[gazonk]

I don't know about your math, but in my case it's the other way around: I could get at least three darkrooms for the price of a single 645D.

I envy you your large house - ours has no spare rooms.

[junyo]

Very true. Even colour processors are only worth another song.

OTOH you can buy/build a decent PC for a few bars, and a good photo printer for a drum solo.


I think this thread is drifting...

[Rorschach]

I envy you your large house - ours has no spare rooms.

One of the benefits of living in the countryside, square meters cost next to nothing

[Rorschach]

Very true. Even colour processors are only worth another song.

Ben

Yep. I don't have one of those as I intend to stick with BW, with a few MF Velvia slides thrown in every now and then. Returning to the topic of enlargers, I paid 250 euros for a Leitz Focomat V35 in mint condition. Not too shabby I'd say

[blende8]

Surely the K-7 upgrade must be APS-C. I believe much of the same K-7 as we have today, perhaps with a new sensor, perhaps with improved AF and other functions.
Have no idea about the new camera above this.
Could be APS-C pro, could be 24x36 - but 24x36 requires a huge investment in new lenses.

It is difficult to imagine what features a "pro APS-C" above the "K8" could have. If the K8 is getting a sensor like that of the Kx, plus some software improvements, this is an almost perfect camera. I cannot think of something "above" it.
It would thus be only consequent to design a FF body, which is able to work with APS-C lenses also. The rumors of WR versions of the FA Limiteds point in that direction.

[philippe]

It is difficult to imagine what features a "pro APS-C" above the "K8" could have. If the K8 is getting a sensor like that of the Kx, plus some software improvements, this is an almost perfect camera. I cannot think of something "above" it.
It would thus be only consequent to design a FF body, which is able to work with APS-C lenses also. The rumors of WR versions of the FA Limiteds point in that direction.

What FA->WR rumors?

[24X36NOW]

It is difficult to imagine what features a "pro APS-C" above the "K8" could have. If the K8 is getting a sensor like that of the Kx, plus some software improvements, this is an almost perfect camera. I cannot think of something "above" it.
It would thus be only consequent to design a FF body, which is able to work with APS-C lenses also. The rumors of WR versions of the FA Limiteds point in that direction.

Agreed. Anything "above" the K7 (or its replacement) should be FF, because anything needed that is not already offered by the K7 for APS-C would be mere upgrades, not a different class of camera. Pentax is off their rocker if they think they're going to get anything more than K7 introductory prices for an APS-C camera. There just aren't enough "upgrades" left to differentiate another APS-C camera compared with the K7, once you upgrade the K7.

[WMBP]

Anything "above" the K7 (or its replacement) should be FF, because anything needed that is not already offered by the K7 for APS-C would be mere upgrades, not a different class of camera. Pentax is off their rocker if they think they're going to get anything more than K7 introductory prices for an APS-C camera. There just aren't enough "upgrades" left to differentiate another APS-C camera compared with the K7, once you upgrade the K7.

I'm not following this line of thought at all.

You seem to be assuming that a full frame body is a requirement, something Pentax MUST produce. Isn't that precisely the question being asked?

The K20D was an upgrade to the K10D. The K-7 is an upgrade to the K20D. Neither of the last two high-end Pentax bodies were "a different class of camera." Yet the K20D and the K-7 have both sold well (as far as I can tell) and certainly got lots of awards and good reviews.

I think the first and most important purpose of new models is simply to be new models, new products, or in a word, news. You need to have your cameras get reviewed once a year in the major review locations. All a new camera absolutely needs to be, is a little bit better than its predecessor. Look at software, or movies, or cars. The main virtue of the latest model is that it's the latest model. It's "New" and "Improved." And new is more important. It doesn't need to be improved a lot.

I continue to say that I don't want a FF camera from Pentax. I would like a better APS-C camera, one that has better autofocus, better low-light/high-ISO performance, and a whole bunch of other things. There's a lot of room for improvement in the current line.

The main problem with Pentax right now (it seems to me) is that it isn't do anything very innovative. It's not that I'm crazy about innovation for its own sake. But innovation gets headlines. I'm seeing more mentions of Samsung's NX10 (Samsung!) than of anything from Pentax. I fear that simply making really good, conventional aps-c cameras, may not cut it over the long term.

