[rawr]

..The benefits of a FF sensor are very real. My 5 year old Canon 5D is still better than any APS-C on the market when it comes to low-light, color depth, & DR.

low-light - yes
color-depth - no
DR - no

The benefits you describe might have been the case five years ago. But according to dxomark.com, things have changed. Low-light ISO is the only area where a FF box like the 5D or even the newer 5D2 retains any sensor advantage against any decent APS-C camera like the Nikon D90 or K-x, at base ISO.

[Pentaxor]

Pentax had already re-released some of their old FF lenses. this includes the manual focus A50/1.2 and the previously defunct FA35/2. we might be seeing some kind of a trend here. Pentax users are just fine with the old FF lenses, so there's no a real mandatory need to come up with new FF lenses ASAP but rather re-release these old ones for use for the camera. new lenses can wait and can always come out for some other time.

just for twist, so what's wrong with these lenses >>> K15, FA20, FA24, FA31, FA43, A50/1.2, DA55, DA70, FA77, FA/DFA 100, A135/1.8, FA135, FA200/2.8 or F4 Macro, DA200, DA300, FA300/4 or macro.

FA28-70, FA20-35, DA60-250, FA80-200, FA250-600.

these lenses are more than enough to satisfy every Pentaxians wet dream.

who cares about SDM and WR?

the only thing that Pentax needs to do is to build an FF body and put their old lenses back into circulation. for sure, developing such body is much cheaper than how much Pentax invested with the 645D and it's new lenses.

[zxaar]

Pentax had already re-released some of their old FF lenses. this includes the manual focus A50/1.2 and the previously defunct FA35/2. we might be seeing some kind of a trend here. Pentax users are just fine with the old FF lenses, so there's no a real mandatory need to come up with new FF lenses ASAP but rather re-release these old ones for use for the camera. new lenses can wait and can always come out for some other time.

just for twist, so what's wrong with these lenses >>> K15, FA20, FA24, FA31, FA43, A50/1.2, DA55, DA70, FA77, FA/DFA 100, A135/1.8, FA135, FA200/2.8 or F4 Macro, DA200, DA300, FA300/4 or macro.

FA28-70, FA20-35, DA60-250, FA80-200, FA250-600.

these lenses are more than enough to satisfy every Pentaxians wet dream.

who cares about SDM and WR?

the only thing that Pentax needs to do is to build an FF body and put their old lenses back into circulation. for sure, developing such body is much cheaper than how much Pentax invested with the 645D and it's new lenses.

+1


agree on everything.

[eigelb]

Nikon D3x sensor: DR 13.7 Evs - 1 step higher and basta
!

[rawr]

D3x is a pretty special camera. But for USD$9200 it only gives you +1 EV over the K-x's 12.5 DR.

And it's interesting that the D3x is the ONLY FF body in the whole dxomark.com database to exceed the DR of the K-x. Even the D3s and 5D2 have lower DR.


So once again, DR isn't an arena where FF has inherent advantages over smaller sensors.

[eigelb]

Eigelb, All the items (except nostalgia) that you mentioned can dealt with at a technical level, including DOF.

I just still do not see the benefits outweighing....

yes it can but it will cost way more than a FF camera with lenses. For the DOF and FOV of a 50mm f/1,7 lens on 35mm format you need a 35mm f/1,2 lens. A 35mm f/1,2 lens even doesnt exist in K mount or im wrong, and will cost 30x as much a Pentax-a 50mm 1,7. And thats only one lens!!
for a 35mm 0,75x Viewfinder you need a 1,6x aps-c viewfinder and this will be worser and costier than the 35mm VF.
show me a aps-c sensor with 24mpx and the same DR and nois performance like the D3x
or a 12mpx aps-c sensor with high iso performance like the D3s

[eigelb]

D3x is a pretty special camera. But for USD$9200 it only gives you +1 EV over the K-x's 12.5 DR.


So once again, DR isn't an arena where FF has inherent advantages over smaller sensors.

D3x can be found for $6,729.95 and thats not the price for the sensor its a big and massiv camera , 5.0 fps at24mpx ...etc.etc
A pentax camera with a similar sensor will not cost that much.


