[Clinton]

A 400/2.8 is pointless in todays world; they sold very few in the film days and ever fewer now. When max ISO was 200 they had a mission in spite of tye fcat that the lack of DOF wide open was a problem. Drawback is size and cost; a Pentax one would cost at least $8000; probably even 10000$. Hence they could sell perhaps ten in a decade.

Maybe, but I recently shot a moose with my Bigma side by side with a Nikon shooter and his 400/2.8 with a 1.7x TC attached. It was evening, when these animals generally come out, and the light was dim.

His full frame pictures were simply stunning. Mine were all throw away because the 1600 iso I shot on my K-7 to get a relatively quick enough shutter speed just didn't compare. Maybe the K-5 will resolve this. I certainly hope so; in fact I'm counting on it. Yes, we were both tripoded.

This is of course an entirely unfair comparison, as he's shooting with a $9000 lens, and I'm shooting with a $900 lens. But then again, I haven't got access to anything even remotely like his lens, and if Sigma quit making the Bigma in our mount, as appears to be their trend, I'd be stuck at 300mm/4.

I suppose I could have used a flash, but I prefer not to make angry moose, as they're just as happy to chase you as run away.

[Lance B]

Clinton,

I sincerely hope that Pentax goes FF as well. I just purchased a Nikon D700 to compliment my K-7 and various top notch lenses, but have sold many of my DA/DA* lenses to fund my Nikon glass. At the moment, I am hanging on to my beloved FA20 f2.8 FA31 LE, FA43 LE, FA77 LE, FA*28-70 f2.8, FA*80-200 f2.8 and FA*300 f4.5 in the hope that Pentax will one day realise that FF is something they shouldn't ignore.

If Pentax go FF, it will be when sensors are cheap enough to allow the manufacture of a body to a price that is currently where advanced amateur/semi pro APS C bodies are at the moment, so that would be about US$1,500 or there abouts. The reason I say this figure is because for Pentax to succeed with a FF sensored body, it needs to attract these buyers at that price level as Pentax will attract very few pro's to Pentax as they are already entrenched in the Canon and Nikon systems. I think it would take quite some convincing for people to leave Canon and Nikon if they have much money invested in their glass.

The issue with Pentax, other than the fact that they are probably unable to get their hands on a top quality reasonably priced FF sensor, is that they probably do not have the resources to fund a move to FF with all it's added lens requirements. Having said that, in the short term, they really only need a FF wide angle lens, like a 20mm f2.8 and a "standard zoom" like a 24-70 f2.8, as all the other most used focal lengths are basically covered. We have a DA*60-250 f4 and a DA*300 f4 and all the FA Limiteds, and the FA50 all still in production and all cover FF (apparently the DA* lenses do cover FF).

The only other issue will possibly be whether SR can be incorporated into the image circle of a FF body using the K mount system. If that can be accomplished, along with the reasonably priced FF sensor, then I think we may see a FF DSLR from Pentax at some time. When? Who knows.

A few other factors that may get us all thinking.

* There have been no new APS C lenses announced for a very long time. Makes you think that they have shelved APS C lens research for FF.
* I asked Ned Bunnell about 4 months back if there was a FF Pentax camera on the cards. He advised me that he is (obviously) "not allowed to tell me whether they are or not" and I even said I would sign a non disclosure contract, but was still denied an answer. Going back, I asked him this same question about the time the Nikon D700 first came onto the market (about 2 years ago) and at that time he said there were "no plans at the moment for Pentax to go FF". So, he has gone from saying there are no plans to "sorry, I cannot say one way or the other". You can read into that what you like and I could be seeing things that aren't there.

As for actually writing to Pentax and asking them, I think this would be a bit of a waste of time as Pentax will do what they see fit for their best interest at the moment and what their resources can deal with. What we want is not relevent as it is only a minority as compared to their purchaser base.

[Ash]

Despite personal desires, I too am under no illusion that Pentax will go FF any time soon.
APS-C has no major deficiency so far in what I've been shooting, and I'll bet this is the case for most other photogs as well, even if they do go FF and believe they *need* it.