But making a FF camera in itself isn't innovative. It's more conventional thinking. It's Pentax saying, "Me, too!"

Will

[thibs]

IMO there's nothing conventional in Pentax camera but that's just me.

Pentax is all about the sweet mix of advanced features for a stupid price compared to others. And IMO both K-x and K-7 (and 645D probably) do exactly that but add a small/very small package, HD Video, excellent noise performance (for a given sensor, I agree the Samsung sensor is noisy but that's not my point: I mean quality of the noise being non destructive).

If Pentax updates the K-7 with less noisy sensor, 1080p Video or Full control 720p, competitive AF-C and 1/250 flash sync, it will be a winner.

[Asahiflex]

But making a FF camera in itself isn't innovative. It's more conventional thinking. It's Pentax saying, "Me, too!"

"Me too!"???

You must be kidding. Pentax (Asahi) was the first Japanese company to bring out a 35mm SLR, the Asahiflex I, in 1951, when Nikon and Canon were still concentrating on rangefinders. In many ways Canon and Nikon are followers, not trendsetters. That is still valid in this day and age, especially when I look at the K-7.

We can jump high and low, but the FF model will come for sure. APS-C was there only for financial reasons (cheaper sensor and smaller electronics) and nothing else. There were no other considerations for choosing the APS-C sensor. Now that APS-C sensors are common and getting cheaper, and the electronics is getting smaller, Pentax will look for other ways to generate money, i.e. cameras with bigger sensors and new lenses. And like a Hoya spokesperson said about the DA lenses: the DA line is finished (and for a reason). I think they are currently working on a new FF line of lenses. Make of this what you will, but the next new lens that Pentax announces will prove what direction Pentax is heading in the future.

[youky63]

I'm not following this line of thought at all.

You seem to be assuming that a full frame body is a requirement, something Pentax MUST produce. Isn't that precisely the question being asked?

The K20D was an upgrade to the K10D. The K-7 is an upgrade to the K20D. Neither of the last two high-end Pentax bodies were "a different class of camera." Yet the K20D and the K-7 have both sold well (as far as I can tell) and certainly got lots of awards and good reviews.

I think the first and most important purpose of new models is simply to be new models, new products, or in a word, news. You need to have your cameras get reviewed once a year in the major review locations. All a new camera absolutely needs to be, is a little bit better than its predecessor. Look at software, or movies, or cars. The main virtue of the latest model is that it's the latest model. It's "New" and "Improved." And new is more important. It doesn't need to be improved a lot.

I continue to say that I don't want a FF camera from Pentax. I would like a better APS-C camera, one that has better autofocus, better low-light/high-ISO performance, and a whole bunch of other things. There's a lot of room for improvement in the current line.

The main problem with Pentax right now (it seems to me) is that it isn't do anything very innovative. It's not that I'm crazy about innovation for its own sake. But innovation gets headlines. I'm seeing more mentions of Samsung's NX10 (Samsung!) than of anything from Pentax. I fear that simply making really good, conventional aps-c cameras, may not cut it over the long term.

But making a FF camera in itself isn't innovative. It's more conventional thinking. It's Pentax saying, "Me, too!"

Will

Here I have to disagree with you. ;-)
Sure K7 is just an upgrade of K20D that was just an upgrade of K10D. And I bet like you than the next K8 (or whatever will be it's name) will be an upgrade of K7. And K7 is certainly a great camera. I don't think that Pentax is lacking of innovation. Every Pentax camera if full of innovations. Never an entry level camera have been able to compete with advanced camera on IQ before Kx.
Never an advance camera were so compact (and still kept an awesome ergonomics) than the K7 with so many features.
Pentax is innovations, since the beginning. Just we don't notice it since we are used of that from pentax.
Then, we can think K8 can be a very good camera (for exeample a K7 with the new 14Mpixels sensors from Sony a550). But still it is an upgrade, nothing to compare with the professional* camera in a class "above of k7" the Pentax representative was talking about a few weeks ago (and he was not talking about 645D). So then, to get a higher class camera, 2 possibilities:
- a camera with high frame rate and high performance autofocus, to compete with D300s and 7D
- a FF camera, to compete with 5D mark II, D700 and alpha 850/900.

