Insight into Future Pentax Products

touchez pas a mon pentax.....

WAke up and don't sleep again, FF is to come out very very quick and in a condition and featured like the LX was!!!

let's hope the k-5 successor isn't only a "maintenance" hardware release...

Pentax shocked the photographic world when he K10D was introduced and it motored on with the K20D and with the K-5 and after that Pentax seemed to lose steam. Smaller DSLR's are not easy to handle with larger and heavy lenses; The K-5 is a bit too small for me. The Pentax flash system is a bit dated and way overpriced. It's o.k. to pursue smaller mirror less bodies but there are many of us that prefer the larger traditional bodies with grips. A full frame body that of course will be compatible with lenses made for the APC sensors would be ideal. I really would like to remain a Pentax Loyalist.

YES, its time for Pentax to take on the two big names with an affordable Pentax FF body, especially following on the success of the 645. Personally, I've been sticking to selecting FA lenses from the range in anticipation of a Pentax FF being released. Keeping the body small is a good idea, but I agree, the K5 is a perfect size. Speak to an ergonomist to get the "feel" right.

I really like when someone compares the picture taken with a phone to any camera. Did anybody among us noticed those phoners clean the "optics" of their phone before they took that photo? I never. And also the cap is always missing from the phone optics :)

I'm wondering what the successor to the k-5 would offer over the k-5

Do they really need to be smaller than the K5? I for one don't think so, I have the K20d and the size, overall design is spot on.

Since I already have some great Pentax lenses, it's stupid to change to anything else. At the time I bought the K10, it really was the best deal. I will have to grit my teeth to spend the price of a K-5. However, When the K-10 dies, that is what I expect to do. Every review thinks the camera is great. As long as Pentax keeps up that quality, why buy a new set of lenses????? Hopefully they will continue the APC size even if they make a FF. Unless you have special professional needs, it seems to me stupid to change systems when the actual performance is not effectively better with anything else, and better than most.

I've just stopped being a Pentax user after 40 years. The *istDL I had failed and could not be repaired for a reasonable cost in a short time frame. I considered replacing the failed camera with another Pentax but realised that the current range did not compare too well with Nikon or Canon. The Pentax made a meal of what was pretty straightforward on the other cameras. In the end I went for Nikon. The Pentax ME (35mm SLR) was probably the best camera I ever had but that too failed and was beyond economic recovery. Time to catch up Pentax

K5 body with beefier grip.

I am delighted to see that Pentax is even talking about a FF camera. But it creates a bit of a dilemma for consumers. I have a K-x and am ready to upgrade both the camera and perhaps add a new lens. But in light of this, it seems to make sense to hold off any major purchases.
I wouldn't want to invest in a lens for an APS-C lens, only to have it not work on a FF. Of course, I can solve that by buying a lens that does work on a FF, but it does affect your product selection. For example, why get a Sigma 8-16mm or the new Pentax 35mm 2.4?
I'd also hate to regret putting out the cash for a K-5, only to suffer from buyer's regret a few months later. One question will be whether a Pentax FF is backwards compatible with an APS-C lens (although with less resolution) to avoid vignetting.
I have to imaging that Pentax doesn't want its loyalists to put their purchases on hold for exactly those reasons. So, the company has excellent reasons to keep its cards close to its chest until it knows exactly how it wants to handle this. That's why I'm surprised its even opened the door this much on the topic.

I agree with veechick and alexcox (below). When will people here realize that the K-7, K-5, K-x, K-r were all designed with the small hands of Far Eastern folk in mind... but with strong wrists ! Compare say the K-x body (inc. batteries) at 650grams against the lighter Pentax ME super film camera body at 450grams. Add a fast zoom and the combination becomes unmanageable without a wrist or neck strap of some kind. Different models of cameras serve different purposes : that is why Pentax developed the studio 645D with its large sensor. Canon & Nikon have their FF versions for studio work too. Pentax/Ricoh have got to decide whether they are going to be in the camera-making game for the long haul, or are just interested in regurgitating the same old stuff for the consumer & prosumer. I for one would like them to develop a full frame version of the K-5 : slighter bigger with a good optical viewfinder (EVF are an addition to, and not a replacement for) and to retain the pentaprism. Any photographer worth his salt will tell you that a good viewfinder is all important....

