[sumitkar1971]

While all of the focus is currently on the new Pentax FF, for many of us who cannot afford the new FF, the APSC lineup of cameras and glass will remain our bread and butter. I cannot be happier with my K-3 and as a hobbyist, currently see very little advantage to investing in the new FF. I still have a long way to go to master all of the capabilities of the K-3.

While we often complain about the auto focus of the Pentax system, the flash capabilities and the somewhat limited lens selection compared to the big boys, I love the fantastic, ergonomic User Interface, the unparalleled Weather sealing, The IQ and Dynamic range. Even though I do not have an extensive selection of glass, I feel what I have is supremely quality and can match up against any of the competition in terms of IQ and especially Price. I would be hard pressed to replicate my collection of lenses at anywhere close to a comparable price with the competition - Tamron 17-50 f/2.8, Pentax DFA 50mm f/1.4, Pentax DFA 100mm WR Macro, Pentax DA* 50-135 f/2.8, Pentax DA* 60-250 f/4

I am sure the FF will be absolutely stellar based on what I have read. But for now, I as well as I am sure a lot of folks similar to me, who have a long way to go before we master our current gear, will continue with an outstanding APSC camera and our collection of superb Pentax glass.

[ramseybuckeye]

I'm pretty happy with what I have and I'm also in no rush to go to a FF camera. I don't use what I have to the fullest extent and truthfully what I want is different things to shoot. I find myself shooting the same things over sometimes instead of finding new things. But then it's fun doing that with different lenses. Someday I'm sure I'll want to to try a FF when it's time for a new camera, but I'm happy.

[Jinnax]

I think a lot of the people who will go in the FF direction are those who want more and better choices at the wide end, particularly with primes.
I'm not going to be one of them (right away), but I didn't really like what became of my M50 & M28mm lenses under APSC - I preferred them the way they were, FOV-wise because they were generalist/walkarounds. Now they are more specialized for shooting situations that call out for a particular F-stop or focal length.

[jatrax]

While we often complain about the auto focus of the Pentax system, the flash capabilities and the somewhat limited lens selection compared to the big boys,

Those do see a lot of complaints and for those where those areas are lacking I can see why. But for most (I might suggest 90% plus) of Pentax users those complaints are not valid.
1) Auto focus?? nothing wrong with the AF on anything after the k-5 IMHO. TRACKING auto-focus, OK I'll grant that is not up to speed. But auto-focus on static or slowly moving subjects is as good as it needs to be.
2) Flash?? Yes other systems have more sophisticated flash systems and for the handful of photographers who need that the Pentax system is lagging. But I suspect not that many people use those features anyway. When I do use flash it is with wireless manual triggers so P-TTL is not an issue. For general use P-TTL works just fine. If you need fancy options well, yeah Pentax is lacking.
3) Lenses?? Except for long and fast what is really missing? Well good 24-70 and 70-200 but no need for those until the FF so not an issue. For APS-C I think they have most of the boxes ticked (except long and fast) and how many people really buy $8,000 lenses?

I am quite happy with the K-3II I have now (my k-3 is now in my wife's capable hands) and while I might buy the FF, I'm not convinced it will deliver anything that will make MY photography any better. If it does, well the money is in the bank and the purchase is in the budget, it just needs to justify itself.

[mythguy9]

The main reason to buy the FF is to be able to fully utilise my legacy lenses. APSC is fine for me as a amateur too, when it comes to value. I'd wait for FF to mature in Pentax/Ricoh before buying one.

[MadMathMind]

APS-C is fine for hobbying, no doubt. But when it comes to pro or semi-pro work, virtually everyone is using full frame. APS-C can compete (it's not a matter of prestige), but in my circle, I'm one of the few crop shooters. It doesn't make a huge difference in most cases, since we're staging shoots, but when a cosplayer wants to shoot in poor light because she likes the setting...the full framers do a lot better there.

