[turbosaturn]

My understanding (correct me if I'm wrong) is that the sensor in the Kx is already available in some other cameras, but the Kx manages to extract superior high-ISO performance from it

If Pentax comes out with a dslr that's higher spec'd than the K7, the non-informed general public would both WANT the mexapixels of the K7 AND the high iso capability of the K-x. Otherwise you'll see a lot of non-photographers opt for a Canon 7D because it's numbers would look better on paper.

[youky63]

Why everybody think the K-x is a camera that can perform on "high iso"? Did you ever compared RAW files of K-X and K-7/k20D on high iso AND low light conditions? The pictures from the latter ones are not really worst...
Now, if you compare jpeg files, sure the K-X can provide clean images in good light conditions until 3200 isos, but you also lose a lot of small details since low iso settings (the same thing that everybody was debating when comparing K20D/D90). But still, in low light conditions, do not expect to get a clean picture a 3200 iso.
So, where is the big improvement for you that you can get from K-7 just by putting the K-X sensor in it? Something like 1EV, in jpeg and good light conditions? Is it what you call a big improvement? Something you would call "above K-7" and "a pro camera"? (words used by Mr Hiroshi Onoda) Not for me. For less than 1EV, I am not changing my camera. I got a K20D, didn't switched on K-7, not enough improvement, and would not change it for any actual APS-C sensor, since K-X is already getting the best one and it is not far above of mine.
Now compare to Any FF camera. In RAW picture, you can get 1 free EV with the worst one (Sony's 24Mpxls) and probably something like 3EV with the D700 sensor! Not even mentioning the incredible Dynamic Range from these sensors. How? Easily: The overpixelled Sony's sensor has pixels 30% bigger that K-7/K-20D Samsung's one, and D700 pixels are... 300% (!!!) bigger!
For me THAT would be a big improvement, THAT could be named a kind of "pro camera". Nothing lower than that.
And for people saying that there is no way for such a camera to be economically realistic, don't forgot that this would be a flagship, a camera that will make people talk about Pentax (just as 645D is doing now), people would consider Pentax as a whole family camera. Today, they already have good APS-C camera. K20D, K-X or k-7 buyers cannot need the feel to change their camera since there is nothing able to give them a really better IQ. Here is the point.
After 2 years with my K20D, I would love to improve my equipment. I can't, nothing really better is available. If nothing is announced this year, I cannot expect anything before almost 2 other years (14 months life cycle for high end Pentax camera). And THAT is the main problem of the present Pentax body line up...

[tigrebleu]

FF?

I seriously, seriously doubt it.

First, Hoya said they had no plans of going FF in the near future. That was one year ago and the near future is here, so I don't expect a FF soon.

Second, Pentax already has two sensor formats in its line up, APS-C and 645D. Developping lenses and bodies for two sensor formats is already quite demanding in terms, so adding a third sensor format (FF) and the new lenses to go with it is just not possible unless Hoya is ready to pour lots of money into Pentax Imaging. Maintaining 3 formats of cameras with each one its own lens line up would be a diffcult (although a still quite possible) task for a company as small as Pentax Imaging.

Now an APS-C pro camera will also be a lot more affordable than a FF pro camera. Anyone remembers how much a D3X or a 1Ds MkIII cost? (And don't tell me about the D700 or 5D MkII: these aren't pro bodies. If they were, they would have 100% coverage viewfinders, a faster AF [for the 5DII, that is — the D700 is fine there], and a built-in vertical battery grip, just to name a few).

(Now that doesn't mean such cameras can't be used by pros. In fact, a lot of pros choose such cameras because they don't need the faster AF or the built-in battery grip. The 5DII is the best example of a high end enthusiast camera used by pros. But such a FF camera is still quite expensive, at 2500$, yet its AF is slower and its weather seals are cheaper than the more affordable 7D.)

By making its pro camera APS-C, Pentax can manage to keep the price at a more affordable level and grab a larger share of the advanced enthusiast and budget-oriented pro.

For all these reasons, I believe the Pentax pro body will be APS-C.

But I could be wrong, of course. I really hope it's going to be a full-frame!


