[Rondec]

Staff note: This post may contain affiliate links, which means Pentax Forums may earn a small commission if a visitor clicks through and makes a purchase. If you would like to support the forum directly, you may also make a donation here.

---

I do think that Pentax will eventually roll out a full frame camera, but first of all, they need lenses, probably with a new in lens motor in them.

They also need a world economy that is doing better. Pentax probably could not sell a brand new, 35mm sensor camera in the United States right now for less than 2500 dollars (considering the pummeling the dollar has taken). I am afraid that is a losing proposition for them. I think in today's economy a lot of companies are holding back, because no one has money to spend anyway.

[_quicksilver_]

I´m well aware that Pentax is a small player compared to the big guys.

However, I believe that Pentax could strike a hole on the FF market by making a small bodied, Full Frame body with SR and WR. With this kind of offering, Pentax could also attract a lot of Leica shooters as well.

Oh, and I do shoot film. The FA limiteds work very nicely on my P30...

[Lowell Goudge]

I´m well aware that Pentax is a small player compared to the big guys.

However, I believe that Pentax could strike a hole on the FF market by making a small bodied, Full Frame body with SR and WR. With this kind of offering, Pentax could also attract a lot of Leica shooters as well.

Oh, and I do shoot film. The FA limiteds work very nicely on my P30...

yes they can strike a hole in the market, just like they did with the LX and toss a ton of money into it.

Since even the big boys are 18 months since their last FF and considering soney is not making the sensors any more, that should tell you something.

[_quicksilver_]

yes they can strike a hole in the market, just like they did with the LX and toss a ton of money into it.

Since even the big boys are 18 months since their last FF and considering soney is not making the sensors any more, that should tell you something.

This is all very true, but the FF turnover time is always longer, there will be new FF cameras just around the corner.

I think Sony rushed into the FF market with one of the ugliest cameras ever made. IMO it´s bizarre to have a Pro-looking DSLR that has SONY written on it. It just feels wrong.

It´s clear that Sony is now concentrating more into the mirrorless market. -They have their strengths in there.

[Lowell Goudge]

This is all very true, but the FF turnover time is always longer, there will be new FF cameras just around the corner.

I think Sony rushed into the FF market with one of the ugliest cameras ever made. IMO it´s bizarre to have a Pro-looking DSLR that has SONY written on it. It just feels wrong.

It´s clear that Sony is now concentrating more into the mirrorless market. -They have their strengths in there.

but the point is, why?

Pentax has made its position clear, they have the D645 for pro studio work, and they have ASP-C for portable cameras

Note that neither nikon or canon have a Medium format, so yes, for them full frame is it.

If you really want full frame, for the very rare occasions where you want low noise and shallow DOF offered by a full frame camera, just put some ISO 50 film in your PZ-1.

That is my answer. ALways has been. When Digital first came out, my *istD came with a 18-35 lens. No where near wide enough on the ASP-C sensor, but since it was a full frame lens, I put it on my PZ-1. 18mm on film IS WIDE.

Now 8 years on, with a total lens collection of about 40 lenses, all but my 8mm fisheye and sigma 10-20 are full frame. the reason is, my PZ-1 is always there as a back up.

[eddie1960]

Here's one for $200, jump all you want: Canon EOS 5D 12.8 MP -With Grip and Extras! | eBay

:P


You are all looking at the 5d MKII's

that's 4 days from the end of the auction, i'd be very surprised if it didn't end close to a grand
if you know a mk II for a grand used i'd be very surprised (and even tempted despite the fact that Canon is my least favourite camera)

[eddie1960]

There are rumours of Canon releasing 3 new FF bodies within one years time. One of them has been speculated to be a smaller bodied FF rebel.

I hope that the rumours are wrong, as I don´t like Canon´s ergonomics one bit.

that would just be replacements for the current lineup for the most part i think sensor upgrades, they are all due for new sensors cripes the K5 outdoes them on dxo for the most part
same will happen with Nikon (would have started already but the plant was totaled in the earthshaking - the D800 was to be announced back in February and has been delayed til fall

[Aristophanes]

yes they can strike a hole in the market, just like they did with the LX and toss a ton of money into it.

Since even the big boys are 18 months since their last FF and considering soney is not making the sensors any more, that should tell you something.

And this is the problem. The only sensor available is likely the Sony A900 version which is a dated design with poor high-ISO stats dating from 2008. It is unsure if Sony will continue FF development. What Sony is up to is anyone's guess. They struggle to get traction in the market despite some interesting engineering. I suspect we will see a Sony pellicle FF with extensive video features in a new body with a new sensor. This is the same supply for Pentax if there were an FF option.

Pentax's SR is also an issue. It takes up considerable space in the body. You'd be looking at a camera A850/900 in size. This is a reason why Canikon left SR in the lenses, and even then not all their main lenses for FF have that capability due to size constraints. anyone thinking that a Pentax FF will be the size of a K-5 is in la-la land.