Those do see a lot of complaints and for those where those areas are lacking I can see why. But for most (I might suggest 90% plus) of Pentax users those complaints are not valid.
1) Auto focus?? nothing wrong with the AF on anything after the k-5 IMHO. TRACKING auto-focus, OK I'll grant that is not up to speed. But auto-focus on static or slowly moving subjects is as good as it needs to be.

I personally really fight with anything below f/2.8 with the K-5IIs. I usually have to shoot 3-4 with the AF inbetween to make sure one is in focus. It's not a matter of front or back focus--it will just miss. I'd like to see some improvements on this in the next Pentax I buy. This said, Canon has its issues and I've watched my Canon shooting brethren fight with their cameras too.

[Rondec]

I expect Pentax to continue to support APS-C. That said, the price for top end APS-C is coming down and the days when you could release a crop camera for 1600 dollars are probably behind us -- even if it does have great specs.

As to auto focus issues, I have not seen them with K5 II and K3 bodies -- issues more have to do with lenses. Lenses like the DA * 50-135 and DA *55 are pretty slow to focus and can't track much coming straight at the camera. Maybe there will be a Mark II of both of those with faster focus motors, but I doubt it at present. Seems like Pentax has other things they are focusing on right now.

[TheOneAndOnlyJH]

...As to auto focus issues, I have not seen them with K5 II and K3 bodies -- issues more have to do with lenses. Lenses like the DA * 50-135 and DA *55 are pretty slow to focus and can't track much coming straight at the camera. Maybe there will be a Mark II of both of those with faster focus motors, but I doubt it at present. Seems like Pentax has other things they are focusing on right now.

Pun intended?

(ie: focusing on other things NOT under the selected focus point?)

[jatrax]

I personally really fight with anything below f/2.8 with the K-5IIs. I usually have to shoot 3-4 with the AF inbetween to make sure one is in focus. It's not a matter of front or back focus--it will just miss. I'd like to see some improvements on this in the next Pentax I buy. This said, Canon has its issues and I've watched my Canon shooting brethren fight with their cameras too.

I did the same with the k-5 and to a lesser extent with the k-5IIs. Shoot 3 or 4 mostly identical shots to make sure one was in focus. When I switched to the k-3 I continued that practice, until I noticed that I could not tell one shot from the other. All of them were in focus. Sure, an occasional miss but my fault, not the camera. Maybe I have just improved? I doubt it. The k-3, for the type of shooting I do simply does not miss. I hasten to add that is not sports or birds or anything moving much. I've no experience with that.

APS-C is fine for hobbying, no doubt. But when it comes to pro or semi-pro work, virtually everyone is using full frame.

I suppose that depends on the segment of the industry, but it is certainly not true in all areas. I know a few landscape shooters that are FF, and a few that just want to brag about having a FF, but nearly everyone else I know who shoots for money is using a crop sensor of one brand or another. If you do this as a business the cost of equipment is a business decision, if you do it as a hobby then the equipment comes out of the hobby budget without regard to return on investment. Makes a big difference in the way things are looked at.

[IchabodCrane]

Supporting what jatrax posted, I took several hundred shots with my K-3 on a trip earlier this year and can't recall throwing any away due to mis-focus.

[MadMathMind]

I did the same with the k-5 and to a lesser extent with the k-5IIs. Shoot 3 or 4 mostly identical shots to make sure one was in focus. When I switched to the k-3 I continued that practice, until I noticed that I could not tell one shot from the other. All of them were in focus. Sure, an occasional miss but my fault, not the camera. Maybe I have just improved? I doubt it. The k-3, for the type of shooting I do simply does not miss. I hasten to add that is not sports or birds or anything moving much. I've no experience with that.

I only do this below f/2.8. 2.8 is borderline and I never have issues over that. I do look forward to the FF camera because of the updated autofocus.

I suppose that depends on the segment of the industry, but it is certainly not true in all areas. I know a few landscape shooters that are FF, and a few that just want to brag about having a FF, but nearly everyone else I know who shoots for money is using a crop sensor of one brand or another. If you do this as a business the cost of equipment is a business decision, if you do it as a hobby then the equipment comes out of the hobby budget without regard to return on investment. Makes a big difference in the way things are looked at.