How much bigger is a FF sensor compared to the APS-C sensor? The old film SLR cameras (all FF) like my ME Super, is small compared to my K-7. Surely the FF sensor should fit into the K-5 without major modifications? Assuming other things being equal, how much more expensive can this FF camera be? "Affordable" is a very relative word, I really hope this new "smaller" FF will be within the financial reach of the keen amateur photographer.

I still think Pentax's best move would be to put Nikon and Canon mounts on there limited lens line-up. There is no real market for a Pentax FF without aditional lenes other than the folk that post here. Third party lens produces are realy not producing anything new for the Pentax mount and Pentax doesn't seem to be producing any new glass for it's DLSR line-up to replace there older high end line-up of long primes.

Go smaller with EFV and maybe a fixed lens.... Yea thats the ticket. Oh then you would have a nice P&S that may be where Pentax is heading. Even if they manage a FF anytime soon they cannot design the lenes line-up in time for it to draw any customers other than those still stuck with pentax glass. Although Pentax once had the know how to develop glass I think those folks moved on & over to canon and nikon it would have been too expensive for Pentax to keep those optical engineers around.

I left the Pentax fold after many many satisfied years. The K10 and K20 was for me the perfect size the K7/K5 to small. A F/F Pentax body seemed nowhere on the horizon so I moved to Canon. A F/F Pentax or smaller 645 would very definitely deserve a serious look.

A smaller 645 format would be awesome, the current 645d is too bulky to carry around. THEN an affordable FF? Can't wait. May start selling my DA glasses and replace them with FA limiteds. I think the k-5 size is perfect though, maybe a litter smaller in terms of width (not height).

I think it’s sad for photography when camera manufacturers jump on trends rather than improve the overall quality and flexibility of their products. There was a time when “bigger was better” – TVs, cars, etc. Now “small” is all the rage. Instead of small wow factor, I’d prefer to see more off-camera flash functionality, better al servo focusing, reduced noise at anything over 200 ISO, and yes, a better lens lineup. I’d hoped Ricoh would finally guide Pentax out of the soccer mom DSLR market, but alas, that doesn’t seem to be the case. But I guess that’s why I just bought a Nikon D700 – tired of waiting for Pentax to grow up.

I vote against making the Pentax DSLR any smaller.
The K-5 is already too small for my big hands.
The K-10D and K-20D were perfect by comparison.
(Though the innards of the K-5 are wonderful!)

Affordable FF?! Brilliant

We have used the Pentax K-7 at 25 000 meters without any protection to the environmental surroundings, this camera was working for 6 hours in minus 63 Celsius and 15 mbar of pressure, after recovery the camera still work to 100 %, we rebuilt the camera so it could be operated over Ethernet and wrote our own software for it, in the future I would like to have a camera from Pentax that could be remote controlled when we use them on our payloads.

i'm not interested in smaller. my Pentax 645D is just fine. feels great in my hand. how about a commitment to increasing the line of lenses???!!! i think we've all had enough with offers of bodies in different flavors/colors/limited editions, etc. focus on the quality lens selections, customer service and hardware upgrades.

"Sacrifice the prism", Shaarawy? What sacrifice? And is it the 'heart' only because it's always been there? If an EVF is as good or better, why would you care? Just curious...

Minimizing size is good news for me. I've been used to the SuperA film Pentax and the feel of that exact body size is just great. However, building a mirrorless full frame would be a big shock!! We've all been waiting for a full frame for years, but that doesn't mean we are ready to sacrifice the prism. For me, it's the heart of any Pentax pro-camera!

I believe the K5 is a great camera that should be the basis for the immediate future. A couple of new long primes would make it more useful, and an improved AF would be welcomed.

I also love the size and feel of my K-5 and I don't really want a smaller body or a smaller sensor. For several years I used only compact P&S digital cameras and although they are nice to have, I much prefer the images that I can make with my K-5. I also agree about improving the lens selection. I love the DA* 16-50 I started with on my K-5 and I still want a few primes, but I have used it enough now to want a longer zoom but in that same high quality glass.

It always amusing to read posts by people who just love it "the way it is". However digital SLR cameras are just a copy of old film SLR's which have been around for over 50 years, and a lot of users just love that feel of the old SLR in their hands. But the really apparent fact is that with the advance of miniaturization and mirrorless technology cameras will get smaller and be more sophisticated technologically. Right now I just got an iPhone 4S and am blown away with the picture quality which is nearly good enough to make a 34x40 print. And when the iPhone 5 and 6 and 7 arrive the optics will be so good that some people are going to wonder why they need a separate camera which is just another object to tote around. The real issue is how to get better and better pictures and as technology improves this will probably result in smaller sophisticated cameras (maybe just in a phone) that give us extraordinary images and allow superb prints..... don't forget that software and printers are also matching the forward push of technology in the camera arena.

