Pentax K10D vs Sony A100...I can't decide :(

[dug777]

They both feel great (although i'll give the nod to the Pentax there, just felt less cluttered).

I hear the kit lenses are both pretty good (again, i hear the Pentax kit 18-55 is probably the better of the two), looking at either the Pentax with the kit, or the Alpha with the twin lens kit.

The dpreview review for both are excellent, with the Alpha seeming to do a little better...

The eye start af was cool, and the Alpha seemed to focus quicker...

See?

Advice appreciated :beer:

EDIT:

Bah.

After reading lens reviews, i'm leaning towards the D80 with the 18-135mm

Do the Pentax and Sony have equivalent range/quality lenses at a similar pricepoint? I'd even settle for less range...

How important is the IS in the Sony/Pentax?

 

[AmigaMan]

Eh, I can't offer objective advice since I never looked at the Pentax. I am about to pull the trigger on the Alpha during lunch today. I like the in-camera stabilization and I also have some older Sigma lens for a Minolta 35mm I want to re-use. Again, I don't know anything about the Pentax, but the Alpha felt really good in my hands. Real comfortable and I like that eye-start thing and the second dial on the left. Much more intuitive than a button pad on the back, but that's just my opinion.

get the alpha because I am and I'm cool. well maybe not, but Zenmervolt is and he is cool! he's all elite and stuff too!

 

[randomlinh]

I'd lean towards the pentax because of their older MF primes. So long as you are shooting only raw.. the jpeg processing of the K10D sucks balls IMO.

 

[Tech Addict]

I purchased the Sony alpha, a couple months back. The camera had a mechanical defect in the continuous shot and I had to send it back with in three days of recieving it. In the few days I had it, I liked the pictures I had taken. I did not get a chance to to take any high ISO pictures, so I can not comment on the the noise perfomance above 400 ISO. I decided to take a refund instead of getting them to send me a new camera. At that time I was able to save an additional $150 plus rebates on a lens on the K10D through another vendor so I bought that instead. I had really wanted the K10D the whole time but, the Sony was always cheaper. Having had the sony for few days and the K10D for couple of months here are my Pros and Cons

K10D
Pros
Build quality is very good, sealed body
I have large hands and the camera feels very good.
The high ISO pictures I have taken have been great.
Very Bright viewfinder.
Kit lens takes some great shots(my opinion of course), (I have the pentax 50-200 as well)
Top LCD readout for info (f-stop, iso, etc.)

Cons
More expensive
Heavy Camera at least compared to the sony.
Pentax lens are fairly expensive and harder to find. (Pentax brand especially the limited series lenses)
Smaller community of photographers. (but just as rabid about the pentax system being the best)
Thae camera really hunts for focus in low light.
The Hoya buy-out could leave the pentax users in very bad place depending on how things shake out.

Sony Alpha.
Pros
Cheaper
Decent build quality- feels a little less substantial then the K10D
An amazing amount of good cheap used lenses... If you get this camera find an F4 beercan lens (70-210) only the f4 though the other builds of that lens are not as sharp.
Good Anti-shake
A good sized camera if you have larger hands.
Longer kit lens 18-70 vs the 18-55 of the K10D

Cons
Darker Viewfinder (Pentamirror vs. Pentaprism in the K10D)
No Top LCD (I really missed this feature)
Not a sealed body. (not an issue for most people.)
Sony branded accessories are ridiculously priced....Zeiss lenses I'm pointing at you.
Sony is a new player in the DSLR field.. but built off the minolta digitals this may not really be a bad thing.

 

[dug777]

If i could have the eye start af, the sony/minolta ccd and processing gubbins, either party's stabilisation, in the pentax body i wouldn't have this problem

Not that i though the alpha body was in any way bad, just that the pentax was marginally better...

I'll be entirely happy with either, so at least from that point of view the outcome isn't so important...

 

[dug777]

Originally posted by: Tech Addict
I purchased the Sony alpha, a couple months back. The camera had a mechanical defect in the continuous shot and I had to send it back with in three days of recieving it. In the few days I had it, I liked the pictures I had taken. I did not get a chance to to take any high ISO pictures, so I can not comment on the the noise perfomance above 400 ISO. I decided to take a refund instead of getting them to send me a new camera. At that time I was able to save an additional $150 plus rebates on a lens on the K10D through another vendor so I bought that instead. I had really wanted the K10D the whole time but, the Sony was always cheaper. Having had the sony for few days and the K10D for couple of months here are my Pros and Cons

K10D
Pros
Build quality is very good, sealed body
I have large hands and the camera feels very good.
The high ISO pictures I have taken have been great.
Very Bright viewfinder.
Kit lens takes some great shots(my opinion of course), (I have the pentax 50-200 as well)
Top LCD readout for info (f-stop, iso, etc.)

