[patarok]

yes:

more light (there is a thread on why and how there gets more light onto a FF-Sensor on pentaxforums.com)
other DOF and therefore better exemption capabilities( i hope this is the right english word)
oldschool feeling when "framing" something.

[falconeye]

As i have detailed in my blog.

For every given/requested image quality, there is a sweet spot for sensor size which implements it in the most cost-efficient way.

I.e., if you aim for high enough image quality, FF is the cheaper way. And ultimatively, cropped medium format, then full MF is.

As the image quality goes up and cost goes down over time, there is a genuine general trend for larger sensor cameras (not necessarily bigger ones though). So, it can make sense to invest in FF lenses early.

However, there is a strong chance your required image quality won't fall into the FF sweet spot. Otherwise, mFT and 1" wouldn't exist anymore.

You'd have to driving your current photography to the edge of what's feasible in order to benefit from FF, be it extreme narrow depth of field, very low light available light photography, extreme resolution in the studio, artificial light sports photograpy or whatever. If your case doesn't fall into any of those, you won't need FF. But quite a few pros do in order to compete.

All in all, I'd say a Pentaxian benefits less from FF than a Canon user would from upgrading to a high DR Sony sensor

A full upgrade to FF includes more capable lenses and most of the improvement (and cost of upgrade) will come from the lenses actually.

[markku55]

As i have detailed in my blog.

For every given/requested image quality, there is a sweet spot for sensor size which implements it in the most cost-efficient way.

I.e., if you aim for high enough image quality, FF is the cheaper way. And ultimatively, cropped medium format, then full MF is.

As the image quality goes up and cost goes down over time, there is a genuine general trend for larger sensor cameras (not necessarily bigger ones though). So, it can make sense to invest in FF lenses early.

However, there is a strong chance your required image quality won't fall into the FF sweet spot. Otherwise, mFT and 1" wouldn't exist anymore.

You'd have to driving your current photography to the edge of what's feasible in order to benefit from FF, be it extreme narrow depth of field, very low light available light photography, extreme resolution in the studio, artificial light sports photograpy or whatever. If your case doesn't fall into any of those, you won't need FF. But quite a few pros do in order to compete.

All in all, I'd say a Pentaxian benefits less from FF than a Canon user would from upgrading to a high DR Sony sensor

A full upgrade to FF includes more capable lenses and most of the improvement (and cost of upgrade) will come from the lenses actually.

I have many Pentax lenses filling the FF sensor, If I can afford me a Pentax FF DSLR, I don't need to invest anything on new lenses

[pinholecam]

A 3D printed item does not magically appear upon the snap of the fingers.

The mechanical drawing is needed for the vendor, in other words, some mechanical/concept engineer/designer has to take the time to do it up.
If the dimensions look right, that means no small amount of time was spent on it.
No company in their right mind will casually ask their designers to do up a drawing on a whim (ok... some very unreasonable ones will... )
Often enough, no company has the luxury to assign engineer resources for such things unless its confirm up or at least passed a business case phase.

So no, Pentax did not do up the 3D model on a last minute whim.

[bossa]

It's totally about the flexibility of the system for me. APS-c uses all the APS-c lenses obviously, but it also uses all the FF lenses both at full resolution. You have this weird anomaly where two formats use the same mount. That gives you the 17 lenses Pentax has developed just for APS-c and all the legacy and future lenses designed for FF. Going to a K-3 II gives me the speed bump available for the new lenses, plus still backwards compatable with my A-glass, FA glass, M glass, and DA glass.

Don't overlook the fact that the FF will allow cropping in-camera so you can still use your APS-C lenses on it. An 36MP FF camera crops to 15 MP (1.5x) but an 54MP FF would crop to 24MP, although I doubt Ricoh will implement a 54MP FF sensor as that would have a negative affect on 645Z sales.

[patarok]

Don't overlook the fact that the FF will allow cropping in-camera so you can still use your APS-C lenses on it. An 36MP FF camera crops to 15 MP (1.5x) but an 54MP FF would crop to 24MP, although I doubt Ricoh will implement a 54MP FF sensor as that would have a negative affect on 645Z sales.

wrong.