I often take my K20D to remote places with difficult conditions (mountains and caves) Being tired and shooting with one hand while securing my self with other can tire my wrist to a degree where no behemoth of a camera can stop it from shaking. I'm all for lighter and smaller
(hopefully thew won't sacrifice the K-5 viewfinder)

I'd buy an MX sized DSLR in a heartbeat. Oh to get back to the day I could have a DSLR in my coat pocket. You can just about manage it with a K5 and DA40 Limited, but only with big pockets!

Well I love my K5, and its size and feel. I agree with one commenter, I really want to see a better lineup of lenses, especially a DA* 100-400mm ! Canon has a fantastic lens with this range. Why is Pentax still stuck at a (large/heavy) 250mm zoom in this lens series ?

Interesting point that people doesn't prefer smaller cameras. I thing they never experienced the joy of having an MX in their hands. That's the size it should be targeted and not the size of e.g. the EOS 1Ds. That's a behemot, 1 kg (or more) in weight), nothing to love. I personally doesn't like the new Q for several reasons, and also find my K20D big and heavy, though it is a very nice camera. Just my 2 cents...

I dont know why small is better1 The K5 is about as small as we need to get with any photographers camera. Sure the mass market od snappers will love cameras with losey electronic view finder where all you see is what the technicians wants you to see. Pentax has a good base cameras with the K5 and 645 all we want is a better line up of lenses.
Go smaller and EVF and for one I am on my way to new pastures.

I'm not keen on to small either, had the k5 in my hands a few days ago and it did not feel good, My K10D and K20D are real camera's and don't feel like consumer gadgets.

Pse just put a modern sensor in the K20 and I'm happy.

I have a K-x and when its replacement--the K-r-- was announced, I was not pleased to read that it was slightly larger. I would consider a K-5, but it is larger still. I want an updated more capable camera that I can dangle comfortably from my shoulder all day or stuff in a daypack and still have room for other stuff. I travel a lot and prize the K-x--along with a trio of Ltd lenses--for the lightness and compactness. So I say bravo for the news that Pentax will trend smaller.

It's as easy as pie to use extra-thick metal or plastic (with lead) around a smaller simpler body if enough people wanna pay for that, but like every technology I can think of, most people will readily adapt and wonder what any kerfuffle was in the first place. You might be one of those picketing for artificially heavier and bulkier bodies I guess, David.

@Templorg - A77 isn't mirrorless and of course has a mirror box. Examples of mirrorless cameras (EVIL) include the range of manufacturers using the 4/3 standard.

Not so hot on the smaller size idea. My wife has a Canon Rebel XT and it's to small and uncomfortable for me to use - feels to much like a toy. I like the ergonimics my K20d and K-5 with and without the battery grips. Maybe it's just a guy thing.

Like almost anything, there won't be a one-size-fits-all affordable, but when you leave all the crap out of the camera - including mirror and mirror box - the lenses can be a bit smaller/lighter and the camera much simpler. Keep the sensor the same or make it better with money saved on the (former) complexity, keep the quality of somewhat smaller lenses the same or better, and compromise doesn't have to even be there.

Everything gets that much less expensive to produce. As to EVF quality, it can be better than optical and I suspect easily will be (in the 10-12 years noted for say OLED, or earlier). It can be bigger, brighter and have whatever HUD-type info people might want to dial in for whatever shoot / scenario, and at resolutions higher the the eye can discern, better than mere light passing through glass and bouncing off mirrors. OLED in the year 2000 could go to 1200 ppi and what can we see - maybe 300 or so.

Im not convinced with mirrorless quite yet (maybe soon it will be up to scratch) but full frame definitely. You cant fake that depth of field advantage and I cant see true pros going mirrorless crop censors over FF anytime soon - please hurry up with FF!

WHAT IS AFFORDABLE? Surely this is related to the size of one's wallet? If it is mirrorless, how good will the EVF be? We will have to wait and see, but I do hope it is not a compomise between function and cost.

