[jake14mw]

Obviously, there is a lot of activity in this full frame section of the forum with people really excited for the announced full frame camera, and for good reason. It’s been a long wait.

How much is the actual full frame sensor worth to you? Do you expect a much more advanced camera when shelling out say $2500 for a camera, or is a K3 with a full frame sensor and some of the obvious advances enough for you? To me, the following categories are some of the bigger items where Pentax is currently behind the competiton. Do you expect improvements in any of these areas to make a camera have a $1500 premium over the existing model, or are minor tweaks enough?

• Autofocus Performance
• Flash System Upgrade
• Video Performance Improvement
• Tethering

What other improvements are critical for you to spend over $2000 on a camera body? How much is the FF sensor alone worth to you? For my photography, the overall performance is most important, and a full frame sensor is only worth maybe $400 to me. For example, if you gave me a K3 with blazing Autofocus, a 1/250 synch speed and true group flash controls, excellent video specs, full wi-fi tethering, etc, I would pay more for that than for a K3 with a full frame sensor. How about you?

[Docrwm]

I believe that your #4 was addressed in the interview and will be in the FF from the answer. They also indicated that they may do a firmware upgrade to allow tethering for the K3 as well.

[GeneV]

It might be enough. That really depends upon what the particular FF sensor brings to the table.

It actually might be a smart move which could minimize the cost and the number of bugs.

[Rimfiredude]

First of all Ricoh has a big job to do just to keep the Pentax line alive. With just a tiny percentage of the market, how much money can they spend on new models. The video is terrible on my K5. I think my Q does a better job. I would like to be able to look through the veiwfinder when shooting video and have autofocus work full time as an option. If I am going to spend a huge amount of money on the FF, I want it to do what a Canon can do, otherwise I will just upgrade to a K3.

[mohb]

If I am going to spend a huge amount of money on the FF, I want it to do what a Canon can do,

Don't canon have full frame cameras made for taking video? Are Pentax supposed to be able to compete on every level with Canon/Nikon or is it enough to bring out a high quality FF that meets the needs of most photographers?

[iCrop]

A K-3 with large sensor would be ideal for me. As a landscape and hummingbird shooter, with the lenses I've acquired over the years, I'd be set for life. I say bring it on!

[rburgoss]

Just throwing a bigger sensor will not work, nor is fair just to add the single cost of the sensor even if keeping the rest of the specs the same.

A bigger sensor by itself may cost the $400 more you say, but in order to be able to use it, you will also need:

A bigger mirror
A bigger shutter
A bigger focus screen
A bigger prism and all viewfinder optics and system
A stronger mirror mechanism
A stronger and faster SR system (bigger sensor = bigger mass)
A faster image processor
A bigger memory buffer
Heftier circuitry as it will handle higher currents than on APS

Even if you keep the rest identical in specs and parts, like the AF system and motor, af focus sensors, LCD sreens, buttons, (even the chasis if you could fit in all the new bigger parts), I am sure we can assume at least twice the cost of the single sensor for the "rest of the mandatory changes". That would leave us with a hypothetical cost increase of $800, not counting all expenses dedicated to research and development, which in term, they should be recovered in a 18 to 24 month period of time, which is about the lifespan of a new DSLR before the market demands a new one to replace it.

[iCrop]

Just throwing a bigger sensor will not work, nor is fair just to add the single cost of the sensor even if keeping the rest of the specs the same.

A bigger sensor by itself may cost the $400 more you say, but in order to be able to use it, you will also need:

A bigger mirror
A bigger shutter
A bigger focus screen
A bigger prism and all viewfinder optics and system
A stronger mirror mechanism
A stronger and faster SR system (bigger sensor = bigger mass)
A faster image processor
A bigger memory buffer
Heftier circuitry as it will handle higher currents than on APS

Even if you keep the rest identical in specs and parts, like the AF system and motor, af focus sensors, LCD sreens, buttons, (even the chasis if you could fit in all the new bigger parts), I am sure we can assume at least twice the cost of the single sensor for the "rest of the mandatory changes". That would leave us with a hypothetical cost increase of $800, not counting all expenses dedicated to research and development, which in term, they should be recovered in a 18 to 24 month period of time, which is about the lifespan of a new DSLR before the market demands a new one to replace it.

I got the impression the OP was looking at the K-3 "feature set", not really implying that Pentax should literally stuff a FF sensor in the K-3. But I could be wrong...

