[arnie0674]

But I'm really interested... who has a reason , that involves an area where APS-c is so deficient, you'd have to be crazy not to go full frame?

I'm not sure this is the question. It certainly is not my question (I didn't start this thread). I am not looking to be convinced i need full frame, I was looking to better understand the situations and circumstances that would benefit from it. I learnt a lot from this thread, and I do think the potential benefits of full frame has been explained pretty well by Class A, falconeye and others.

I learnt that for 99.9% of my photography, APS-C would suffice. Yet if Pentax released a full frame DSLR, I'd want one

[Coeurdechene]

who has a reason , that involves an area where APS-c is so deficient, you'd have to be crazy not to go full frame?

That simply doesn't exist...Apsc is quite develloped and there is a workaround for it's shortcomings.
The point is not even if there is a technical advantage of FF over Aps-c or not, but why some people want an FF sensor. Sometimes it's about things that ain't related to sensor technology like the bigger brighter viewfinder (definitely a big plus IMO), or the inclusion of advanced features being a "pro" line (like the promsing AF system with it's 91k sensor in the d800), sometimes it's about its relatively meager advantages over Aps-c like the larger FOV for a given focal lenght, the larger DOF control, or the better performance noise wise when viewed/printed at the same size than a similar image from an Aps-c with similar sensor tech. And other times it's even about relatively unrelated to camera tech conditions like customer expectations or employer demands...

So nope...it's not "because i want it" but more "because i value the small advantages of FF over Aps-c" or "because it's considered industry standarts by some people" (till i have a name with prestige then i'll shoot whatever the hell want to ).

[RioRico]

I think something like the 'Q' represents a waste of resources.

Q seems to be selling quite well in its target markets. If it's profitable, it's not a waste of resources, eh?

OTOH, we don't want the Q to be *TOO* successful. Consider Olympus: They had a fine OM SLR system. Then they released the little XA rangefinder, which sold like hotcakes. Then they released simpler successors to the XA, which sold even more. Their little film P&S toys made *SO* much money that they dropped the OM line and just raked in cash. (And blew it later, but that's another story.) If Q is as successful as the XA, why should Pentax bother wasting resources on bigger cameras?

I learnt that for 99.9% of my photography, APS-C would suffice. Yet if Pentax released a full frame DSLR, I'd want one

I find that an ancient (but advanced) 5mpx P&S is still sufficient for much of my photography. Yes, my K20D can shoot rings around it -- but that P&S goes more places. Yes, an affordable FF digital Pentax would entice me greatly -- and I'd need a faster workstation to work on the images. And yes, one of my 6x9cm folders can capture images that are impossible for lesser devices.

For me, digital FF is a matter of want, not need. If I still made a living from photography, damn right I'd want the most appropriate gear. If FF is appropriate for survival, so be it. And for remunerative work, the cost of gear is trivial.

[Ash]

Yes, my K20D can shoot rings around it -- but that P&S goes more places.

Pentax is the brand that does well with this consideration.
I have taken my K-5 with DA 18-55 or DA 12-24, and FA 43 Ltd, and DA 55-300, and I have a very capable, versatile and great quality kit that fits in a small camera bag, weighing less than 2.5kg. Wanting more battery life and faster zooms, I can make the kit blow out to 10kg of essential gear, not including the lighting, reflectors and stands for mobile portrait work... I do like that - particularly since competitor kits of the same capability would weigh in significantly more.

I can envisage the FF model weighing in little more than the K-5 does. And that is something that would raise some eyebrows. Imagine this camera with an FA 43 or FA 77 - small, lightweight, but paramount in quality both in build and in portrait results. Then with the FA 31 - and it's a top landscape setup. Then with the DFA 100 macro, awesome macro photography that is weather resistant yet small and lightweight.

[Pontoneer]

I'm sorry if this subject has been talked to death and I can't find the thread. I've seen lots of people complaining about the fact that Pentax hasn't brought out a Full Frame (FF) sensor camera, but I don't understand why. My apologies that I'm missing the point, but please educate me, don't abuse me. Once upon a time I loved 35mm film, but now I can get great results with an APS-c digital SLR, and the sensor size is an advantage because it makes the effective focal length of a telephoto lens longer; handy when the longest Pentax lens freely available is only 300mm (well, until the recently announced 560mm ). I'm not at all bothered by the dimensions of the sensor in me K7 or K200. I'm more frustrated by being unable to get a digital image out of my old negs and slides as good as was possible printing them directly onto paper (and yes, I know there's lots of technical reasons for that).

So why would a camera with a 35mm film frame sized sensor be better than one with a smaller sensor?

PS If asking this question really bothers people, I'll delete the thread, but I'd like to know the answer to the question.

I just want a camera with a viewfinder big enough and bright enough that I can see to focus sharply , and I want to be able to use my wide angle lenses as intended . I did buy an *istD to get into the digital age , and have looked at later models from the K10 onwards without any great desire to upgrade ( mind you , I used my LX's for over 20 years without seeing anything I'd want to upgrade to ) . Having bought some AF lenses for the digital body , I also bought an MZ-S to use with them , but most of my lenses being SMC-M , I need a camera with a proper viewfinder . I seldom print bigger than A4 , so the *istD is good enough , although I can appreciate later cameras have seen improvements in IQ , but that would be no reason for me to upgrade .