I've played with a Sony a77 briefly. It's a mirrorless FF, and feels not only compact but LIGHT. Very very light. If that's the direction Pentax is going, I'm all for it. I have large hands, so a MX size body is not really what I need. The controls on the K5 work well for me, though, and those on the a77 I didn't like so much - especially its rear dial is in the wrong place for me.

Well, mirrorless (EVIL) allows for a higher %age of costs to go the the sensor or allows a cheaper camera. And if enough folk complain about drawbacks, they'd likely fix 'em. I'll guess it'll be like smaller computers and people will like them, once they're available and designed for use as a smaller camera.


I'll ignore the supremely silly "won't be pleased" babble.

K-5 is nearly perfect for me. Just need a little more choice in the lenses and I would be happy.
645 - Too much money... but other habits that need feeding (mmm Moto-Guzzi's).
Mirrorless - don't we have that option on a K-5 anyway.

Hmm, 'Mirror-less' it's beginning to look like an obsession... I can make any Pentax camera 'mirror-less' in a few minutes - I'm sure you won't be pleased with the result! ;-)

Going 'smaller and lighter' has its drawbacks and limitations - it will make handling and unwanted movement of the camera easier, certainly wearing mittens or gloves in bad weather

I'll guess that in 10-12 years, mirrors and mirror boxes won't even be available new. And the size reduction - which will be significant for FF cameras, won't drive the chnage nearly so much as reducing costs and keeping bodies far simpler. With a good OLED or similar EVF, few will complain.

I recall whiners re thin and light laptops as they got below 2" thick and kept getting thinner, but now that they're getting really small, few if any complain and say they want bigger, thicker or heavier nowadays.

I like the idea of a full frame camera with a good old fashioned mirror and glass 100% viewfinder with the physical size of the K10D with grip and D7000. The Sony A900 is a bit too expensive and the Nikon and Cannon Version are out of reach. O.k. Pentax I'm sure you an offer a FF Body for near the price of a Nikon D7000 and take a chunk of the market right away.

Mirror less 645D is brilliant. There aren't too many current production Pentx 645 lenses available, so a range of lenses has to be developed anyway; why not a more compact version for the Mirrorless 645? Leagasy lenses could easily adapt, and the resulting overall system size could be significantly more compact.

Please make it full frame compatible if not full-frame initially.
Joe

I rather like the size of my K10D. If the camera is too small then longer lenses get harder to hold steady. I have a old Pentax MX and it's hard to work with for me.

raphtze — I was only talking about Pentax bodies. Pentax has always been my main system. While I have never owned an F4, I have handled one and I really hated it too. Just because one thing (F4) is too large doesn't mean another (PZ1) isn't as well! Really, really uncomfortable cameras for me to use. I got back into film on an MX and sold the heck out of that PZ-1… :)

I realize larger bodies are more comfortable for many. I guess it's a matter of making controls accessible for people with both large and small hands/fingers. Because, as I mentioned, adding bulk to a camera after the fact is pretty simple for those who get a better grip with a larger body.

Please don't downsize the body. My K5 is the perfect size and balance, I'd like to see some more DA* zoom lenses.

I like K-W (Win)

im not interested in the "small" factor but higher quality and a FF to upgrade to would be awesome. im liking the "affordable" in there!

A FF mirrorless the size of the K-5, quieter, lighter, with faster rate of shutting would be fantastic.

An "affordable FF" sounds great as long as mirrorless is confined to 645.
I still think a K-20D sized FF is quite feasible. Along with the comments about minimizing physical size of DSLRs, it seems quite encouraging. Pentax please don't forget to "de-cripple" that mount when you make the FF DSLR.

DSLR / FF would be a logical move. But producing and maintaining high image quality should be priority one. As far as "down sizing", my big mitts already devour current models!

for what it's worth, i still have my original pz-1p....and a second hand pz-1....and also an mx :) though they haven't seen much action since i have my k-5....

If it weren't for the small size and weight of the K-5 and the limited lenses, I never would have migrated from my Nikon system. I was happy with the image quality I was getting. Smaller size and weight is a big motivator for people who are tired of deciding whether it's worth the effort to lug heavy equipment to situations where they're not sure whether or not they'll have opportunities to take photos. If Pentax could manage to produce a full-frame DSLR similar in size to the K-5, a lot people going to full-frame would opt for Pentax rather than much larger, heavier Nikons and Canons. I lusted for a D700 for quite a while but the size and weight were bigger hindrances than the price.

brh are you serious? the pz-1/pz-1p was too big? did you even handle a F4 or F5 around that time? i agree with a lot of the other posters here, i'd like a regular sized DSLR that with steller IQ + a good complement of lenses. otherwise all we're bein' relegated as photographic odd balls (well...we already are hehe)

Any move other than a quick move to FF is the wrong move. I never married the brand nor signed up for cheer leading duty. It does not sound like they are moving in the right direction for me. I don't think they can compete in the point and shoot sector. I think there best move at this point if they are not getting ready to release a FF would to become a third party lens manufacture for the real two FF DLSR producers.

