[blade_o5990]

okay, here is my question is why are people still waiting for a Pentax FF camera. Pentax is releasing the 645D instead of a FF (IMHO). The 645D body may be more expensive than canon and Nikons' FF offerings, but the glass is substantially cheaper, so a full system will probably cost you about the same. The 645d is smaller than the d3x, has some pretty advanced electronics, the option to use leaf shutters, your choice of lenses (645 or 67), very good quality output, and will be available in December. So why wait for a 35mm full frame when Pentax has a camera with a larger sensor ready to go.

[ogl]

okay, here is my question is why are people still waiting for a Pentax FF camera. Pentax is releasing the 645D instead of a FF (IMHO). The 645D body may be more expensive than canon and Nikons' FF offerings, but the glass is substantially cheaper, so a full system will probably cost you about the same. The 645d is smaller than the d3x, has some pretty advanced electronics, the option to use leaf shutters, your choice of lenses (645 or 67), very good quality output, and will be available in December. So why wait for a 35mm full frame when Pentax has a camera with a larger sensor ready to go.

Wild nonsense...MF and FF are absolutely different systems...don't you understand it?

MF lenses are not cheap. and there are FF cameras with price under $2500.

D700, 5D Mk II and A850.
$2400, 2500 and 2000.

are you ready to buy slow big camera (kit) for $11 000 to shoot your family...?

[RBellavance]

are you ready to buy slow big camera (kit) for $11 000 to shoot your family...?

Personally, no. But I'm also not willing to spend 2500$ (+ lenses) on an 24x36 camera to do that either.

But fortunately, I don't need to. The current crop of APS-C DSLRs is more than good enough.

In my opinion, the IQ advantages of 24x36 over APS-C are now irrelevant for the vast majority of photographers.

[Freak]

okay, here is my question is why are people still waiting for a Pentax FF camera. Pentax is releasing the 645D instead of a FF (IMHO). The 645D body may be more expensive than canon and Nikons' FF offerings, but the glass is substantially cheaper, so a full system will probably cost you about the same.

Not even close to the same price for MF and FF kit. Not to mention a Pentax FF should be able to utilize the FA, D-FA and other FX capable lens like my Bigma, thus saving me a massive cost on a new mount & lens.

The 645d is smaller than the d3x, has some pretty advanced electronics, the option to use leaf shutters, your choice of lenses (645 or 67), very good quality output, and will be available in December. So why wait for a 35mm full frame when Pentax has a camera with a larger sensor ready to go.

As mentioned by OGL, they are different markets and shouldn't even be compared IMO, consider of course price and options, availability and they are not in the same league. The advantage is of course over APS-C and not over MF.

If you give me the extra $8k i would need, the MF sounds like a winner!

[jimr-pdx]

I applaud Pentax for trying to be a familiar player in a smaller pool, rather than another Sony in the 35FF game. No crystal ball is clear enough on such matters, but I hope this works for them; I would expect a better margin with the 645D than the Alpha 850/900 will ever see, and Pentax must see that as well. Compact is important and budget small, so for me APS-C is ideal; hopefully the 645D can fund a FF venture in the relatively near future.

[montecarlo]

On a FF camera one can use a 50mm lens (say, 1.8) ... so a cheap one (~100 euro).. with great results ;-)
For the moment.. the FF cameras are a littel more bulky ... but .. with time... the FF sensor might take place in smaller bodies :-)

[str8talk83]

FF offers better signal to noise ratio, shallower depth of field and tends to capture more detail and have a little bit better dynamic range. I have seen side to side comparisons between the crop and FF sensors and there is a subtle difference there. I give the nod to a FF sensor in the image quality department. That being said, the differences are subtle and other than the shallow depth of field, there isn't a lot of "real world" difference with the results. I think that most people like having the regular 35mm field of view on their lenses, especially because it enables the use of wide angle prime lenses that are truly wide. I think it's the "pop" that comes from the shallow depth of field that people mistake for better IQ. For someone who wants reach (like me) and can't afford the giant supertelephotos, the smaller sensor makes more sense. The crop camera system also gives a lot of cheaper options in the lens department that are just as good or very close to their FF counterparts.

[Supernaut]

Pentax could be the first to take FF to a smaller body. Good thing that would attract more than old time pentax users heavily invested in K-mount.

[Inspector 17]

To me the shallow depth of field of FF adds a presence and depth to photos because there are more gradations from sharp focus to out of focus both in front of and behind focus plane. Someone expressed this as "pop". This can be approached on APS-C but not surpassed.

