[Winder]

It might be the KEY for internet arguments, but for actually taking pictures it is not really very important. This is a gear forum and people are going to argue about gear. Go over to a photography forum and see how little people really care.

I have been using Google+ for the last month or so and there are thousands of serious photographers posting amazing images with very little discussion about equipment. Lots of amazing images captured by 7 year old Olympus E-1's and Canon 30Ds.

If you get out and look at the quality of work that is being created by people with cameras that are not even in the same league as a lowly Pentax K-7 you will realize that FF/APS-C debate is not very important.

[jsherman999]

So, we are left with viewfinder and ability to shoot with more narrow depth of field. Oddly, that last item seems to be the thing everyone focuses on. I understand that there are certain situations where it is crucial to have as narrow depth of field as possible. I just don't think with most every day shots a stop of depth of field makes that much difference.

You're dropping a couple things off your list because you deem them 'good enough' on aps-c, like AF and ISO performance, but AF is really up to par on only one aps-c camera - the D300. 7-D has AF performance somewhat like the K-5 - very accurate in phase most of the time, but erratic at times and hard to predict.

AF is not format-dependent, but the D700, D3 series, and Canon 1D series have world-class AF, and really only the D300 is as consistently fast and reliable. If Pentax really invests in a new AF system, maybe as part of an FF move, they'd probably make it available (sans a few cross-hairs) at the K-5 level and maybe below the generation after a FF debut. That would really enrich the whole product line, especially if it included an SDM replacement. (they should feel free to do this anyway, whatever they do with FF )

Re ISO, D700 still has a stop over the K-5/D7000. I don't know about you, but with my indoor shooting I often live in that extra stop - it's crucial, and very welcome to me. You can't really call aps-c equal there just because it's closed the gap a bit with the 2008 FF bodies. You could call it good enough, but that's a shooter-dependent rating, not a performance comparison.



.

[zxaar]

If you get out and look at the quality of work that is being created by people with cameras that are not even in the same league as a lowly Pentax K-7 you will realize that FF/APS-C debate is not very important.

yes buying equipment is generally the easy part of whole thing. Generating good photos is whole different ball game. After shooting for so many years, I can not think of single photo that is worth hanging in museums.

[jsherman999]

It might be the KEY for internet arguments, but for actually taking pictures it is not really very important.

I think it's extremely important to understand equivalency if you're thinking about buying a FF system, and you currently shoot aps-c. In fact, it may provide the answer to you whether or not you'd even want to upgrade to FF, whether it would even do anything for you, or if it would simply introduce new drawbacks.

For example a bird shooter buying into FF without understanding equivalency might end up making a very expensive mistake

Also, I don't really think about equivalency in my day to day shooting, but every day I see the practical results it describes for certain FL/FOV/Aperture combos.
.

If you get out and look at the quality of work that is being created by people with cameras that are not even in the same league as a lowly Pentax K-7 you will realize that FF/APS-C debate is not very important.

If you feel that way, then why engage in one?


.

[Class A]

AF is not format-dependent...

It is to some extent. AF errors are less visible in FF-images. An APS-C image needs 1.5 times more magnification compared to the same output size of an FF-image. AF errors are more visible by this factor.

So even with no improvement in the AF system (unlikely) compared to the K-5, a Pentax FF would provide better AF (relatively speaking).

For example a bird shooter buying into FF without understanding equivalency might end up making a very expensive mistake

But note that the birder really only needs to understand pixel pitch and cropping, not sensor size.

I agree with everything else you said.

[Rondec]

You're dropping a couple things off your list because you deem them 'good enough' on aps-c, like AF and ISO performance, but AF is really up to par on only one aps-c camera - the D300. 7-D has AF performance somewhat like the K-5 - very accurate in phase most of the time, but erratic at times and hard to predict.

AF is not format-dependent, but the D700, D3 series, and Canon 1D series have world-class AF, and really only the D300 is as consistently fast and reliable. If Pentax really invests in a new AF system, maybe as part of an FF move, they'd probably make it available (sans a few cross-hairs) at the K-5 level and maybe below the generation after a FF debut. That would really enrich the whole product line, especially if it included an SDM replacement. (they should feel free to do this anyway, whatever they do with FF )

Re ISO, D700 still has a stop over the K-5/D7000. I don't know about you, but with my indoor shooting I often live in that extra stop - it's crucial, and very welcome to me. You can't really call aps-c equal there just because it's closed the gap a bit with the 2008 FF bodies. You could call it good enough, but that's a shooter-dependent rating, not a performance comparison.



.