Instead, Pentax went with the 645D, which is probably not much larger than a Pentax SR-capable FF DSLR would be. You're still looking at lugging a big body and big glass around. In some ways, a better solution for Pentax FF fans is to advocate a lower price point for the 645D. If they could get a 645D kit system down to US$6,500 they might make a splash. A lot of prosumer energy and discretionary $ went in MF up to a decade ago, and it can happen again (I have a film Mamiya kit).

Realistically, if you make an FF DSLR camera, you need to follow the path of Nikon. A lower-end model, high-ISO wunderbeast like the D700, and a resolution beast like the D3. Couple that with about 20 lenses including stellar zooms from 14-400mm. Not having this duality is partly what stalled Sony's system. The D700 is going to go down as one of the most influential camera designs ever and is incredibly hard to compete against. It's a big reason *for* switching brands. Topping the size/performance/price/lens availabilty of that camera is difficult for a company reliant on external sensor supply.

FF will come when APS-C has reached its design limits and better IQ and performance can only come from larger sensors. To future-proof itself from this eventuality, Sony designed the NEX for FF. Mirrorless and FF will eventually converge, at which point you may see Pentax looking at this again. The major issue is the cost of sensors and their supply. The market is at least 5 years away from that.

[eddie1960]

And this is the problem. The only sensor available is likely the Sony A900 version which is a dated design with poor high-ISO stats dating from 2008. It is unsure if Sony will continue FF development. What Sony is up to is anyone's guess. They struggle to get traction in the market despite some interesting engineering. I suspect we will see a Sony pellicle FF with extensive video features in a new body with a new sensor. This is the same supply for Pentax if there were an FF option.

Pentax's SR is also an issue. It takes up considerable space in the body. You'd be looking at a camera A850/900 in size. This is a reason why Canikon left SR in the lenses, and even then not all their main lenses for FF have that capability due to size constraints. anyone thinking that a Pentax FF will be the size of a K-5 is in la-la land.

Instead, Pentax went with the 645D, which is probably not much larger than a Pentax SR-capable FF DSLR would be. You're still looking at lugging a big body and big glass around. In some ways, a better solution for Pentax FF fans is to advocate a lower price point for the 645D. If they could get a 645D kit system down to US$6,500 they might make a splash. A lot of prosumer energy and discretionary $ went in MF up to a decade ago, and it can happen again (I have a film Mamiya kit).

Realistically, if you make an FF DSLR camera, you need to follow the path of Nikon. A lower-end model, high-ISO wunderbeast like the D700, and a resolution beast like the D3. Couple that with about 20 lenses including stellar zooms from 14-400mm. Not having this duality is partly what stalled Sony's system. The D700 is going to go down as one of the most influential camera designs ever and is incredibly hard to compete against. It's a big reason *for* switching brands. Topping the size/performance/price/lens availabilty of that camera is difficult for a company reliant on external sensor supply.

FF will come when APS-C has reached its design limits and better IQ and performance can only come from larger sensors. To future-proof itself from this eventuality, Sony designed the NEX for FF. Mirrorless and FF will eventually converge, at which point you may see Pentax looking at this again. The major issue is the cost of sensors and their supply. The market is at least 5 years away from that.

I think you've pretty much nailed the current situation

I think MFD could come down in the next Gen. Rather than killing the 645d for a 645dmkII with a new (possibly FF MF sensor) at some point, I think it would be wise to have the 645D move down in price and launch a 645DF as the step with a FF 645 sensor. but this too is at least a couple of years off i think, given that at this point there really is no serious competitor to the 645D yet (though it will come from phase/mamiya and likely Hassy as they want their market.
If I really needed a FF (35) I would likely move to the D700 myself or the pending D800 because I think like you that Pentax is likely 5 years off. I'd keep my Pentax gear though because APS-C does have some advantages (size and weight for one)

[Emacs]

I'd keep my Pentax gear though because APS-C does have some advantages (size and weight for one)

It's time to move to Samsung NX then. Next version was promised to be a DR and high iso monster (I have no doubt it will, samsung proved to be the best technological company nowdays, sony will be beaten), it's cheap, its pancakes are lighter and provides better IQ than pentax ones, with peak enabled it's easier to manually focus using EVF than with cropped OVF, and it's much lighter than pentax dslrs. The only pentax "advantage" could be phase autofocus, but it is not, we all know how "good" it works

[eddie1960]

It's time to move to Samsung NX then. Next version was promised to be a DR and high iso monster (I have no doubt it will, samsung proved to be the best technological company nowdays, sony will be beaten), it's cheap, its pancakes are lighter and provides better IQ than pentax ones, with peak enabled it's easier to manually focus using EVF than with cropped OVF, and it's much lighter than pentax dslrs. The only pentax "advantage" could be phase autofocus, but it is not, we all know how "good" it works

Given 90% of my lenses are Legacy at this point, and I have no issues with MF on my current bodies there would be no point in samsung for me. I have 18 lenses at this point so getting out of pentax is not likely unless i come into some cash allowing a switch to nikon FF

[Frogfish]

I really don't like the title of the thread (though I realise the OP said 'I'). I have a K5 and some very nice lenses, but a FF offers something that the K5 doesn't, so I'm going to keep my K5 & lenses but also get a D700 and a few lenses to enable me to cover those shooting situations where a FF camera is preferable.

