[sterretje]

$1500 (the price of the K5 at release) is what I'm prepared to spend on any dSLR (FF, APSc, ...). So if I'm in need for something, I will see what I can get for that money; end of story.

[maxfield_photo]

And still has an auto-focus much better than any imaginary Pentax FF model.

I don't know what you're talkin' about, my imaginary Pentax Full Frame focuses great, it's just the real one that doesn't do so well. <Ba-doom>

[Jasvox]

Is that what is called predictive opinion, a premonition or just BS ?

Based on the Pentax reputation and performance in this area, a very educated guess.

Jason

P.S. I wouldn't suggest holding your breath for a Pentax FF model anyway.

[pinholecam]

Not a FF crusader (plenty of them around here)
I just use what is available and not bother thinking too much about what camera comes about, since in reality I have no control over it.
But I would fork out $2-2.5K for one.

[_quicksilver_]

I think 3000$ would be the highest price I would be willing to pay.

But please Pentax, if this is ever going to happen, do something to the quality control! Nobody would like to see the Pentax Pro FF with sensor stains and buttons falling off...

[Macario]

If Pentax comes out with a FF camera, it should be priced about the same as the Canikon models and it should be much better.

Why?
If they come out with a nice priced FF camera which is as good as Canikon, it will not sell. As majority of people will think, oh it can't be good as it is so cheap. And sadly, that is how it works. cheap is bad, expensive is good in peoples minds.
And if they bring out one priced the same and as good. people will not buy one, because well, it isn't a Canikon.
So the only way to make it a succes (well, atleast I think), is to make one much better, and priced about the same (maybe slightly cheaper, as it is shown, that if something is much cheaper, people will not buy as they think it is crap. if it is priced slightly cheaper, then people will think hhm I might save a few bucks). And then hope pro's will start using it.

[newmikey]

I don't actually want a FF Pentax at all, is that weird? I like the 1.5 crop factor and the effect it has on the angle of view of moderate tele lenses. FF would cause a lens with the FOV of the 55-300mm on APS-C to have a price that's out of range to me anyway. On the wide side, I'm covered by the 8-16mm. I doubt I could improve there. The size and weight of the APS-C lineup suits me just fine.

Weird? Absolutely! Realistic? Probably...

[mattdm]

I don't actually want a FF Pentax at all, is that weird? I like the 1.5 crop factor and the effect it has on the angle of view of moderate tele lenses. FF would cause a lens with the FOV of the 55-300mm on APS-C to have a price that's out of range to me anyway. On the wide side, I'm covered by the 8-16mm. I doubt I could improve there. The size and weight of the APS-C lineup suits me just fine.

Weird? Absolutely! Realistic? Probably...

You could crop the full-frame image from the same 55-300mm lens to get similar results. But yes, you'd be paying extra in terms of size, weight, and cost.

If I can get full-frame without a penalty in any of those things, sure, I'm in. But otherwise, no thanks.

[Northern Soul]

I don't think it's weird to not want a FF - for the same reasons. I can imagine justifying spending £600 on the Tamron 70-200 f2.8, which would effectively get me a 105 - 300 f2.8 lens. Add a 1.4 TC and for less than £700 you have a 420mm f4 lens, weighing less than 1.5kg.

I just can't see me every justifying spending whatever it would cost for a 150 to 420 f4 zoom that would work with FF, let alone enjoying carrying one.

APS-C works just fine for me.

[aurele]

But yes, you'd be paying extra in terms of size

the Canon 60D and 5D2 are almost the same size, but 180gr lighter.


And nope, to not want a ff is not weird.