I said about auto focus that it wasn't format specific. Full frame cameras tend to have higher specs in general, but they don't need to be. Pentax needs to invest in better auto focus, faster focusing lens motors, whether or not they release a full frame camera. The K5 is slower because it is slower, not because it is APS-C.

As far as iso goes, I don't mind it getting better, but I really think the K5 has reached "good enough" level for me. Even with high iso improvements, I still strive to get as low iso as possible, because it is better and not just with regard to noise. With this in mind, I am much more likely to shoot with an external flash than push my iso up, even though I can comfortably.

I just think that most of these discussions come down to "depth of field" and "the look" of full frame as compared to APS-C. I am comfortable with people making their decisions based on that, I can't see myself going down that road.

[Rondec]

You forgot that some want their lenses to have the FF-FOV again, e.g., twitch wants the 31/1.8 to be a wide-angle again. Now that lenses like the Sigma 8-16mm are available, wide-angle photography on APS-C is much less of an issue as it used to be but still some would appreciate their existing lenses to get a wider FOV.
.

I understand this. However, it doesn't effect those who have come to Pentax in the digital age and have bought APS-C specific lenses. Since Pentax doesn't currently sell most of these lenses, it isn't a reason for them to make a 35mm sensored camera, even if it would be nice for those owning older lenses.

[Winder]

If you feel that way, then why engage in one?
.

Because the camera or sensor size is rarely the limiting factor in the quality of a photography.

If I shot landscapes I still would not care about the difference between FF and APS-C. I would be better off buying a good tripod and pano stitching software. Landscapes don't jump around much.

I am way more interested in good glass than a FF body. I would love to see Pentax release a FF because that would mean they would bring back FF glass, which I happen to like on APS-C bodies. More competition the better.

[peasant]

There is always a prevailing tone to conversations here about need(do you really,can you get by with/out),I don't care about need.The rest of my life is flat out filled up with meeting a variety of needs much like the rest of you.I could survive without photography and it very obviously will without me.Pro's who earn their living taking photos have needs I understand.Me,I do this for escape,enlightenment and fun.So I'm not going to offer any rational explanation for wanting a full frame camera,I just want to see what all the fuss is about,much like Twitch I want to use my limiteds and my Zeiss lenses on a body they were designed to be used on.For me, for fun.

[TaoMaas]

There is always a prevailing tone to conversations here about need(do you really,can you get by with/out),I don't care about need.The rest of my life is flat out filled up with meeting a variety of needs much like the rest of you.I could survive without photography and it very obviously will without me.Pro's who earn their living taking photos have needs I understand.Me,I do this for escape,enlightenment and fun.So I'm not going to offer any rational explanation for wanting a full frame camera,I just want to see what all the fuss is about,much like Twitch I want to use my limiteds and my Zeiss lenses on a body they were designed to be used on.For me, for fun.

You're right. "Need" has nothing to do with FF except when trying to gauge how many people will buy a Pentax FF camera. There are some people who genuinely need a FF Pentax, but they are very, very few. So that leaves Pentax to market this camera to those who "want". It's not impossible. In fact, there are a lot of companies who have done very well selling "want". Unfortunately, Pentax hasn't been one of them. The Pentax brand was built primarily on value.

[peasant]

The Pentax brand was built primarily on value.

I can only agree,whether here or DPR value plays a large part to the extent that it seems to swamp conversations about the actual photography.Ricoh does excite me though,nothing wrong with hoping.

[Aristophanes]

The Pentax brand was built primarily on value.

Indeed.

A $3,000 FF DSLR is nowhere near a value product in the greater market context, especially with the added cost of lenses. At the core of this debate is some vague concept about what kind of camera company Pentax is. With the exception of the LX, Pentax has really never produced a 'pro' body and system (flashes, for example). Yet FF sensors are well into the 'pro' price club, yes, purchased by the $$$ oft eh much more numerous prosumers, but still a very elite, small market, the opposite of 'value'.

M43 has been designed for value (and versatility both in form factor and price). The sacrifice is one less stop over most APS-C cameras, slightly less resolution and DR loss.

The K-5 has a stop+ greater reach than M43, but is a larger system because it has a mirror and legacy k-mount. It's not cheap.

The D700 has a solid full stop more than the K-5 (2-2.5 over M43) and the D800 may have 2. But it has 'pro' features throughout, plus all the other advantages of FF. It loses 'value' because it requires big glass at high cost, it must be physically larger to accommodate the desired features at the price point, and has a very expensive sensor.

The higher-end Pentax is rife with QC issues. SDM failures, sensor stain, focusing, slow AF, mirror flop, etc. Yet the lower end cameras seem to be quite robust. My K200D and K-x are the bomb. I would like FF, but Pentax is not a company I will buy a $3,000 body from.

