[Pentaxor]

Samsung had already achieved an EVIL APS-C, so the possibility of an EVIL FF is not that far ahead, IMO. all it comes down is decision, decision, decision.

[Pål Jensen]

The main benefit I can see with FF (beyond the bragging rights) is that the DOF is shallower. .

That is not a benefit but a drawback. For 99% of all photography that is....

[nosnoop]

To those saying there is no money to be made for Pentax by offering a FF camera, I would heartily disagree. They already have all of the know how. .....R&D costs would be almost nothing. If they could find a way to fit a FF sensor into a current body design(a FF K-7 would make me weak in the knees) they wouldn't even need to change much in the production facilities. The larger mirror assembly and sensor assembly would be all they would need to produce that they aren't currently producing.

They need new mirror box, new sensor, new shutter, new pentaprism, new camera chassis, new image stabilization system, new focusing screen, redesigned electronics and image processor...
and don't forget the new line of FF lenses.

I wouldn't call that nothing or even insignificant R&D costs.
This assumes they reuse their existing AF system.... and many would not be happy about that.

[24X36NOW]

They need new mirror box, new sensor, new shutter, new pentaprism, new camera chassis, new image stabilization system, new focusing screen, redesigned electronics and image processor...
and don't forget the new line of FF lenses.

I wouldn't call that nothing or even insignificant R&D costs.
This assumes they reuse their existing AF system.... and many would not be happy about that.

You make it sound like Pentax didn't exist before APS-C dSLRs. They've been making FF SLRs for years, so the "R&D" needed to make another one would hardly be staggering. A new sensor is needed for ANY new camera, a new mirror box, shutter, pentaprism, chassis and focusing screen are hardly challenges for Pentax, the new image stabilization system is already designed (you'll find a link around here someplace), and the new electronics and processor and upgraded autofocus are also going to be needed for ANY new camera (and can be recovered in terms of costs across multiple bodies). This isn't a new Moon landing, for cryin' out loud! As for lenses, they can just make them all FF from here on, with just a single "specialty" APS-C lens to cover the extreme wide end. There was never any size/weight difference for lenses of the same focal length and maximum aperture anyway, since APS-C was designed around the FF mount and register distance.

[nosnoop]

You make it sound like Pentax didn't exist before APS-C dSLRs. They've been making FF SLRs for years, so the "R&D" needed to make another one would hardly be staggering. A new sensor is needed for ANY new camera, a new mirror box, shutter, pentaprism, chassis and focusing screen are hardly challenges for Pentax, the new image stabilization system is already designed (you'll find a link around here someplace), and the new electronics and processor and upgraded autofocus are also going to be needed for ANY new camera (and can be recovered in terms of costs across multiple bodies). This isn't a new Moon landing, for cryin' out loud! As for lenses, they can just make them all FF from here on, with just a single "specialty" APS-C lens to cover the extreme wide end. There was never any size/weight difference for lenses of the same focal length and maximum aperture anyway, since APS-C was designed around the FF mount and register distance.

Wait a minute! When did I ever say Pentax not having the technical know how to do all those things? Of course they have. There is no technical barrier and they can a produce FF camera at a snap of their finger.

My post was in response to previous poster's statement that "R&D costs would be almost nothing", to which I disagree. Because going from a technical blueprint of various components to a final product, and to set up manufacturing process is not trivial and definitely not "almost nothing".

[lurchlarson]

...a FF doesn't need to be expensive nor heavy at all. it's the extras that makes the FF dslrs heavy nowadays, except Leica maybe, which is ridiculously expensive.

The extras are a lot of what sells the cameras. If that wasn't the case people wouldn't feel the need to buy the new camera. As much as some purists would love a stripped down camera, I don't know that it would sell very well with out the extras.

[24X36NOW]

Wait a minute! When did I ever say Pentax not having the technical know how to do all those things? Of course they have. There is no technical barrier and they can a produce FF camera at a snap of their finger.

My post was in response to previous poster's statement that "R&D costs would be almost nothing", to which I disagree. Because going from a technical blueprint of various components to a final product, and to set up manufacturing process is not trivial and definitely not "almost nothing".

OK, but by the same token you've pointed to a lot of components that will need to be "new" for any dSLR, even if not FF, anyway, so what's the difference, if you agree that they can easily do it?? R&D certainly wouldn't be out of proportion to that required to make the next APS-C body, so why do you make it sound like such a mountain to climb? As you said, they can easily do it, and it's overdue AFAIC.

[nosnoop]

OK, but by the same token you've pointed to a lot of components that will need to be "new" for any dSLR, even if not FF, anyway, so what's the difference, if you agree that they can easily do it?? R&D certainly wouldn't be out of proportion to that required to make the next APS-C body, so why do you make it sound like such a mountain to climb? As you said, they can easily do it, and it's overdue AFAIC.

No, a new APS-C, such as K-7 successor can reuse many or most of the existing components or mildly upgraded ones. And since the sales volume for APS-C is much higher, the R&D cost can be spread out over many more units.

