K5, Kr, full frame (?) it's all to little too late

Frankly not that interested in K5 or Kr.

I'm thinking of going digital and have always been a Pentax owner, but will now probably go for Nikon/Canon

I would have gone for a K7 if the metering had been spot on and the autofocus faster. But even if these were up with Nikon/Canon levels, where Pentax has failed in the semi-pro/advanced amateur section is with lenses. Primes, particularly telephoto, are neither long enough, fast enough or of jaw droppingly good enough quality across the whole aperture range.

A rumour here - http://k-rumors.com/k3-fianlly-some-pentax-rumors-k7-super-k5-and-more-to-come/ - seems to suggest a full-frame in 2012. Sorry, I can't wait that long. And if Pentax are going to try and compete at this level, both camera and leneses will have to be stunning. I won't be holding my breath.

Often, much is made of the backwards compatibility of Pentax lenses. But this is largely a reduntant feature. My current film camera's autofocus doesn't work with lenses from yesteryear (particularly important as my eyesight deteriorates as I ger older). And besides, Nikon offer the same thing, but again without full compatibility with autofocus, so this (Pentax backwards compatibility) is not much of a selling point.

Nope, despite a huge sentimental attatchment to Pentax, both Nikon and Canon can provide full frame digital cameras with knockout lenses, here and now with Nikon's superb autofocus and low light capabilities probably just edging it. Sorry Pentax. It's just too little, too late.

I'm pretty sure Pentax have said all along that there will be no FF for a year or two so I really don't know why people were expecting one. They don't have the money to bring out such a camera (or lenses needed) for such a small market. There is talk of Sony dropping the format for the time being and Canon/Nikons FF cameras probably account for very little of their sales.

Personally, for the stuff I shoot I would miss the crop factor and the K-5 looks rather appealing.

Pentax never said anything about a FF this year.
The market sector is very very small and Pentax just can't compete - too much development costs for too little return. They have the 645D which is also for a tiny market segment, but one for which Pentax is well known.

Lots of people (particularly on another forum) whinge on and on about a FF Pentax, but when it comes down to it I wonder how many would actually buy one. They too have a fine collection of DA lenses, most of which would be unsuitable for a FF camera, so then they could whinge on about the lack of suitable lenses too.

I too would miss the crop factor, and tbh the K-5 is about as expensive a camera as I can or would want to buy.

I wish you luck with your FF, whichever make you choose.

While we do not (and cannot from your posts) know what aspect of your shooting make AF and lens requirements so super-critical for your applications, L2, just a word to the wise:
The grass may appear to be less brown on the other side, but be careful that it isn't a paddock full of thistles.
That said - Bon voyage

Does the forthcoming 35mm f/2.4 not tempt you to stay :

I really can't understand why so many people want a FF camera.: Today's APS-C DSLR already have the edge over film SLRs. And most people don't make prints large enough to show the quality of their APS-C camera to start with. As a matter of fact, most people don't make prints at all, where the quality of the camera will really show. So, what is there to gain with a FF camera? And, beside, your APS-C camera is a full frame camera. It's just not a 24 X 36mm full frame. And a change of format doesn't make anybody a better photographer. As for the lenses, all Pentax lenses can hold their own against the equivalent C*n*n or N!k*n lens.

That said, good luck, and if you ever happen to change your mind, you can always come back.

I've already stated in another thread that to anyone doing nature photography FF offers no advantage, unless you can get as close as you want too. If you have say a 400mm lens you will need to buy a 600mm lens to get the same shots......... but if your going to buy a 600mm lens you might as well use it on the APS-C and completely fill the smaller frame anyway.

Looking at the C & N forums having two systems seems to be a real mess and confusion, with different focal lengths being needed for each system. It's bad enough on here with just APS-C

Yes, I can't understand why full frame is such a deal breaker.

but then the words of the OP probably say it all

Those who have already gone digital to APS-C never seem to have a problem with it. Perhaps the OP is just irrationally scared of APS-C and perceives it to be inferior simply because it's smaller.

My shooting buddy is a Canon user and has a full frame body. the pictures he takes are not technically any worse or better than the pics that my tiny framed Pentax bodies produce.

My shooting buddy's canon lens are no better ( or worse ) than my pentax lenses either.

That's very curious as all Pentax AF lenses will work with all Pentax AF cameras, digital or not.

Obviously manual focus lenses will only manually focus, but even then addition of the 1.7x AF converter will enable AF for many of them.

If you're thinking of going digital, then a bit more research might save you a considerable amount of money.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the high ISO performance of FF cameras seems to me to be pretty desirable when compared to APS-C. Particularly when the K7's performance in this regard marked a step back from the K20D.

This is the area I most hope is addressed in the K5. Given the KX's ability in this area one expects it will be - though it would be nice if this time Pentax advanced high ISO performance further still in its top of the range body instead of its entry level one. The K7 is clearly a great camera, but it was a little odd to see so many people pining for the KX's low light ability when this was released shortly after the K7.

Actually I don't think the K-7 high ISO is a step back from the K20D (it just seems a bit different, the K-7 has more detail) but the thing that did niggle me was that (as you stated) their entry level camera performed better in that area than the flagship model costing nearly twice as much.

Well that and now the 5 point AF.C mode I found out about today.

That's interesting Mike, but there's still quite a gap in this regard between the K7 and, say, a D700 isn't there?

Any idea how the KX shapes up against FF at high ISO?

As I said, I'm hoping the K5 will at least match the KX.

Are you talking about the gap in price between a k7 & a D700???

The sensor in the k5 & the k7 is larger than the k-x & the k-r, making it more difficult to create lower noise images at high ISO.

Why do you think the d700, d3 etc are all 12 megapixel cameras but have stunning high ISO capabilities???

Fair point. But it was a shame the K7 didn't represent much of an advance (if any) when compared to the K20D in this area.

As for the K5 I'd be happy to lose some megapixels for improved high ISO performance, though I realise this isn't going to happen.

If the pixel density is as high on full frame 24x36mm as that on the APS-C sensor then you would have the same enlargement/crop capability, hence Canon with their 20+ Megapixel DSLR's.

John