Cons
More expensive
Heavy Camera at least compared to the sony.
Pentax lens are fairly expensive and harder to find. (Pentax brand especially the limited series lenses)
Smaller community of photographers. (but just as rabid about the pentax system being the best)
The Hoya buy-out could leave the pentax users in very bad place depending on how things shake out.

Sony Alpha.
Pros
Cheaper
Decent build quality- feels a little less substantial then the K10D
An amazing amount of good cheap used lenses... If you get this camera find an F4 beercan lens (70-210) only the f4 though the other builds of that lens are not as sharp.
Good Anti-shake
A good sized camera if you have larger hands.
Longer kit lens 18-70 vs the 18-55 of the K10D

Cons
Darker Viewfinder (Pentamirror vs. Pentaprism in the K10D)
No Top LCD (I really missed this feature)
Not a sealed body. (not an issue for most people.)
Sony branded accessories are ridiculously priced....Zeiss lenses I'm pointing at you.
Sony is a new player in the DSLR field.. but built off the minolta digitals this may not really be a bad thing.

Thankyou for that :beer:

It's just made my choice harder, however

 

[Tech Addict]

Yeah, I know, It took me about 6 months.... and drove my wife crazy because it was all I talked about.

 

[AmigaMan]

Originally posted by: dug777

Originally posted by: Tech Addict
snip.

Thankyou for that :beer:

It's just made my choice harder, however

Yes, that was a very good writeup Tech Addict! I still think I'm going to Sony, but it's good to know about potential issues. I'm glad you got a refund and it doesn't sound like you had any problems with Sony's customer service.

 

[Tech Addict]

I was very impressed with in dealing with Sony. I had bought the camera through B&H. I had nothing but great service. The refunded the money with no issue.

 

[GrantMeThePower]

Pentax.

Where's the poll?

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: Tech Addict
Sony Alpha.
Pros
Cheaper
Decent build quality- feels a little less substantial then the K10D
An amazing amount of good cheap used lenses... If you get this camera find an F4 beercan lens (70-210) only the f4 though the other builds of that lens are not as sharp.
Good Anti-shake
A good sized camera if you have larger hands.
Longer kit lens 18-70 vs the 18-55 of the K10D

Cons
Darker Viewfinder (Pentamirror vs. Pentaprism in the K10D)
No Top LCD (I really missed this feature)
Not a sealed body. (not an issue for most people.)
Sony branded accessories are ridiculously priced....Zeiss lenses I'm pointing at you.
Sony is a new player in the DSLR field.. but built off the minolta digitals this may not really be a bad thing.

I cannot speak to the Pentax beyond what Tech Addict mentioned as I don't use that camera, but I can speak to a few points on the Alpha...

The amount of Minolta lenses on the used market is far better than Pentax. Pentax does have a lot of older manual-focus designs available since you can mount old Pentax lenses, but if you're not interested in older manual lenses then the playing field is sharply tilted in teh A100's favor. The A100 needs an optical adaptor to mount the old MD series manual focus lenses from Minolta and it's overall a hassle.

As for the viewfinder, I don't notice the issue much, but I have problems with all viewfinders due to my glasses (the diopters don't help me, my vision requires more adjustment than the diopters allow). I don't think the A100's viewfinder is bad by any stretch though and it's better than the Canon Digital Rebels which seem to be just fine for many.

IMO, and this is just me, a top LCD is overrated. My Maxxum 7 (film) has a top LCD and I never look at it. This depends greatly on the person though and may or may not apply to you. And I'll admit that it's better to have a screen that you never look at than to want a screen that's not there.

I've never had a camera with a sealed body. Unless you're shooting in some very extreme conditions, it's really a marketing feature and nothing else. I've shot in light mist with the A100 just fine and I don't worry about it. If I were shooting in the rain or in the desert during a windstorm, then I'd want a sealed body, but those are conditions that really just don't come up.

