[Rondec]

You should get what you can afford and what makes you happy. I do think a Pentax full frame won't be cheap, although I expect the body to be reasonably priced for what it is. Probably something specified along the lines of a D810, but with some twists, but sold for 200 dollars less. If you need cheaper lenses, then the DA35 f2.4, DA 50 f1.8/FA 50 f1.4, Tamron 28-75 and 70-200 are all full frame compatible and reasonably priced. Why would you be satisfied with the Tamron 70-200 on your Nikon full frame and not on your Pentax full frame? The Tamron ends up being cheaper in k mount because you need stabilization (770 without VC, 1400 dollars with VC) on a lens of this length, which Pentax will provide in camera.

As I said before, you should do what makes you happy. It just bothers me when people compare lenses of different caliber (and obviously different price) and then claim that one system is a poor value. Every system has cheap lenses (some of which may be hidden jewels, some of which are clunkers) and expensive lenses (usually higher quality).

[bossa]

You should get what you can afford and what makes you happy. I do think a Pentax full frame won't be cheap, although I expect the body to be reasonably priced for what it is. Probably something specified along the lines of a D810, but with some twists, but sold for 200 dollars less. If you need cheaper lenses, then the DA35 f2.4, DA 50 f1.8/FA 50 f1.4, Tamron 28-75 and 70-200 are all full frame compatible and reasonably priced. Why would you be satisfied with the Tamron 70-200 on your Nikon full frame and not on your Pentax full frame? The Tamron ends up being cheaper in k mount because you need stabilization (770 without VC, 1400 dollars with VC) on a lens of this length, which Pentax will provide in camera.

As I said before, you should do what makes you happy. It just bothers me when people compare lenses of different caliber (and obviously different price) and then claim that one system is a poor value. Every system has cheap lenses (some of which may be hidden jewels, some of which are clunkers) and expensive lenses (usually higher quality).

The Tamron 70-200 for Pentax is the older screw drive model whereas the version for Nikon is the newer model, which is supposedly better than the Nikon 70-200 VRII at 1/2 the price. I have a Tamron 24-70 that I use on my D810 and it's very nice indeed, definitely a better lens than the Nikon 24-70.

[Kunzite]

We can Pray , wish , keep our fingers crossed , hope , dream , speculate , contemplate , spit , get mad , argue , fight , have Faith , and kick the dirt........all we still have is a chunk of 3D plastic and rumors........SMOKE.

Where there's smoke, there's fire
The Pentax FF is not vapor nor smoke - is a very real product that's currently on the final stages of development and about which we don't know much about (some only know it exist, others a tiny bit more - but they're keeping quiet).

IMHO (with apologies for stating the obvious):
- if the OP wants to go Nikon, he should do it. It's a good system - the only thing I don't quite like about their cameras is that they're made for 3-handed people.
- if the OP wants/needs FF now, he should go Nikon. The Pentax won't be available until late this year.
- if it isn't decided nor urgent, the OP could wait and see the new Pentax - making a decision then.
He shouldn't base his decision on "too good to be true" prices, though. Using BH, Adorama or other reputable dealer is strongly recommended.

---------- Post added 18-05-15 at 01:07 PM ----------

You should get what you can afford and what makes you happy. I do think a Pentax full frame won't be cheap, although I expect the body to be reasonably priced for what it is.

And I'm worried it might be too cheap* - although except for me and Barry, I'm not sure if there's anyone else here thinking the same.

* not the same as 'the cheapest'

[Rondec]

Where there's smoke, there's fire
The Pentax FF is not vapor nor smoke - is a very real product that's currently on the final stages of development and about which we don't know much about (some only know it exist, others a tiny bit more - but they're keeping quiet).

IMHO (with apologies for stating the obvious):
- if the OP wants to go Nikon, he should do it. It's a good system - the only thing I don't quite like about their cameras is that they're made for 3-handed people.
- if the OP wants/needs FF now, he should go Nikon. The Pentax won't be available until late this year.
- if it isn't decided nor urgent, the OP could wait and see the new Pentax - making a decision then.
He shouldn't base his decision on "too good to be true" prices, though. Using BH, Adorama or other reputable dealer is strongly recommended.

---------- Post added 18-05-15 at 01:07 PM ----------


And I'm worried it might be too cheap* - although except for me and Barry, I'm not sure if there's anyone else here thinking the same.

* not the same as 'the cheapest'

I don't think so. Ricoh has made it clear that they will price camera bodies very reasonably, although their upper lens prices will be pretty steep.

[boriscleto]

ROFL...

It is enough to point out that Abe's of Maine is not and never has been located anywhere other than in New Jersey.


Steve

Abe's of Maine was in Brooklyn for years. Though they have always claimed to have originally been from Old Orchard Beach, ME.

[Clavius]

Well, they promised the Pentax FF to be here around November somewhere. Why not just enjoy what you have for the little time that's left between now and then. You can make a much better choice when it's here. It's no punishment, you've got very good and modern gear to pass the time with. Meanwhile you can save up a few extra bucks.

[Kunzite]

I don't think so. Ricoh has made it clear that they will price camera bodies very reasonably, although their upper lens prices will be pretty steep.

Yes, and they will - however I'm talking about some of us preferring a somehow higher-end body. Since this is a camera I would want to keep a few years, I would rather spend some extra € and have a really good product.
Other people are more price-sensitive.