To get a pro APS-C can be difficult for Pentax, since they are very late compared to Canon and Nikon on AF possibilities, and also on flash functions (that's what I heard, I don't know anything about flash). The new AF module (SAFOX IX+) is already installed in 645D and doesn't seems so much different from SAFOX VIII+. And final point, an PAS-C pro camera, for normal public, looks like another APS-C camera. Difficult to highlight these possibilities.
To get gears for FF is not a problem for Pentax, since they already still have a lot in production (even old new ones recently as the 50mm f/1.2), and a few years ago they were producing a full line up of them (some are still sold under the Tokina brand). Then a FF camera is very different from APS-C. You are sure to have a big improvement on IQ (much higher iso, DR) that no APS-C sensor can get with today's technology, and for Pentax the way to look different from other brands will be to make it small (let say not bigger than the K20D). That can be as noisy than the 645D, a real winner for marketing.
Finally, to get a FF is not only the way for Pentax to say "Me, too!" but also to get more coverage from media, to keep their enthusiast users that want FF (there is!) and to attract new comers that want to start slowly with APS-C but think that maybe someday they could be interested by a "pro" camera. ;-P

*I guess from Pentax that a "professional camera" means a big step forward, not a heavy bulky camera like D3 or 1D

[Ben_Edict]

"Me too!"???

You must be kidding. Pentax (Asahi) was the first Japanese company to bring out a 35mm SLR, the Asahiflex I, in 1951, when Nikon and Canon were still concentrating on rangefinders. In many ways Canon and Nikon are followers, not trendsetters. That is still valid in this day and age, especially when I look at the K-7.

We can jump high and low, but the FF model will come for sure. APS-C was there only for financial reasons (cheaper sensor and smaller electronics) and nothing else. There were no other considerations for choosing the APS-C sensor. Now that APS-C sensors are common and getting cheaper, and the electronics is getting smaller, Pentax will look for other ways to generate money, i.e. cameras with bigger sensors and new lenses. And like a Hoya spokesperson said about the DA lenses: the DA line is finished (and for a reason). I think they are currently working on a new FF line of lenses. Make of this what you will, but the next new lens that Pentax announces will prove what direction Pentax is heading in the future.

The time, when Asahi Pentax was a real trendsetter is long over. Canon trumped Pentax , when Asahi was way too slow to change from screw-mount to bayonet-mount. Since these days, Pentax always had nice idea, but they often lost themselves with an engineering approach, instead of looking at market requirements.

Even successful cameras in the past, like the ME Super, were in my eyes more gimicky than innovative. The Pentax M cameras and M-lenses were about small size, not about quality. I know quite a few people who at that time bought that ME Super and every single of those failed sooner, than later.

I think Pentax has in between produced extraordinarily fine cameras and think K2, MX and LX. Than they lost out, ignoring AF and when they finally accepted, that AF was here to stay, they produced the unsaleable first genration Pentax AF cameras, like SF7/X series. The worst design of amost any SLR I have see so far.

The AF system never caught up to the standards set by Canon and (also belated) Nikon or Olympus.

NOW Pentax produces were fine DSLRs - BUT they do still lack in some departments, namely AF, the P-TTL system and still too few lenses in some areas. But for most amateurs this is acceptable. My real preference for Pentax's further development would be, to update these lagging behind features and the lens list. That is far more important, than FF.

FF is still a small proportion in the DSLR world. Many people talk about it, few buy it.

I bet, it will be the same with Pentax shooters. I see many complaints here about the lack of FF cameras, but only few of those, who complain, will shell out the money for a FF model. I am happy, that Pentax seems to be profitable at the moment, because it is indicative, that Pentax has fopund a strategy, which will support it staying in the market - which is important for me, having invested several tens of thousands into Pentax equipment.

If I'ld really need a FF camera now for a certain purpose I would add a D700 and be done - but it would not replace my Pentax system. And as my need for FF is limited, I can easily do without. Faster fps and better AF and some longer glass are much more important to me. And these three points have been under discussion for years now and its highest time, Pentax acts up on this, not on a FF camera, which would only be aimage-building product. I agree fully with Will and others, that FF should not be the first priority.

