[malakola]

i choose Pentax FF or Other FF

[jmbradd]

seriously, you people who keep whining about pentax releasing a full frame camera, why don't you just buy the "fuller" frame they already released? If price isn't your concern and you are such an amazing photographer that you that much more dynamic range why don't you just get the 645d?

[Asahiflex]

seriously, you people who keep whining about pentax releasing a full frame camera, why don't you just buy the "fuller" frame they already released? If price isn't your concern and you are such an amazing photographer that you that much more dynamic range why don't you just get the 645d?

Talk about whining

[youky63]

seriously, you people who keep whining about pentax releasing a full frame camera, why don't you just buy the "fuller" frame they already released? If price isn't your concern and you are such an amazing photographer that you that much more dynamic range why don't you just get the 645d?

Because 645D is a totally different system, much bigger/heavier and no compatibility with my K mount lenses, would be the same than dropping to another brand for FF... Excepted the price, too high for me! I am OK for a 2000 dollars into a new body + 1000 for a good lens, but not for 5000 in another FF system (with crappy ergonomics) nor 10000+ for 645D system. And anyway, MF is not my target since limited to 1600isos.
Now one question: why some people cannot accept that their is pentaxians that want/need a FF camera?!?!? What is your problem with that? Are you afraid to not be able to match quality of these "rich" costumers with your APS-C camera making you mad at us? I agree that APS-C can offer some advanges for specific usages (sport/animal shooting, lower size/weight), but please accept on your side that FF as advanges that APS-C cannot match yet.

[octavmandru]

I have a couple FF Pentax cameras.
Very cheap, pleasing to use, film cameras.

Manual focus, also. And that's a feature.

[jmbradd]

Talk about whining

touche

[Ben_Edict]

Now one question: why some people cannot accept that their is pentaxians that want/need a FF camera?!?!? What is your problem with that? Are you afraid to not be able to match quality of these "rich" costumers with your APS-C camera making you mad at us? I agree that APS-C can offer some advanges for specific usages (sport/animal shooting, lower size/weight), but please accept on your side that FF as advanges that APS-C cannot match yet.

Basically I do not have a problem at all with a Pentax FF camera. But I have problems with some expectations about such a camera; namely a low price tag and the integration of phased-out technology (like the mechanical aperture coupling). Yes, it would be wonderful to have a 1500USD camera with mechanical coupling and all the bells and whistles - but its not going to happen. At least I do not count on such a miracle camera - and I foresee the endless complaints about the high prices starting again.

There is, on the other hand one problem: Pentax is a small company with limited resources. If they turn out a FF camera, these small resources would be split between two product lines, especially for lens development and production.

The Pentax line-up is still missing some lenses, considered to be a standard offering, like a 80-400 (or similar), longer primes above 300mm etc. - an often repeated gaping hole. If they now introduce a FF body, they also need to provide even the basic lenses for that camera, like the 20-80/2.8, new wide angles etc. How will they do it? Or do we have to wait for another five years then, to get a semi-complete lens line-up, we currently have?

These are my concerens. And I cannot see, how Pentax will gain anything positive out of such a situations.

Ben

[Angevinn]

All of the talk of what Pentax can and can't do doesn't make much sense. We aren't dealing with same Pentax that committed suicide by low balling the market. Hoya is now at the wheel and has been taking steps to increase the sales, market share and profits of Pentax. Hoya is a smart, aggressive and successful company. Hoya will make Pentax a success again. It's not in Hoya's interests to have an unsuccessful Pentax.

If it wasn't for Hoya the MF 645D would not have been released. There are few profits on the low end of the market. That's where MF and FF come in. It takes money(deep pockets of Hoya and R&D) to make money (good quality, well engineered products).

Hoya owns Pentax, the old Pentax ceased to exist around 2008.

"On October 29, 2007, Hoya and Pentax announced that Pentax, as the company ceasing to exist, will merge with and into Hoya on March 31, 2008."

A number of members on the Nikon discussion boards were against FF before it was brought out. Now, you don't see any gripes about it. There is nothing to fear. Pentax is bound to keep producing great APS-C cameras like the K-X and K-7. Medium format has its uses and appeals to certain segments of the market, so does Full Frame.

All the negative views on FF from APS-C people come across as sour grapes.

That being said, bring on the FF K Mount DSLR Pentax and some new D-FA lenses!!!
(D-FA 85mm 1.4) (D-FA 15-16mm 2.8) (D-FA 50mm 1.0-1.2) (zooms too)

You have a future FF customer here!