The cost of the Zeiss glass... Well, it's always been that expensive. (I used to shoot with a Contax and Zeiss manual focus lenses.) And while I haven't indulged yet for the Alpha, the universal consensus is that the image quality of the Zeiss glass is un-surpassed. (Note that this does not mean "un-equaled", A great L-Series Canon, a great Nikkor, a high-end Pentax or Minolta G-Series will all be on par with a Zeiss or a Leica.) Yes the high-end lenses are expensive, every manufacturer's high-end glass is expensive. The equivalent Pentax glass is every bit as expensive. For example, Pentax just plain doesn't offer anything to compare to the Zeiss 85mm f/1.4 (heck, they don't even have an 85mm prime at all), nor anything comparable to the Zeiss 135mm f/1.8 (closest is an inexpensive 135mm f/2.8 which is good, but nothing special), nor anything comparable to the Zeiss 16-80mm f/3.5-4.5 (closest is a 24-90mm f/3.5-4.5) The Pentax version of Minolta's $400 28-75mm f/2.8 is $1000. Pentax just plain doesn't offer a 70-200mm f/2.8 zoom, and Pentax's 200mm f/2.8 and 300mm f/2.8 primes are $10 less and $300 more than their Minolta/Sony equivalents respectively. Pentax has some amazing glass out there, but good glass is always expensive and to complain about the price of Sony's good glass while ignoring the fact that the same quality from Pentax costs at least as much money just doesn't make sense.

As for Sony being a new player, they bought Minolta lock, stock, and barrel. They have the same engineers from Minolta. In fact, they have the same building. There are two new Sony cameras immenent and there's no way that they're leaving the market any time soon.

The Pentax is a great camera, but don't let the supposed cost of accessories sway you. Good glass costs money and there's a lot of it available for the Sony/Minolta mount. It does make the Sony glass look more expensive, but the fact is that for comparable optical quality the price is comparable to any other brand.

For the record, I can't say anything bad about the Pentax as a photography tool, it's an excellent camera and I like it a lot. The lens system just has some gaps in it.

ZV

 

[Unheard]

Pentax (but I'm a bit biased, see sig)

 

[Bullhonkie]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: Tech Addict
Sony Alpha.
Pros
Cheaper
Decent build quality- feels a little less substantial then the K10D
An amazing amount of good cheap used lenses... If you get this camera find an F4 beercan lens (70-210) only the f4 though the other builds of that lens are not as sharp.
Good Anti-shake
A good sized camera if you have larger hands.
Longer kit lens 18-70 vs the 18-55 of the K10D

Cons
Darker Viewfinder (Pentamirror vs. Pentaprism in the K10D)
No Top LCD (I really missed this feature)
Not a sealed body. (not an issue for most people.)
Sony branded accessories are ridiculously priced....Zeiss lenses I'm pointing at you.
Sony is a new player in the DSLR field.. but built off the minolta digitals this may not really be a bad thing.

I cannot speak to the Pentax beyond what Tech Addict mentioned as I don't use that camera, but I can speak to a few points on the Alpha...

The amount of Minolta lenses on the used market is far better than Pentax. Pentax does have a lot of older manual-focus designs available since you can mount old Pentax lenses, but if you're not interested in older manual lenses then the playing field is sharply tilted in teh A100's favor. The A100 needs an optical adaptor to mount the old MD series manual focus lenses from Minolta and it's overall a hassle.

As for the viewfinder, I don't notice the issue much, but I have problems with all viewfinders due to my glasses (the diopters don't help me, my vision requires more adjustment than the diopters allow). I don't think the A100's viewfinder is bad by any stretch though and it's better than the Canon Digital Rebels which seem to be just fine for many.

IMO, and this is just me, a top LCD is overrated. My Maxxum 7 (film) has a top LCD and I never look at it. This depends greatly on the person though and may or may not apply to you. And I'll admit that it's better to have a screen that you never look at than to want a screen that's not there.

I've never had a camera with a sealed body. Unless you're shooting in some very extreme conditions, it's really a marketing feature and nothing else. I've shot in light mist with the A100 just fine and I don't worry about it. If I were shooting in the rain or in the desert during a windstorm, then I'd want a sealed body, but those are conditions that really just don't come up.