[normhead]

SOUnds like you have an itchy trigger finger and some dough to spend, so get a Nikon 750. The Pentax FF will be higher rez and a better landscape camera, the D750 will be a better sports and wildlife camera. But I'm sure the D750 will be an excellent landscape camera as well, and I'm sure the Pentax FF will do a decent job of sports and wildlife. I notice you have a DA 100 macro- you're going to get less resolution and subject magnification on an FF than you would on a K-3 with the same lens but I guess you're ready for that.

The D750 looks like an amazing one camera system. I'm not seeing what the drawbacks are. Personally, I almost always use two bodies and I see the Pentax FF as a second body that compliments my APS-c system and uses the same lenses. But if you're doing the "one camera body thing, the D750 looks like an excellent choice. It doesn't do what K-3 does, but you don't seem much interested in what a K-3 does, so that's moot to you.

Fast heavy lenses is not the Pentax thing. The Pentax "thing" is slow, portable, lightweight, high quality lenses. With your preferred style of shooting, I'm not clear on how you got with Pentax in the first place... there aren't many folk who want to shoot what you shoot, who currently have Pentax equipment, based on your preferred choice of lenses. I guess buying Pentax you just became aware of what you really wanted by finding out what you didn't want.... everyone has a learning curve.

[Rondec]

Yes, and they will - however I'm talking about some of us preferring a somehow higher-end body. Since this is a camera I would want to keep a few years, I would rather spend some extra € and have a really good product.
Other people are more price-sensitive.

I agree. I don't particularly see a big benefit of 24 megapixel full frame (for my style of shooting) over 24 megapixel APS-C. Particularly if the K3 II has respectable auto focus. If I am going full frame, I will want 36 megapixels, although frame rates and auto focus probably aren't that big a deal to me.

[Sagitta]

ROFL...

It is enough to point out that Abe's of Maine is not and never has been located anywhere other than in New Jersey.


Steve

Actually, they started in Old Orchard Beach and relocated to New York some time in the mid-80's or so.

EDIT:

Address gleaned from an old article from 1984....

"Abe's Cameras, 17 East Grand Avenue, Old Orchard Beach, ME 04064"

Double Edit: Its the tiny white building up for rent in this shot from 2011... https://goo.gl/maps/3KGrL

[RuiC]

I love my K3 - the Pentax ergonomics, weather sealing, dynamic range and have a good set of APSC lenses - Sigma 10-20, Tamron 17-50, Pentax 50-135 and the Pentax 100mm WR but I have been wanting to go FF for the past year and getting the Pentax FF is going to be expensive for me to get all new lenses. I can get the D750 for $1450, the 50mm 1.4 for $330, the 85mm 1.8 for $415 and the Tamron 70-200 for $1025 all on Abes of Maine for a total around $3220 US. Even if I sell all of my Pentax gear for around $2400, I am out of pocket around $800 and i have a solid Nikon FF with good glass.

The Pentax FF will probably be around $2200 + 55mm @ $ 550 and the 77mm around $800 and the 70-200 @ $2200 = $5750 -$1800(sell Pentax gear but i keep the 100mm) = $3900 out of pocket with the additional 100mm WR

This math is not looking good for me staying on the Pentax platform even though I love my K-3 and hate switching but sometimes finances take precedence over loyalty.

Any advice fellow Pentaxians....

"Problably" you should wait to see the prize for the Pentax FF that you are estimating at 2200! And the tamron 70-200 for Pentax mount should not cost 2200 as you say!!! You are mixing brands here!!!

[jrpower10]

I noticed you said "want" not "need" to go FF. First thing to answer is why do you want to go FF. What will FF give you that the K-3 isn't, particularly since you state you love the K-3? Resolution is the same; the K-3 has a faster burst rate; the D750 in theory should have lower noise at high iso; the D750 will have a thinner DOF at a given aperture (which could be advantageous or disadvantageous); K-3 has in-body stabilization; D750 has no crop factor on field of view, which again could be a plus or a minus; the D750 would probably eliminate the camera snob factor among customers if you're using it professionally.

I went through similar gyrations when the D800 came out. For me it was the increased resolution of the D800, but in the end I decided to stick with Pentax, particularly given I don't make money with a camera. I got over the FF thing and saved myself some money doing it.

[mikeodial]

Another alternative to stay with Pentax would be the FA 20-35mm. Around $500 used on eBay and would cover the wide angle on FF. Then get the 43mm Limited. If you get the 43 you can get by without another lens as you already have the DFA 100mm a great lens. That leaves the upper end, which there is a lot of alternatives. The FA 20-35 has a lot of fans take a look at the reviews. The above would put you out about $1000 with amazing quality optics.

[clackers]

If you really like primes (you're a Pentax shooter currently, right?), most of the Nikons aren't image stabilized.

Their Holy Trinity are the 14-24, 24-70 and 70-200 zooms.

It's a different mindset.

[Enrique S Toso]

Get the FA 50mm 1.4, the 77 Ltd*. and the Tamron 70-200 2.8.

$3700, if the PFF is 2200.

Those $500 is what you pay for Pentax features (WS, IBIS, sensor shift,...pixel shift?)

*I would switch this for a normal fast zoom, a 24-70mm. Three amigos doesnt count if your doing maths.