[normhead]

But, if someone said "here's a nice pentax full frame body for you, I don't need it any more" I know you'd take it.

[biz-engineer]

If I could afford a FF body, I would buy a nice APS-C lens lineup (maybe a 560 depending on the FF price)

For me, buying expensive glass is a long term spending, so the issue is not the price but the quality and durability. What prevent me to invest in expensive Pentax lens or body is their reliability track record and the cost of repair that I know about from my experience of sending Pentax gear for repair... Until now, with Pentax APSC lenses and bodies, it is broke it was annoying but not a big deal, however, when I consider a $3000 lens or camera body, if not proven to be reliable and durable, I can go ahead and spend this amount of money, especially with Pentax, given that the repair services are not straightforward. That being said, my main concern for the new Pentax full frame is not if it has all the latest technology in it (DOA or not DOA) but if I can consider using it without trouble for at least 5 years or more, because I don't plan to buy a $3000 camera body every 2 years.

[bertwert]

But, if someone said "here's a nice pentax full frame body for you, I don't need it any more" I know you'd take it.

Then sell it, unless they gave me a 150-450 at the same time (and the 24-70, 70-200, 100 macro...)

[normhead]

Then sell it, unless they gave me a 150-450 at the same time (and the 24-70, 70-200, 100 macro...)

OK that ends it, you're outta my will...

---------- Post added 12-03-15 at 11:22 AM ----------

That being said, my main concern for the new Pentax full frame is not if it has all the latest technology in it (DOA or not DOA) but if I can consider using it without trouble for at least 5 years or more, because I don't plan to buy a $3000 camera body every 2 years.

I know pros still shooting weddings etc. the the original 5D. It's been a long time since you had to upgrade every couple of years to get a job done. People used to do this job with view cameras. To say you can't make your FF last for 5 years because of some new feature is pretty much nuts. It's funny how everyone thinks the downturn in camera sales is because of the economy. There's an awful lot of folks who are just happy with what they have. I bought my K-20D second hand 6 years ago, and I'd be still using it today if I had the inclination. I find 24 MP quite comfortable, lots of room to crop... etc.

1 K-3 and 1 K20D image... guess which is the K20D...
A-400, AV mode, ISO 400 and ƒ8






And I was quite happy with the 12 MP K-x as well. Since my 6mp *ist, and K100D, I've had virtually no issues whatsoever with resolution.The K20D is good for anything i want to print, and we've printed up to 20"x30" with it. Since the K20D, I've been buying "nice to have" not have to have.

---

Last edited by normhead; 12-03-2015 at 09:40 AM.

[pathdoc]

Canon 120MP whatever ...

At this stage, Canon will have to enter into co-operation with Microsoft, Apple, Sandisk and Western Digital etc just to be able to have storage media and platforms that can handle the processing and storage of the RAW files. Given that the high-quality JPEG of my 16MP K-5 spits out a 10MB file on average, I can't begin to think what the RAW files of a 120MP sensor would produce. The reductio ad absurdum is something like the Sony Mavica, only instead of pushing in a 3.5" floppy we will be pushing in 2TB external HDD's. Eventually it's all going to get too much. Let SoCaNikon destroy themselves in a megapixel arms race, while Pentax turns out perfectly adequate cameras that people don't need to continually upgrade their computers just to view the images.

PS: I call K20D top, K3 below.

[bertwert]

guess which is the K20D

I think the first one is K20D, am I right?

[normhead]

PS: I call K20D top, K3 below.

I think the first one is K20D, am I right?

Yes, Tess picked it out right away too, there is that tell tell dark blue-green outline around the bird, that is totally absent from the K-5 , K-3 images, but we didn't find it affected landscape images, but the K-5 was also much better dynamic range...but still I continued to use the K20D for 4 months after we got our first K-5. We got a second K-5, that's when I got to move up. Incidentally, on that note, Tess has never moved up from the K-5, she sees no need to.

---

Last edited by normhead; 12-03-2015 at 10:29 AM.

[pathdoc]

I picked it because I felt the green tree bokeh behind the bird's head was a bit on the grainy side, and the fine detail was a little better all around in the second shot.

Incidentally, on that note, Tess has never moved up from the K-5, she sees no need to.

I don't either. I'm almost certainly going to get the full-frame at some stage, if only to be able to unleash the full* power of my wide-angle film-era lenses in digital, but I know it's not going to make me a better photographer or even produce better photographs (unless Pentax have cooked some real magic into this thing).

* = complete unleashing will of course require a decrippled mount, but I have enough A and FA glass that this shouldn't be an issue, and the green button really isn't that much of a hassle.

[bertwert]

I picked it because I felt the green tree bokeh behind the bird's head was a bit on the grainy side, and the fine detail was a little better all around in the second shot.

I thought the same.

[normhead]

I thought the same.

It was the last camera I moved on from because I thought the IQ wasn't what it should be. I moved from the K-5 to the K-3 for the superior auto-focus, only to discover the original SDM was part of the issue in the speed of focus. It's just like Canon, to get the new speedy AF on the new body, you have to buy the new lenses, DFA 70-200 or 150-450, or use screw drive. People always think these things are intentional, camera companies trying to work us over, but, they built the AF systems in their lenses to go work with my K-20D. Not my K-3. They didn't have a K-3 back then. How would they have tested them?

I like the K-3 because it lets me crop. If I wasn't shooting small birds, that are often not where they were when I pressed the shutter release, that they are when the shutter goes, I'm guessing I'd be just as happy with a K-5 IIs.

[bertwert]

They didn't have a K-3 back then.

Unless they have a TARDIS...

[normhead]

Unless they have a TARDIS...

Ya, where can you buy one of those?

Can I go back to a time when I was 35?

[bertwert]

Ya, where can you buy one of those?

If I found one, I would go twenty years in the future and buy the 'old' Pentax FF for a bargain with it's 'outdated' technology.

[pathdoc]

I would go twenty or thirty years in the PAST, to where I could easily buy large quantities of film and have it developed in the course of my lunch break.

It would be tempting to warn 24 or even 14 year old me of all the mistakes I was about to make, but we know that meddling in the timeline can do some very strange things in the present, especially if you believe in divergent timelines (necessary to avoid the grandfather paradox). There would be nothing more sickening than successfully warning the previous you and THEN having to watch your alternate self turn out perfect and happy while your own life was still doomed to be awful.

---------- Post added 03-12-15 at 14:37 ----------

If I found one, I would go twenty years in the future and buy the 'old' Pentax FF for a bargain with it's 'outdated' technology.

But there is always the possibility that you would step out of the time machine to find that yes, Pentax was doomed. Or that the K-1 had suffered the same last-minute fate as the MZ-D, and the release date was still just around the corner. Meanwhile tourists are taking pictures of you with their KS-30's and K-minus-fifteen-II's.

[monochrome]

Will the new Pentax K1 FF be DOA??

No.



(character, character)