The cost of the Zeiss glass... Well, it's always been that expensive. (I used to shoot with a Contax and Zeiss manual focus lenses.) And while I haven't indulged yet for the Alpha, the universal consensus is that the image quality of the Zeiss glass is un-surpassed. (Note that this does not mean "un-equaled", A great L-Series Canon, a great Nikkor, a high-end Pentax or Minolta G-Series will all be on par with a Zeiss or a Leica.) Yes the high-end lenses are expensive, every manufacturer's high-end glass is expensive. The equivalent Pentax glass is every bit as expensive. For example, Pentax just plain doesn't offer anything to compare to the Zeiss 85mm f/1.4 (heck, they don't even have an 85mm prime at all), nor anything comparable to the Zeiss 135mm f/1.8 (closest is an inexpensive 135mm f/2.8 which is good, but nothing special), nor anything comparable to the Zeiss 16-80mm f/3.5-4.5 (closest is a 24-90mm f/3.5-4.5) The Pentax version of Minolta's $400 28-75mm f/2.8 is $1000. Pentax just plain doesn't offer a 70-200mm f/2.8 zoom, and Pentax's 200mm f/2.8 and 300mm f/2.8 primes are $10 less and $300 more than their Minolta/Sony equivalents respectively. Pentax has some amazing glass out there, but good glass is always expensive and to complain about the price of Sony's good glass while ignoring the fact that the same quality from Pentax costs at least as much money just doesn't make sense.

As for Sony being a new player, they bought Minolta lock, stock, and barrel. They have the same engineers from Minolta. In fact, they have the same building. There are two new Sony cameras immenent and there's no way that they're leaving the market any time soon.

The Pentax is a great camera, but don't let the supposed cost of accessories sway you. Good glass costs money and there's a lot of it available for the Sony/Minolta mount. It does make the Sony glass look more expensive, but the fact is that for comparable optical quality the price is comparable to any other brand.

For the record, I can't say anything bad about the Pentax as a photography tool, it's an excellent camera and I like it a lot. The lens system just has some gaps in it.

ZV

Pentax does make an 85mm prime, and it's an 85/f1.4 like the others. Pentax SMC P-FA 85mm F1.4 (IF)

They don't quite have a 70-200/f2.8 but they do have a SMC P-FA 80-200mm F2.8 ED(IF).

The Pentax anti-shake system is supposedly more effective than that of the Sony due to compensating for movement on 3 axes as opposed to 2 for the Sony - but quantitatively measuring the effects and improvements of something like that (if there are even any) would be near impossible. That's probably a very slight advantage to the Pentax - again if any.

Pentax's auto focus system does tend to hunt a bit in very low light situations - although this can depend highly on the lens used and how 'bright/fast' they are. My DA 50-200/f4-5.6 hunts much more than my 50/f1.4 for instance. But it's somewhat irrelevant (at least in my usage) for a lens as slow as the DA 50-200 isn't much use to begin with when light levels are that low.

The viewfinder makes the camera an absolute joy to use. Even aside from the ergonomic and ease-of-usage adjustments from my *ist DL, the viewfinder alone makes me want to shoot more often. It's the largest DSLR viewfinder of anything not named 5D or 1Ds Mark II, and its size and brightness makes using manual focus lenses or manually focusing any AF lens a breeze. I wear glasses while shooting as well as none of the diopter adjustments are enough for me and I can still see all four corners of the viewfinder provided my eye is level and up against the eyecup.

Weather and dust sealing isn't of much importance to most people, but if nothing else it's good peace of mind. There's a review of the K10D floating around where they put it under a kitchen sink faucet running full blast - much tougher conditions than you'd ever experience in the real world - and it kept on ticking.

Price is pretty much a wash. Circuit City has the K10D + kit lens for $838.99 and Pentax is currently running a $50 rebate on the K10D/K100D or $150 if combined with the DA 50-200 lens (so basically an additional $100 off if you also buy the 50-200) - and there are also 10% off coupons for Circuit City if you're an AAA member (or you can buy one off eBay for a few bucks.)

So K10D+kit $838.99 - 10% CC coupon ($83.90) - $50 Pentax rebate = $705.09 for K10D + kit lens - and you can get another 2% of the before-rebate price if you go through places like Fatwallet/Fatcash or Ebates, which would make it $689.99 after everything's said and done.

Or K10D+kit $838.99 + DA50-200 $269.99 - 10% ($110.90) - $150 Pentax rebates = $848.08 for K10D + kit lens + DA50-200 lens, or $828.12 after Fatcash/Ebates. That's a pretty nice deal for the body and two lenses when just 6ish months ago the K10D+kit was still selling near it's $999 MSRP.

B&H has the Sony Alpha + kit lens for $699.95 currently. Circuit City has it for $749.99 which would be $674.99 after 10% coupon and $661.49 after Fatcash/Ebates.

Pentax is generally known for their primes but they have a few gems in their zoom lineup. They also have a line of pro-level zoom lenses coming soon: 16-50/f2.8, 50-135/f2.8, and 60-250/f4 but also come with pro-level prices to match. PhotoZone has a decent and growing assortment of Pentax primes and zooms reviewed, as well as some popular third party lenses. You'll get image-stabilized third party lenses with either camera which is a nice advantage over Canon/Nikon offerings (mmmm image-stabilized Bigma.)

