[TomB_tx]

I'm fully satisfied with the image quality of the K-5 in terms of sensor performance, and the size and weight are also nice. (I also have a Leica M9 FF, and while I get better results with it, it's more due to the lenses and focusing, not the sensor.) However, the APS finders are dismal compared to FF cameras. Whenever I shoot film with an MX or LX, then change back to the K-5 the finder is a big disappointment. That matters to me as much as final results. (Back in the 1960s I went briefly from Pentax to Canon, and got great results from an FT system, but dumped it because of the musical "ping" the body made with each shot. It just sounded cheap.)
As has been pointed out, the D600 looks like a D7000 body with a FF sensor, mirror, and prism grafted on. If Pentax would do that with a "K-3" and build in an MX finder, I'd buy it in a heartbeat, and keep the K-5 as a backup. Old eyes like big finders.
I'd think the D600 - if true - would have to influence Pentax plans.

[Pål Jensen]

There is no reason to think that dropping FF sensors won't eclipse the apsc in over $1000 cameras within a couple of generations now that we are supposedly going to see mass production FF sub $2000 from the big 3. Pentax will be there.as well, or they will be selling to entry entry mid clients only and be marginalized even further in the higher profit realm

There are two fundamental problems here. One is the assumtion that most people actually want FF. There are no reason to buy an FF camera with its disadvantages if APS give give quality you want. There are no reason to assume that consumer think APS stinks imagewise or that they even consider FF as an upgrade path in significant numbers. You also have to take into account that Pentax have sold APS lenses for close to a decade now.
The second problem is that cheap FF camera won't be in a high profit realm. Cheap price means low profit*. Whats more, cheaper FF sensors means even cheaper smaller sensors that incidentally selling in enormeously larger quantities. That mean that the profit and developing cost on FF sensors needs to be covered by fewer units which increase price even further from the significantly increased manufacturing cost; thats why FF sensors are one to two generations behind APS sensors and MF sensors even more so. Theres nothing magical about the 35mm format. It is a relic from the film days.
Bigger viewfinder and better image quality is its advantage but it comes at a high cost. And remeber that you probably won't see a difference between an image shot with a K-5 and a 24mp FF camera even in a large print. Not to mention the difference between an 24mp APS camera and a 24mp FF camera a generation behind...

* Actually, if FF cameras experience price pressure and reduced profitability it would probably mean even more resorces into high end APS cameras as the sensor do not occupy such a large part of the cost of the camera. Hence, manufacturers will load those cameras with even more goodies to justify a higher price apart from the sensor thereby increase profitability.

[ElJamoquio]

You can say no as much as you like; it is physics. APS lenses are shorter ie smaller than FF lenses for the same angle of view. A 200mm lens on APS have the angle of view of a 300mm lens on FF.

Which is smaller and cheaper, the DA* 300 or the DA* 300?

Which is smaller and cheaper, the DA* 300 + the DA* 200 or the DA* 300?

[Class A]

Cropping ability is the same regardless of sensor. The difference is in image quality for a certain crop which will be better on larger format. APS has great cropping ability - it is meaningless to buy an FF camera in order to crop the images.
Burstrate could be faster with smaler files using the same technology. Technologi is often a generation in front on APS as they sell in much larger quantities.
APS is much cheaper than FF and always will be. In the worst case scenarios, saving on lenses alone may be above $10 000 for a complete set up for similar magnifications and light gathering abilities. Getting macro magnification as possible with APS is impossible on FF regardless of cost. Nor do you have the same close focusing abilities with FF for a certain magnification as you have on APS.
Of course K-mount make sense for APS (Canon EOS have about the same diametre as 645 systems). It is not the diametre of the lens that causes size and weight savings but the fact that you use a shorter lens for the same magnification on smaller formats compared to FF. If you are using long lenses you can save several kilos on those lenses alone. Not to mention the cost.
The fact that you have up to five stop advantage on say a K-5 compared to a D600, as the former have one stop faster shutterspeed at the same ISO and DOF and up to four more due to image stabilization on all lenses, just add to the smaller formats advantage. To make an FF camera do the same, if possible, would make it prohibitively expensive. However, it will give you better image quality.
Smaller sensors has an extremely bright future. FF camera in the sub $2000 level has been around for years. They have not sold well, though I'm sure the D600 will be quite sucessful but there will be a D400 too.