Basically I do not have a problem at all with a Pentax FF camera. But I have problems with some expectations about such a camera; namely a low price tag and the integration of phased-out technology (like the mechanical aperture coupling). Yes, it would be wonderful to have a 1500USD camera with mechanical coupling and all the bells and whistles - but its not going to happen. At least I do not count on such a miracle camera - and I foresee the endless complaints about the high prices starting again.

There is, on the other hand one problem: Pentax is a small company with limited resources. If they turn out a FF camera, these small resources would be split between two product lines, especially for lens development and production.

The Pentax line-up is still missing some lenses, considered to be a standard offering, like a 80-400 (or similar), longer primes above 300mm etc. - an often repeated gaping hole. If they now introduce a FF body, they also need to provide even the basic lenses for that camera, like the 20-80/2.8, new wide angles etc. How will they do it? Or do we have to wait for another five years then, to get a semi-complete lens line-up, we currently have?

These are my concerens. And I cannot see, how Pentax will gain anything positive out of such a situations.

Ben

[jmbradd]

Now one question: why some people cannot accept that their is pentaxians that want/need a FF camera?!?!? What is your problem with that? Are you afraid to not be able to match quality of these "rich" costumers with your APS-C camera making you mad at us? I agree that APS-C can offer some advanges for specific usages (sport/animal shooting, lower size/weight), but please accept on your side that FF as advanges that APS-C cannot match yet.

I don't know quite what you're driving at. Full Frame dslr's have advantages over APS-C dslr's, who on earth would dispute that? It just seems silly to me that so many people act like having a full frame DSLR is a necessity if you want to be "serious". People who take something seriously work on their craft, not their tool. People who make money in something (important distinction) do so because they have something to offer and maximize gains but using tools until they no longer perform.

They can make the sensor whatever size they want, I just want a weather sealed body with as many buttons on the outside as possible and some good video controls. Really interested in making movies again and I like the prospects of what DSLR video has to offer, its just the k7 isn't big enough upgrade over the k20d to justify the costs for me at this point.

And you know what? If I want a full frame camera I'll pull out my k1000 =) Velvia is velvia no matter what camera its going through and with pentax glass, I think I can match what canon has to offer.

[jmbradd]

Basically I do not have a problem at all with a Pentax FF camera. But I have problems with some expectations about such a camera; namely a low price tag and the integration of phased-out technology (like the mechanical aperture coupling). Yes, it would be wonderful to have a 1500USD camera with mechanical coupling and all the bells and whistles - but its not going to happen. At least I do not count on such a miracle camera - and I foresee the endless complaints about the high prices starting again.

There is, on the other hand one problem: Pentax is a small company with limited resources. If they turn out a FF camera, these small resources would be split between two product lines, especially for lens development and production.

The Pentax line-up is still missing some lenses, considered to be a standard offering, like a 80-400 (or similar), longer primes above 300mm etc. - an often repeated gaping hole. If they now introduce a FF body, they also need to provide even the basic lenses for that camera, like the 20-80/2.8, new wide angles etc. How will they do it? Or do we have to wait for another five years then, to get a semi-complete lens line-up, we currently have?

These are my concerens. And I cannot see, how Pentax will gain anything positive out of such a situations.

Ben

agree! I'm not against pentax releasing a full frame dslr at all, there are just things i'd rather see pentax put their money in (as well as me put my money in).

Something like canons 100 mm - 400 mm - F/4.5-5.6 would be welcome by me!

How about something truly innovating like open source firmware or something along those lines?

Dunno, just seems if you're obsessed with wanting "the best" you'd want medium format.

[youky63]

MF is not the best for everything, it is just a specialized tool. So best in a very few domains. And sadly not my main one (night portraits).
About Pentax being a small company, sure it is. But it is certainly not a reason to not do anything new (in the current product line). The best way to die is to not try/do anything. Look at the american car companies: they continued to produce car as they were doing 20 years ago, without improving their technology, trying to be in advance on the market and finally offering to the costumers what they want before they even know it themselves. Today they are dead, or must be dead (thanks to US government to keeping them alive).
Pentax has a very big problem today: nobody knows them as a dSLR. Even in Japan, people don't really know them in the digital world, when I show them my camera they are usually amazed that it is a Pentax and not a Canon or Nikon! They still think about Pentax as an "old film camera maker". Pentax need to show to the world that they are "back" in the top league of digital photo makers. And here enter the 645D...
Today Pentax revive 645D. It is a great success. Many people bought one in advance. More will buy one during the next months, since for the price of an equivalent MF in another brand (with even maybe a better IQ for Pentax!), you can get the 645D AND 2 or 3 good lenses! Today, whoever need a MF body in the world is of course considering Pentax's offer. Furthermore, many professionals started to use MF a long long time ago, on film era, and still have some 645 lenses waiting for a new body.
In Japan, this new camera is not only a commercial success. This is also a marketing success. You can see the 645D everywhere, newspaper, TV, commercials on electronic leader shops (ex: Yodobashi Camera). Now, people know that Pentax is back.
But still 645D is a camera targeting essentially professionals (quite expensive... ). So within a few months, the buzz will be gone.
Now, if they decide to release a "cheap" FF camera, what will happen (in Japan*)? People will know that Pentax is back (again ), not only for professionals, but also for "advanced" users (as every japanese want to become later), with real intentions to produce advanced and innovative products (compared to before). So people will feel more confident in buying (again) Pentax camera.
I would also say that presenting only 2 models (Kx and K7) is a suicide on long term. Because people can want something under Kx (as cheap as possible), or between Kx and K7 (if they don't like Kx and the absence of AF spot for example) or above K7 in APS-C range (animal shooting, good AF) and in FF range (high iso/high DR shooting. And high resolution?). Today, Nikon has 7 models, Canon 9 models, Sony announced they want 10 as soon as possible (probably this year). Even Olympus still offers 6 DSLR models (without Pen!). People want to have choice. No choice, no buy.