One thing that is most important to me is the viewfinder. A FF viewfinder is VASTLY better than APS

[str8talk83]

A FF viewfinder is VASTLY better than APS

Forgot about this one. There is a very noticeable difference that you won't understand unless you try one out. I tried out a 5D Mark II and the viewfinder made me smile. Unfortunately I don't focus/recompose, so the autofocus is a no go for me....

[Lowell Goudge]

To me the shallow depth of field of FF adds a presence and depth to photos because there are more gradations from sharp focus to out of focus both in front of and behind focus plane. Someone expressed this as "pop". This can be approached on APS-C but not surpassed.

One thing that is most important to me is the viewfinder. A FF viewfinder is VASTLY better than APS

this is where FF wins big time, I would agree.

Unfortunately, while third party makers are making ultra fast prime lenses, Sigma in AF and Samyang in MF (so far), pentax, who were once renowned for their primes is incredibly silent.

We all know from the rarity of ultra fast primes in the past, that not that many people shoot them, but I think that is changing.

[dlacouture]

For someone who wants reach (like me) and can't afford the giant supertelephotos, the smaller sensor makes more sense. The crop camera system also gives a lot of cheaper options in the lens department that are just as good or very close to their FF counterparts.

Well, that's not really true when you take the DoF and FF's better iso into account... Truly equivalent lenses are then about the same weight/dimensions/price between the two systems.

For example, a 200/2.8 APS-C lens will be roughly the same size/weight than its equivalent 300/4.5 FF lens.

The loss of 1.5 stops in FF is offset by the better iso handling (for sensors of same generation, of course, no point in comparing a 5d with a k5 here).

So, for truly equivalent lenses, nope, price would not be that far, and sometimes reversed (FF being cheaper)... Just consider that the old lowly 28-80/3.5-5.6 translates into a 18-55/2-3.5, which would obviously cost a body part...

[northcoastgreg]

For example, a 200/2.8 APS-C lens will be roughly the same size/weight than its equivalent 300/4.5 FF lens

That may be true with these focal lengths, but if you go much longer it becomes irrelevant: FF becomes prohibitively expensive for many users. The APS-C equivalent of a 300/4 lens is roughly a 460/6.1. Since no one makes such a lens, the closest replacement would be a 500/4.5, which costs three times as much.

FF is undoubtedly superior to APS-C. Undoubedly, if all Pentax users had unlimited funds, most would want to move on to FF. But for those on a limited budget who have already invested in an APS-C system, the cost of moving to an FF system is greater than they can afford. Many of those who want a Pentax FF already have the FF glass and just need the camera.

[MSM]

FF is undoubtedly superior to APS-C. Undoubedly, if all Pentax users had unlimited funds, most would want to move on to FF. But for those on a limited budget who have already invested in an APS-C system, the cost of moving to an FF system is greater than they can afford. Many of those who want a Pentax FF already have the FF glass and just need the camera.

I don't have a dog in the FF debate. But, this is to me is one of the best statements as to why Pentax (won't, can't, shouldn't) make a FF. The used FF lenses available have been a double edge sword for Pentax. As Pentaxians we all benefit from having cheaper used lenses from which to choose. The price we pay for that is no FF. If Pentax were to introduce a FF, it would be obligated to bring on a line of FF lenses. That is a lot of expense to the company. The return (ROI) will always be stunted by the legacy lenses.

[elho_cid]

I don't have a dog in the FF debate. But, this is to me is one of the best statements as to why Pentax (won't, can't, shouldn't) make a FF. The used FF lenses available have been a double edge sword for Pentax. As Pentaxians we all benefit from having cheaper used lenses from which to choose. The price we pay for that is no FF. If Pentax were to introduce a FF, it would be obligated to bring on a line of FF lenses. That is a lot of expense to the company. The return (ROI) will always be stunted by the legacy lenses.

That may be right, but... Not all the legacy lenses are good enough. The good ones are already rare and expensive.
I know a guy shooting D700 with cheap kit zoom from an old Nikon film camera. The results are horrible.

I don't join the overall call for FF Pentax. I bought Pentax precisely for it's dedication to APS-C. And I was not wrong - there is no other manufacturer yet with such a lineup of APS-C lenses (DA14 or DA15 are great examples).

If I should sometimes feel the need for 135 format DSLR I would probably prefer if Pentax would manufacture one. Then I'd buy FA limiteds to accompany it. But if they don't I would respect that decision and buy Canon.