Bryan Jacoby wrote: > > The only thing I found annoying about it is that they sent me an email > announcing this "announcement." A funny April 1 "news" item, yes, but > not worth spamming me over (especially given that they write about > this all the time). I think I may have to turn down the email volume > in my PF preferences. > > I for one am not convinced that full frame is the way for Pentax to > go. I'm not sure there's anything magical about 24x36mm. Sure, > bigger is generally better, but full frame sensors are very expensive > (in absolute terms or per square mm) and IMO APS-C is adequate for > reasonable depth of field control, etc. Sure, the mirror box could be > smaller if the system was originally designed around APS-C (a la > four-thirds), but life is full of compromises. Maybe Pentax is just > being realistic (i.e. smart) about the market for $2000+ full-frame > bodies, larger, more expensive lenses, etc. One of the many reasons I > find PF often not worth my time is the significant fraction of its > content spent whining about the absence of full frame. > > I think that Canikon treat their APS-C users as second class citizens > to some extent. For instance, neither makes an APS-C equivalent of > the classic 70-200mm f/2.8 zoom, if you want that effective focal > length range you have to use a real 70-200mm on a full-frame body. > Pentax is the only camera mfr I'm aware of to make something like the > DA* 50-135mm. I don't see myself paying the price for a full-frame > system, so I'd rather live in Pentax land with really nice crop sensor > options. > > I'm not saying that I don't want Pentax to make a full frame camera. > If they can do it profitably then I hope they do. But the assumption > often seems to be that they're crazy to not venture into that part of > the market, and I don't see that as inherently obvious. >
To be honest I'm not sure what would entice me to buy a Pentax FF body at this point. When I saw the fake specs, I was sort of underwhelmed. A year or two back I would have bought a Pentax FF body. But with Sony producing 24MP NEX-7's for $1399 and Nikon with the 36MP D800/E for $3000/$3300, I sort of feel that a 24MP $2000 - $2500 Pentax FF body would likely hit that sweet spot of overpriced mediocrity. I'm even surprised that Canon has a 22.3MP 5D MKIII at $3499. Compared to the Nikon mid-range FF body at a slightly lower price and 14 more MP, what does the Canon have to make it compelling? A lot of grumbling about that on the Canon forums. The Sony has a relatively low price and enhanced portability with respectable resolution. The Nikon has a higher price tag but commensurate increase in resolution (and apparently great performance). Tom C, -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
