Is there no online stamps supplier Gwyn? It's hard to imagine a postal service with no post offices, although no doubt we will get there given time.

I don't think people are being narrow minded. I think it's simply that if they did see a need for a FF frame camera they would not be on a Pentax forum. All it means is that a decision has been made, and they are here.

Square format DSLRs would need new bodies, or just be a full frame model cropped down for no purpose. Square format is no better and no worse than any other format - right for shots when the subject and composition suit it.

I often use square format made from APS-C. I would not like to be restricted to it and have to crop down to make a more usual oblong format.

In any event, as the mass market is now used to widescreen TV and cinema, a square format is counter-intuitive and the opposite of where the market has headed.

Many Pentax cameras now have a suare format option built in I think. As well as 16:9 and 4:3 there is also 1:1 offered.

Agreed, no format does. A 50mm lens is a 50mm lens, end of story.

What changes is the lens required for a given field of view.

So a Minox sub-miniature requires a 15mm lens as a standard lens. 15mm lenses have immense DOF when taken in this context. So the small format has more DOF than the larger format, in a practical sense.

We do understand the technical point you are making Algi, but I think we need to recognise the practical upshot of this for most users. So when people say that wide angle lenses give more DOF and that APS-C gives more DOF than FF, they are right enough in the context in which they are using the cameras to shoot images.

A couple of thoughts cabstar.

Do you not think that if FF prices fall, APS-C prices will also fall, thus making those cameras very affordable by new users? Those who might previously have not considered a DSLR?

Secondly, if FF lenses are made, the prices will be higher anyway and people grumble enough about APS-C lens prices. The bodies may be cheaper, but the lenses? Unless of course we accept a reduction in standards, and then what is the point?

The world has changed since people were posting that they would definitely buy a K-5 when it fell to £1000! Clearly Peter you don't want a FF camera!

I did for years, but found it was an illusion. The lenses of some were disappointing, as they assumed less enlargement was needed. The cameras were bulky and slow. Features taken for granted on 35mm were not in sight. Running them was uber-expensive. The close up and telephoto arrangements were incredibly Heath Robinson and not particularly effective unless proiced as high as the cameras.

The 645 was not enough of a jump from 35mm. I would have needed, but could not afford, the 67. Alas, the world has moved on and APS-C gives arguably better quality, with the possible exception of the 67 and the Hasselblad.

Be fair, Algi, cabstar's comment is valid, without going into technicalities.

APS-C has more perceived DOF, we know that.
We also know that we could crop a FF image down, providing there were enough pixels, and still retain excellent quality.
DOF is relevant to format because we use it in terms of angle of view rather than focal length. We don't see focal length, we see a view. To see the same view on APS-C we need a shorter focal length and get more DOF as a result.

What you say is also technically correct, but not part of the current context.

I have usually been unimpressed by duty free prices, and also where would the back up be?

Why not give Pentax a ring though and ask them. It's the only way you will be sure.

Probably bigger cameras, bigger lenses, bigger file sizes, bigger prices and probably little advantage for the photographer printing no larger than A3.

Do I feel a desire for a FF camera? No, otherwise I would already have one.

What I do is shoot pictures, not worry constantly about what I shoot them with, although to be fair I do enjoy the delights of Pentax engineering quality and ergonomics.

When it comes down to details, the things I use particularly in Photoshop are: Levels, Cropping, Patch tool, Channel Mixer, Hue/Saturation, Blending Modes, Photo filters, plus sometimes Layers, Styles, LAB Mode, Channels, etc.

Probably all sorts of other things too. What tends to be the case is that one or two of these is missing from alternative programs, thus rendering them of limited use.

Photomatix is a useful additional program as it is a very powerful and controllable way to good HDR.