-faces.

I think you have hit on a major issue for this industry - and most other industries - in fact much of the global economy. There is trillions of dollars of capital, monetary capital and intellectual capital. invested in Plant & Equipment, processes, standards, expectations, habits, preferences, all manner of social and economic embedded knowledge that is 'priced' into virtually everything - an industry 'system',.

When technology or industrial failure disrupts an industry system (Kodak) the ripple effect can disrupt the entire social fabric until an entire generation passes its age of influence and control. There is an inestimable cost in disused or destroyed capital that must be borne somehow - whether through higher prices, reduced quality or loss of former values. Often the replacement utility isn't as rich - it just is more efficient.

The FoV of APSc doesn't fit well in the capital of your studio, which was designed and invested to fit 35mm film, the camera bodies and lenses associated with 35mm film and the image output aesthetic qualities associated with the entire 35mm industrial system. APSc workarounds don't really work the way we expect them to work - sometimes we get hamster faces.

Those who demand a FF Camera in essence wish to restore the utility of the capital invested in their industrial and social systems.

[hoopsontoast]

Why do people say if you want better than a Pentax APS-C then Pentax already has you covered with the 645 range, true but at ~£7k for the body (even £3-4k+ for a decent used 645D) and the lenses are not cheap unless you use older non-AF legacy stuff.

I keep saying but a FF around the £2k-£2.5k mark (initially) would bridge the gap perfectly and attract people to upgrade. I cant imagine many people go from a K30/K50 to K5II/K3 then on to a 645D or 645Z, not in any great numbers anyway.

Unless they make a 645 'lite' around the £2k-£3k mark then I would say a model with a 24x36 sensor at that price makes a lot of sense.

[normhead]

I hated using APS-C in my studio. The size of which is perfect... for an FF format camera. When using APS-C my back is up against the wall very quickly. Unless I use wider lenses, and turn everybody into hamster-faces.

And what percentage of the Pentax users have a studio? Try and stay relevant, at least a little. The last studio I had was built for 8x10 film... no one in their right mind even pulled out a dinky little 35mm camera, If we're going to discus people's studio experience. If studio experience is relevant, that's where we're going.

[Clavius]

I think you have hit on a major issue for this industry - and most other industries - in fact much of the global economy. There is trillions of dollars of capital, monetary capital and intellectual capital. invested in Plant & Equipment, processes, standards, expectations, habits, preferences, all manner of social and economic embedded knowledge that is 'priced' into virtually everything - an industry 'system',.

When technology or industrial failure disrupts an industry system (Kodak) the ripple effect can disrupt the entire social fabric until an entire generation passes its age of influence and control. There is an inestimable cost in disused or destroyed capital the must be borne somehow - whether through higher prices, reduced quality or loss of former values. Often the replacement utility isn't as rich - it jsut is more efficient.

The FoV of APSc doesn't fit well in the capital of your studio, which was designed and invested to fit 35mm film, the camera bodies and lenses associated with 35mm film and the image output aesthetic qualities associated with the entire 35mm industrial system. APSc workarounds don't really work the way we expect them to work - sometimes we get hamster faces.

Those who demand a FF Camera in essence wish to restore the utility of the capital invested in their industrial and social systems.

You explained it much better then I'll ever can.

At one point just jumping into another brands FF became cheaper then rebuilding/modifying the studio. And I had to learn to shoot with Canon. Which made me appreciate Pentax ergonomics, UI and ease of use even more then I already did.

A 645z would also be a viable solution though. LOL! But I'm not ever going to justify paying that kind of money.