Hoya wants to make money with Pentax. And I would even say "a lot" of money since Pentax is probably one of the biggest department of Hoya Corp now. But to do that you need first to spend a lot in an aggressive product line and marketing. They know that. Angevinn is right: the old "digital era" Pentax is dead. Cannot survive with such strategy in the actual fast moving (electronic market) world. So I am expecting them to do what is needed to expand. Or they will die. And we will know very soon... (Photokina in September)

* Remember that Japanese market is essential for Japanese companies. No success in Japan means death (or strategic reorientation) of the company.

[Ben_Edict]

All of the talk of what Pentax can and can't do doesn't make much sense.

This sentence alone approximately summarizes this discussion.

We simply do not know what Pentax is going to do and we never knew in the past, as Pentax was always secretive and sometimes came up with products nobody had thought about - and unfortunately nobody needed (remember the DigiBino...)

Ben

[RMabo]

Sure the 645D is not only a camera, it is a marketing campaign for Pentax. A great PR investment for Pentax to be seen as a maker of professional and innovative digital camera products.

Now, in the entry level field - K-x is a grand sucess, in Japan and in other countries too. It sells better in Japan than the entry level Sony DSLR's, and the 100 colour options has been a success and also something that has attracted attention from journalists.

Investing in a 24x36 system cost money. Sure Pentax can do the body, but the lenses aren't there.

Pentax needs a decent lineup of

D FA Star 28-80 f/2.8 AL SDM OSR
D FA Star 80-200 f/2.8 ED (IF) SDM OSR
D FA Star 400 f/5.6 ED (IF) SDM OSR
D FA Star 20-35 f/2.8 AL ED (IF) SDM
D FA Star 24 f/2 SDM
D FA 50 f/1.4 SDM

(OSR = Optical Shake Reduction, to overcome the problem with Pentax SR sensor mechanism to be too large fitting in a 24x36 body and matching image circle of 24x36).

*at launch* of the new body.
Not "announced, will launch later within next 2 years".

A body without lenses will not sell.

Sure Pentax has the D FA 100 and 50 Macro, the FA 31, 43 and 77 Limiteds, and the FA 50 f/1.4. This is not enough for a 24x36 digital body...

I say that the above 6 lenses is a must, for a 24x36 digital to be successful. Then they can continue to add lenses later - like a D FA 80-400 SDM OSR version of the Tokina design, a D FA 135 - 350 f/4-5.6 ED SDM OSR, D FA 24-90 f/3.5-4.5 AL ED SDM (low cost kit zoom), D FA 20-35 f/3.5-5.6, D FA 28 f/2.8 and D FA Star 85 f/1.4 ED SDM OSR.

Now, they can't do all these lenses alone.
They still have the APS-C system to support.
Pentax has too small R&D and not enough production facilities to have an extensive setup of APS-C lenses. There is no room for 24x36 lenses here...

So Pentax needs a partner - like Tokina. Tokina surely would be interrested in Tokina 28-80 f/2.8 AT-X Pro and 80-200 f/2.8 AT-X Pro plus a 400 prime and a 20-35 f/2.8 AT-X Pro for Canon and Nikon, with built in motor drive and optical shake reduction.
Then we will have Pentaxians complaing about "new Pentax lenses is the same as Tokina" but in my view this the only way of doing it! Pentax doesn't have R&D resources nor production facilities do develop and support an extensive 24x36 lens system. They have closed down the Japan lens factory and the lens assemblent plant in the Phillipines.

With help of Tokina to develop and produce those lenses, they can get to market faster than if Pentax needs to build a new factory that takes 1 - 2 years.