I'd like full-frame by any means (DSLR or mirrorless). I really don't care if it's smaller than the competition. Oh well, at least FF is mentioned, with Hoya it wasn't even an option.

Never felt that my MX (136 × 82.5 × 49.5 mm, 495 g) or later my LXs (144.5 x 85 x 50 mm, 570 g) were too small – though I’m happy with my K-5 (130.5 x 96.5 x 72.5 mm, 740 g) yet. ;-)

-pretty soon i'll have to have someone hold the camera for me so my big hands can manipulate the settings. Ruins for me the smaller sizes (smaller than the Q)

Further miniaturization? Uhm, the K-x is already small as it is, and the Q is already proof of how small an ICL system can be. I don't think there's a need for making DSLRs any smaller than that.

As for "affordable FF camera" and "mirrorless MF" hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm interesting!

Pentax has a rich history of small cameras. Auto 110 was quite a feat of engineering, even if it banked on a format that was largely relegated to cheap P&S cameras and was quick to die. More importantly, consider the MX and the rest of the M-series. The MX is such a great workhorse camera in such a tiny (for an SLR) package. I think the reason I gave up on photography for a while was because I felt the need to have something new and exciting, and bought into the absolutely massive PZ-1. That thing was unwieldy, and very nearly unusable to my tiny hands. A fun piece of equipment at first, but absolutely impractical to me. Eventually they turned that all around with the *ist (not D), another wonderfully small camera.

Digital still isn't fascinating me enough to buy into what Pentax currently offers. But moving to affordable full-frame, and continuing to miniaturize is a step in the right direction for me. I like my cameras to be barely there when I'm waltzing about town, and I like them to be convenient for my small hands. People have always crammed on bulky grips to accomodate larger hands — but shrinking a camera down with accessories is not so possible!

I don't think of the Pentax Ist as a miniaturized camera, but one that felt right in my hands and didn't give me a pain in the neck. At the time, it was the smallest DSLR on the market and while I like the superior features of my K5, I wouldn't mind if a few grams were shaved off its weight.

I agree, miniaturization is not as important as image quality.

Please Mr. Kitazawa, don't move from AA batteries, you will disenfranchise those adventurers who can not recharge.

I remember listening to a Nikon D3 shooter explaining his obsession for big... he said it seemed to impress the babes more. Great (lol) 'reason'.

I'm with all of you who do NOT want smaller (physically) cameras! One of the reasons I love my Pentax is it feels like a "real," old-fashioned 35 mm SLR--not a miniature camera--in my hand. I don't understand the obsession with small. Small cameras have their place, yes, but for those of us who shoot mostly in the studio or do "leisurely" shooting outside, we do not need, nor want, smaller--just the best image quality along with, hopefully, intuitive use--and at an affordable price. At least that's what I want!

Thank you for this news report, and also a thankyou to the translator.

I agree with others who say "Enough with miniaturization"! I think most Pentaxians are more into Image Quality rather than how "pocketable" a camera can be, so I would be most interested in a FF Pentax DSLR that exudes the Quality (both ergonomically and image-wise) of the K-5. That, plus a rounding out of the superb line of DA* and Limited Pentax optics, would make Pentax MOST competitive with the Big Two, IMHO!

Tired of waiting. I picked up a 5d II for now. $2k new at amazon. 17-40mm on the way. yippy!! I'll still use my K-5's for the action and wet weather shots.

Yes, thanks to the person who translated it!

"Pentax is focusing on minimizing the size of their DSLR cameras." Does that mean physical size or lineup size (which is only 2 cameras the way it sits currently)?

I'd rather see a full-size DSLR next with a built-in grip so that it doesn't fall out of your hands.

A mirrorless MF and FF? Oh yeah, babay!

I don't know about everyone else but I do NOT want a mini camera. Or do they include a needle so you can work the buttons? I just don't get the miniturization fanaticism.

Thanks to whoever translated it....