K-3 ?

Still the same but they have it as a 2 for one offer as well, apparently it's a hard sell now as everyone is leaving Pentax because they want full frame.

Well I've decided after some deliberation that even if Pentax bring out a fullframe I wouldn't buy one and will be picking up a Nikon d800....still keeping the k5 for travel though

Not me!
I've had six FF DSLR's eight if you include the 2x D800/E which had 48 point focus (Nikon Joke!) Started out with the D3/700 Combo, then back to pentax with a K7, On to Canon with a 5DMKII (Banding issues).
Sold that and picked up a Sony A900, really loved that Camera but it was a Dinosaur and weighed a ton, had the best viewfinder of any Camera I have ever picked up, real quality, with all the Zeiss F2.8's it weighed a ton, so I flogged it and got a K5. FF reare it's ugly head again a little later so I got a Second hand Sony A850 which had internal power issues a mis aligned viewfinder, Sony fixed it free of charge but Viewfinder just isn't the same, still bright but not 100% and only does 3FPS Which I found limiting for handheld HDR and bracketing etc.
So I got another K5! FF came back to haunt me again last year so I got a D600 and some lightweight but quality Lenses, it was great but the K5II was out and ended up being a wallpaper on my picture editing P.C. at home! It was inevitable! Nothing wrong with the D600, it has the Dynamic range etc for a brilliant Landscape Camera and despite what the reviews say, I'd put it a step above the D800 in the noise department too. I just wanted to be back with Pentax, I always thought, because everyone who shoots landscapes professionally tells you that "You have to have Full Frame" (Hate that term) but you don't, you really don't...
P.S. If there K3, I will very likely pick one up but it will have to have very signifcant advantages over the K5II, Which I'm hoping it will because now Pentax seeem to have the backup to create something special...

Interesting to read about your experiences Jules, you've definitely tried all the options and then some. I'm interested to know what convinced you to discard ff and come back to the k5?

Good question ... as I was saying earlier, It's clear that FF is not just a simple or obvious 'upgrade' for all, nor something you could categorise as only for Pros. There are now more complex personal choices to be made.

Plus on other brands we're getting FF models on otherwise 'lower-spec' bodies, ie bodies that might not be ideal for working pros.

Some of my gear simply appears and she never notices because "it all looks the same to me" but sometimes I tell her I've brought something but half the price I've paid which she still thinks is expensive - not sure I could sneak a K3 past her though!

The best thing about FF isn't the number of Pixels Simon as I'm sure you know, it's main benefit has always been in limited depth of focus photography, portraiture and lower noise thresholds, if you don't do any of this you just don't need it. The only Camera I have seen where the number of pixels could be of a benefit to you is the one your getting!
The difference is not as clear cut as you may think dependent on lenses and diffraction etc. the difference between the D800 and D600 can be as little as 4% in resolution terms (DXO measurement's not mine!).
Having looked at my files from my D600 and my K5IIs, pixel peeping there is a slight difference in favour of the Nikon but having just done a 24" print of those poppy's I posted in my 300mm thread in the Lens forum, I very much doubt you'd make it stick to be honest the K5II holds up mate, don't know what digital snake oil they've used but it's good enough for me. Diffraction sets in quite early on the D800 around F7.1 and around f10/11 on the D600, You're good till about F7.1 on the K5 or the equivalent of F11 in FF terms before you get any softening (All lens dependent) and then it doesn't seem to destroy the frame edges as much as it does on the FF Lenses nor as quickly, bit rambling but that's what I see, you need to try for yourself though Simon and you may come to a different conclusion. I was a "dyed in the wool" Nikon user for over twenty years and a total fan boy but I just prefer Pentax's implementation of things, I'm happy with a K5IIs and some Premium Glass.
That's where the new Sigma 18-35 comes in to the equation I think, Premium glass makes a difference, but it's got to be good.
P.S. Don't get me started on how much a Sony FF body plus Zeiss F2.8 Zooms weighs on your back Simon...

I have made sure all the lenses (bar one) purchased for my 7D are full frame compatible as I intend to buy the 5DMKIII at some point in the not too distant future. Saying that there is no way I would get rid of the K-5II although I do think I will be selling on most of my lenses and just keeping the DA* range.