The mountain the FF camera has to climb is the economics. It is purely a business decision on the chance of a FF camera being profitable; and what would be the consequence if it is not. And that's a decision only Hoya can make; and I agree with their decision so far.

[Supernaut]

If not FF in an affordable price class, what else is there in the future (3-5 years)?

In a few years, I guess that prices on basic FF has come down and is offered at $1300-1500. Entry level is more or less taken by EVILs.
So where is Pentax market slot here? Or am I completely wrong in my thinking?

[thibs]

Entry level is more or less taken by EVILs.
So where is Pentax market slot here? Or am I completely wrong in my thinking?

IMO this is a bold statement (as for now).

[Supernaut]

IMO this is a bold statement (as for now).

Well I wrote in a few years. Some 4 years from now, I guess all major players are on their second or third generation EVILS. It isn't bolt at all to say those will the sales will eat a fair market share from the entry class dslrs, is it? Or do you think it will only attract people moving up from P&S?

Edit: I see now that what I wrote was a bit unclear. All I wrote was predictions for the future.

[RMabo]

Pentax needs new viewfinder and viewfinder housing for 24x36.
Why? Surely they can use the old parts from the 24x36 film?
No, not really. You see...
They need a new AF system.
The latest AF that was in 24x36 film, was in the film *ist camera and this one had a pentamirror box viewfinder, not a pentaprism. You really expects a pentaprism for such an expensive camera as 24x36 don't you?
But what has AF to do with the viewfinder? Well, everything really since the phase detect AF is in the viewfinder!

But the 645D uses the same AF only enlarged for 645D!
Yes, because Pentax felt it was the cheapest thing to do and the MF customers doesn't expects the most advanced AF on the market. Hey, it even took long for AF to enter the MF world! Much longer than for 24x36 film.

Pentax are working on a new AF that will be in the coming APS-C models.
This new AF needs to be adapted for the 24x36.

The 645D uses basically the same AF as Pentax has used for the latest 10 years, slightly modified.

The cost of the new AF is big, and it of course costs more to adopt a new AF to a new camera than an old AF to a new camera.

Ok, a new viewfinder system needs to be developed.
Can't they just take the viewfinder from the K-7? No, because a larger part of the image circle is used so the optical path including the viewfinder needs to be adapted for this.
THe image coming from the lenses is larger so the viewfinder needs to have less magnification than the viewfinder in the K-7.

Oh, but surely they can re-use the imaging pipeline?
The imaging pipeline needs to be re-prorgammed and re-design for the 24x36 sensor to give the classic Pentax colours and Pentax output. Sure it can be done, Pentax did it with the 645D, but it takes time and R&D money.

Can't they use the same circuit board then?
No, since the 24x36 digital will be much larger. This means that the while internal circuit board needs a complete re-design.
There has been many interviews with Pentax technicians, some linked from this forum, where they describe the process and that every buttons cost - not only the button in itself but the circuit design that has to be made underneath the button.
It is quite expensive to make a totally new circuit designs for the external controls. Even if the controls looks similar on the outside, even if they has similar position, the internal circuits needs to be re-designed to match the bigger body structure. This cost money!

Metering could be done the same, basically, but still needs to be adapted to the new viewfinder developed.

There are many costs involved.
Then we have this factor of customer support.
645D needs pro service support.
Does the 24x36 needs it? Will 24x36 digital customers accept the level of Pentax service today, or does Pentax invest in a new service network for the 24x36?
Interesting question I say.

We also have lenses... Sure many old lenses can be used.
But if you buy a new 24x36 digital state of the art with new AF etc, surely you want some lenses that takes advantage of this technology?

Pentax only offers a few 24x36 primes today.
Lack of lenses killed the Contax 24x36 digital.
You need new 24x36 zooms covering wide angle to tele.
Even if you can use those on APS-C, they are not so practical.
A standard zoom on 24x36 covering wide to short tele, covers standard to medium tele on APS-C. Not so practical. Wide angle zooms for 24x36 are also not practical on APS-C. So those will only be for the 24x36 digital with few APS-C owners going for them.

It can be hard getting money back for those lenses... for Pentax.

[Rondec]

I am just going to say briefly that for Pentax to sell many full frame cameras, their auto focus will have to be comparable to current full frame cameras (5D, D700). Maybe not quite as fast, but close. People buy them either for low light usage, or for bragging rights and either way, they won't be satisfied with just transferring the current SAFOX to a full frame camera.

[Class A]

But what has AF to do with the viewfinder? Well, everything really since the phase detect AF is in the viewfinder!

Are you confusing the exposure metering with the AF?

The AF sensors are at the bottom of the mirror box.

[séamuis]

Lack of lenses killed the Contax 24x36 digital.

no, im pretty sure it was the price, coupled with an underperforming sensor, at a time when film was still king. pentax foresaw it, contax didn't and introduced a camera that they couldn't really afford to introduce. lenses were probably the least of their problems at that time.