[eddie1960]

I can see why you may not want a FF. I am mostly happy with apsc myself. But there are things a FF brings like bigger OVF that i would like. AF speed etc aren't a huge concern mostly i shoot MF even when the lens is af in some cases. I can alwys crop FF images to the apsc FOV. and I would guess any FF to come out will likely have the ability to shoot DA lenses as apsc images (like the Nikon models do)

For me $2500 is my limit so I may have to wait a year after release (more time to save for it anyway)

I'm with rico on the mountor idea. Particularly if they launched a better EVF (I can't stand focusing off the live view screen I find it awkward to say the least)
a Mountor setup that comes in tiny and costs <$2000 module and body with the option for all the other modules might get me to sell off a lot of gear just to get it

[rtpguy]

The following comment is totally untainted by actual information:

IMHO a Pentax FF camera just won't happen, because the FF market is very small and select. I'm not just speculating -- many more makers build MF cams than FF cams. If FF were a viable market, scads of greedy capitalist entrepreneurs would fall over themselves offering us goods. Where are they? As good old Deep Throat said, follow the money.

I think a FF Ricoh GXR PK mountor is much more likely. Compartmentalize the infrastructure -- a body for various mountors, separate from the rapidly-evolving sensor and circuitry. This approach could make for a much more affordable FF platform, than would an FF body in direct competition with Canikonyca.

I won't re-hash the arguments. I'll just point out that multiple-format mountors (for sensors from ~1/2.33in (Q) to 645) would cost less to design and produce than standalone cameras, and would showcase the GXR as the ultimate in upgrade-path devices.

ObTopic: As a Mayan vendor in Antigua Guatemala asked me as I dithered over some crafts, HOW MUCH YOU WANNA PAY? I see the GXR body selling for US$350, the M-mountor for US$650 -- would you go to US$1650 for a FF-PK-mountor, for US$2k total? Would you go higher? That was the base price of the Sony A850, the low-cost leader. Is that a tolerable price?

I like this. I've always liked the idea of the GXR as a platform, but it doesn't seem to have received all that much love, possibly due to the initial pricing. I wouldn't mind seeing a GXR2 weather sealed, able to take current modules, available KAF2/3 mount module with either APS-C or FF sensor modules available. The low end could retain their < APS-C/lens modules for < $700, $500 for the possibly revised body, ~$500-600 for APS-C/KAF2/3/K5 equivalent, or +$1k for FF sensor with KAF2/3 mount. I'd expect pricing to get sensitive here, as it is with the Q and others - too little, and it will seen as a toy, too much and few would bother to make it worthwhile. A single platform could be quite nice to move from smaller sensors to APS-C wit hthe option of going to FF in the future.

[rtpguy]

PS - no immediate desire, but echo Ron's and others comments - I doubt a Pentax FF would be likely to convert all that many pros invested in Canikon, so it would need to be at a lower cost than the current Canikon offerings, and offer a bit more in at least some areas to gain any sort of momentum, which would need to include the enthusiast market- who in this economy, IMO, are going to be less and less likely to spend $3k+ on a body alone. Making a true flagship and priced like it may be nice for bragging rights, but they need to think sustainability and gaining some semblance of market - make it a 'good enough, with some great added features' and priced below Canikon, and it has both enthusiast and pro appeal. Or price it out of the enthusiast market and hope to break even. Max of $2500-$2750 or so would put it into a good placement for the $, if they could pull it off.

[sjwaldron]

And that's why I didn't go on a DA bandwagon. For my K20D (my first dSLR) I bought a very few DA's (4 of them), but my accumulation is overwhelmingly FF-compatible. So when Pentax-Ricoh releases an FF body or mountor, I'm ready.

Same here for the most part. Actually most of my DA lenses are FF capable too, except for the 14mm and 10-17mm.

I'd be thrilled for the day I have use the FA* 85mm on a digital FF camera from Pentax among other lenses.

Most of my kit I've compiled over the years are prime lenses, so it really makes sense to have both APS-C and FF that way I can get more use out of each.

[_quicksilver_]

Same here for the most part. Actually most of my DA lenses are FF capable too, except for the 14mm and 10-17mm.

Actually I have been using my DA 10-17 quite a lot on my film Pentax cameras and it works beautifully @ 17 mm, of course on wider focal lengths it´s not good because of the vignetting, but still I like the pictures it produces.

Here´s one example:

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-film-slr-discussion/159796-post-yo...ml#post1686422