[Stickl]

35mm/0.2??

Huge miscalculation here. 33mm/0.85 it the exact lens if you want the same FOV and DOF. In practice you can get almost the same results from 35mm/1.4 than from 50/1.4 in FF if you attend to background distance etc. It is not hard to blur background with APS-C sensor camera if you know what to do.

There is a difference i do not deny it and I dream about Pentax FF too. Not beacause I imagine than my photos would be different after getting FF but because most of my lenses are designed to FF.

Haha sorry still there can't be that kind of lens. Haha no I'm not saying it's hard, within 35/1.8 and 50/1.8 it is actually pretty easy even with the APS-C.
FF is so different what the APS-C, everyone who has tried the FF knows that

[Kunzite]

They've missed a lot of boats

The Universe is full of doors, erm, boats. FF just happens to be more popular than others.

[btnapa]

I'm loving my recently acquired K3 and am staggered by the sharpness of the images I'm seeing even compared to the K5. I'm watching the full frame possibility with interest although in truth I'm getting better results from the K3 than any camera I have ever owned - including full frame film cameras shooting high quality slide film. So the reality is that as a photographer I might not actually need anything better than this. Worth noting I said need, not want - of course if Pentax do launch a full frame camera then I will no doubt want to upgrade to it at some point and in truth I probably will.

The truth is though that in many ways Pentax needs full frame more than I do. As a company they can only charge so much for a DSLR camera with an APSC format sensor. That price level is driven by the market principally but I would suggest doesn't extend much beyond £1000 body only whereas full frame cameras are more expensive in the marketplace and thus a Pentax full frame DSLR can command prices in the £1500-£2000 range in my view. This is a big win for Pentax when the production cost of a pro orientated APSC body is likely not very different to a pro orientated full frame sensor one. In short if the production costs are similar but you can sell one product for 50%+ more than the other then as a company making the product with the higher market value makes absolute sense.

Will I or many others take significantly better pics with a full frame body - probably not - or at least only in certain circumstances. Will Pentax make more money/profit - probably yes. I thus do not understand why they haven't done it already!!

Views?

Saxon

As far back as I can remember, Pentax was a company that took the road less traveled so to speak. 645Z for its price and capability was a stroke of genius catching everyone off guard. At this point, in the FF DSLR world, as it were, Pentax is way behind the other guys. Just introducing a FF camera is not going to be enough. My guess is that they are up to something big or they better be if they want to stay relevant.

Cameras are not developed overnight. If they are up to something, then there are prototypes floating out there. I wish someone would leak some info for us to drool over.

OP I agree with you, for now, I am thoroughly enjoying my K3 and my prime lenses. The combo reminds me of my Pentax MX which I loved. I also agree on the better profit margin on the FF vs. APS-c point.

[fuzzyfelt30]

Im not allowed to say But 2015

Like I've said before, the reveals at CES are just the beginning......I'm definitely looking forward to what they reveal at CP+ ......although you will have to wait a while for it to be available!!

[Rondec]

Full frame is the sort of thing that could be a benefit for Pentax, but if it is done wrong, it could damage the brand as well. The thing is that Pentax needs to have a camera that has specifications that are at or better than current full frame offerings from other companies and sells for a price at which Pentax can make a profit. The biggest enemy of this sort of a camera is cheap APS-C. If a camera like the K3 is selling for 600 dollars, how many people are going to rush out to buy a 2000 dollar K-1? I am afraid the number is small. I probably would and there are probably fifty or a hundred people on the forum like me, but there are a lot more who are pretty happy with APS-C.

[mecrox]

Full frame is the sort of thing that could be a benefit for Pentax, but if it is done wrong, it could damage the brand as well. The thing is that Pentax needs to have a camera that has specifications that are at or better than current full frame offerings from other companies and sells for a price at which Pentax can make a profit. The biggest enemy of this sort of a camera is cheap APS-C. If a camera like the K3 is selling for 600 dollars, how many people are going to rush out to buy a 2000 dollar K-1? I am afraid the number is small. I probably would and there are probably fifty or a hundred people on the forum like me, but there are a lot more who are pretty happy with APS-C.

Better for what? Better for sports? Better for weddings? Or for landscapes, or low-light, or street, or in the studio, or video or ... ?