DR:
rawr:
What FF boxes - eg like the D700 or 5D2 - do have, however, is a superior ability to hold onto a usable range of DR as you move up the ISO scale. So while they may not have a higher DR at base ISO, they can hold onto their DR better.

As you go past 800 ISO (811 to be exact, according to DXO), the K-x's ability to hold onto a decent level of DR (9 EV is what DXO uses to define decent DR) starts to decline. However the FF 5D2 it can still hold onto 9EV of DR up until 1815 ISO, and then the decline sets in. The D700 can hold onto 9EV up until about 2300 ISO, then it starts to lose DR.


Thats an advantage

[rawr]

Yeah, wides being wides, nice bright viewfinders and high-ISO are really the only strengths of FF over APS-C. No-one disputes any of that. If anyone needs those things they should get FF. But those things do come at a price premium.

BTW in K-mount there are affordable Sigma 20mm f1.8, a Sigma 24mm 1.8, Sigma 28mm 1.8 and Sigma 30mm f1.4. As well as the Pentax FA 31mm f1.8, 35mm f2 etc... So APS-C users can still get by even on that DOF and FOV issue you raise.

[TaoMaas]

just for twist, so what's wrong with these lenses >>> K15, FA20, FA24, FA31, FA43, A50/1.2, DA55, DA70, FA77, FA/DFA 100, A135/1.8, FA135, FA200/2.8 or F4 Macro, DA200, DA300, FA300/4 or macro.

FA28-70, FA20-35, DA60-250, FA80-200, FA250-600.

The same things would be wrong with them now that were wrong with some of these lenses when EVERY SLR was FF....they'll be too expensive for most people to afford and there won't be very many of them.

[Eric Seavey]

FF sensors have much more capability than APS-C, that is very clear. Does it make sense to have two lines of DSLRs (FF and APS-C) with two lines of lenses? Is the performance the Nikon D300 and Canon 7D not what we would like to see in a K-7 sucessor? Those cameras easily beat the K-7 (yes at a much higher price), though that performance is getting pretty close to what can be squeezed out of APS-C... Is sounds like many want even better performance than that.
The main problems with Pentax DLRS is the low light AF and high ISO noise performance..that is what I would find most important! Perhaps in order to get a larger sensor (with its' technological benefits) while still maintaining approx APS-C is to switch to 3:4 format instead of 2:3...

[Rondec]

I agree that the issues with high iso are holding on to dynamic range. John Bee has done some amazing demonstrations of cleaning up iso 6400 on the K20, but there is no doubt that the images look a little flat. I don't see that full frame has any particular advantage over APS-C when it comes to auto focus in low light.

The problem with using the same lenses on APS-C that you use on full frame is that the focal lengths feel wrong. I don't really like 50mm on APS-C, but I really liked it on film. i would far rather use a 50 - 135mm than a 70-200mm, both from a size and focal length stand point. Since Nikon does not tend to make high end APS-C lenses, this tends to push their photographers into full frame, whether or not they really "need it." This is not a problems with Pentax, where the focal lengths have been specifically selected to fill APS-C needs.

[kenyee]

Does it make sense to have two lines of DSLRs (FF and APS-C) with two lines of lenses?

Yes because of the free 1.5x telecrop that makes your APS-C lenses "longer" for sports/wildlife, etc...

[Pentaxor]

The same things would be wrong with them now that were wrong with some of these lenses when EVERY SLR was FF....they'll be too expensive for most people to afford and there won't be very many of them.

that's the idea of FF. although I don't think that all full-frame lenses would be too expensive for most people. aside from that, the supply and demand factor also played a part in the affecting the price of these lenses.

[TaoMaas]

that's the idea of FF. although I don't think that all full-frame lenses would be too expensive for most people. aside from that, the supply and demand factor also played a part in the affecting the price of these lenses.

You're right...not all FF lenses will be too expensive. It's just that you had some VERY nice glass listed. lol Even when those lenses first came out, Pentax wasn't selling enough of them to get the cost down, so they cost a bit more than comparable Nikon or Canon lenses.