[regor]

Not really a rumour, but I don't know where else to stick this thread. This is not intended to be a troll, I'm genuinely interested in understanding the technical challenges imposed by the making of a Pentax FF. Don't want to argue or speculate on commercial viability, but assuming that Pentax will go ahead with a FF K-3, small form factor DSLR, what technical challenges would they have to resolve:

- Larger Mirror box and Viewfinder: Pentax is well positionned in this domain having developed the capbility to build small decades ago.

- Electronics: same pixel counts (i.e. 24MPix), hence no processing challenge, so the only issue I can see is heat dissipation coming from the larger sensor.

- Shake Reduction: i.e. size and strength of the mechanism

- Auto Focus: performance limited by current lens mechanical design, so other vendors (i.e. Nikon/Canon) retain a clear advantage

- Cost: i.e. component design must keep cost down to be competitive.

Anything else ?

[topace]

Non-crippled K-mount comes to mind.

Not too many pixels would be nice.

I'd buy.

[vladimiroltean]

same pixel counts (i.e. 24MPix), hence no processing challenge

Same pixel count as?

[Adam]

Not really a rumour, but I don't know where else to stick this thread.

General photography & industry would be the correct section.

Adam
PentaxForums.com Webmaster (Site Usage Guide | Site Help | My Photography)



PentaxForums.com server and development costs are user-supported. You can help cover these costs by donating or purchasing one of our Pentax eBooks. Or, buy your photo gear from our affiliates, Adorama, B&H Photo, KEH, or Topaz Labs, and get FREE Marketplace access - click here to see how! Trusted Pentax retailers:

[philbaum]

Not really a rumour, but I don't know where else to stick this thread. This is not intended to be a troll, I'm genuinely interested in understanding the technical challenges imposed by the making of a Pentax FF....

- Cost: i.e. component design must keep cost down to be competitive.

Anything else ?

I think that Pentax could probably design and build a new model FF for about the same total development cost that Canon or Nikon would (although their experience would result in some cost reduction). The problem i see is that Pentax can't expect the same number of buyers that Canikon could expect. So Pentax would have to charge much more to recover the cost of the development effort. Fewer customers = more cost per customer. Thats true even if all mfr paid the same amount for each part.

[ducdao]

I think that Pentax could probably design and build a new model FF for about the same total development cost that Canon or Nikon would (although their experience would result in some cost reduction). The problem i see is that Pentax can't expect the same number of buyers that Canikon could expect. So Pentax would have to charge much more to recover the cost of the development effort. Fewer customers = more cost per customer. Thats true even if all mfr paid the same amount for each part.

Re: Fewer customers = more cost per customer. This is is also true for APS-C market then why is Pentax able to be cost competitive? They done that with APS-C why not with FF? I don't see that as a major challenge.

[richard balonglong]

Pentax Full Frame DSLR... CaNikon are already targeting a budget FF DSLR, why Pentax wouldn't..?
I also agree with those full frame's larger mirror box and VF (I envy those view finders from CaNikon's like 5D's and/or D700/800's), electronics (but not necessarily something more than 20MP) just at least to compensate a good ratio between the number of megapixels, fps, and buffer time, a precise AF (A PRECISION AUTO FOCUS and not necessarily a ultra-hyper-sonic-super-blazing-ultra-fast-AF), and still a backwards compatible lens mount... =)

[maxfield_photo]

I think that Pentax could probably design and build a new model FF for about the same total development cost that Canon or Nikon would (although their experience would result in some cost reduction). The problem i see is that Pentax can't expect the same number of buyers that Canikon could expect. So Pentax would have to charge much more to recover the cost of the development effort. Fewer customers = more cost per customer. Thats true even if all mfr paid the same amount for each part.

Not necessarily, it might just mean that it would need to have a longer production run to recover the cost of R&D. I'm thinking somewhere in the neighborhood of 50% longer than a competitive Canon or Nikon. But you also have to keep in mind that those brands have several full frame cameras available for the consumer to choose from, and this would be Pentax's first and only FF DLSR. Couple that with the throngs of users who have been dreaming of such a camera for 10 years, and I think Pentax can expect brisk sales out of the gate.

[regor]

Same pixel count as?

Ooops, I met as what APSC would be (presumably), i.e. processing 24MPix worth of small pixels is no different than 24MPix of large pixels. Hence, if Pentax can find the room to process APS-C 24MPix in a K-5 sized body, this would not be a limitation on body size for FF; same electronics. Therefore, all the major constraints are either mechanical (larger mirror box, SR) or cost centric. If Pentax can make a small ME FF film camera, it should be (in theory) no more difficult to do it for digital (but cost is a challenge, big prism = $$).

[regor]

Re: Fewer customers = more cost per customer. This is is also true for APS-C market then why is Pentax able to be cost competitive? They done that with APS-C why not with FF? I don't see that as a major challenge.

Perhaps a FF Pentax could attract to-be-Nikon/Canon buyers if, and it's a big if, the camera is significantly smaller (K5 size give or take a few mm), but its cost must be equal to or preferably less than it's competition, and arguably much less, if size advantage is not possible to achieve that, otherwise I like many would rather buy one of the big two with the entire system behind them (lens, support, flash etc.). Achieving more for less is a big challenge IMO.

[Pål Jensen]

Re: Fewer customers = more cost per customer. This is is also true for APS-C market then why is Pentax able to be cost competitive? They done that with APS-C why not with FF? I don't see that as a major challenge.

That is because after a certain number developing cost is covered and cost per customer flattens out. Theres probably not much savings per body, say, if yoiu are making 400 000 units or 700 000 units. APS is there volume wise. For Pentax FF is not. Pentax could hope to sell about 10 000 FF bodies. They would have to charge much for it if they are going to have the profit margin of an FF Nikon or Canon. They also would have to take the expense of a number of FF lenses that it will take long to recover profitwise. The sensor in the 645D cost Pentax less than $2000 but the camera still cost $10 000 (at the cheapest) in spite of being a K-5 is a different body.....

[Pål Jensen]

Pentax Full Frame DSLR... CaNikon are already targeting a budget FF DSLR, why Pentax wouldn't..?

I've yet to see a single budget FF body. They are all very expensive and out of reach of the general DSLR consumer. So are the "professional" lenses for it...

[miles]

[...] Couple that with the throngs of users who have been dreaming of such a camera for 10 years, and I think Pentax can expect brisk sales out of the gate.

That's a good point! From a lens point of view, I'm all set for full frame and waiting...

Btw maxfield, i love your signature: "You can have my prism... when you pry it from my cold, dead hands."

[calsan]

Smaller with same features normally equals more expensive, not less. Think of mechanical watches, thin laptops and so on.
This is the mistake British Leyland made with the mini (car). It was relatively expensive to make so they sold it at a loss to make the price equal the small should be cheap perception. Meant their larger cars had to be sold at a higher price and be cheaply made to offset the losses. Unfortunately for them, the bargain price and quality of the mini meant they sold more than a million of them losing money on each sale. This was one of the (many) reasons for the collapse of the company.

[LamyTax]

The K3 will be APS-C.

Why do you guys still associate the K3 with FF? The rumour was a hoax, as we all should know by now.