[northcoastgreg]

Honestly, I think we're just like spoiled kids... The K-5 is already WAY better than most of the pre-2000 professional SLR's, regardless of the brand.

That's my sentiment; which is why I can't stir up much enthusiasm for a Pentax FF camera. It obviously would be nice if Pentax could come out with an FF camera and satisfy the cravings of those who want one so badly. But if Pentax never gets around to making an FF (which is not impossible), I'll be entirely content to remain shooting with APS-C DSLRs the rest of my days.

[rparmar]

This debate is always the same. People treat "full-frame" (AKA the amateur 35mm film size) as if it is some Holy Grail. But if they really wanted "full-frame" they could have one... there are lots of models on the market.

Then comes the argument about wanting to use their lenses "as they were meant to be used". Funny no-one says the same about their bodies, longing for the days of low dynamic range, high noise, no features, etc. But somehow there is something precious about using a 77mm lens on 35mm simply because it was initially designed for 35mm. Here's a news flash... it's also a stunning lens on APS-C... and MFT -- I've tried it! Smaller sensors do not make the lens any worse.

Then there's the flip side of the coin. Plenty of DA lenses support larger image circles than APS-C. I am sure that certain 35mm lenses support image circles larger than 35mm. It's certainly true when you get into larger formats. But no-one worries about such things. They just get on and use the lens they want to use on the body they want to use.

So, what if that's not good enough and you really need the extra resolution of 35mm? I will suggest the same thing I would have five years ago: sell up on Pentax and buy Nikon. You'll lose out on the lovely FA Limiteds, which is a shame, but you can buy Zeiss instead if you like. If your needs are specific, buy the tool that meets your needs. If your needs are not that specific, then what is all the hot air about?

News on the street is that the 645D is a bargain price with even greater resolution than the supposed 35mm grail. But I don't see forum posters anxious for maximum resolution snapping these up. They don't even talk about the possibility longingly. Rather they wonder where the 35mm camera is. Strange.

The argument that the cropped medium format does not give a worthwhile difference is rubbish. 35mm is a 52% improvement on APS-C, all other factors (like pixel pitch) being equal. The 645D format is a 30% further improvement. Yes, 30 is a smaller number than 52, but that does not make it insignificant. The reviewers and users of the 645D don't think so!

(P.S. This calculation is based on the square root of area, the correct method as I describe in Equivalence of Camera Systems.)

Then there are those who would lament the expense, as though a hypothetical Pentax FF camera would be cheap. And even though all your cropped image circle lenses would have to be replaced.

Finally, I wonder why people are suggesting mirrorless as an option? This requires the purchase of all-new lenses once again to take advantage of the smaller register. Benefits that are exaggerated, by the way. You can't put an MFT camera plus lens in your pocket, so in real-world use it requires the same consideration as a small DSLR like the K-5. (You can visit my blog for my experience with Leica, Pentax and PEN F glass on the E-P1.)

Polls like this may as well be worded as follows: "Would you buy a 35mm Pentax digital camera if it was at least as good as a K-5, used all the lenses you have now, had the additional resolution benefits of the larger sensor and came free with your favourite breakfast cereal?"

I vote "YES"!

Even though I don't eat breakfast.

[Emacs]

You didn't get the point. FA limiteds are just not good enough at APS-C. They aren't sharp enough wide open and this is clearly visible. The same with all fast lenses I have. So, I just want my lenses perform as they designed to do. It's only possible with FF.
You can say "FF is larger than APS-C", but I know pentax engineers have FF prototypes in the K-5 body (no SR of course, but I don't care). And most my lenses are FF too, so argument about smaller lenses doesn't work too. And if I want smaller ones, I would rather buy Samsung NX with its excellent pancakes: it's even smaller. Moreover, argument about better phase AF doesn't work with pentax, we all know how unreliable its AF is.
The conclusion is: FF would be a relatively cheap way to dramatically improve the IQ of my shots. It would only cost me about $3-4k. The 645D with the lenses would cost me about $18000 at least (it costs a fortune in Europe). And this is the only way pentax can save k-mount. APS-C competitors are too strong: canikons with wider lenses lineup, samsung with better pancakes, etc.

[jsherman999]

That's my sentiment; which is why I can't stir up much enthusiasm for a Pentax FF camera. It obviously would be nice if Pentax could come out with an FF camera and satisfy the cravings of those who want one so badly. But if Pentax never gets around to making an FF (which is not impossible), I'll be entirely content to remain shooting with APS-C DSLRs the rest of my days.

Which brand?

aps-c DSLR is going to be increasingly tough to compete in with mirrorless coming on strong. If Pentax doesn't go up-tier with FF, you may not have anything to shoot your K-mount lenses on in 10 years. A FF body keeps K-mount very viable and profitable for years to come, after R&D and initial costs are recovered.


.

[jsherman999]

...
Then comes the argument about wanting to use their lenses "as they were meant to be used". Funny no-one says the same about their bodies, longing for the days of low dynamic range, high noise, no features, etc. But somehow there is something precious about using a 77mm lens on 35mm simply because it was initially designed for 35mm. Here's a news flash... it's also a stunning lens on APS-C... and MFT -- I've tried it! Smaller sensors do not make the lens any worse.

FF: == APS-C, DOF/FOV equivalencies
--------------------------------------------------
200mm f/2.8 == 135mm f/1.8
77mm f/1.8 == 51mm f/1.2
50mm f/1.4 == 35mm f/0.9
35mm f/2 == 23mm f/1.3
24mm f/2 == 16mm f/1.3
20mm f/2.8 == 13mm f/1.8

Fun stuff, Robin! (also, price out what it would take to get near those FOV/DOF combos with aps-c, and FF starts to look cheap.)