So I'm also hanging onto my FA ltds, which are spectacular regardless of the platform I shoot with, and am in preparation for their use on future bodies. Whilst I also look forward to what the K-5 looks/feels/shoots like, I'm eagerly waiting for future developments in sensor, AF and flash technology that Pentax may have in store for the future - my wish is they wouldn't lag so far behind the big boys in their technology so as not to exasperate their users too much from less competitive performance...

[Clinton]

I just purchased a Nikon D700 to compliment my K-7 and various top notch lenses, but have sold many of my DA/DA* lenses to fund my Nikon glass. At the moment, I am hanging on to my beloved FA20 f2.8 FA31 LE, FA43 LE, FA77 LE, FA*28-70 f2.8, FA*80-200 f2.8 and FA*300 f4.5 in the hope that Pentax will one day realise that FF is something they shouldn't ignore..

How long have they got before you start selling your FA glass to fund more Nikon glass, or can you just not get the same quality out of Nikon glass, and you'll be keeping your Pentax gear forever?

[hangu]

Clinton, you have roughly 10k+ invested in lenses. What's the percentage of Pentax users that have your budgets and needs? Care to venture a guess? How are you so sure that catering to YOU is in the best interest of Pentax? I'd like to think they know what they're doing more better than some guy on the internet.

I like Pentax but I also realize that they probably can't fulfill my needs (FF) in the near future. You won't find me creating another one of those wretched FF threads about it, though. I'll just mosey over to Canon/Nikon when it's time because I'm fairly positive that my complaining about it will have absolutely zero effect on whether or not they release a FF camera.

I'm not leaving to spite them. I'm also not under the illusion that they'll be losing money/marketshare when someone like me switches over. They are what they are, which is a great alternative to Canon/Nikon when you have under 1k to spend on the camera body. For every one who switches to Canon/Nikon FF DSLR, I'm sure there are several more folks who will choose the K-x over the T2i/T1i.

[Aristophanes]

* I asked Ned Bunnell about 4 months back if there was a FF Pentax camera on the cards. He advised me that he is (obviously) "not allowed to tell me whether they are or not" and I even said I would sign a non disclosure contract, but was still denied an answer. Going back, I asked him this same question about the time the Nikon D700 first came onto the market (about 2 years ago) and at that time he said there were "no plans at the moment for Pentax to go FF". So, he has gone from saying there are no plans to "sorry, I cannot say one way or the other". You can read into that what you like and I could be seeing things that aren't there.

Given that 3 of the major competitors to Pentax all have FF (Sony, Canon, Nikon) and the Olympus and Panasonic have a dedicated small mount (M4/3...because standard 4/3 is dead), it stands to reason Pentax has to be somewhere along that continuum.

It is guaranteed Pentax has an FF body in the skunkworks, probably in trials. The sensor and lens array are the issues. Pricing will be what it will be but that will not be determined by Pentax, but more likely Canon and Nikon. If their price points for FF start to come down into higher-end APS-C territory, that's when we'll see Pentax unveil their position.

Until then, those wanting an FF camera will need to switch system. Be patient or impatient, that's the market reality now.

[tuco]

Maybe, but I recently shot a moose with my Bigma side by side with a Nikon shooter and his 400/2.8 with a 1.7x TC attached. It was evening, when these animals generally come out, and the light was dim.
...

I suppose I could have used a flash, but I prefer not to make angry moose, as they're just as happy to chase you as run away.

Huh? What kind of flashes do you wildlife guys have that can reach the distance where over a 400mm would be needed?

[alohadave]

Huh? What kind of flashes do you wildlife guys have that can reach the distance where over a 400mm would be needed?

Better Beamer.

Better Beamer

[Lance B]

How long have they got before you start selling your FA glass to fund more Nikon glass, or can you just not get the same quality out of Nikon glass, and you'll be keeping your Pentax gear forever?

I am not sure about the time period before I decide to sell off all my FA glass. I am getting itchy feet for some seriously long Nikon glass, like the 600 f4 and by selling off the remainder of my all of my Pentax gear I can then fund it. I am only wanting the 600 f4 because I am thinking of doing bird photography and with FF you need at least 600mm. Having said that, I also have the option of just getting a D300s for my 300 f2.8 VRII and 2x TCIII and that will give me 900mm at f5.6. The 300 f2.8 VRII and 2x TCII from Nikon gives superlative results.