Here's my guess at the specs:

• 12 to 18 Mpix APS-C sensor
• 8 fps burst speed
• Improved AF performance, especially in AF-C
• 100% coverage viewfinder
• Advanced weather seals and larger than K-7, magnesium-alloy body
• ISO 100-12800, extended ISO 50-25600
• Improved flash/ambient light metering
• Improved SR, DR, Liveview, etc.
• Improved, full HD video (hopefully with full manual control, so I'll keep my Pentax gear instead of selling it all for a Canon 5DII)

Just my bet. Feel free to come up with yours!

[thibs]

D5000 and D90 are not worse than K-x.

According to various test, K-x has the best DR, better than other cameras using the same sensor. I'm not sure but I think it was better than D300s as well.

[ogl]

According to various test, K-x has the best DR, better than other cameras using the same sensor. I'm not sure but I think it was better than D300s as well.

Just a bit. D5000 and K-x are very close.

[thibs]

Just a bit. D5000 and K-x are very close.

Still. I'd add that the difference of performance between a850/a900 and D3X clearly shows how RAW treatment can offer vastly different final renderings...

[Lance B]

FF?

I seriously, seriously doubt it.

First, Hoya said they had no plans of going FF in the near future. That was one year ago and the near future is here, so I don't expect a FF soon.

In 12 months it will be 2 years and therefore not the near future.

Pentax already has two sensor formats in its line up, APS-C and 645D. Developping lenses and bodies for two sensor formats is already quite demanding in terms, so adding a third sensor format (FF) and the new lenses to go with it is just not possible unless Hoya is ready to pour lots of money into Pentax Imaging. Maintaining 3 formats of cameras with each one its own lens line up would be a diffcult (although a still quite possible) task for a company as small as Pentax Imaging.

Most lenses can be used on APS C and FF, especially the telephots which are not smaller but the same sice as required on APS C. The DA*20 f2.8 is the same size as the FA*200 f2.8, in fact it is the exact same optical formula. It is really only the wide angle lenses that are different and here is the crunch, the DA14 f2.8 is bigger than the FA20 f2.8!

Also, Pentax has many lenses already in production for FF, the FA31, FA43, FA50, FA77, DFA50 macro, DFA100 macro, DA*200 f2.8 (fits FF), DA*300 f4 (fits FF), DA*60-250 f4 (fits FF apparently). The A50mm f1.2 is also still in production.

Now an APS-C pro camera will also be a lot more affordable than a FF pro camera. Anyone remembers how much a D3X or a 1Ds MkIII cost? (And don't tell me about the D700 or 5D MkII: these aren't pro bodies. If they were, they would have 100% coverage viewfinders, a faster AF [for the 5DII, that is — the D700 is fine there], and a built-in vertical battery grip, just to name a few).

Sensor prices are falling. People who are advanced amateurs are going to go for the best IQ for the money that they have to spend and that mark is about the US$1,500 point. Once FF cameras can be made to this price point, then Canon, Nikon and Sony will all have smaller FF cameras at this level and entice advanced amateur/semi pro APS C users to this market.

(Now that doesn't mean such cameras can't be used by pros. In fact, a lot of pros choose such cameras because they don't need the faster AF or the built-in battery grip. The 5DII is the best example of a high end enthusiast camera used by pros. But such a FF camera is still quite expensive, at 2500$, yet its AF is slower and its weather seals are cheaper than the more affordable 7D.)

By making its pro camera APS-C, Pentax can manage to keep the price at a more affordable level and grab a larger share of the advanced enthusiast and budget-oriented pro.

As I said previously, FF cameras will come down to the $1,500 price point which is the domain of advanced amateurs and semi pros. They will still spend this amount and if there is a FF camera at this level then that is what they will purchase.

Also, FF cameras at the moment are really only large and heavy as this is what the pro market demands. They have to be robust to stand up to the rigours of pro use and they usually have to be large for use with lerge lenses, accommodate large batteries, dual card slots, high memory and advanced electronics. Once the price comes down, then the need for them to be as robust and large also can be reduced. It won't happen before hand as the price for them will keep them in the domain of professional use, and only well heeled advanced amateurs who will put up with the size and weight penalty, who will purchase them.

For all these reasons, I believe the Pentax pro body will be APS-C.

But I could be wrong, of course. I really hope it's going to be a full-frame!