[Rimfiredude]

Don't canon have full frame cameras made for taking video? Are Pentax supposed to be able to compete on every level with Canon/Nikon or is it enough to bring out a high quality FF that meets the needs of most photographers?

Is a camera around the $2,000 price an Entry Level Camera? I think not. Give us continuous autofocus and I will be much happier.

[monochrome]

If I am going to spend a huge amount of money on the FF, I want it to do what a Canon can do

Why not just buy a Canon? I'm not being snarky - it's a real question.

Is a camera around the $2,000 price an Entry Level Camera? I think not. Give us continuous autofocus and I will be much happier.

$2,000 is an entry level FF camera (List) price at introduction. Certainly the street price for an entry level FF camera is 25% lower at end-of-product-cycle.

[ChristianRock]

It would be enough for me (especially with the 645Z screen and the huge viewfinder added, of course). But I'm not a pro.

[jake14mw]

Just throwing a bigger sensor will not work, nor is fair just to add the single cost of the sensor even if keeping the rest of the specs the same.

A bigger sensor by itself may cost the $400 more you say, but in order to be able to use it, you will also need:

A bigger mirror
A bigger shutter
A bigger focus screen
A bigger prism and all viewfinder optics and system
A stronger mirror mechanism
A stronger and faster SR system (bigger sensor = bigger mass)
A faster image processor
A bigger memory buffer
Heftier circuitry as it will handle higher currents than on APS

Even if you keep the rest identical in specs and parts, like the AF system and motor, af focus sensors, LCD sreens, buttons, (even the chasis if you could fit in all the new bigger parts), I am sure we can assume at least twice the cost of the single sensor for the "rest of the mandatory changes". That would leave us with a hypothetical cost increase of $800, not counting all expenses dedicated to research and development, which in term, they should be recovered in a 18 to 24 month period of time, which is about the lifespan of a new DSLR before the market demands a new one to replace it.

My point was not how much the larger sensor adds to the cost of the camera, but how much it is worth to you as a photographer. If you took the K-3, kept the same feature set, and just changed it to handle to larger sensor so that it operated just like a K-3, how much more over a K-3 would you pay for it. For my uses, it's not that much, as I said, I might pay $400 more for a full frame K-3.

You make some excellent points regarding how much just adding a full frame sensor adds to the cost of producing the camera, there are some things in your list that I was not thinking of. It does help illustrate why full frame cameras cost so much more than APS-C cameras. Thanks for your reply.

[RonHendriks1966]

That would be fine for me.

[monochrome]

My point was not how much the larger sensor adds to the cost of the camera, but how much it is worth to you as a photographer. If you took the K-3, kept the same feature set, and just changed it to handle to larger sensor so that it operated just like a K-3, how much more over a K-3 would you pay for it. For my uses, it's not that much, as I said, I might pay $400 more for a full frame K-3.

You make some excellent points regarding how much just adding a full frame sensor adds to the cost of producing the camera, there are some things in your list that I was not thinking of. It does help illustrate why full frame cameras cost so much more than APS-C cameras. Thanks for your reply.

I think there is a COST / VALUE disconnect. It isn't a price issue, it's a cost issue.*

The issue becomes, at the price necessary to make ff camera and sell it profitably, people won't pay that price for 'just the K-3 features' with 'just a larger sensor.' You have to add features that make the camera even more expensive, but that - somewhat perversely - makes the camera worth paying more money for. At such a point you restore COST / VALUE harmony.



*I've read that a FF sensor costs the manufacturer $300 - $400 more than an APSc sensor at the factory level. Then they have to add markup for themselves, the distributor and the retailer. I don't know this, but the total markup might be as much as 100%

[northcoastgreg]

What other improvements are critical for you to spend over $2000 on a camera body?

I'm not really all that into camera features. Give me an electronic level, the green button, the top LCD, WR, good ergonomics and handling and I'd be more than satisfied. I'm quite confident that those features, plus a great deal more, will wind up in the Pentax FF. However, I think it's unrealistic to expect the Pentax FF to be, in all respects, comparable to, or have all the same features as, a similarly priced Canikon FF. In some respects the Pentax FF will be better, in some respects it won't.

How much is the FF sensor alone worth to you?

Honestly, I'm far more interested in lenses than cameras. If Pentax makes FF lenses that fit my shooting style and I can afford the lenses and the FF camera, then I will consider buying it. Cost is only an issue in relation to whether I can afford the product or not. Nor do I assume that a product is too expensive, or not worth it, merely because I can't afford it.