Let me cite a famous lyricist here . His name is Busta Rhymes...:
!!! Straight multiply, yes its straight multiply:
16x1,5(6)=24.96 That goes vice versa.

Warning !! Again 36MP will not crop to 15mp?(how the heck did you calculate this one)?? if in !!!APS-C mode!!!

They would crop to 24.5 or something. And i really dont need that.
I got that pixel density on my new K-3 and AFAIC they should have done everything they did with the K-3 except the sensor... Big Fail. I really liked my K-5's 16mp Sensor for its low-light capabilities... The Pictures where also big enough (Resolution).
Peeps you should try enlarging your photos in lightroom by 2.8 times ... That is big enough for every print. And there should be way better enlargement algorithms...
(Besides - The real BIIIG prints get printed in with a special printing tech. There are machines that defenitely do something else than your bubbly inkjet printers)

but as i am planning to go into product photography or food photography, i chose the K-3 because it was there for a decent price and has no low-pass filter, which brings me more detail in studio situations.

AGAIN: 24.5 MP will crop down to about 16MP.
And there is no endless RAW shooting in the words "36MP Sensor". Not even in JPEG with a newer Prime V ImageProcessor. That are hot dreams but nothing more.

a 24.5MP FF Sensor along with a new ImageProcessing-Board/Unit will bring us to the 10 pix per Second Border , maybe 11 or 12 and endless RAW Shooting would also be possible with 24.5MP...
Forgot about the Run for more MP that Canon recently started and Sony may follow. Forget it. That is for techy boys not for photographing. All the Top-Line DSLRs are still around 20MP and that is because:

1st) Image Quality
2nd) SPEED!!!

[Kunzite]

I'm afraid that's incorrect. The crop factor is linear, so you have to apply it to both the horizontal and vertical dimensions.
Besides, cameras using the 36MP Sony FF sensor have APS-C crop modes of about 15MP.

[normhead]

I'm afraid that's incorrect. The crop factor is linear, so you have to apply it to both the horizontal and vertical dimensions.
Besides, cameras using the 36MP Sony FF sensor have APS-C crop modes of about 15MP.

Which we've known since the D800 came out years ago, and the crop image was 15 MP. You can theorize all you want, but go to a Nikon site and check out the specs. The specs will be right, mathematical calculations undertaken by amateurs, as i have found out through personal experience, can be wrong.

[patarok]

Sorry, i had a beer recently.
So you may be afraid. I may be incorrect. But it is a fact that a 36 MP FF will not bring us better image quality. And it wont bring us high shootin rates or endless shooting. Linear or non-linear. Beer or no beer.

And i have found it is not right to hit a drunken man, my experienced hero.!

---------- Post added 05-21-15 at 01:18 PM ----------

amateur made mistake... bloody amateurs made mistake. buy the Daily Sun ladies and gentlemen. patarok did not calculate right. scandal. death sentence... Theory gone wrong. Photographers are shocked to have people in their rows who make mistakes...
my suggestion for today. lower your blood pressure, drink beer. and dont buy 36mp cameras. Even if they crop to 15mp...

[monochrome]

The fact is that the fish don't give a rip whether I'm using a 800 dollar rod or a 150 dollar rod, and my casting technique is good but certainly not of championship calibre—and a more expensive rod, though nice to have, is not necessary in order to have a good day on the water.

I don't golf so I can't say this is axiomatic - but I fly fish. I have a $75 rod that is 40 years old, a $300 rod that is 20 years old, a $400 rod that is 20 years old and a second-hand $450 rod that is 70 years old (all purchase prices - values might be higher). I don't even want to start on reels. The gear doesn't matter, but it does - if you appreciate gear for what it does for your day out instead of what it says about you.

