[ElJamoquio]

I bought my K5 for 900 dollars. Just cause Hoya squeezed early adopters for every penny they were worth doesn't mean that most APS-C cameras sold at such a price for the most part.

I think that's obviously not my point. Are you agreeing that APS-C cameras have about a ~$1k glass ceiling now?

The Canon 7D II is allegedly going to MSRP at $1800. Let's see how long that lasts...

In addition, add in one brand-name normal f2.8 zoom for your full frame and you may have blown your budget for the next three years.

I don't think the Sigma 24-70 F/2.8 is much more expensive than the Sigma 18-35 F/1.8. Plus the FF lens is far more capable - 24mm instead of 28mm and 70mm instead of ~55mm.

[Rondec]

I think that's obviously not my point. Are you agreeing that APS-C cameras have about a ~$1k glass ceiling now?

The Canon 7D II is allegedly going to MSRP at $1800. Let's see how long that lasts...



I don't think the Sigma 24-70 F/2.8 is much more expensive than the Sigma 18-35 F/1.8. Plus the FF lens is far more capable - 24mm instead of 28mm and 70mm instead of ~55mm.

I am, of course talking brand name lenses. Canon 24-70 f2.8 is 2000, Nikon is 1800.

As to the ceiling for APS-C cameras, I think it depends on how they are specified. If Nikon came out with a camera that had all of the D4s specs, but a 24 megapixel APS-C sensor for 1200 or 1300 dollars, it would sell like hot cakes. Nikon would never do that, as they have to protect the full frame market. If the 7D Mk II sensor is decent and the auto focus module is the real deal, there are plenty of folks who will purchase it over a 5d MK III or 1D series camera for wildlife/sports applications.

The biggest reasons over the years to go with full frame had to do with the better components/focus modules, etc that were put in them as compared with even the top of the line crop cameras.

[ElJamoquio]

I am, of course talking brand name lenses. Canon 24-70 f2.8 is 2000, Nikon is 1800.

I think the description you're looking for is OEM. I did not know you wanted to exclude Zeiss, Sigma, et al.

Those lenses you're describing have no counterpart in APS-C land. If you want them, fine, but then you're arguing against APS-C, not for it; because you cannot duplicate their ability in APS-C with OEM lenses.

[jsherman999]

The Canon 7D II is allegedly going to MSRP at $1800. Let's see how long that lasts...

It will last until they burn through their smallish contingient of frustrated birders, and then it will drop.

.

I don't think the Sigma 24-70 F/2.8 is much more expensive than the Sigma 18-35 F/1.8. Plus the FF lens is far more capable - 24mm instead of 28mm and 70mm instead of ~55mm.

IMO the existence of the 18-35 1.8 is an implicit admittance that equivalence matters.

[ElJamoquio]

It will last until they burn through their smallish contingient of frustrated birders, and then it will drop.

It has a better chance in Canon-land, where the FF's are 22MP or thereabouts. In Nikon/Sony land, there really isn't all that much of a difference between 20MP APS-C and 36MP FF cropped to 16MP APS-C.

We'll see, I guess. It's also possible the 7D II could have better AF than the 5D III. Don't know/haven't read.

[Poit]

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.

You omit the part-time professional photographers, who actually need a 24x36 sensor, and for whom cost vs quality is an even bigger consideration than the full timers.

You omit all the future professionals. The teens who have got a taste for it through their smart phone and are considering exploring the profession.

And you omit the fact that 'most of us aren't full time professionals' because, well, the brand doesn't attract most full time (or even part time) professionals. You have actually confirmed the major deficiency in the brand's offering yourself....professionals don't use Pentax (the 645z has hopefully started to change that).

I can understand why, as an enthusiast, you are more than happy and just want the whingers to 'go away and leave us alone'.

As a part-time professional, I post my thoughts here in the (probably misguided) hope that someone from Ricoh/Pentax will see and understand what the professional segment of the market needs. And more importantly, that they don't currently serve that need very well.

I think the market response to the 645z demonstrates very well that the professional market is not to be sneezed at or dismissed, that there is good money to be made in a well-produced FF, that professionals will buy Pentax if they get it right, and I believe that Ricoh may be coming to the same realisation (finally)...

[monochrome]

As a part-time professional, I post my thoughts here in the (probably misguided) hope that someone from Ricoh/Pentax will see and understand what the professional segment of the market needs. And more importantly, that they don't currently serve that need very well.

I'm not pointing fingers at you - you are reasonable.

OTOH you just supported my point. You want Pentax to have pro features, but you could satisfy your need with another brand.

[Poit]

I'm not pointing fingers at you - you are reasonable.

OTOH you just supported my point. You want Pentax to have pro features, but you could satisfy your need with another brand.

If I went to another brand, I would also need a lot of money I don't have. To quote myself on that particular topic:

Let me help you understand: for those who are already invested in K-mount, and would receive maybe a 60-70% return on their investment on the used market, the prospect of "just sell-up and go elsewhere" is not economically attractive or viable. I'm getting really sick of that comment.

I, for one, have continued to invest in K-mount lenses (albeit Sigma in recent times) because I had faith that a professional and (supposedly) serious camera manufacturer like Pentax would not take too long to have a FF offering, like all the other serious players.

I'll readily admit that I was very wrong in that assumption, but that doesn't change the fact that I will be out of pocket by quite a substantial amount if I change now. That is why:

a) I'm angry (with myself for assuming such a thing, and Pentax/Ricoh for claiming to be serious); and

b) why I continue to complain about 'no FF' on this site, in the feeble and futile belief that Pentax/Ricoh might actually listen to their customers.