I suppose so. We do "fashion" (for lack of a better word) and some studio stuff. Lots of portrait artists in the hobby. There's field work and travel, so MF would not be appropriate--plus, it's still hobbyists and people who charge nominal amounts of money for their work. (Travel cost recoup, basically.) I'm one of the only ones with a crop camera. It's not an issue and not a matter of people looking down on anyone--in fact, I've found acceptance in the group far, far faster than I could have imagined--just an observation.

For all the threads we see about "I didn't get work because I shoot Pentax!" or "People asked about my camera and...", such events must be incredibly rare. The business decision is probably that people just want to upload to Facebook and Instagram anyway, so the noise-free images that print 16x20s are kinda pointless. Heck, hired photographers would probably use the RX-100 if they could if they thought people didn't equate DSLR = pro. From a quality perspective, I doubt most people would know the difference anyway (well, except for those bokeh shots).

[jatrax]

For all the threads we see about "I didn't get work because I shoot Pentax!" or "People asked about my camera and...", such events must be incredibly rare.

Incredible is the correct word. I've never had anyone question my gear.

Heck, hired photographers would probably use the RX-100 if they could if they thought people didn't equate DSLR = pro.

On another forum the hot topic for a number of stock photographers is moving to smaller cameras such as Canon G7x, Sony RX100 which I think are 1" sensor models. They report no issues with quality control. These are photographers with 5D mkII and L glass that they are putting on the shelf and using the little mirrorless instead. A lot are also moving to the Fuji X100 line.

[BearCreek]

As you can see, if you mention FF on this forum, it's like dipping explosives in gasoline and then tossing a match. I agree with you, I love my K30 and K3 and have zero interest in FF.

[Rondec]

Incredible is the correct word. I've never had anyone question my gear.

On another forum the hot topic for a number of stock photographers is moving to smaller cameras such as Canon G7x, Sony RX100 which I think are 1" sensor models. They report no issues with quality control. These are photographers with 5D mkII and L glass that they are putting on the shelf and using the little mirrorless instead. A lot are also moving to the Fuji X100 line.

My wife shoots weddings and portraiture and no one has ever even asked what brand she shoots with or size of the sensor in those cameras. They just look at her portfolio and then ask what her prices are.

Very few people care about cameras the way we do on the forums and they just want to know the photographer they hire has the skill and gear necessary to capture the photos they want.

[kadajawi]

I only do this below f/2.8. 2.8 is borderline and I never have issues over that. I do look forward to the FF camera because of the updated autofocus.



I suppose so. We do "fashion" (for lack of a better word) and some studio stuff. Lots of portrait artists in the hobby. There's field work and travel, so MF would not be appropriate--plus, it's still hobbyists and people who charge nominal amounts of money for their work. (Travel cost recoup, basically.) I'm one of the only ones with a crop camera. It's not an issue and not a matter of people looking down on anyone--in fact, I've found acceptance in the group far, far faster than I could have imagined--just an observation.

For all the threads we see about "I didn't get work because I shoot Pentax!" or "People asked about my camera and...", such events must be incredibly rare. The business decision is probably that people just want to upload to Facebook and Instagram anyway, so the noise-free images that print 16x20s are kinda pointless. Heck, hired photographers would probably use the RX-100 if they could if they thought people didn't equate DSLR = pro. From a quality perspective, I doubt most people would know the difference anyway (well, except for those bokeh shots).

I shot interiors, and I don't see a reason why I should use a FF for that. I'd be stopping down the lens A LOT to get the DoF I want, and then optical quality becomes an issue. APS-C is the way to go, IMHO, though FF may have advantages such as dynamic range (but I can always do exposure bracketing for that).

In sports or birding where you need very long lenses APS-C can have their advantages too. It really depends on what you shoot, but saying pros have to use FF is wrong IMHO.