Thanks for the poll, Ash. I hope it will continue to send a clear message (as it currently does).
I personally don't think that Pentax's next camera will be an FF model, but I nevertheless wish it were. The moment Pentax releases an FF model, I'll buy it, so I'd rather not pay for a stop gap solution in between.
Originally posted by Ash Sony did this with their first digital FF - didn't work out so well for them.
I believe Sony's lack of success with the A900/A850 cannot be explained by this (here, pricing an entry FF model much cheaper than a pro-sibling, or many other reasons that have been suggested). The true reasons are probably manifold and I'll always find it problematic when people attempt to pinpoint the cause to a single issue.
Originally posted by Ash Even their [Pentax's] entry level dSLRs have been full featured.
That's not entirely true, but in general Pentax had indeed less need to artificially cripple models to protect sales of more expensive models.
Originally posted by Fogel70 I doubt Pentax can attract much new users outside existing Pentax DSLR users with this camera, no matter how good or how low the price is.
That remains to be seen (and depends on whether Pentax manages to pull one out of the hat and create a unique selling proposition). However, it is entirely clear already, that Pentax is bleeding Pentaxians -- read "
photography enthusiasts that would never be happy with a two lens-kit only and hence represent a large lens buying force" -- every hour. I've heard so many "
I've left Pentax because after x years of hearing the FF model will come out next year, I gave up and sold all my FF lenses." stories, it isn't funny anymore.
Originally posted by Ash A 24Mp FF camera will have a hard time selling given that APS-C is itself going well above 16Mp and it would be difficult to appreciate an advantage over the K-5.
I don't think so. Even 12MP FF models sold well in the past despite higher resolution APS-C being available at the same time. And this makes sense, because there is much more to FF than being able to print bigger (with the same pixel-pitch). I also believe that there aren't that many users who truly need more resolution, but would very much welcome better AF performance (which automatically comes with the format even if you reuse the same AF module), more dynamic range (also comes with the format if the sensor performance is the same), more DOF control, bigger viewfinders, etc.
Originally posted by Ash How many other things have you knocked, snagged, or ripped off inadvertently from your camera?
I see your point, but in practice articulated screens seem to be very sturdy and are truly useful when you need them. Constructions that allow the screen to be folded against the camera body can even make the camera more robust as one does not need to worry about scratching the screen anymore. (And who needs one when the image playback can be blended into your optical viewfinder because you are using Pentax-patented hybrid viewfinder, OK, just dreamin'
).
Originally posted by Winder Up scale the K-5 ergonomics and give us a Sony A900 OVF. I don't really care if it has the 36MP or 24MP sensor..... or something totally new.
Oh, yes, please!
Don't care about the MP either.
I'd want an AA filter, though, even with 36MP.
Originally posted by Mareket My 16-50 won't cover a full frame sensor, and an equivalent lens will cost a bomb.
That is not true. A Canon 70-200/4 is cheaper than the equivalent Pentax 50-135/2.8. It is a myth that FF lenses are more expensive. They are only more expensive, if they are faster; equivalent versions may not exist, but they wouldn't be more expensive. For the 16-50/2.8, I'd use the Tamron 28-75/2.8. Stopped down to f/4 (the f/2.8 APS-C equivalent) on a FF sensor, I'm betting you that lens runs circles around the 16-50.