Ben

[RMabo]

The Z-1p had faster AF than similar priced competition from Canon and Nikon.
The MZ-10 had faster AF than the Canon 500.
The MZ-5 had faster AF than the Canon 50.
The MZ-S had faster AF than Canon 5.

I don't agree with you that Pentax couldn't hold up in the AF department.
I don't agree with you that Pentax haven't been a trendsetter since the 70's.
The MZ-5 was THE retro-AF camera to get. Sure Canon had the 50, and Minolta tried with a more dials and switches Dynax 7, but the MZ-5 and MZ-3 were the winners and Pentax sold many of them. The MZ-5 was awarded in the TIPA and EISA awards in 1996-97. After the MZ-5, the competition started to release SLR's in black-silver.

P-TTL works very nice, I have no problem with it. I get consistent and reliable exposures.

Pentax are about comfortable easy to use cameras with functions and features that enhance the creativity of the photographer. They are cameras that helps rather than are getting into the way.

[ogl]

FF is still a small proportion in the DSLR world. Many people talk about it, few buy it.

Offer FF under $1500, Pentaxian buy. I think FF camera from Pentax could easy take 20% of all Pentax DSLR. Not 7-10% like Canon.

[Asahiflex]

The time, when Asahi Pentax was a real trendsetter is long over. Canon trumped Pentax , when Asahi was way too slow to change from screw-mount to bayonet-mount. Since these days, Pentax always had nice idea, but they often lost themselves with an engineering approach, instead of looking at market requirements.

Strangely, Pentax always kept its current customers in their mind. That's why they were slow to bring out the K-mount. But yes, they were slow in this department.

Even successful cameras in the past, like the ME Super, were in my eyes more gimicky than innovative. The Pentax M cameras and M-lenses were about small size, not about quality. I know quite a few people who at that time bought that ME Super and every single of those failed sooner, than later.

I still have several ME-Supers and all of them work correctly. I have yet to encounter a defective one.

I think Pentax has in between produced extraordinarily fine cameras and think K2, MX and LX. Than they lost out, ignoring AF and when they finally accepted, that AF was here to stay, they produced the unsaleable first genration Pentax AF cameras, like SF7/X series. The worst design of amost any SLR I have see so far.

Have you ever looked at what the other brands offered in the same era? Those were just as well ugly 80's products, just like the cars of that time. To blame Pentax for that is a bit silly. (Just have a look at the Canon T80)

The AF system never caught up to the standards set by Canon and (also belated) Nikon or Olympus.

Wrong (see Roland's post above)

NOW Pentax produces were fine DSLRs - BUT they do still lack in some departments, namely AF, the P-TTL system and still too few lenses in some areas. But for most amateurs this is acceptable. My real preference for Pentax's further development would be, to update these lagging behind features and the lens list.
That is far more important, than FF.

Well, they'll work on it for sure. But as Pentax said: they could only work at one thing at a time, having a small R&D department. So the next body could have better AF but not a better flash system at the same time.

FF is still a small proportion in the DSLR world. Many people talk about it, few buy it.

That's your opinion, I think otherwise. It's all about the price point. I'm sure Pentax could offer a FF camera for the same price as the original *ist D.

I am happy, that Pentax seems to be profitable at the moment, because it is indicative, that Pentax has fopund a strategy, which will support it staying in the market - which is important for me, having invested several tens of thousands into Pentax equipment.

I believe the strategy of attracting only new customers, while neglecting current and experienced customers, will not pay off in the future. Everyone outgrowing the K-x and K-7 will flee the brand. It's a BAD strategy.

If I'ld really need a FF camera now for a certain purpose I would add a D700 and be done - but it would not replace my Pentax system.

See, a FF camera has its place. You won't replace your Pentax system but you can even use your old lenses on the Pentax FF. A win-win situation if you ask me

And as my need for FF is limited, I can easily do without. Faster fps and better AF and some longer glass are much more important to me. And these three points have been under discussion for years now and its highest time, Pentax acts up on this, not on a FF camera, which would only be aimage-building product. I agree fully with Will and others, that FF should not be the first priority.

So the 645D is only that, an 'image building product'?

To me, Pentax is only about this: IQ, IQ and IQ. Faster FPS and better AF is not what I need. I believe the same goes for most of us. By definition, Pentaxians are after ultimate IQ, not speed.