I'd currently put the MkIII at the top of the heap, as the most complete DSLR at the moment Mike, I just can't live with Canon's interface, it's got some very clever pixels in there that give it heaps of image quality. Dial the contrast down a bit and you'll get plenty of dynamic range too.

[quotelus on other brands we're getting FF models on otherwise 'lower-spec' bodies, ie bodies that might not be ideal for working pros.[/quote]D600 body was definately not up to K5 standard but the D800 is, I'd be happy if the K3 was APSC, as long as it was good quality with a decent pixel count to give good "Crop Factor", High frame rate, say around 8 FPS and a class leading autofocus system, thats where I hope Ricoh's money will come in, we've got the sensitivity now we need F8 focus points and a few more of em!

Jules, thanks for those ideas on the quality issues with FF. I have always felt the number of photographers who would actually require the extra pixels and whatever else the larger sensor offered, would be fairly small. By 'require', I mean that there is no way they could produce equivalent output on APS-C.

I feel the same kind of thing was demonstrated with my K511 / s testing - there's a difference in certain situations, but the number of people who would absolutely require it (ie they would have no other means to produce the results using the standard K5II) I think is limited.

I agree entirely, indeed want and need are two different things. I have an A2 printer and that wall hanging 24"x16"ish size sets my requirement, I want to be able to print as big as it can. Clients ask "who printed it?" When you say "I did" they straight away bung their nose right on it! 20 odd Mpx FF bodies do it, and so can the K5IIs. I have no idea if it's the same for the standard II model (Though I can't really see why it couldn't) and I don't want to open that particular can of wrigglies AGAIN! However if I come into any money I may well find out.

Heres' a chance to make myself look stupid - possibly but the whole full frame argument and limited depth of field seems to be counter productive to me for landscapes given the apsc extended depth of field at a given apeture

I have read (I think) that the medium format lenses/system apetures are in fact larger than 35mm for the same f number which helps in terms of diffraction when stopping down for depth of field etc but with apsc we can use the 35mm lenses anyway of course we can use medium format ones with an adapter but I am yet to see someone do this possibly by lack of looking for it or maybe it's just too expensive for most people

Perhaps a full frame camera may benefit by the use of a medium format lens for this 'diffraction' issue 'maybe' by virtue of the difference in the lens design as much as the size of the apeture - maybe or is this just another stupid thought that I should not have released into the public domain

And if so may a Pentax ff model and some older medium/large format glass be of siginificant use

Cheers


Stu

Sounds to me like you understand it well enough to me.
For standard Landscaps yes but there is more to landscape than F11, isolating a single bloom in a field of Rapeseed for instance, or the cliche of the single poppy on the edge of a wheat field at f2 with a wide angle 24mm FF. (Never found that poppy!). Not saying that you can't do it with APSC, you can but currently there are a lot more lenses with the shallow depth required for tihs type of work in the FF format, a Noct style 50mm F1 and a 14-16mm F1.8 thrown in would be a start, If the big Camera brands won't do it,maybe Sigma will help us out?
APSC needs some Lens love...

I agree with most of your comments Jules, there's no doubt that some people get carried away with the promotional material/hype and end up with a camera that's beyond their needs. In fact I think people forget to read the spec of a camera before buying it, from what I've read about the technical details of a certain very high megapixel FF camera it's a landscape photographers camera moreso than anything else and if I were looking for a "general use" FF it wouldn't even be on my list..too low FPS, not the best noise handling, too large image files for bulk processing..I'm sure there's other negatives too.

It does seem that the consensus is that a very high FF sensor does produce a more detailed image, I think there's not really any debate on that point, whether the owner uses the output from such a camera to see any benefit of this is the deciding factor and my guess would be that most don't, I think this is where crop sensor cameras are a better option.

Knowing my usage I'm sure that it's the best choice available for me at the moment. A key issue is that glass suitability for it is pretty much well known so risks are relatively small, the problem I see, and the reason I won't be buying one, is that by the time the same amount of knowledge is known about a Pentax FF we're probably talking 12 months in the future and it's just too long to wait, this all along has been my only frustration with owning a pentax, as a manufacturer they are always last to turn up at the party!!

Simon