Lots of incorrect statements in that post. Other posters have addressed some of the already (thanks) but I'm not going to try to enter a discussion.

It is as simple as this: If both formats have the same pixel-pitch then there are no disadvantages associated with the larger format (except for potentially slower processing in-camera and in post, plus higher storage requirements).

You can say no as much as you like; it is physics.

The correct physics has been written up by a physicist.

[eddie1960]

There are two fundamental problems here. One is the assumtion that most people actually want FF. There are no reason to buy an FF camera with its disadvantages if APS give give quality you want. There are no reason to assume that consumer think APS stinks imagewise or that they even consider FF as an upgrade path in significant numbers. You also have to take into account that Pentax have sold APS lenses for close to a decade now.
The second problem is that cheap FF camera won't be in a high profit realm. Cheap price means low profit*. Whats more, cheaper FF sensors means even cheaper smaller sensors that incidentally selling in enormeously larger quantities. That mean that the profit and developing cost on FF sensors needs to be covered by fewer units which increase price even further from the significantly increased manufacturing cost; thats why FF sensors are one to two generations behind APS sensors and MF sensors even more so. Theres nothing magical about the 35mm format. It is a relic from the film days.
Bigger viewfinder and better image quality is its advantage but it comes at a high cost. And remeber that you probably won't see a difference between an image shot with a K-5 and a 24mp FF camera even in a large print. Not to mention the difference between an 24mp APS camera and a 24mp FF camera a generation behind...

* Actually, if FF cameras experience price pressure and reduced profitability it would probably mean even more resorces into high end APS cameras as the sensor do not occupy such a large part of the cost of the camera. Hence, manufacturers will load those cameras with even more goodies to justify a higher price apart from the sensor thereby increase profitability.

Whether most people want FF or not is not even the issue Pal. It's pretty obvious to me you never worked electronics retail. I did for over 25 years. I can tell you they will end up buying FF. Allowing 2 generations before FF kills off over $1000 apsc was actually being conservative. If the generation coming out is as rumoured then it will not be 2 more generations beyond that. It comes down to marketing and perceived value for the price. It may not represent value to you personally but that is not the way the market works. People are swayed by reviewers, Salespeople and what their friends tell them. What they are already telling them is FF is better. when FF is the same price range as apsc they will by the lesser featured FF because it is "better" whether it is or not. It's the psychology of how sales work.
a couple of years back now Falk was predicting 5 years for this to be reality. I think he was spot on and this is the year it starts to play out. Either Pentax steps up with a unique offering to grow the brand and position themselves for the future or they continue to be marginalized. I think the it's likely they are looking to the future and see the same thing.

[Pål Jensen]

Whether most people want FF or not is not even the issue Pal. It's pretty obvious to me you never worked electronics retail. I did for over 25 years. I can tell you they will end up buying FF. Allowing 2 generations before FF kills off over $1000 apsc was actually being conservative. If the generation coming out is as rumoured then it will not be 2 more generations beyond that. It comes down to marketing and perceived value for the price. It may not represent value to you personally but that is not the way the market works. People are swayed by reviewers, Salespeople and what their friends tell them. What they are already telling them is FF is better. when FF is the same price range as apsc they will by the lesser featured FF because it is "better" whether it is or not. It's the psychology of how sales work.
a couple of years back now Falk was predicting 5 years for this to be reality. I think he was spot on and this is the year it starts to play out. Either Pentax steps up with a unique offering to grow the brand and position themselves for the future or they continue to be marginalized. I think the it's likely they are looking to the future and see the same thing.

