[wildman]

The SLR look is intentional.
As Sony has found out from the NEX line, there is a group of people who are turned off by the fact that NEX looks like a big compact rather than a DSLR alternative. And that's why they have the A3000 - a mirrorless in a DSLR skin. Some customers, for one reason or another, wants their camera to look like a "real camera" (DSLR) when they are paying so much more than a compact.

So Sony is taking a less risky approach here, so that it can appeal to both the mirrorless crowd and also those who wants a DSLR-like camera.

I was wondering the same thing myself - assuming form follows function why not simply a FF NEX?

Also we are still limited by the physics of optics. Look at the picture of it with the zoom on. Rather than a camera with a lens it looks like a lens with a camera only incidentally snapped onto the back of the lens. We are still left with lugging around optics bigger and heavier than a can of soup.

[Digitalis]

I think they will be solid cameras - but what I am already sick of hearing is people promoting them like they are the answer to everyone's problems. yes they are full frame, yes they have focus peaking, yes they are competitively priced, yes you can use pentax glass on them with adapters. In what way is APS-C hindering your photography to the point where having an extra 494 sq/mm of sensor area is going to make an improvement in the quality of your work?

Making the jump from APS-C to medium format is a big change - but I don't think it is worth going from APS-C to FX format - and switching to a different mount in the process is the best way to go about it.

[wildman]

In what way is APS-C hindering your photography to the point where having an extra 494mm2 of sensor area is going to make an improvement in the quality of your work?

Asking for what you need rather than what your are told you should want - what a novel idea!

[nosnoop]

I think they will be solid cameras - but what I am already sick of hearing is people promoting them like they are the answer to everyone's problems. yes they are full frame, yes they have focus peaking, yes they are competitively priced, yes you can use pentax glass on them with adapters. In what way is APS-C hindering your photography to the point where having an extra 494 sq/mm of sensor area is going to make an improvement in the quality of your work?

If you have a bunch of legacy glasses, then you can use them at the focal length as they are designed, rather than with a crop factor.
This alone would make it attractive. And of course, low light performance would benefit.

Making the jump from APS-C to medium format is a big change - but I don't think it is worth going from APS-C to FX format - and switching to a different mount in the process is the best way to go about it.

And the PRICE is a BIG change from APS-C to Medium format too!
OTOH, both A7 and A7r's price is within reach for most people, and that's a huge factor.

[Digitalis]

If you have a bunch of legacy glasses, then you can use them at the focal length as they are designed, rather than with a crop factor.

This kind of logic ignores the fact that a lens will work as designed no matter what size the sensor you put behind it. If you put a 44mmX33mm sized sensor behind the FA77 it will still work as designed. On APS-C format the FA77 happens to be a superb lens, using it on FX format won't change that.

And of course, low light performance would benefit.

The design of current sensors makes the differences between FX and DX format nowhere near as big as they seem.

[clackers]

This kind of logic ignores the fact that a lens will work as designed no matter what size the sensor you put behind it.

I didn't think you could use lenses oprimized for APS-C (such as the Pentaxes or Nikon DX) on FF without problems.

[jogiba]

I didn't think you could use lenses oprimized for APS-C (such as the Pentaxes or Nikon DX) on FF without problems.

The A7 and A7r have both full frame and APS-C 1.5x crop modes like my full frame Sony NEX-VG900.

[jimr-pdx]

I'd take an Olympus OM-D before Sony; they lost my trust in the past with their shotgun approach to making cameras. I thought I was a more forgiving person, but apparently not in this case..

Beyond that I prefer less electronic correction of images, and shorter lens-to-sensor distance to a larger sensor means more corrections I do not control.

[bossa]

The K-5 already beats every Canon FF so it's really just the lenses that don't quite match in a couple of areas. Fast wide angles & supertelephotos.

..one last time.."equivalence" but within reason and with respect to the format gets you most of the way there.

[normhead]

The K-5 already beats every Canon FF so it's really just the lenses that don't quite match in a couple of areas. Fast wide angles & supertelephotos.

..one last time.."equivalence" but within reason and with respect to the format gets you most of the way there.

I don't know what folks without FF cameras imagine them to be, but there's a pile of FF wannabees out there who are in for a let down when they find out what they paid for. Guys like bossa and jsherman, you can listen to, they work with both systems and have a pretty good idea of the utility of both.