Without going into ln. wt. talk, the $300 rod is the best tool at my skill level to make good casts, but the $450, vintage, hand-made and signed cane rod with nickel silver and tiger maple reel seat is the most fun to use. I mean cheek-hurting grins fun to use. The way I fish, getting out is blessing; selecting a fly, tieing it on and making a good cast over a likely fish is the object and catching a fish is gravy. Making a good cast over a challenging fish and raising it, with a balky, old beautiful rod is sublime. Personally I care less about the fish and more about the fishing.

It's like the difference between photographing a scene with an SV and the same scene with a K-3. The K-3 is the better tool . . . . .

I couldn't make myself sell the lenses, but I might just sell the extra rods and buy the FF just for the experience of using it with my lenses regardless of whether I am good enough to make better images with it.

[patarok]

So my drunken very, very unexperienced mind(oh my gosh, like it would be rocket science...ts ... ts... ts...) was able to calculate it down to appr. 9.9 MP; Which is still enough for me in crop mode when i think about Canons 1D models with APS-H which had a resolution that was also around 10MP.)(until the "III" came out, they had about 8MP.)
Besides the top notch bodies of the ruler brand still have only 18MP on their FF sensors.

Everybody who didn't already distinguish himself by subliminal calling himself experienced, and talk as in some Hive-Mind(WE). Here is your last chance. It seems like i get sober again.
Maybe i should try some whiskey...(just in case there is another cockfight on the menu...)

---------- Post added 05-21-15 at 01:38 PM ----------

I don't golf so I can't say this is axiomatic - but I fly fish. I have a $75 rod that is 40 years old, a $300 rod that is 20 years old, a $400 rod that is 20 years old and a second-hand $450 rod that is 70 years old (all purchase prices - values might be higher). I don't even want to start on reels. The gear doesn't matter, but it does - if you appreciate gear for what it does for your day out instead of what it says about you.

Without going into ln. wt. talk, the $300 rod is the best tool at my skill level to make good casts, but the $450, vintage, hand-made and signed cane rod with nickel silver and tiger maple reel seat is the most fun to use. I mean cheek-hurting grins fun to use. The way I fish, getting out is blessing; selecting a fly, tieing it on and making a good cast over a likely fish is the object and catching a fish is gravy. Making a good cast over a challenging fish and raising it, with a balky, old beautiful rod is sublime. Personally I care less about the fish and more about the fishing.

It's like the difference between photographing a scene with an SV and the same scene with a K-3. The K-3 is the better tool . . . . .

I couldn't make myself sell the lenses, but I might just sell the extra rods and buy the FF just for the experience of using it with my lenses regardless of whether I am good enough to make better images with it.

about fishing... arye sure ya dont need more rods? i may have something interesting for you in my garage...
my father had some nice fishing gear... *goingforanotherdrink*

[monochrome]

about fishing... arye sure ya dont need more rods? i may have something interesting for you in my garage...
my father had some nice fishing gear... *goingforanotherdrink*

Thanks for the offer, but I don't need another line of gear addiction.

[ElJamoquio]

I like photographing people fishing. Best of both worlds?

[Big Dave]

If a bigger sensor wasn't better, we wouldn't see any improvement with a 645Z over 36mp or 24mp. We all know the 645Z is better, so 36mp is better then 24mp. I do think that Pentax will go with the 24mp Sony sensor with the five axis IBIS included. Sony is testing it for sensor shift now. This will keep the cost down.

[patarok]

old story, new characters. (i know i shouldnt answer such posts but i gotta)

ftf: the 645Z has a newly developed CMOS sensor, the 645D has a CCD sensor, that is the reason, why some new Hasselblad and such use exactly the same sensor as the 645Z.
So there is the improvement.

A bigger sensor does not mean more megapixel and it really should not. What really can effect image quality in a negative way is a higher pixel density. More MP on the same sensor size = not as good in low light conditions and visually more noise.(You also will see an improvement of the IQ if the sensor pixels are bigger ... this is also not possible when squeezing as many sensor pixels as you can on the same sensor size.)

bigger sensor + same megapixel count as on the K-3(24MP) = better image quality and eventually(with a new PRIME engine) faster framerates.