On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 4:24 PM, Tom C <[email protected]> wrote: > 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.
And furthermore, had Pentax set about designing/manufacturing a FF 24X36 body back at the time they were engaged on the 645D then they'd have likely sold me one, and would likely have exceeded their 645D sales ten-fold. 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.