THis is hughe investements were talking about here...
Pentax needs more partners than Tokina.
They need a company that they can share lens mount with. I don't know who that would be. Samsung? Samsung is concentrating on the NX now, but yes Samsung would be a logical choice if they was interrested in 24x36 and the K-mount.
Kodak?

As things are today, Pentax can't do it.
It doesn't matter how much they need and must, they simple can't because they don't have the resources and manufacturing facilities to do it. They need help here, from a partner.

Which is also what Hoya has hinted at before - that they are seeking a partner because it is too expensive and too risky to do this alone.

[youky63]

I don't really agree on your analysis (but maybe I am not objective, I want it too much ).
First, they don't need to add any Optical Shake Reduction in the lens, since they recently developed and patented a new Shake Reduction system for large sensors greatly inspired from the Sony's system (used in Alpha 850 and 900, two... FF cameras).

Then, your listing of the actual FF lenses production is quite incomplete. Here is the full one (from official japanese website):

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) and also older 400mm and 600mm which was considered as very good (design mainly already completed).

*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/distributed 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

Hoya is the main glass supplier for Tokina, and it can be a very important and interesting commercially for them to collaborate on lenses development ("huge" market). So the rebadging of 28-70 f/2.8 and 80-200 f/2.8 design in Pentax brand would not be a problem.

Then, sure they will have to implement SDM in some of these lenses (especially fast ones), but this will not require a soooo big effort from them.

And I think that developing a FF body will not be more difficult than to develop a MF body. 645D is build around K7 electronics. FF can be the same. For the mirror box and prism? I think to remember that Pentax produced some FF cameras a few years ago, they probably still have some people in that remember how it works.
So I really don't see where is this very huge investment that everybody talk about?

PS: and true, Kx is a great success here in Japan. I went to Kyoto this afternoon and in less than 1 hour I saw 2 colored Kx! (not even mentioning the ones I missed... )

[Ben_Edict]

I don't really agree on your analysis (but maybe I am not objective, I want it too much ).
First, they don't need to add any Optical Shake Reduction in the lens, since they recently developed and patented a new Shake Reduction system for large sensors greatly inspired from the Sony's system (used in Alpha 850 and 900, two... FF cameras).

That's true, SR could be matched to a FF sensor as SOny has proven.

Still in production (Limited lenses):

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

Yes, available.

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) and also older 400mm and 600mm which was considered as very good (design mainly already completed).

There never was a FA 50/1.2 - only the old manual focus A-model.

It is for a reason, that Pentax ceased production of the last long FA glass, the 300/2.8 and 600/4 - low demand and high production cost. They cannot bring out all the new old glass within a short time frame. And the reliability of Pentax Lens Roadmaps has been demosntrated before - still waiting for a simply 1.4x SDM tc.

*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

Cheap and mediocre lenses (yes, I owned the 20-35mm for a couple of years) are not exactly well-matched to the demands of a FF-body, if one is really keen on getting the best possible IQ - and what else would be the reason to buy a FF body?

Now let's do a selection about older lenses, discontinued or reused/distributed 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

Hoya is the main glass supplier for Tokina, and it can be a very important and interesting commercially for them to collaborate on lenses development ("huge" market). So the rebadging of 28-70 f/2.8 and 80-200 f/2.8 design in Pentax brand would not be a problem.

That's news to me. I never have heared or read before, that Tokina reused and distributed the old FA lenses. Would that be the case, the 28-70/2.8 would be a steal with the Tokina label.

Then, sure they will have to implement SDM in some of these lenses (especially fast ones), but this will not require a soooo big effort from them.

And I think that developing a FF body will not be more difficult than to develop a MF body. 645D is build around K7 electronics. FF can be the same. For the mirror box and prism? I think to remember that Pentax produced some FF cameras a few years ago, they probably still have some people in that remember how it works.
So I really don't see where is this very huge investment that everybody talk about?

Developing a FF body is certainly not beyond Pentax engineering capabilities. The question is, and I think, Hoya will ask that question more than just once: is it an economicilly sound endeavour?

A FF body makes only sense as part of a complete system. That includes top-quality lenses (Star-quality) and especially those "standard lenses", you'll find in other manufacturer's line-up, like 80-400 or 100-400, fast 300, 400 and 500/600, 2 pro-grade tcs, ofcourse 28-70/2.8 and 70-200/2.8 etc. And the availability cannot be spread over five years or longer.

Look at the development of the APS-C system. Even today, 7 years after the istD was made available, we do not have most of the needed long glas and no tcs. That is the reason, why I would very much prefer to complete the Pentax lens line-uop, instead of erecting new construction sites. The 645D system will already eat way the sparse resources.

Ben