It has nothing to do with perceived value at the price; it has to do with price. Most people do not use thosands of dollars on cameras and lenses that do those cameras justice. Such cameras are forever doomed to have a sub 10% markedshare. The general consumer do not know what use he have for FF. Nor are there any reason to expect FF get more reviews and advertising than APS. I see lot of DSLR advertising in general medias; they are all APS - no FF in sight.
FF will not be in the same range pricewise as APS for cameras that are even remotely comparable; it will not happen either unless sensors becomes virtually free. Moores laws doesn't apply to sensors. You also have to compare system prices. If APS over $1000 gets killed then its because APS cameras can be had so much cheaper. What people see as value for the price is not defined by absolute price but relative price. And whats makes anyone think FF will win any value for money competition?
People have predicted the near death of APS for about a decade now. We have had sub $2000 FF cameras for years and it has not changed the FF share from about 5% and APS the rest 95%. Some don't seem to get that APS is no FF substitute but a format in its own right. This format have so many advantages, not at least price, that it will continue to be the bestseller. Price is whats driving volume.

[eddie1960]

What sub $2000 cameras have we had NIB for years. Sure there are items on the used market, but the only NIB was the Sony which had a whole range of other issues that made it a failure IMO.
Where apsc will struglle will be the over $1000 model. IE the enthusiast market. There will of course be people who still choose apsc for the reach because they cant afford the ff sensor with equivalent pixel pitch. but there will be a lot who could care less about the reach advantage (I'm one I could take 98% of my images with a 135 or less on a FF sensor. I could take 90 % on an FA77 or smaller and fully half on a 35mm or smaller. I would be on FF for the advantages it presents to me at the right price. So would the vast majority of street photographers I would think. HEll they could make me happy with a monochrome sensor. If I had the dosh I would already have my name down for the M9 Monochrome. I've actually considered getting one of the monochrome canon conversions form MaxMax. Not much chance of affordable B/W sensors ever being a reality because it interrupts the production line for a small run sadly.
As for Moore's law not applying to FF sensors why would they be the exception in the electronics world? sure they will still cost more than apsc, but the price spread is diminishing and will continue to do so.
As for price driving volume you are right. Sub $800 is what drives volume. the $1000 plus market has always been smaller. If FF takes a majority share in that market because they can be had for $200 more than an apsc camera then manufacturers will put there design and production efforts there. Sub $800 is already being squeezed by MILC cameras. As the MILC assortments (particularly lenses) improves it will continue to be squeezed. FF may well be a different format (i never argued it wasn't) but it is the format K mount was designed for, and there is no reason not to see it as a compliment to the apsc line other than fear they will stop making the apsc. Everyone gets you don't want FF, you just need to acknowledge there are a lot of people who do. the 5% market share of FF is largely due to the fact that the majority of FF up to now have been well over $2000 with only one camera (the a850) that retailed below and then only at life end - a pretty crippled camera from a brand that struggles for share beyond entry mid sales (ie sub 8-900)
Provided the right design any FF Pentax releases would enhance the brand and draw new users beyond the current crop. It may also draw former users back.
As for advertising, I see FF ads regularly, and in every flyer I see from the big chain here in fact the D700 and 5D2 were prominently featured, no point prominently featuring the D800 at the moment since it is wildly oversold, the 5D3 has been in flyers already. The apsc models are always there as well of course, and likely generate far more unit sales, but aprt of the appeal to many consumers is just the fact that the high end exists, Canon has long capitalized on this (and you'd likely be astonished by how well the 5D series sells - I've yet to be in the bigger stores near me (there are 2 big flagship stores on my walk home) when I haven't seen someone looking at the 5D series.
Realistically from looking at what it offers you could have a FF with K30 functionality and sell a boat load of them. there is little in the way of crippling that would make them unusable, but the first offering should be more like an upgraded K5 (Given the K5 sells for $1000 or less now that leaves $1000 to turn it into a FF Doable with dropping sensor cost I think.

[sb in ak]

If Pentax can make a compact FF with the functionality of the K-5 at a good price it will be a hit. The main bummer will be for the folks who invested in the APS-C glass all of these years. One of the big draws to the Pentax system is the backwards compatibility.

Also, hopefully a FF would not mean purposefully handicapping the APS-C cameras in some areas of functionality.