As for getting the quality from Nikon, it's not that the quality is not there, far from it. You will not get a sharper zoom than the Nikon 70-200 f2.8 VRII or even the 24-70 f2.8. The 70-200 is prime quality in a zoom and even with a 2x TCII attached it is superb!

The thing is, there is a certain look about the FA* and Limited glass, but whether it is actually worth hanging on to it just for that "certain look" is another question. It could also just be a nostalgic notion.

[Lance B]

Clinton, you have roughly 10k+ invested in lenses. What's the percentage of Pentax users that have your budgets and needs? Care to venture a guess? How are you so sure that catering to YOU is in the best interest of Pentax? I'd like to think they know what they're doing more better than some guy on the internet.

Well it's not that they necessarily know better than some guy on the internet for what the market wants, but they sure as hell know what's best for Pentax and Pentax's resources. It is irrelevent to a point whether we want FF, it is more to the point whether Pentax can afford to invest in a FF camera and associated lenses, even if the market demands it.

This is why I believe it comes down to FF sensor cost. Once it gets to apoint that it infringes on the high end APS C cameras, then Pentax has to go the FF route especially if a FF camera can be made small.

Like Clinton, I had well over $10,000 invested in Pentax glass and I really want Pentax to go FF, but I just couldn't wait any longer as I am not getting any younger. The D700 and Nikons top range zooms have filled the requirement perfectly.

I like Pentax but I also realize that they probably can't fulfill my needs (FF) in the near future. You won't find me creating another one of those wretched FF threads about it, though. I'll just mosey over to Canon/Nikon when it's time because I'm fairly positive that my complaining about it will have absolutely zero effect on whether or not they release a FF camera.

Very true. Having said that, it may be of interest to Pentax to at least get a feel as to whether there are enough people interested in a FF camera or whether there are too many disgruntled APS C users jumping ship and thus impacting on their bottom line now and therefore also affecting future lens and associated gear sales.

I'm not leaving to spite them. I'm also not under the illusion that they'll be losing money/marketshare when someone like me switches over. They are what they are, which is a great alternative to Canon/Nikon when you have under 1k to spend on the camera body. For every one who switches to Canon/Nikon FF DSLR, I'm sure there are several more folks who will choose the K-x over the T2i/T1i.

Well, this is the point. Pentax do not need me or you unles you or I have alot of sway on these forums and can therefore inadvertantly get people to switch brands. I have to say though, since I switched to the D700, there have been at least 10 reasonably prominent Pentax people, that I can think of, that have also jumped to the D700 in the last two months from DPReview (where I was a prolific poster on the Pentax forum). Does this mean anything? I don't know. All I can say is, I really hope Pentax has a FF camera coming out at Photokina, but I doubt it.

[mickey]

I believe that I have the best equipment that I can afford.
My money is tied-up between a few different hobbies and interests, with photography being one.
FF is simply not going to happen for me.

The discussions seem to be long and tedious, and I'm just adding to it.

One good point that seems to come up is that Pentax has pulled in a huge number of new users trying out the K-x.
That alone easily outweighs the number who are moving to another brand for FF.

Pentax pushed the K-x hard, in Japan at least.
It's paid off.
Who'd have thought having a bright pink or lime green DSLR was worth the gamble.

Along with the K-x, the 645D came, finally, onto the scene.
Got a lot of attention from "pros".

Now, add that to the rumours of cameras coming this month, and I for one am happy with the direction that Hoya is taking Pentax in.

Either accept that FF isn't coming anytime soon to the minority that want it, and move on, or continue taking great pics with what you have.

[Lance B]

Either accept that FF isn't coming anytime soon to the minority that want it, and move on, or continue taking great pics with what you have.

Which is exactly what I have done. I have moved on, although, I still have my Pentax gear that is listed in my signature.

[Digitalis]

I already have full frame systems at my disposal, I use pentax when I want something small,compact and capable at arms reach. I know why a lot of Pentax photographers are pining for a full frame camera but to be honest FF is a pandora's box of compromises - some things get better, but some things get Much worse. My Canon 1 series and Nikon D3s cameras are huge compared to the k-7 and the lenses are equally so Pentax really have something good going on with the the DA Limited series lenses. I have a Leica M9 as a recent acquisition However, I'm not 100% confident walking around with 16K worth of camera and lens in Adelaide at the moment.

