Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
08-08-2010, 04:07 PM   #31
Veteran Member
lurchlarson's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Oregon, USA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 683
If I felt like I really needed a FF and the Pentax camera was as good or better than the competition in areas like lowlight/high iso, as well as AF... assuming I had the cash, I'd pay around $2500-$3000.

08-08-2010, 04:08 PM   #32
Pentaxian




Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Eureka, CA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,938
A year ago I might have been interested in Pentax FF, but since then I have invested in some higher end DA glass and my interest level now in FF is about zero, or so close to zero that it might as well be zero.
08-08-2010, 05:43 PM   #33
Veteran Member
uccemebug's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 960
Original Poster
Up to 45 responses, now. There seems to be strong consensus on the pricing but I'll give it a few more days. Thanks to all for participating.
08-08-2010, 08:41 PM   #34
Veteran Member
mysticcowboy's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: port townsend, wa
Photos: Albums
Posts: 968
Looking at the competition, I'd say that a FF would have to start out $2500-$3000 with the price dropping a bit in a few months. To expect anything cheaper than 2K is probably wishful thinking. Sony comes in there with the Alpha 850. It's a great camera for landscape, but doesn't have modern high ISO, fast multiple exposure or even fast focus. To be a desirable camera it would have to compete with the Canon Mark 5 II or the Nikon d700 and that means costing over $2K.

One problem with a new Pentax FF would be a lack of lenses. So many of the recent offerings have been APS only. That means that my newer lenses wouldn't work with it, so what's the advantage of staying with Pentax?

08-08-2010, 10:42 PM   #35
Pentaxian




Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Madison, Wis., USA
Posts: 1,510
About $1,500 if someone can magically change my lens collection to FF.

Not possible? Then the answer in the next few years is ..... zero. No sale. I cannot afford to replace a collection of Sigma and Pentax APS-sized glass. And have no driving interest to.

I have so much to learn about photography that I can stay with APS-C for a long time, learning all the way. In fact, I probably can stay with the K-7 - or perhaps a tweak with a more sensitive sensor. And the images will be good enough for my limited purposes.

Now ..... if you ask about future lens purchases, that's different. I will strive for FF where I reasonably can. Latest purchase is 100-300mm Sigma f/4. But my reach drops from 450mm to 300mm with FF. I'm losing 1/3 my reach on all lenses. In case anyone asks, my interests would not gain much at the wide end. The FOV change is nearly all negative for me.

In fact, if I have to dump almost all my glass, I would take a very close look at changing systems. It would be foolish to create a new system without a critical review of alternatives.

As always, YMMV and almost certainly will.
08-08-2010, 11:03 PM   #36
Veteran Member
Pentaxor's Avatar

Join Date: May 2009
Location: Vancouver, B.C.
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,513
I'd say around $1500.
08-09-2010, 07:11 AM   #37
Veteran Member
uccemebug's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 960
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Pentaxor Quote
I'd say around $1500.
You're not alone.

Responses are still slowly coming in. We're now at 51. Which, to be frank, is a lot more responses than I'd expected. There are even all of two women.
08-09-2010, 07:42 AM   #38
Veteran Member
creampuff's Avatar

Join Date: May 2007
Location: Singapore
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,955
I think the number of people posting in the affirmative is contingent on the target price, which unfortunately there isn't a clear range stated here. Truth is most Pentax users won't bite because any FF camera would be basically beyond what they would be prepared to spend, and even those who throw up a figure like say US$1500 before they would consider, may not even actually buy it if a Pentax FF camera is eventually unveiled. Throw in any new FF lenses that Pentax might introduce with a FF image circle and you can already tell that only a handful of people have that kind of money to spend. FF dreamers will have a rude awakening thru a sticker price shock.

08-09-2010, 07:59 AM   #39
Pentaxian
falconeye's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Munich, Alps, Germany
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,863
QuoteOriginally posted by creampuff Quote
Throw in any new FF lenses that Pentax might introduce with a FF image circle and you can already tell that only a handful of people have that kind of money to spend.
I don't want to influence this poll or express an opinion. Just to get a detail straight.

Somebody who hasn't invested in either APSC or FF yet may actually find out that FF is the cheaper option. Today maybe only almost but tommorrow for sure.

Just compare the likely cost of a 50-135/2.8 and a 70-200/4 zoom which both have equal performance when combined with their respective sensors. When the difference in body cost drops below a critical threshold, FF is cheaper as a system.
08-09-2010, 10:52 AM   #40
Veteran Member
WMBP's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Dallas, Texas
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,496
QuoteOriginally posted by Mohawk Quote
Pffft. I wouldn't buy one at all. A FF sensor holds absolutely no relevance to me.

I'm saving up for a 645D (prob. wait for a mkII); just bought my first lens.

PS. I just did a shoot with a 5D-wielding 2nd. The pics from the 5D were so-so, so who ever really thinks that FF is an APS-C slayer is delusional.

I know that I'm in a minority here but I tend to agree with Mohawk above, well, I agree with his first and last points. (I'm not waiting for a 645D.) I don't regard my current bodies as disposable or in need of annual or biannual replacement. And I still don't see anything about full-frame that makes me feel that it's essential to the ongoing success of my photography practice.