[eddie1960]

If Pentax can make a compact FF with the functionality of the K-5 at a good price it will be a hit. The main bummer will be for the folks who invested in the APS-C glass all of these years. One of the big draws to the Pentax system is the backwards compatibility.

Also, hopefully a FF would not mean purposefully handicapping the APS-C cameras in some areas of functionality.

If they built a K5 and a FF K5 and priced them $500-$700 apart (so $1999 for the FF), but kept the feature content identical (beyond FF advantages like he OVF) which would you buy. If they gave the FF more focus points and faster AF and the apsc was jsut a small AF improvement over the K5 which would you buy.

I would assume what will happen is a couple of features may well be on the FF that aren't on the apsc, but that any apsc top model will still show improvements over the K5

[Pål Jensen]

Where apsc will struglle will be the over $1000 model. IE the enthusiast market.

What makes you think people who are happy with APS are less enthusiast than those who wants FF? APS has 95% of the market; you find far more enthusiast there, and even pros, and most of those do not consider FF a natural upgrade path anymore than they consider MF digital an upgrade.
And the price etsimate is meaningless. If FF gets cheaper APS will get even cheaper increasing its sales potential even further.

[Pål Jensen]

As for Moore's law not applying to FF sensors why would they be the exception in the electronics world?.

Because sensors is not about getting more and more into smaller units. An FF sensor has a fixed size. It is the size thats cost money. Smaller sensors are cheaper and will continue to be so.

[Pål Jensen]

Everyone gets you don't want FF, you just need to acknowledge there are a lot of people who do. .

This proves that you don't get it
I'll buy a Pentax FF camera. I certainly want one primarily cause I can't justify a 645D.
I'm not arguing against the usefulness of FF but against the idea of it as a holy cow, and that its going to replace APS in any form. The fact is that APS is the sweetspot for digital sensors and all the FF cameras in the world can't change that. FF has a size, weight and cost disadvantage (along with other disadvantages I won't reapeat here) that is substantial. Its gain is basically about overkill as far as the mass market is concerned, except for that bigger viewfinder.

[JFN]

I found this

Pentax To Announce the K-3 Full Frame DSLR At Photokina

Is this what I think it is??

PF's April fools joke that went wrong?

[eddie1960]

Is this what I think it is??

PF's April fools joke that went wrong?

they grabbed the image from the april fools jke, the rumour originates with Rice High so I'd take it with a huge grain of salt.

[eddie1960]

This proves that you don't get it
I'll buy a Pentax FF camera. I certainly want one primarily cause I can't justify a 645D.
I'm not arguing against the usefulness of FF but against the idea of it as a holy cow, and that its going to replace APS in any form. The fact is that APS is the sweetspot for digital sensors and all the FF cameras in the world can't change that. FF has a size, weight and cost disadvantage (along with other disadvantages I won't reapeat here) that is substantial. Its gain is basically about overkill as far as the mass market is concerned, except for that bigger viewfinder.

that I can agree with it's not a Holy Grail lol. The size weight arguement is based on size/weight of the current crop. Canon particularly but nikon as well are not known for making compact DSLR in apsc either (ever pick up a D300 or 7D) though Nikon has responded to the Pentax K7 with the D7000 body. The Rumoured D600 is supposedly the D7000 body with the bigger FF OVF ( and that Prism doesn't need to be huge - look as an Oly OM or an MX - both have fantastic finders in tiny bodies)
The market will buy overkill whether they need it or not (just look at all the idiots driving huge SUV's that never see anything other than City streets and highways.)
YOu have lots of points in favour of APSC, and I do agree with some of them, but the reality is the mass market doesn't always make the logical choice.I believe apsc will rule sub $1000 for a long time and that is the biggest market segment. But over $1000 I think it is going to disappear due to dropping FF prices. It will take a few years (5 maybe) but it will happen. Part of the reason will come from what percentage of over $1000 sales come from FF over the next few years. It will hit a tipping point where the manufacturers decide to rationalize the higher price points and eliminate the apsc at that level (and many of the features will be available sub $1000 by that point anyway - just look at the feature set on the K30)