Keep in mind I'm biased as well since I own a K10D. I've never really used the Alpha except for playing around with a demo for a few minutes in a store so I can't speak much in terms of what the Alpha has to offer. Either way you can't possibly go wrong IMO - both cameras are capable of taking fabulous photos.

 

[dug777]

Cheers folks, you rock :beer:

Keep it coming

 

[GrJohnso]

I'm leaning towards grabbing an Alpha as well. Sony is planning on announcing two new models shortly, but exact dates and features aren't out there yet. Might help on the price of the A100, might not.. I already have a couple older 35mm Minolta's and a few lenses, so that pushes me in this directly. However, the bit of hands on with the Alpha has been nice...

One thing to be aware of WITH ANY cameras that support CF cards is the fragility of the pins. I've heard of a few alpha's getting their pins bent, but this is 100% user error of forcing a card in the wrong way. It's not a warranty repair, and Sony's flat rate to fix their camera for non-warranty issues is about $281 right now... Keep this in mind if you are considering something used or "open box"... It's easy to check visually, and sometimes you can just bend the pins back.. It's a flaw in the CF interface in general, not the camera's specifically.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: Bullhonkie
Pentax does make an 85mm prime, and it's an 85/f1.4 like the others. Pentax SMC P-FA 85mm F1.4 (IF)

They don't quite have a 70-200/f2.8 but they do have a SMC P-FA 80-200mm F2.8 ED(IF).

That's what I get for not looking up a more recent lens list.

Originally posted by: Bullhonkie
Either way you can't possibly go wrong IMO - both cameras are capable of taking fabulous photos.

I could not agree more. :beer:

ZV

 

[yhelothar]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: Bullhonkie
Pentax does make an 85mm prime, and it's an 85/f1.4 like the others. Pentax SMC P-FA 85mm F1.4 (IF)

They don't quite have a 70-200/f2.8 but they do have a SMC P-FA 80-200mm F2.8 ED(IF).

That's what I get for not looking up a more recent lens list.
ZV

It's more like a more former lens list. Both those lens are discontinued and hard to find on the used market.

On the bright side, there are alternatives to both those lenses that are on the market.
If you want a portrait lens, the 77mm F/1.8 ltd is very hard to beat. Most prefer it to the 85mm F/1.4. However, if you want the ultimate portrait lens, Pentax's 85mm F/1.4 A* lens carries a legendary reputation. This lens shows up quite a bit on the used market.

The 80-200mm F/2.8 is replaced by the digital 60-150mm DA* F/2.8 lens, which is a more suitable lens for their APS lineup of cameras.

In fact, pentax's APS line of lenses is where they're strengths lie at. You could save hundreds of dollars over other brands because of their transition to APS lenses.
Take the 14mm F/2.8 DA lens for example. This is an APS lens that's small and light, and only costs $700.

An equivalent 14mm from any other brand is full frame, so it's extremely big and heavy, and costs $1400-2000. And to make it worse, the image quality is not up to par too.
No other lens maker has a 10-17mm fisheye either. The Pentax 12-24mm is the best wide angle zoom out there. Canon/Nikon users all highly praise the tokina version, which is designed by pentax.

All camera makers have their strengths and weaknesses. You just have to figure out which one suits you the most.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: astroidea
The Pentax 12-24mm is the best wide angle zoom out there.

i think olympus users will throw down over that statement.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: astroideaThe Pentax 12-24mm is the best wide angle zoom out there.

i think olympus users will throw down over that statement.

I did get to play with an Olympus 7-14mm f/4 and all I can say about it is "wow..." That was an absolutely awesome piece of glass.

ZV

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: astroidea
In fact, pentax's APS line of lenses is where they're strengths lie at. You could save hundreds of dollars over other brands because of their transition to APS lenses.

This is just me, but you couldn't pay me to buy an APS-only lens. Partially because I still shoot film and want to double-dip on my lenses, but also because I do not see APS remaining a standard for long. I really see the DSLR market going to full frame and the last thing I want to do is be left with a bunch of APS-only lenses that are suddenly worthless. I may be wrong, but it's a risk I don't want anything to do with.

Originally posted by: astroidea
All camera makers have their strengths and weaknesses. You just have to figure out which one suits you the most.

Agreed.

