Pentax and Full Frame

I'm breaking out in a sweat just thinking about it.

Not sure if it's the thought of my lenses value dropping through the floor or the fact I could probably afford to buy some of that old long exotic glass to go on the K-5

One could also argue that the more Pentax cameras seen on the street in the hands of amateurs would have a similar effect, I dont doubt that amateurs may be influenced by what pros are using but the majority will still take into account size and cost.

That is really the only thing the K-5 is missing imo. I bought a Canon 50D just to use the MP-E 65 macro but also have a Sigma 100-300mm f4 for it. I have the same lens in Pentax mount but the 4 year old 50D is streets ahead in the AF department.

I used to think this was an argument but I'm not so sure any more - assuming the pixel density was the same on the 35mm sensor, all you'd need to do is crop the middle APS-C bit out of the pictures and the result would be the same. Which is all the APS-C sensor does anyway.

But it would mean an enormous investment in new lenses, so that the quality was acceptable out to the edges. They'd rush to produce them, since they'd suddenly be reading all the carping reviews of the new 35mm Pentax that doesn't have a lens range. So the QC would be all over the place, as it seemed to be a few years ago.

Quite. Imagine Pentax AF with the reputation of the best of Canon AF, and some fast lenses at 400-600mm. Pentax would walk all over the opposition.

There's plenty of incremental improvement left in APS-C.

Well yes, that's a perfectly reasonable strategy. Picking up a few cheap K-5 bodies when the time comes would remove any reliability worries, and the lenses would be cheap, and just as good as they are now.

Agreed. It doesn't seem very likely.

The last time Pentax did a professional system was the LX and that didn't survive the AF revolution.

Of course there was a time (the Spotmatic era) when the distinction between professional and amateur cameras wasn't quite the same. A professional camera was one that professionals used, and the main players were Nikon and Pentax. Pentax had some very unique professional products, such as the Quartz lenses and the Nocta IR surveillance system.

At that point professionals using Canon were probably in the minority.

It can all change agin, given enough time. The photojournalists might all change to the Q as the quality will be absolutely more than enough for newspapers and web news. Just think of the reduction in weight to carry.

And the paparazzi will be less likely to get punched in the face if theyre sporting a Q and just look like a fan, you may be onto something John

It is so so silly to think like this, you can use a full frame camera and take a picture and crop it yourself and you will have the same view as a APSC sensor does for you.

Paying less for better reach is not an advantage, it is just some silly talk to keep APSC user happy but think again a FF camera can do what APSC does with cropping if you want. but APSC doesn;t do what a FF can do.

Given that the pixel count of two sensors is the same, using the full number from an APS-C sensor is better image size wise than using a lesser number from a larger sensor. There are other factors, but it's not all one way.

Another thing that is an advantage of APS-C is that cameras and lenses can be more compact, or lenses could be more adventurous in specification.

I'm impatiently waiting for my latest purchase to arrive with its 6x9cm 'sensor'. The downside is that you only get eight images before having to change the 'memory'...

This FF argument has been going since I first joined the forum. There has also been a slow but steady trickle of people who have left because they are going "full frame". Who knows if that trickle is enough to make financial sense. There were quite a few people being rude about the 645D too before it came out. They are strangely quiet now.

I'm not sure where K10D got the rumour about the k-mount, but I too believe it would be mad to drop it.

We live in interesting times.

K.

Maybe not silly but certainly misguided. A 300 is a 300. It does not have the same magnification of a 450 nor the shallower DOF or compression. Since it's only an equivalent FOV, just make some card apertures for a Cokin holder and you can get any equivalent FOV from your 50mm std lens.

As John rightly say's, higher density APS-C will generally better some FF crops of an APS-C area.

There is no short cut for focal length. It is indeed a sales tactic.

If Ricoh introduce a new bayonet mount, I wont desert my current Pentax system. Canon did it and it worked so there are no hard and fast rules. I think Pentax have had a good run with the K in its various guises.

Time will tell and who is to say that a new mount + camera with a new lens road map won't be exciting?

Best regards

p.s. for Kris, there were rumblings on Pentax forums. Rumblings or rumour, it may be baseless.

Yes Canon did it but they had the money behind them to ride the backlash and at the end of the day where does a Canon user go ... for the majority it's Nikon or nothing. There are a large proportion of Pentax users that often wonder if they did the right thing choosing the brand and I would put money on them taking the opportunity to swap without "losing face" so to speak.

I'm one of them.
I don't care about losing face. It's not even so much the expense, although obviously that's a big factor.

In my case it would be all the researching, agonising, deciding, all without the background with the brand that makes it all a little easier to separate the wheat from the chaff.

That, and the knowledge that no brand is perfect, and it could easily be a case of out of the frying pan...

Do you remember my friend that is looking to get into digital, the one with a Canon film camera of some description, and two daughters each with a Canon? I was completely wrong about them being 40Ds, in fact they're 1000Ds. Now I know that that is very much an entry level model, but I had a proper play with one of them the other day.

And a nastier looking, more cheapo-feeling piece of tat I don't think I've ever clapped eyes on. It doesn't make me want to move to Canon if that's an example of the build quality - tell me that the better ones are better?

Nobody can know something like that Mike.

You see it said often enough john ... maybe you don't visit other forums but others do.

Did I make the right decision
Should I have chosen Canikon
Are Pentax going bust

All threads I have seen numerous times.

I can honestly say the Canon 50D I use is as well built as my old K10D .. I doubt it has the same quality of weather sealing (not sure it has any tbh) but otherwise I would say it matches up very well.

ISO performance is about the same as well which is a bit of a shock after using the K-5