Here's my guess at the specs:

• 12 to 18 Mpix APS-C sensor
• 8 fps burst speed
• Improved AF performance, especially in AF-C
• 100% coverage viewfinder
• Advanced weather seals and larger than K-7, magnesium-alloy body
• ISO 100-12800, extended ISO 50-25600
• Improved flash/ambient light metering
• Improved SR, DR, Liveview, etc.
• Improved, full HD video (hopefully with full manual control, so I'll keep my Pentax gear instead of selling it all for a Canon 5DII)

Just my bet. Feel free to come up with yours!

[Samsungian]

Brand New $1500 Full Frame Dslrs from Canon ???

I doubt it. Pentax owners need $1500 full frame fantasy camera while Canon owners buy $2499 full frames today, yesterday, last month, last year...

Canon sales are up in 2010 compared to same quarter 2009 on both 7D and 5D Mark II

No need to drop the price, Canon has found the price spot where full frame sell & where their best aps-c sell more than year prior.

See this from Thom Hogan:



"May 7 (news and commentary)--Canon is on a different fiscal year than Nikon, and they've already reported their first quarter results for 2010. This gives us some numbers to compare against next week's Nikon numbers.

Short version: on a year-to-year basis, Canon sold 11% more cameras in the first quarter of 2010 than 2009. 19% of those cameras were DSLRs, and DSLRs represent 62% of Canon's revenue in cameras. Canon also increased their projection for camera sales for the entire fiscal year from their estimates one quarter ago. (Canon does not report specific unit volume breakouts as does Nikon.) From their report: "...demand for digital single-lens reflex (SLR) cameras displayed solid growth throughout global markets, whereas demand for compact digital cameras maintained growth in emerging markets, such as those in Asia, but remained relatively sluggish in developed countries." Canon specifically pointed out growth in sales of the T1i, T2i, 5DII, and 7D cameras.

The question is whether Nikon matched that growth. Note that the specific cameras Canon mentioned as having significant growth are basically equivalent to the Nikon D3000, D5000/D90, D300s, and D700. I don't think Nikon had solid D3000 or D5000 sales during this period, and the D300s and D700 have needed price drops to keep volume moving. Early whisper numbers out of Japan say that Nikon increased DSLR unit volume over their estimates, but I don't think this came easily for Nikon. Moreover, it's still unclear how Nikon will top their just finished fiscal year in the coming year. At least three, and probably four, of those key cameras need replacing with substantially better products to remain competitive, in my opinion (D3000, D5000, D90,and D700). It's been six months since Nikon introduced a new DSLR, and that was a high-end one. We're nine months removed from the last non-pro DSLR announcement. And we still don't know what Nikon's responses to the S90, G11, E-P1, E-P2, E-PL1, G1, G1H, GF1, G2, G10, NEX3, NEX5, NX-10, or X1 is going to be. So Nikon users are nervous."


Thom Hogan's Nikon Field Guide and Nikon Flash Guide


And another linky to the full frame reality in 2010:

TOP'S top 5 camera picks, most are full frame except the Japan Only crop format Pentax 645D:

http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2010/05/most-desirable.html

• Nikon D700. It took Nikon nine years to make a digital analog (heh—sorry) of the F100, but they sure did it. Not quite Nikon's very best image quality, but the best 12 megapixels anybody could reasonably want. Overall a highly refined and flexible camera that's right in line with Nikon's age-old reputation for providing highly practical workhorse cameras with eminently sensible ergonomics. Could be 20% smaller if you ask me, but that's just me.

• Canon 5D Mark II. That famous and inimitable Canon CMOS image quality in push-the-envelope format—full frame, lots of size*, with outstanding high ISO capabilities. And decently portable, not like carrying around a calculus textbook. One test of a camera is when people still like it after they've owned it for a while and all the glow of newness (and self-congratulation) has worn off. This one, like four of my five here, qualifies with flying colors. And as a bonus, the best digital B&W I see consistently comes from Canon 5D's, old and new.

• Sony A900. It's true, you can buy the slightly de-tuned A850 for $700 less and be 98% as happy, and no, the slight refinements and almost imperceptibly better build of the A900 are probably not objectively worth the difference in price. (The A850 was supposed to complement an A950, which fell victim to the global economic slump.) But we're talking most desirable here, and the A900 still has that over its slightly younger brother. I love the no-nonsense, pared-down nature of this camera—it's the Porsche 911 GT3 of cameras. My favorite of the bunch, at least until I see the Pentax. If I do.