As for the vapourware comments... Lack of evidence is not evidence of absence, especially in an environment where trade secrets are tightly guarded for sound economic reasons.

We found out who the overly negative are when the K-3 rumours and specs were released, and they did their best to discredit, based not on evidence, but because Ricehi pointed them out first, even though they were confirmed by another forum member. And then continued to trash Pentax and doubt the K-3 was so good, or so close. ANd also continued to claim the K-3 wasn't a new camera based on what they percieved to be Pentax's past record.

IN light of the K-3 being announced little more than a week after their negative diatribes, I'd suggest caution in listening to any of these dudes. Pentax executives said they were investigating FF a year ago. They said they were producing one a few months ago. The Prime 3 processing and new AF system are FF capable, many of the components are already in place. My guess is, a few months after the launch of the K-3 once they are satisfied there are no major bugs in the new systems the FF will come out.

My choice wold be a K-01 FF with articulating screen, priced at about $1500, but I'm not holding my breath. That's what would be good for me. But sometimes, it's not about me. ANd there's a few others on the forum who need to realize it's not about themselves, their doubts, and their negativity. The K-3 was launched with a pile of great new features, without their anticipation or approval. Just as the FF will be launched without mine. I'm guessing at the latest, 6 months after Christmas. And I'm guessing theres an FF based on Prime 3 and the new AF system in the labs right now.

saying there is no Pentax FF is just as much speculation as saying there is. We both don't know for sure, so thinking one speculation is better than the other is just wrong. What we know is, those who say there is no Pentaax FF, don't know anything more than the ones who suggest there is, except if you have any reading comprehension skills at all, you understand Pentax has been hinting at an FF coming for more than a year now. It has to be close.

ANd as I said, once the Pentax FF is out, you won't want to be fussing about with any adapters that cripple half their lenses' features.

[pinholecam]

This kind of logic ignores the fact that a lens will work as designed no matter what size the sensor you put behind it. If you put a 44mmX33mm sized sensor behind the FA77 it will still work as designed. On APS-C format the FA77 happens to be a superb lens, using it on FX format won't change that.





The design of current sensors makes the differences between FX and DX format nowhere near as big as they seem.

Precisely!
Some folks just get too caught up in the 'original fov' thinking and it eats into them till hobbits become gollums (and we have plenty here on PF).
A photographer frames a shot, chooses his DOF and other settings to get what he intents.
Not the other way round.

[pinholecam]

For those with mostly manual lens, it might be the FF solution they have been waiting for.
For those with a good mix of AF/MF lenses, I do think a Pentax FF solution would be better.

I see no rush to jump in.
The chance of a Pentax FF is the highest possible at any time.
The A7 won't be readily available due to the initial rush to buy and end of year shopping.
Not to mention a lack of native lenses.
I'd suggest to sit back a bit and observe the user reviews (esp. for Native; RF lenses and adapted Pentax lenses)
If a Pentax FF does not come along by 1st quarter next year, the A7 would be at a better price and any issues known anyway.

I had thought we had seen the last of the NEX priests evangelizing the 'prowess' of their NEX and how everyone else is a fool (usually w/o sample photos but loud claims)
Now, I need to prepare for the coming of A7 prophets.

[Digitalis]

I didn't think you could use lenses oprimized for APS-C (such as the Pentaxes or Nikon DX) on FF without problems.

Of course you're going to have issues when using a DX specific lens on FX format* - but the lens still works as it is designed to do - although not as intended, because you're using it in a format it wasn't intended to cover.

once the Pentax FF is out, you won't want to be fussing about with any adapters that cripple half their lenses' features.

+1 I agree, Adapters can add a considerable amount of slop in the mounting of a lens. And add to the loss of autofocus and AE automation and you are basically left with a porsche with no brakes and only neutral and reverse gear.



*though there are some DX specific lenses that apparently perform quite well on FX format.

[NKK]

Will the adapter for Pentax lenses change the things like extention tubes does (eg. in macro)? Or have they somehow compensated for that?

[jogiba]

Will the adapter for Pentax lenses change the things like extention tubes does (eg. in macro)? Or have they somehow compensated for that?

No, the PK-E mount adapters would not make it work like an extension tube for macro lenses.