[jonlg]

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

[Adam]

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.

You are totally right, which is why Pentax is eventually going to release a FF camera FF sensors used to be exponentially more expensive than their APS-C counterparts, but that's no longer the case, which allows for more competitive pricing while still securing nice margins.

[Edgar_in_Indy]

You are totally right, which is why Pentax is eventually going to release a FF camera FF sensors used to be exponentially more expensive than their APS-C counterparts, but that's no longer the case, which allows for more competitive pricing while still securing nice margins.

I kind of feel like if Pentax releases FF now, they might have already missed the boat to some degree. Sure, FF sensors have gotten cheaper, but a larger sensor is still more demanding of the glass, and requires more of it, hence, FF lenses will tend to be larger, heavier, and more expensive.

A few years ago I would have been more tempted to switch to a Pentax FF, but in the meantime APS-C sensors have gotten so good, I can't help but question the value of FF. APS-C sensors of today have surpassed FF sensors of just a few years ago, and now the image quality difference between most FF sensors and the best APS-C sensors amounts to splitting hairs. What would I gain in tangible benefits? A slightly better signal-to-noise ratio that is only significant at stratospheric ISO levels? But at what cost? Larger, heavier, more expensive lenses that give me less depth of field at any given aperture and (assuming megapixel count is fairly close) less reach? It kind of feels like taking one step forward, and one and a half steps back.

That being said, a lot of people obviously crave FF, and I think Pentax should release it, but I fear they have spent too much time checking which way the wind blows, and have missed a lot of potential sales that they can never get back.

[Stickl]

FF is perfect for wedding photographers etc. You know, you can't have a lens like 50mm/1.2 in FF for APS-C. In APS-C it should be something like 35mm/0.2 for getting same DOF as within the 50/1.2 in FF so it's not possible. Hope you get my point. That's one big reason people wanting the FF.

[Kunzite]

For the famous "only one eye in focus" look?

[Adam]

I kind of feel like if Pentax releases FF now, they might have already missed the boat to some degree. Sure, FF sensors have gotten cheaper, but a larger sensor is still more demanding of the glass, and requires more of it, hence, FF lenses will tend to be larger, heavier, and more expensive.

They've missed a lot of boats, but if their market researchers think something like the K-S1 is a good idea, then they shouldn't be opposed to the whole FF concept

[dakight]

It's not about technical advantages or features; any competent engineer can deal with those. It is about marketing and return on investment. From the outside looking in it looks like a no-brainer but there's a reason it hasn't happened yet and I believe the reason is that being a small company and until recently on the edge of viability, they have little to no room for error. If they sink money into the development of a product, they'd better get it right or it could well be a fatal error. With Ricoh at the helm they may have more breathing room but even deep pockets have their limits.

[kenspo]

FF is perfect for wedding photographers etc. You know, you can't have a lens like 50mm/1.2 in FF for APS-C. In APS-C it should be something like 35mm/0.2 for getting same DOF as within the 50/1.2 in FF so it's not possible. Hope you get my point. That's one big reason people wanting the FF.

And for me as pro concert photographer. Dark pics and high ISO. FF is way better then apc-s no matter what people say. Same with lifting out details in dark spaces on a pic. K-3 is the best apc-s on the marked, minus the AF. When Pentax contacted me to "buy" me from Nikon, i knew i would had to work much harder to gain same results. But after a few meetings with Pentax, i liked their vision, their goals etc. And allready then they promised FF would come (1 year ago). Pentax really need to get two things to get more pro's to come over; FF and a fast wideangel (both with and without zoom). I know when the FF is in the stores, but havent got updated on their coming lense lineup yet. But Pentax is going places, and im happy to be a part of this journey.

[hjoseph7]

Do you guys wake up the morning thinking about FF, then go to sleep at night dreaming about FF ? just asking

[Edgar_in_Indy]

FF is perfect for wedding photographers etc. You know, you can't have a lens like 50mm/1.2 in FF for APS-C. In APS-C it should be something like 35mm/0.2 for getting same DOF as within the 50/1.2 in FF so it's not possible. Hope you get my point. That's one big reason people wanting the FF.

Do people really use the 50mm f/1.2 at f/1.2 on a regular basis? And does that mean that wedding photographers never shoot Nikon, since Nikon does not sell a competing lens? If the f/1.2 lens is such an important staple of a FF system, then it seems like Nikon would offer it.

[Stickl]

Do people really use the 50mm f/1.2 at f/1.2 on a regular basis? And does that mean that wedding photographers never shoot Nikon, since Nikon does not sell a competing lens? If the f/1.2 lens is such an important staple of a FF system, then it seems like Nikon would offer it.

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

Do you guys wake up in he morning thinking about FF, then go to sleep at night dreaming about FF ? just asking

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.

[Jyrkira]

FF is perfect for wedding photographers etc. You know, you can't have a lens like 50mm/1.2 in FF for APS-C. In APS-C it should be something like 35mm/0.2 for getting same DOF as within the 50/1.2 in FF so it's not possible. Hope you get my point. That's one big reason people wanting the FF.

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.

[Edgar_in_Indy]

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.

I find that the focal plane is already razor-thin on my 85mm 1.4 when shot at 1.4. As far as I'm concerned having more DOF at large apertures is going to be an advantage much, much more often then it would be a disadvantage. I get it that some people seem to obsessed with the thinnest possible DOF, but I don't see where it is very practical on a regular basis.

[Jyrkira]

Do you guys wake up in he morning thinking about FF, then go to sleep at night dreaming about FF ? just asking

Yes, each morning and night

[kenspo]

And when would that be?

Im not allowed to say But 2015