[6BQ5]

I have been cruising through mu-43.com and other u4/3 related site from time to time to stay acquainted with what is going on in the u4/3 ecosystem. There are postings about new lenses, new bodies, and new features. Never once is a new sensor size ever mentioned like is in the Pentax world. The 4/3 format was fixed a long time ago and by its nature the lens designs have nowhere bigger to go. I find this liberating. It allows companies and product owners to stay more focused on photography than the gear. u4/3 users can buy lenses without worrying that they'll be obsolete or that an upgrade will be necessary. A lot of Pentaxians have been thinking about the DA vs. FA question. I wonder if this has slowed down sales of the DA lineup. The crop factor and DoF questions have also been a constant source of distraction too. Yes, APS is a tighter field of view than FF for a given focal length. Yes, stepping back or using a shorter focal length may be required. Get over it and "take the ******* picture"!

I hope that the upcoming FF body and lenses will put to rest a lot of these distractions so the Pentax brand can grow the features and the processing power of the camera like Panasonic is doing with their Lumix lineup. We are starting to see the first glimpse of this with the built in GPS and pixel-shifting technology in the K-3 II.

If you want APS then it will always be there. If you want FF then it will be there too. Let's move on.

[Rondec]

I think folks shooting four thirds know that it won't ever get a bigger sensor. If they needed a bigger sensor, they moved on to another brand long ago.

Folks with Pentax have had hints for many years that Pentax was working on full frame behind the scenes. A lot of that was to string users along, but it ended up increasing the angst involved with decision "Should I stay or leave. Maybe Pentax will release a full frame camera this fall..." I suppose it is a testament to how much photographers appreciate Pentax's ethos that they stew about such a decision so much. I have a feeling that with most brands people just switch.

In the end, as you say, it is about the final photo. Whether or not that turns out is not related at all, in most cases, to the size of the sensor you are shooting, but rather to your skill in making the most of the scene before you.

[aleonx3]

When I first look at Olympus years ago, I though they might have considered at least the 4/3, m4/3 and APS-C, I thought that would be interesting using the same mount and lenses. Now, they have completely out of APS-C, and of course, will likely (never) have FF either. That to me, they seems to be a one-trick pony but certainly appeals to the folks who prefers light weight gear plus long tele photos. OTOH, I like the mere fact that one can use a FF circle lens on APS-C sensor which makes it more interesting (gaining the best of both formats) as in the Canikony/Pentax world... this of course, is just MHO.

[cali92rs]

I seriously looked at micro 4/3 before coming back to pentax. I was tired of lugging around heavy gear for a hobby. They definitely have a lot of options and a well filled out catalog of lenses. But in the end, the u4/3 lenses I wanted were more expensive than the Pentax lenses I wanted.

[Winder]

I have been cruising through mu-43.com and other u4/3 related site from time to time to stay acquainted with what is going on in the u4/3 ecosystem. There are postings about new lenses, new bodies, and new features. Never once is a new sensor size ever mentioned like is in the Pentax world. The 4/3 format was fixed a long time ago and by its nature the lens designs have nowhere bigger to go. I find this liberating. It allows companies and product owners to stay more focused on photography than the gear. u4/3 users can buy lenses without worrying that they'll be obsolete or that an upgrade will be necessary. A lot of Pentaxians have been thinking about the DA vs. FA question. I wonder if this has slowed down sales of the DA lineup. The crop factor and DoF questions have also been a constant source of distraction too. Yes, APS is a tighter field of view than FF for a given focal length. Yes, stepping back or using a shorter focal length may be required. Get over it and "take the ******* picture"!

I hope that the upcoming FF body and lenses will put to rest a lot of these distractions so the Pentax brand can grow the features and the processing power of the camera like Panasonic is doing with their Lumix lineup. We are starting to see the first glimpse of this with the built in GPS and pixel-shifting technology in the K-3 II.

If you want APS then it will always be there. If you want FF then it will be there too. Let's move on.

K-mount was designed around the 135 format, so there has always been the expectation that there would be a true 36mm x 24mm body. 4/3 was designed specifically for that sensor size, so the expectations are different. It's like Fuji and the X-mount. Its designed for APS-C, and FF will not fit. People buying into X-mount or M4/3 know there will be no FF option.

[DeadJohn]

Part of the Pentaxian angst is because we are already using lenses and bodies that are big enough to allow FF. A larger FF sensor won't increase your carrying weight (depending on the lenses you use).