That said, a Pentax 36x24 body would have to cost about $2K for me to be curious enough to read the specs. I wouldn't mind it if somebody gave me a Nikon D3 or a Canon 5D, but the only 36x24 on the market today that I can imagine justifying as a purchase would be the Sony A850. Pentax would have to compete with Sony for me to give a damn.

And if Pentax comes out and tries to compete with Nikon or Canon in this niche market, well, then I'll know that the people running Pentax are completely out of their minds and I'll start looking for something to switch to. Sigh.

Will
08-09-2010, 10:56 AM   #41
Veteran Member
WMBP's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Dallas, Texas
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,496
QuoteOriginally posted by falconeye Quote
I don't want to influence this poll or express an opinion. Just to get a detail straight.

Somebody who hasn't invested in either APSC or FF yet may actually find out that FF is the cheaper option. Today maybe only almost but tommorrow for sure.

Just compare the likely cost of a 50-135/2.8 and a 70-200/4 zoom which both have equal performance when combined with their respective sensors. When the difference in body cost drops below a critical threshold, FF is cheaper as a system.
Falk, I don't understand how you figure FF is cheaper, even for somebody who is buying their first camera? If the bodies cost (a lot) more, and the lenses cost the same as APS-C optimized lenses or more (which seems to me certain), then how do you figure that FF can be cheaper? More + more = more, at least on my slide rule.

Will
08-09-2010, 11:21 AM   #42
Pentaxian
falconeye's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Munich, Alps, Germany
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,863
QuoteOriginally posted by WMBP Quote
Falk, I don't understand how you figure FF is cheaper
Will, I know this is surprising when one first encounters the idea.

Consider pairs of equivalent FF lenses (lenses yielding identical image quality), like a 50-135/2.8 and 70-200/4. Both lenses are roughly same size, weight and price. Roughly. But the 70-200/4 has a slightly relaxed lp/mm requirement (for obvious reasons) and it max. aperture is f/4 which is easier to handle when assuring tack-sharp images wide open. In the end, the 70-200/4 turns out cheaper. You may check the market and see for yourself.

So, if lenses are cheaper and the body is not a lot more expensive, you end up with a situation where the full frame system is cheaper.

Some get confused because they compare a 50-135/2.8 with a 70-200/2.8. But this is the wrong comparison. The latter yields superior images and therefore, should be more expensive irrespective of sensor size.
08-09-2010, 11:46 AM   #43
Veteran Member
WMBP's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Dallas, Texas
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,496
QuoteOriginally posted by falconeye Quote
Will, I know this is surprising when one first encounters the idea.
Well, it's still surprising, even after I've read your explanation. ;-)


QuoteQuote:
Consider pairs of equivalent FF lenses (lenses yielding identical image quality), like a 50-135/2.8 and 70-200/4. Both lenses are roughly same size, weight and price. Roughly. But the 70-200/4 has a slightly relaxed lp/mm requirement (for obvious reasons) and it max. aperture is f/4 which is easier to handle when assuring tack-sharp images wide open. In the end, the 70-200/4 turns out cheaper. You may check the market and see for yourself.
Hmmm. I can't find the 70-200 f/4 to compare, not on Amazon, not at B&H. This is an old manual focus lens perhaps?

And are there lots of FF lenses available at a savings in this way? Remember, if a Pentax 36x24 body is released, and if it sells for a street price of around $2000 (US), you are going to have to save a LOT of money buying those alternative lenses, to make up the $1000+ difference in price between the new FF and the existing K-7.

But okay, I kind of see how you're figuring this. But even if your math is right, I'm not persuaded that, in the end, the idea that "FF is cheaper!" is going to persuade a lot of buyers.


QuoteQuote:
Some get confused because they compare a 50-135/2.8 with a 70-200/2.8. But this is the wrong comparison. The latter yields superior images and therefore, should be more expensive irrespective of sensor size.
Yeah, okay, although, for me anyway, buying FF and then getting budget conscious on the lenses would be kind of strange. I wouldn't buy FF in order to take photos that were AS GOOD as the ones I'm taking already. The WHOLE POINT of going 36x24 would be to sqeeze even better images out of those really good lenses, sharper, less noisy images at higher ISO, and shallower depth of field at f/2.8. or f/3.2.

Well, I am willing to bet a plate of ribs that Pentax is NOT released a 36x24 camera this year, so it's a moot point.

Will
08-09-2010, 03:05 PM   #44
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jun 2010
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 361
QuoteOriginally posted by creampuff Quote
FF dreamers will have a rude awakening thru a sticker price shock.
I have 2x FA, 1x Bigma, 1x D-FA Macro all of which will fit a FF Pentax, I only bought into Pentax last month, So bring it on!
08-09-2010, 03:20 PM   #45
Veteran Member
uccemebug's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 960
Original Poster
Sixty responses! I'll let it go for another 24 hours and post the results on this thread.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
camera, dslr, ff, ff pentax, pentax, photography, survey
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
How much would you pay for this? timstone Pentax Film SLR Discussion 6 04-18-2010 10:56 AM
how much would you pay for ff? philmorley Pentax News and Rumors 70 02-16-2010 06:56 AM
How much to Pay for a LX? sixstring Pentax Film SLR Discussion 13 05-11-2008 03:49 AM
How much to pay for a 50/1.2 Arpe Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 14 05-30-2007 11:18 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:54 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top