• Leica M9. Not really my cuppa—it's a replicam—but people do desire the M9, of that there can be no dispute. Photographers clamored for just this very camera, and, if you overlook a bit of a false start (*cough* M8 *cough*), Leica delivered—making users very happy. Unlike the M8, no excuses necessary; unlike the M8, no problems with familiarity breeding contempt. The vast and stellar lens possibilities is a plus, as is the fact that you can't even fit a zoom. To own an M9 is to love it, if the reports that reach me are true.

• Pentax 645D. This list originally just had four cameras on it. I had to add this one—forced to—even though it's not out yet and isn't planned be exported to Europe and America in any case. This body style and its wonderful controls have been burnished to perfection over several generations, and, assuming the sensor measures up, this thing on paper looks like the coolest camera ever made. Anyway the key word in this post is "desirable," and I want one.

A few words of explanation: I rank the various "pro" cameras as a little less desirable than the four 35mm-style DSLRs above because they're too big and heavy. Plus, if you're just carrying around a camera to take an occasional snap with, like a normal person, they can make you look like a bit of a poseur if you're not careful. The big beasts don't appeal to me quite as much as the camera-sized cameras.

And much as I like little cameras, they're still, well, little. Their littleness is their big appeal. When you get right down to it there's no little camera that does as competently what a big one will.

And you'll note that even though we're going for ultimates here, I'm still being practical in the sense that these are all eminently usable and practical cameras. Even the "most desirable" cameras are still tools to take pictures with. "




edit,edit

[mattdm]

Brand New $1500 Full Frame Dslrs from Canon ???

I doubt it. Pentax owners need $1500 full frame fantasy camera while Canon owners buy $2499 full frames today, yesterday, last month, last year...

You're either not paying attention or willfully ignoring. The mentioned $1500 price point is relevant precisely because it has nothing to do with full-frame. It's the (suggested) point where the mass market really kicks in. You can sell a full frame at $2500, obviously, and maybe even a lot of them. That's not at issue.

And another linky to the full frame reality in 2010:

TOP'S top 5 camera picks, most are full frame except the Japan Only crop format Pentax 645D:

The Online Photographer: The Most Desirable Cameras on the Planet

Again, you're either skimming too quickly or misrepresenting. That isn't a list of "top 5 camera picks" at all -- and it's basically diametrically opposed to anything about "reality".

[youky63]

FF?

Developping lenses and bodies for two sensor formats is already quite demanding in terms, so adding a third sensor format (FF) and the new lenses to go with it is just not possible unless Hoya is ready to pour lots of money into Pentax Imaging. Maintaining 3 formats of cameras with each one its own lens line up would be a diffcult (although a still quite possible) task for a company as small as Pentax Imaging.

Now an APS-C pro camera will also be a lot more affordable than a FF pro camera. Anyone remembers how much a D3X or a 1Ds MkIII cost? (And don't tell me about the D700 or 5D MkII: these aren't pro bodies. If they were, they would have 100% coverage viewfinders, a faster AF [for the 5DII, that is — the D700 is fine there], and a built-in vertical battery grip, just to name a few).


By making its pro camera APS-C, Pentax can manage to keep the price at a more affordable level and grab a larger share of the advanced enthusiast and budget-oriented pro.

For all these reasons, I believe the Pentax pro body will be APS-C.

But I could be wrong, of course. I really hope it's going to be a full-frame!


Here's my guess at the specs:

• 12 to 18 Mpix APS-C sensor
• 8 fps burst speed
• Improved AF performance, especially in AF-C
• 100% coverage viewfinder
• Advanced weather seals and larger than K-7, magnesium-alloy body
• ISO 100-12800, extended ISO 50-25600
• Improved flash/ambient light metering
• Improved SR, DR, Liveview, etc.
• Improved, full HD video (hopefully with full manual control, so I'll keep my Pentax gear instead of selling it all for a Canon 5DII)

Just my bet. Feel free to come up with yours!

I will also try to develop my ideas. Please people tell me where I am correct or wrong in your opinion.

1- New lens development:
Since the 50', Pentax is a company building lenses for camera, and more exactly 24X36 camera. Sure lot of them would be crap today. But some are still good, and even considered as "stellar", even by people using Canon L lenses or X000 dollars Nikon ones: the Limited FA lenses.