ZV

 

[yhelothar]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: astroidea
In fact, pentax's APS line of lenses is where they're strengths lie at. You could save hundreds of dollars over other brands because of their transition to APS lenses.

This is just me, but you couldn't pay me to buy an APS-only lens. Partially because I still shoot film and want to double-dip on my lenses, but also because I do not see APS remaining a standard for long. I really see the DSLR market going to full frame and the last thing I want to do is be left with a bunch of APS-only lenses that are suddenly worthless. I may be wrong, but it's a risk I don't want anything to do with.

Originally posted by: astroidea
All camera makers have their strengths and weaknesses. You just have to figure out which one suits you the most.

Agreed.

ZV

I don't think Pentax would ever move to full frame.
It's clearly moving towards APS completely, considering that they've pretty much discontinued all of their 35mm lenses, aside from the limited.

As for the full frame argument, I see this argument often. What people don't realize is that there isn't anything magical about "full frame". It's an arbitrarily created standard. It's not like camera makers got together and decided 35mm makes the best pictures.
APS will stay, simply because it takes less silicon, and that means lower prices. While technology may improve to bring prices down, but silicon as a raw material is going to stay roughly even. Thus the prices can only drop until the yields cap out. At this point, I'm assuming silicon technology for full frame is already quite high that the yields are close to capping out.

The only reason I would want to stay with full frame is if I was accustomed with shooting film cameras, or having film cameras.

 

[dug777]

Bah.

After reading lens reviews, i'm leaning towards the D80 with the 18-135mm

Do the Pentax and Sony have equivalent range/quality lenses at a similar pricepoint? I'd even settle for less range...

 

[yhelothar]

Originally posted by: dug777
Bah.

After reading lens reviews, i'm leaning towards the D80 with the 18-135mm

Do the Pentax and Sony have equivalent range/quality lenses at a similar pricepoint? I'd even settle for less range...

Range is overrated IMO.

Get two primes and switch off.
All I carry with me usually is a wide angle and a short telephoto.

Primes are small and light. I can have one in my pocket.
They're much faster, and better quality.

 

[dug777]

Originally posted by: astroidea

Originally posted by: dug777
Bah.

After reading lens reviews, i'm leaning towards the D80 with the 18-135mm

Do the Pentax and Sony have equivalent range/quality lenses at a similar pricepoint? I'd even settle for less range...

Range is overrated IMO.

Get two primes and switch off.
All I carry with me usually is a wide angle and a short telephoto.

Primes are small and light. I can have one in my pocket.
They're much faster, and better quality.

What would be a good starting prime for each of those cameras? Inc the D80.

EDIT: Not crazy prices however, maybe an absolute upper limit of about $500 AUD

Any reason i shouldn't start with a prime?

:beer:

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: astroidea
I don't think Pentax would ever move to full frame.
It's clearly moving towards APS completely, considering that they've pretty much discontinued all of their 35mm lenses, aside from the limited.

As for the full frame argument, I see this argument often. What people don't realize is that there isn't anything magical about "full frame". It's an arbitrarily created standard. It's not like camera makers got together and decided 35mm makes the best pictures.
APS will stay, simply because it takes less silicon, and that means lower prices. While technology may improve to bring prices down, but silicon as a raw material is going to stay roughly even. Thus the prices can only drop until the yields cap out. At this point, I'm assuming silicon technology for full frame is already quite high that the yields are close to capping out.

The only reason I would want to stay with full frame is if I was accustomed with shooting film cameras, or having film cameras.

Full frame has two main advantages:

1) Larger sensor means lower noise for a given amount of pixels which will mean better high ISO performance. Look at the ISO 6400 images from the newest Canon 1DSMkIII for example. Link. A full-frame sensor is also about as large as you can put into a relatively easy-to-carry camera, which makes it the easiest way to achieve superior high-ISO performance. All else being equal, a full-frame sensor will always have superior noise characteristics when compared to an APS-C sensor.

2) That beautiful viewfinder. I may not notice much difference between different APS-C viewfinders, but there's sure as hell a difference between APS-C and full frame.

Pentax and Olympus are the only manufacturers that are clearly committed to APS-C only. Nikon may not have a full frame chip yet, but they're still making full-frame lenses so they aren't giving up on it either.

Canon has clearly committed to full frame being the future and given them amount of emphasis that Sony has placed on the fact that their high-end primes are all full frame lenses it's hard to believe that Sony is not also betting on full frame.

Yes, it's only "full frame" compared to 135 film, but it does have advantages and I think that eventually it will be APS-C that's the niche sensor size.

ZV