Pentax don't have a FF camera and seemingly have no plans for one ... life is too short to be brand bias. I like Rio Rico's comment on another forum : I am Brand Agnostic !

[jstevewhite]

.

The FA Limiteds are all FF lenses. They're not exactly honkin' huge, no?

Well, sure, but the FA43LTD isn't any smaller than most ~45mm lenses. A 45mm lens has a certain range of reasonable sizes (you could make one as big as you wanted, I suppose, but there's an upper limit required by optical design). As does any lens, relative to its focal length.

The really big lenses tend to be the exotic telephotos; 200 f/2 types, the 300 2.8, 400 f/4, etc, and the f/2.8 'pro' zooms. Also, the 85mms are pretty big, except for the Nikon 85 1.8D, which is shorter and about the same weight as the Pentax DA* 55 f/1.4.

Sure; so are we advocating that Pentax build a FF system without those lenses? (the 85 f1.4, the 200 f2, etc)?

A small Pentax FF body matched with the FA Limiteds (to start) would be a unique offering. This is what I continually harp about. There are folks in the Nikon forum shooting the D700 right now who wish it was smaller - but there are no options for them for a small, great, FF body - especially one that can mount lenses of the FA Limited's pedigree.
.

I've never held the FA77 in my hand; I suspect that it's not much more than 10% smaller than my Canon FD 85 f1.8 (77/85~=.9), and the amount it is smaller can be handily attributed to the difference between an old-school manual focus and an autofocus lens. This is not to say that I think that Pentax shouldn't make a FF; I'm just saying that there's a minimum size for a given focal length and aperture, FF requires larger FL and Aperture to make the same FOV, so your FF system (if equivalent to your APS-C system) will necessarily be bigger and heavier than your APS-c, unavoidably. I'm also not saying that all FF bodies have to be as big as CaNikon machines, just that they probably have to be bigger than the K-5 to hold the AF circuitry (processing and heat dissipation).

I would like to see a Pentax FF system. The lenses, however (for the same kit) *must* be larger and heavier; it's physics, not marketing.

[eddie1960]

Well, sure, but the FA43LTD isn't any smaller than most ~45mm lenses. A 45mm lens has a certain range of reasonable sizes (you could make one as big as you wanted, I suppose, but there's an upper limit required by optical design). As does any lens, relative to its focal length.



Sure; so are we advocating that Pentax build a FF system without those lenses? (the 85 f1.4, the 200 f2, etc)?



I've never held the FA77 in my hand; I suspect that it's not much more than 10% smaller than my Canon FD 85 f1.8 (77/85~=.9), and the amount it is smaller can be handily attributed to the difference between an old-school manual focus and an autofocus lens. This is not to say that I think that Pentax shouldn't make a FF; I'm just saying that there's a minimum size for a given focal length and aperture, FF requires larger FL and Aperture to make the same FOV, so your FF system (if equivalent to your APS-C system) will necessarily be bigger and heavier than your APS-c, unavoidably. I'm also not saying that all FF bodies have to be as big as CaNikon machines, just that they probably have to be bigger than the K-5 to hold the AF circuitry (processing and heat dissipation).

I would like to see a Pentax FF system. The lenses, however (for the same kit) *must* be larger and heavier; it's physics, not marketing.

it's not just the electronics that will need to be bigger so will the pentaprism and VF
the old MF Pentax cameras are not proper comparisons to Digital as they needed no electronics (mostly) and they didn't have to deal with big batteries to have viable battery life, or deal with heat dissipation etc. the D700 minus it's grip is probably close to as small as a true FF SLR will be
Certainly it will not be the size of a k5/7
Personally i wouldn't have an issue with it needing to be bigger (compared to my mamya or my bronica even a D3 seems light

[jstevewhite]

it's not just the electronics that will need to be bigger so will the pentaprism and VF
the old MF Pentax cameras are not proper comparisons to Digital as they needed no electronics (mostly) and they didn't have to deal with big batteries to have viable battery life, or deal with heat dissipation etc. the D700 minus it's grip is probably close to as small as a true FF SLR will be
Certainly it will not be the size of a k5/7
Personally i wouldn't have an issue with it needing to be bigger (compared to my mamya or my bronica even a D3 seems light

Excellent points.

GS-1? Those are beasts. But I know what you mean. I used to hand hold my 500 EL/M frequently