[normhead]

I was just looking for that magic thing, if I decided i want to go to the House Appropriations Committee (sometimes known as the wife).. who has a K-x, and shoots half our photos, and say "we really need to go full frame..", I'd need to have some kind of strategy.


I've been toying with the idea of getting 31 ltd for my next lens because in par of it's FF capability, just in case, you know, but right there, I'm looking an $1100 lens instead of the $600 35 macro I was originally looking at, even more when you consider I could probably ge thy with the $200 DA 35. The 31 is a better lens for what we do, so I've got an angle, but looking forward, this is going to be a struggle. And right now, we can't pull the trigger on even a used 31 ltd... people want a lot of money for them. The ones I've seen are pretty much the cost of a new one less the warranty and overhead. If I could buy one at cost from Pentax they might be cheaper than what I'd pay second hand.

Despite the assertion that lenses can be cheaper, the new 35 2.4 is $200 bucks, pocket change, I've seen a Tammy 17-50 for $250. If there were FF capable lenses available for cheap in the range I want, I'd be snapping them up. But I haven't bought a lens in over a year. The lenses I'd be looking at for an FF system would not be cheap. Maybe as pointed out elsewhere if you go Nikon or Canon you have a better chance, their lenses are still being manufactured and that means the second hand stuff isn't selling at a premium, but I'm betting an FF Pentax would make those FF Pentax lenses I can't afford now even more pricey.

Be careful what you wish for.

[JinDesu]

I was just looking for that magic thing, if I decided i want to go to the House Appropriations Committee (sometimes known as the wife).. who has a K-x, and shoots half our photos, and say "we really need to go full frame..", I'd need to have some kind of strategy.


I've been toying with the idea of getting 31 ltd for my next lens because in par of it's FF capability, just in case, you know, but right there, I'm looking an $1100 lens instead of the $600 35 macro I was originally looking at, even more when you consider I could probably ge thy with the $200 DA 35. The 31 is a better lens for what we do, so I've got an angle, but looking forward, this is going to be a struggle. And right now, we can't pull the trigger on even a used 31 ltd... people want a lot of money for them. The ones I've seen are pretty much the cost of a new one less the warranty and overhead. If I could buy one at cost from Pentax they might be cheaper than what I'd pay second hand.

Despite the assertion that lenses can be cheaper, the new 35 2.4 is $200 bucks, pocket change, I've seen a Tammy 17-50 for $250. If there were FF capable lenses available for cheap in the range I want, I'd be snapping them up. But I haven't bought a lens in over a year. The lenses I'd be looking at for an FF system would not be cheap. Maybe as pointed out elsewhere if you go Nikon or Canon you have a better chance, their lenses are still being manufactured and that means the second hand stuff isn't selling at a premium, but I'm betting an FF Pentax would make those FF Pentax lenses I can't afford now even more pricey.

Be careful what you wish for.

Technically the 35 2.4 is going to be equivalent to the 50 1.8 if the 50 1.8 covers FF (which it should). And the Tammy 28-75 is mostly equal to the Tammy 17-50 in price and focal length when on a full frame.

Do I want a full frame? Sure, if Pentax can get out a weathersealed full frame with amazing features (and that professional rated shutter) for under $3500, I'll grab that. Would also be nice to have a series of FA weathersealed lenses come out with it (I think the DA*55 F1.4 covers FF). Full frame cameras tend to be the more for the professional shooters - hence all the fancy body builds and higher rated shutters. It's not just the sensor sometimes.

But I am more than pleased to just use the k-5 or it's successor.

[normhead]

ya, that's pretty much my feeling, if one comes out I'll be sorely tempted, but I really hope it doesn't, because I do fine without it and it would eat a lot of my extra income for a few years. And I'd still want a 645...I used to have Mamiya 645, there's just something about having a 645 in your hands that says, I'm a really serious dude. But most of the time it got left at home, because I didn't want to carry it.

[TomB_tx]

I just want a camera with a viewfinder big enough and bright enough that I can see to focus sharply , and I want to be able to use my wide angle lenses as intended . I did buy an *istD to get into the digital age , and have looked at later models from the K10 onwards without any great desire to upgrade ( mind you , I used my LX's for over 20 years without seeing anything I'd want to upgrade to ) . Having bought some AF lenses for the digital body , I also bought an MZ-S to use with them , but most of my lenses being SMC-M , I need a camera with a proper viewfinder . I seldom print bigger than A4 , so the *istD is good enough , although I can appreciate later cameras have seen improvements in IQ , but that would be no reason for me to upgrade .

I did get a K-5 as my first Pentax digital, and as you say am disappointed with the viewfinder using my -M lenses. That's the main reason I'd like a FF Pentax. However, I fear the Nikon D800 has made it less inviting for a company like Pentax to complet in FF. The D800 is so capable that luring customers to Pentax would require something remarkable, or a price well under $3K - except for those of us with a legacy lens collection.