[Bare]

The D700 has a solid full stop more than the K-5 (2-2.5 over M43) and the D800 may have 2. But it has 'pro' features throughout, plus all the other advantages of FF. It loses 'value' because it requires big glass at high cost, it must be physically larger to accommodate the desired features at the price point, and has a very expensive sensor.

Don't forget that D3s which have two yers newer sensor technologies than D700 is another 1-1.5 stops better than D700.
How much FF sensor cost? I think it's very ex*****ve if someone buy sensors and because of that Nikon have their own sensors in D700 and we never saw a D700x which would have a Sony sensor.

[Blue]

Indeed.

A $3,000 FF DSLR is nowhere near a value product in the greater market context, especially with the added cost of lenses. At the core of this debate is some vague concept about what kind of camera company Pentax is. With the exception of the LX, Pentax has really never produced a 'pro' body and system (flashes, for example). Yet FF sensors are well into the 'pro' price club, yes, purchased by the $$$ oft eh much more numerous prosumers, but still a very elite, small market, the opposite of 'value'.

M43 has been designed for value (and versatility both in form factor and price). The sacrifice is one less stop over most APS-C cameras, slightly less resolution and DR loss.

The K-5 has a stop+ greater reach than M43, but is a larger system because it has a mirror and legacy k-mount. It's not cheap.

The D700 has a solid full stop more than the K-5 (2-2.5 over M43) and the D800 may have 2. But it has 'pro' features throughout, plus all the other advantages of FF. It loses 'value' because it requires big glass at high cost, it must be physically larger to accommodate the desired features at the price point, and has a very expensive sensor.

The higher-end Pentax is rife with QC issues. SDM failures, sensor stain, focusing, slow AF, mirror flop, etc. Yet the lower end cameras seem to be quite robust. My K200D and K-x are the bomb. I would like FF, but Pentax is not a company I will buy a $3,000 body from.

Well, in the ff world they are an economical solution when comparing the D700 and EOS 5d Mark II to the D3x and 1d Mark III at $7000!

[jsherman999]

A $3,000 FF DSLR is nowhere near a value product in the greater market context, especially with the added cost of lenses. At the core of this debate is some vague concept about what kind of camera company Pentax is. With the exception of the LX, Pentax has really never produced a 'pro' body and system (flashes, for example). Yet FF sensors are well into the 'pro' price club, yes, purchased by the $$$ oft eh much more numerous prosumers, but still a very elite, small market, the opposite of 'value'.

I don't think Pentax-Hoya was interested in keeping this 'value' distinction. Each tier seemed to be priced right at the same level of the equiv bodies from the competiton, and until the DA 35 f/2.4, they never really had the same 'value' primes (35 f/1.8G, 50 1.8 CaNikon versions, $400 85 1.8, etc.)

Ricoh may be interested in reviving it... but it's a heritage that may have been borne of afterthought strategy in the past (acting on something after Canon/Nikon - what's left? Value? OK!)

If they do want to revive it - what better way than an 'affordable' FF body?

The D700 has a solid full stop more than the K-5 (2-2.5 over M43) and the D800 may have 2. But it has 'pro' features throughout, plus all the other advantages of FF. It loses 'value' because it requires big glass at high cost,

False. That's a myth that does work to Nikon's advantage, though. They make a lot of money off enthusiasts who fall for the "I need the Nikon 14-24 2.8, Nikon 24-70 2.8 and Nikon 70-200 2.8 to 'get the most out of my FF camera!" fallacy

I've been able to outfit mine incredibly successfully with lenses that are small/average sized for their FL, and not overly expensive;

20 2.8D
50 1.8D
85 1.8D
180 2.8 AF-N
300 f/4 AF IF

I've since added a few more on top of that list, but I bought all those new or gently used for about $600 less than the 70-200 2.8 alone. The holy trinity are the best zooms you can probably buy - but are huge, expensive, stay home a lot because of that size, and it's a flat out falsehood to call them 'required', any more than it's 'required' to buy only Zeiss glass for your Pentax.

The higher-end Pentax is rife with QC issues. SDM failures, sensor stain, focusing, slow AF, mirror flop, etc. Yet the lower end cameras seem to be quite robust. My K200D and K-x are the bomb. I would like FF, but Pentax is not a company I will buy a $3,000 body from.

Odd conclusion: Give up? K-5 had QC issues, so don't bother trying to improve QC and/or put out a robust FF body. Hm. If that were sound logic, everyone had better forget about FF altogether, because the 7D and D7000 both had some pretty bad QC issues also - no-one can be trusted!


.