So we have still in production (Limited lenses):

-FA Limited 31mm f1.8
-FA Limited 43mm f1.9
-FA Limited 77mm f1.8

But also in "normal" FA lenses (FA lenses):

*Prime:
-FA 35mm f2
-FA 50mm f1.2
-FA 50mm f1.4
-DFA macro 50mm f2.8
-DFA macro 100mm f2.8 WR (and older non WR)
Not even mentioning the longer DA lenses (200 and 300mm) builded on previous FA designs, which would only need a sticker replacement (DA to FA)

*Zoom:
-FA 20-35 f4
-FA 28-80 f3.5-5.6
-FA 28-105 f3.2-4.5
-75-300 f4.5-5.8

Now let's do a selection about older lenses, discontinued or reused by Tokina in their "professional" grade lenses (Pentax Zoom lenses):
-FA 24-90 f3.5-4.5
-FA 28-70 f2.8
-FA 80-200 f2.8

Most of these lenses were (and are still) considered as State of the Art lenses. Zoom lenses would probably need a make up, and can easily be improved if necessary by the master in optics that is HOYA-Pentax.
For me it sounds already as a quite complete family.

2-Pentax 645D:
Here the truth is very simple: the line up for this new MF camera is already complete. You don't believe me I guess, so check it here: MF lenses. No, you are not dreaming, there is already 14 lenses available!! From Pentax representatives, the only missing one is a wider lens (28mm), and you can already expect to see it at Photokina this year.

3-APS-C lenses:
Here it is also very simple. The line up is quite complete already, no improvement is needed. And if any new lenses is needed, they will just have to make it with a DFA lens, compatible for both FF and APS-C cameras (for example rebuild their fast 500 and/or 600mm lenses with AF)

4-APS-C Pro camera:
I agree with you, if Pentax do a FF camera, there is no way that it could compete with D3 or 1D cameras. Good, nobody in Pentax ask for that kind of crazy camera. What Pentax representative could name a "Pro Camera" is just a standard FF camera. Not built to compete with other brands flagship (Pentax cannot create such a camera), but made to compete with cheap FF camera. Where is the Pro in such a thing? Easy, you would get IQ that you will never get with APS-C sensor before at least 4 or 5 years. In Pentax mouth, Pro never meant big and heavy. But high IQ. If they can make it in a body of the size from K10/K20, I think everybody will thank them!
Then, what is a Pro APS-C camera for you?
-12-18Mpxls? Pentax is not building his own sensors. It depends on Sony (or Samsung if they still develop some) products. And Sony will only have 2 sensors to offer: the 12Mpxls from alpha 500/K-X, and the 14Mpxls from alpha 550. Both of them are good, but as I mentioned in my previous post, not a big improvement compared to K20/K7 sensor.
-8fps? Why not... Need a sensor that can manage so much informations, but possible. Just Pentax will have to put 2 chips in the body to manage that amount of data, still possible.
-improved AF? there is a weakness for Pentax since many years. There last AF module, used in 645D, is probably the best they can actually do until 1 or 2 more years (need time for R&D). So maybe it became more accurate (necessary for the bigger 645D sensor), and I hope faster, but do not expect it to be something equivalent to Nikon predictive AF or 7D new AF module. Pentax is starting from way to far. They will need to work a lot to come back in the FF race.
-100% coverage VF? K-7 already has.
-bigger body? Let say a K-7 body with K20 size, many people will be happy! And also perfect for a FF body!
-Wide ISO? OK, but if you have to shoot in W&B because Dynamic Range is close to zero, not for me. Remember that K-X (yes, the cheapest Pentax body) is already the best you can get today with Sony's sensors. So a Pro camera offering the same quality, even if it's still a small improvement compared to K-7, it would be risible (yep I am french, I like this word even if not sure it is common in english ) and ridiculous.
-Improved flash and light metering? I guess we must expect in on the next high end body, APS-C or FF
-Improved SR, DR, Liveview, etc...? Improving SR must not be a problem (lol), liveview also with a faster CPU, and for DR it is sensor dependant. Bigger photosites are, better is the DR. That's the 2 main reason why I am crying for a 12MPxls FF.
-Improved video: as liveview, video is a feature people ask. In a pro body, I am not sure it is so much important since people looking for that kind of camera ask 1st for the better IQ as possible. But 5D Mark II demonstrated it is possible, so why would we not ask for the same.