So, what if that's not good enough and you really need the extra resolution of 35mm? I will suggest the same thing I would have five years ago: sell up on Pentax and buy Nikon. You'll lose out on the lovely FA Limiteds, which is a shame, but you can buy Zeiss instead if you like. If your needs are specific, buy the tool that meets your needs. If your needs are not that specific, then what is all the hot air about?

Pentax could make such nice tools, though, if those FA LImiteds and the K-5 ergos are any indication. They have it in them to be great. We see wasted opportunity.

News on the street is that the 645D is a bargain price with even greater resolution than the supposed 35mm grail. But I don't see forum posters anxious for maximum resolution snapping these up. They don't even talk about the possibility longingly. Rather they wonder where the 35mm camera is. Strange.

Not strange at all. 645D is a 'bargain' only relative to other MFD offerings. 645D + a couple new lenses gets you up within spitting distance of $20,000, and the body doesn't have the shot-shot performance or AF module of the top-tier DSLRs. It's overkill for what we need, costs more than we're willing to pay, and is underwhelming in certain key performance metrics that are important to us. Not strange at all.

If I were a paid advertising shooter who needs to blow up to wall-sized and beyond or pro landscape shooter, and wanted a specialty camera that covered these and only these needs well, I may see it differently. I'm not. Most FF shooters - vast majority - are not.

If Pentax/Ricoh stays in the APS-C DSLR game long-term, fixes some QC issues, develops a Nikon-matching AF module, and replaces SDM - they will make a lot of folks happy, including me. Thing is, they could do all those things as part of an FF investment, and emerge extremely strong, with bodies from entry-level DSLR up to FF DSLR sharing the same refreshed lens lineup.


.

[Anthony Lee]

Coming from Canon, having used Zeiss ZE lenses on both APS-C and FF, I will vote for a Pentax FF to get the true quality of all the FA ltd lenses, especially the 31, 43 & 77, not forgetting the huge range of fantastic A, F and FA lenses. The current K5 is good enough, just refine and improve on certain areas and bring in an FF and they will make a very good pair for serious enthusiasts and the 'pros'.

[Clavius]

FF: == APS-C, DOF/FOV equivalencies
--------------------------------------------------
200mm f/2.8 == 135mm f/1.8
77mm f/1.8 == 51mm f/1.2
50mm f/1.4 == 35mm f/0.9
35mm f/2 == 23mm f/1.3
24mm f/2 == 16mm f/1.3
20mm f/2.8 == 13mm f/1.8

I've always been told, by various self-pronounces experts, that the crop factor has no influence whatsoever on the max aperture. E.g.: A 50mm f1.4 would be a 75mm 1.4 on APC-C.

[Asahiflex]

I've always been told, by various self-pronounces experts, that the crop factor has no influence whatsoever on the max aperture. E.g.: A 50mm f1.4 would be a 75mm 1.4 on APC-C.

That's true, but the list shows the equivalent lens you'll need on APS-C to get EXACTLY the same photo as on FF with regards of field of view and bokeh. So in order to take exactly the same photo with a 200mm f/2.8 on FF, you'll need a 135mm f/1.8 on APS-C.

[Clavius]

That's true, but the list shows the equivalent lens you'll need on APS-C to get EXACTLY the same photo as on FF with regards of field of view and bokeh. So in order to take exactly the same photo with a 200mm f/2.8 on FF, you'll need a 135mm f/1.8 on APS-C.

Ah, now I understand. Thanks!

So I can still say, that one time I would miss having a full frame camera, I'll just use the Breziner method.

[Asahiflex]

Ah, now I understand. Thanks!

So I can still say, that one time I would miss having a full frame camera, I'll just use the Breziner method.

That's a way to overcome the problem, but it only works with static subjects of course

[Clavius]

That's a way to overcome the problem, but it only works with static subjects of course

Or, just shoot the moving subject FIRST. and capture the bokeh surroundings afterwards. Works great. I love creating such "impossible" pictures.

[Kunzite]

That's true, but the list shows the equivalent lens you'll need on APS-C to get EXACTLY the same photo as on FF with regards of field of view and bokeh. So in order to take exactly the same photo with a 200mm f/2.8 on FF, you'll need a 135mm f/1.8 on APS-C.

Only if you shoot wide-open

[Asahiflex]

Only if you shoot wide-open

And I do that often!

[Rondec]

Why do all these discussions come down to whether or not people need tiny depth of field? Of all the differences, this seems to be the one that is emphasized in every thread: "Well, with APS-C you just can't easily get narrow depth of field." I just don't understand it. How many great photos have you ever looked at, where you could say that photo was great, but one stop difference in depth of field would have pushed it to another level? There just isn't that much difference in general and in many situations, you would do better to have a little more depth of field anyway. I personally don't like photos where the left eye is in focus and the right is out of focus, where the mother is in focus and her daughter is really soft. Maybe that is artistic, but a little extra depth of field can go a long way to making your photos sharp.

I think there are plenty of reasons to want a full frame camera, but to me this is the silliest one and the one that is bandied around the most.

[fs999]

That's true, but the list shows the equivalent lens you'll need on APS-C to get EXACTLY the same photo as on FF with regards of field of view and bokeh. So in order to take exactly the same photo with a 200mm f/2.8 on FF, you'll need a 135mm f/1.8 on APS-C.

That's why I bought a Porst 135mm f/1.8 so I don't need FF.

I think there are plenty of reasons to want a full frame camera, but to me this is the silliest one and the one that is bandied around the most.

+1