[goubejp]

I am getting itchy feet for some seriously long Nikon glass, like the 600 f4 and by selling off the remainder of my all of my Pentax gear I can then fund it. I am only wanting the 600 f4 because I am thinking of doing bird photography and with FF you need at least 600mm.

Hi lance,
having some experience (20 years + indeed) in bird photography I would certainly not change my APS-C K7 body for a full frame one; I use my K7 most of the time with the FA*600f4 and got superb shots. But really, the sweet spot for APS-C is the long telephoto side because of the 1.5 crop factor; the main issue - particularly with small birds - is the depth of field. To have a good shot of a small bird with a 600 mm and an APS-C, you need to be around 7 to 8 meters from the bird; at that distance depth of field at f4 is so tiny - 2 cms at most - that an important part of the bird is blurred; so you have to stop down at f6.7 at least - f8 is better. with a full frame you'll have either to reduce your working distance at 5 meters - most of 600 mm won't focus at that distance and the depth of field will be further reduced, needing to stop more; or you use a 1.5 teleconverter - loosing one stop and image quality - thus needing usage of higher iso. Event with an APS-C I need to crop the image further anyway. So 12 Mpix on a full frame is too little. Most of the time birds are shot outdoor, 400 to 800 iso is enough, depending of the shutter speed you need.
I would not say that the K7 is perfect for that usage, if you are attached to Nikon now better consider a D300s; I have some expectations for the K5 - noise-free images at 400 iso, and faster AF-C autofocus; currently the AF-S autofocus with the FA600 is good despite of the screwdrive. I'll see what will be announced on 9th of sept. And, by the way, I'm very satisfied of my Pentax because I would certainly not have enough money to buy a 600 f4 from Nikon
Regards

[Lance B]

Hi lance,
having some experience (20 years + indeed) in bird photography I would certainly not change my APS-C K7 body for a full frame one; I use my K7 most of the time with the FA*600f4 and got superb shots. But really, the sweet spot for APS-C is the long telephoto side because of the 1.5 crop factor; the main issue - particularly with small birds - is the depth of field. To have a good shot of a small bird with a 600 mm and an APS-C, you need to be around 7 to 8 meters from the bird; at that distance depth of field at f4 is so tiny - 2 cms at most - that an important part of the bird is blurred; so you have to stop down at f6.7 at least - f8 is better. with a full frame you'll have either to reduce your working distance at 5 meters - most of 600 mm won't focus at that distance and the depth of field will be further reduced, needing to stop more; or you use a 1.5 teleconverter - loosing one stop and image quality - thus needing usage of higher iso. Event with an APS-C I need to crop the image further anyway. So 12 Mpix on a full frame is too little. Most of the time birds are shot outdoor, 400 to 800 iso is enough, depending of the shutter speed you need.
I would not say that the K7 is perfect for that usage, if you are attached to Nikon now better consider a D300s; I have some expectations for the K5 - noise-free images at 400 iso, and faster AF-C autofocus; currently the AF-S autofocus with the FA600 is good despite of the screwdrive. I'll see what will be announced on 9th of sept. And, by the way, I'm very satisfied of my Pentax because I would certainly not have enough money to buy a 600 f4 from Nikon
Regards

Thank youi for your valuable feedback. Much appreciated.

I have been very seriously thinking of a D300s as a long lens solution to back up my D700. As you say, the 1.5x crop is a very valuable asset and the 300 f2.8 with 2x TCIII will work very well as a 600mm f5.6. If I do get the 600/4, that will be even better!

The K-7 with FA*600 f4 would be an ideal combo, too. I have seen some sensational shots from that lens and would love to be able to have it mounted onto my K-7!!! s we know, Pentax does make some of the best glass. Even so, as much as I loved my K-7 and my Pentax glass, I just could never justify the expense of the FA*600 with an APS C camera (don't ask me why!) but it seems more feasible with a FF camera like the D700 and added to the fact that if I ever needed to I could sell it off, whereas the FA*600 f4 is a little more difficult to get my money back on, I would imagine.

Anyway, thank you for your insight. I would love to see some of your results from the FA*600/4.