For all these reasons, I really believe that the only way to get a camera providing a so called Pro IQ cannot be something else than FF. All the marks are on the green for such a move from Pentax, now I really hope I am correct, since I need such a camera quickly (will not live in Japan all my life, then will probably not need it anymore).
Now waiting for your comments guys.

[turbosaturn]

For all these reasons, I really believe that the only way to get a camera providing a so called Pro IQ cannot be something else than FF. All the marks are on the green for such a move from Pentax, now I really hope I am correct, since I need such a camera quickly (will not live in Japan all my life, then will probably not need it anymore).
Now waiting for your comments guys.

The biggest thing that I think holding Pentax back on full frame isn't lenses, but it's shake reduction. They must first deal with the technical difficulties of stabilizing a larger sensor. It's going to be a larger mass, and since it has a larger plane, small vibrations will contribute to more movement at the corners. So it's not the cost of a few dollars for larger sensors. It's in the cost of designing a shake reduction system that can complement it.

[24X36NOW]

The biggest thing that I think holding Pentax back on full frame isn't lenses, but it's shake reduction. They must first deal with the technical difficulties of stabilizing a larger sensor. It's going to be a larger mass, and since it has a larger plane, small vibrations will contribute to more movement at the corners. So it's not the cost of a few dollars for larger sensors. It's in the cost of designing a shake reduction system that can complement it.

At this point, there shouldn't be anything holding them back. Sony has already shown that FF with in-body shake reduction can be done, so that's not a huge hurdle. The sensor costs have come down to the point where the price differential makes an APS-C only strategy a massive blunder. All Pentax need do is to approach the FF market with their own particular flavor, such as:

1. Smaller/lighter body that competitors (a Pentax hallmark)

2. Low price (see 645D medium format entry for an example of what leveraging existing technology can do)

3. 100% coverage, 95% (or better?!) magnification viewfinder - combined with backward compatibility, this would instantly make the Pentax FF offering provide something even the most pricey professional FF models do not

4. The right high ISO performance/resolution balance (probably a 16-18 megapixel range is the sweet spot) with stunning image quality

5. Non-crippled K mount to increase backward compatibility some more, and make the FF camera that much MORE desirable for owners of legacy glass

Combine these features with essentially the remaining K7 features (5 fps, weather and dust sealed, etc. etc.), and it'll be a sure hit.

[youky63]

The biggest thing that I think holding Pentax back on full frame isn't lenses, but it's shake reduction. They must first deal with the technical difficulties of stabilizing a larger sensor. It's going to be a larger mass, and since it has a larger plane, small vibrations will contribute to more movement at the corners. So it's not the cost of a few dollars for larger sensors. It's in the cost of designing a shake reduction system that can complement it.

You mean something like... that? New SR apparatus
The SR system for FF is ready. Seems to be build on Sony's system idea, so we can even think it could be more efficient than the one in APS-C bodies!
Another clue for a FF body: why do you think Hoya decided to restart production of 50mm f1.2 and "Pentax F AF 1.7X". Especially this last module, which can give AF to non AF lenses with a crop of 1.7X. The best way to use your old manual lenses on your new FF body with (semi-)AF and a crop factor as an APS-C camera (birders will love that! ).

[thibs]

At this point, there shouldn't be anything holding them back. Sony has already shown that FF with in-body shake reduction can be done, so that's not a huge hurdle.

In theory, mount diameter could, but I dunno the specs of A mount (didn't find'em) so it may have NO influence at all.

[turbosaturn]

At this point, there shouldn't be anything holding them back. Sony has already shown that FF with in-body shake reduction can be done, so that's not a huge hurdle.

Sony isn't Pentax. There's no logic in the correlation that you're trying to make. Nikon and Canon show that faster focusing is possible. What's holding Pentax back in that arena?

You mean something like... that? New SR apparatus
The SR system for FF is ready. Seems to be build on Sony's system idea, so we can even think it could be more efficient than the one in APS-C bodies!

How ready is it? Are there production samples that are already being tested on the field? Can you show a comparison of Pentax's new SR and Sony's to show their similarities? Where's the evidence that it's more efficient?

Don't get me wrong. It would be really nice to get a FF Pentax dslr. I would get in line to get one if I was sure that it was coming out. It's just that there hasn't really been any solid clues from Pentax that they are indeed moving in that direction to release a FF dslr in the next few months. It just seems that they are too tight lipped in revealing anything until it's already being shipped to retailers just as it's released.