I'm certain I'm not alone in the reasons outlined above.

Do you understand now? Bueler?

So, to summarise, I need a Pentax FF for professional and financial reasons

I'm not pointing fingers at you - you are reasonable.

Thanks BTW, good to know my comments are not taken as senseless rants

[monochrome]

So, to summarise, I need a Pentax FF for professional and financial reasons

I think your dilemma should be favorably resolved in fairly short order (possibly weeks).

[Poit]

I think you could be right, and I'm very pleased.

I'm not so sure about weeks, but soon-ish.

[RonHendriks1966]

I think your dilemma should be favorably resolved in fairly short order (possibly weeks).

I think you could be right, and I'm very pleased.

I'm not so sure about weeks, but soon-ish.

So do we know anything at all, or are we making ourselves crazy again, crying for hope and running towards "the light"?

[monochrome]

So do we know anything at all, or are we making ourselves crazy again, crying for hope and running towards "the light"?

Specifically what asahi man posted on dpreview (lenses and FF camera are 'in production'; suppliers (inferred) are 'in production'; lenses released target April/May, camera a bit later).

Indications and backchatter seem stronger this time - as far as the CEO saying in the DCWatch interview the fullframes (note plural) are in development (which asahi man claims is jargon at Nikon and Pentax for 'in production').

Whatever - 270 days +/- in '9 months'. Are we going to do this 270 times?

Someone who knows anything more specific obviously cannot say whether, and if so how they know.

[RonHendriks1966]

Specifically what asahi man posted on dpreview (lenses and FF camera are 'in production'; suppliers (inferred) are 'in production'; lenses released target April/May, camera a bit later).

Indications and backchatter seem stronger this time - as far as the CEO saying in the DCWatch interview the fullframes (note plural) are in development (which asahi man claims is jargon at Nikon and Pentax for 'in production').

Whatever - 270 days +/- in '9 months'. Are we going to do this 270 times?

Someone who knows anything more specific obviously cannot say whether, and if so how they know.

Oh well I go into hibernation so when I wake up we will be 6 months on the road allready.

[noser]

You omit the part-time professional photographers, who actually need a 24x36 sensor, and for whom cost vs quality is an even bigger consideration than the full timers.

You omit all the future professionals. The teens who have got a taste for it through their smart phone and are considering exploring the profession.

And you omit the fact that 'most of us aren't full time professionals' because, well, the brand doesn't attract most full time (or even part time) professionals. You have actually confirmed the major deficiency in the brand's offering yourself....professionals don't use Pentax (the 645z has hopefully started to change that).

I can understand why, as an enthusiast, you are more than happy and just want the whingers to 'go away and leave us alone'.

As a part-time professional, I post my thoughts here in the (probably misguided) hope that someone from Ricoh/Pentax will see and understand what the professional segment of the market needs. And more importantly, that they don't currently serve that need very well.

I think the market response to the 645z demonstrates very well that the professional market is not to be sneezed at or dismissed, that there is good money to be made in a well-produced FF, that professionals will buy Pentax if they get it right, and I believe that Ricoh may be coming to the same realisation (finally)...

Count me in the part time pro group. In fact, count me in to the same situation as yourself almost 100%

I didn't buy into Pentax to become a pro; I bought in as an enthusiastic amateur and really liked it. The pro aspect came later, and now I feel I'm stuck - it seems such a waste to throw away all that gear to start again. I guess if I got 50-70% on it I might get one nice lens from another mount for it all, since most of it is so old.

I'm still strongly considering the 645Z; aside from framerate and the typically poor Pentax video mode it's actually excellent as an all-round shooter.

But I have only 3 non-AF 645 lenses. I have 10x more K mount lenses, most of which are FF.

Maybe Pentax reads this forum; maybe they don't.

I'd like to think they have a room of interns, each who is a native speaker of a different language, who read and report from all the online forums. But they all report to a manager that doesn't go to meetings, so no one else at Pentax ever hears what the rest of the world/market wants.

So we only get 'upgrades' when they put a Miffy decal on last years body.

But I do think FF is very soon to come, based on the new lenses and company comments. What I suspect though is it may not be a D750 competitor. And it may not be a Leica competitor.

So if those two exist on a single continuum (and that may be a wrong assumption) where the Leica is on the far left, as a one-shot-uber-expensive-let-make-some-art body, and the D750 is pretty far away on the right side ( almost where the 1D and D4's live ), which are more in the monster-feature-do-anything-for-anyone cameras, where does Pentax fit?

Is there an entire dimension to the graph I'm ignoring? It sounded like in the interview the CEO really, really, really cared about making terrific images... so more to the left?

[Venturi]

Unless the alleged Pentax full-frame is a mirrorless K-mount with dynamic range that rattles Nikon's rafters and hits the street with a lens stable at least as good as the current APS DA lineup it's going to have a really, really hard time gaining any traction at all in the market.

Aside from the die-hard enthusiasts and otherwise stubborn working photogs that are shooting Pentax with a full kit of A/FA glass going full-frame with Pentax for all intents means investing in a whole new system.

And anyone making that choice needs to step back and honestly answer one simple question: Why Pentax?

I've been shooting Pentax 30+ years. I've got AF FF glass from 28mm to 300mm, so I could "affordably" make the move just by buying the body. But I wouldn't; not for a full-frame evolution of the existing k-mount dSLR model.

But even if I were a candidate, that's not a sustainable business model for Pentax. They need full system adoption and they're already a market afterthought. And I don't believe a large enough segment of the market will be tempted away from Canikony by a full-frame Pentax dSLR.

I'm probably wrong (see below) but I think Pentax going FF now is folly and a(nother) bad business decision.