[lurchlarson]

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.

[northcoastgreg]

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.

[uccemebug]

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.

[mysticcowboy]

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?

[glanglois]

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.

[Pentaxor]

I'd say around $1500.

[uccemebug]

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.

[creampuff]

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.

[falconeye]

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.

[WMBP]

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

[WMBP]

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

[falconeye]

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.

[WMBP]

Will, I know this is surprising when one first encounters the idea.

Well, it's still surprising, even after I've read your explanation. ;-)

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.

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

[Freak]

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!

[uccemebug]

Sixty responses! I'll let it go for another 24 hours and post the results on this thread.