[kenspo]

Like I've said before, the reveals at CES are just the beginning......I'm definitely looking forward to what they reveal at CP+ ......although you will have to wait a while for it to be available!!

CES is for consumers. CP+ is in Asia, CP+ is more for pro's then CES, so 2+2 is 4.

[Rondec]

Better for what? Better for sports? Better for weddings? Or for landscapes, or low-light, or street, or in the studio, or video or ... ?

They need a camera with similar auto focus capabilities and lenses that can take advantage of it. Similar burst modes, D810 level metering, etc. There should not be a specific area where people can say "the Pentax K-1 just can't keep up with x NIkon camera."

[monochrome]

The need a camera with similar auto focus capabilities and lenses that can take advantage of it. Similar burst modes, D810 level metering, etc. There should not be a specific area where people can say "the Pentax K-1 just can't keep up with x NIkon camera."

Absolutely true. There can't be a single one - because the rabid reviewers will nail the deficiency and never talk about anything else.

No amount of 'Landscape Camera' rebuttal will assuage 'Independent Testing Standards' sites, whatever underlying biases they all have.

[Rondec]

Absolutely true. There can't be a single one - because the rabid reviewers will nail the deficiency and never talk about anything else.

No amount of 'Landscape Camera' rebuttal will assuage 'Independent Testing Standards' sites, whatever underlying biases they all have.

We already know there will be a significant difference that folks at DP Review will pound: lack of a full lens line up. I can just see the faint praise: "this is a reasonable camera if you can deal with the lack of a well developed lens line up. As of present, Pentax has several old prime lenses and two new DFA zooms in their line up..."

[RonHendriks1966]

Better for what? Better for sports? Better for weddings? Or for landscapes, or low-light, or street, or in the studio, or video or ... ?

Well it should be doing all these things in a reasonable way.

[normhead]

It was only an example. 50mm/1.4 is enough and that kind of lens, once again, can't be made for APS-C.

Well, not I just wanted to come out with that thing cuz it feels like many of you who are not needing the FF doesn't understand the reason(s) why some people wants the FF so badly.

.....pffft... you dodged the question....do wedding photographers actually make use of those really narrow DoF images that couldn't be done on APS-c. I don't know but it sounds like a case is being made that they do.

http://121clicks.com/inspirations/the-best-wedding-photographer-portfolios-for-inspiration

I guess there are a couple there that possibly use extreme narrow DoF, but that they are and what lenses are used isn't available. Most of it looks within the capabilities of APS-c.

[mecrox]

Well it should be doing all these things in a reasonable way.

Well, a $500 P&S should also do all these things in a reasonable way, so saying that a typical camera should be competent at handling a typical range of photographic situations doesn't doesn't get us very far. The question "Why Pentax?" still looms frighteningly large over everything. I don't think this as easy as many seem to think, whether or not moving to FF is an economic necessity for any major camera company which wants to be around in 3-5 years' time (and I don 't know the answer to that one either).

[dakight]

There is a sizeable number of people who will buy Pentax simply because it *is* Pentax as long as it's not a complete dog. Likewise there are numbers od those who won't give it a second look because it's not a Nikon, Canon or Sony. You can't underestimate the influence of brand loyalty. A successful launch will keep the loyal customers while convincing others who are honestly undecided. It's not a lot different from a political campaign in that respect.

[RonHendriks1966]

Well, a $500 P&S should also do all these things in a reasonable way, so saying that a typical camera should be competent at handling a typical range of photographic situations doesn't doesn't get us very far. The question "Why Pentax?" still looms frighteningly large over everything. I don't think this as easy as many seem to think, whether or not moving to FF is an economic necessity for any major camera company which wants to be around in 3-5 years' time (and I don 't know the answer to that one either).

Being around in 3-5 years is a good question for more companies with the current decline in sales that is looking to stretch out well into 2016 (after starting the decline in the end of 2012). A FF K-3 would be the safest choice for Pentax.

There is a sizeable number of people who will buy Pentax simply because it *is* Pentax as long as it's not a complete dog.

This is why it can only be a K-3 like model with a FF sensor. A concept very well accepted within the K-mount usergroupe (after K-7/K-5/K-5II/K-5IIs and K-3) with only differences for the larger sensor.