[Kunzite]

I think you're confusing Pentax for Leica, especially at the "want to take with you into your grave" part

[RMabo]

Actually the "take it to the grave" was outspoken by Pentax chief executive some years ago, before the Hoya takeover. If I remember it correct now it must have been somewhere around 2001-2002, when Pentax was still looking at the MZ-1 camera that then was shelved.

Pentax wanted to make products that the owner could be proud of, with exclusive quality.

[seliscan]

From what I've speculate, the successor of K7 will be released these year...

Well, if you wonder where did I got the information, it is simple: there is a camera circle for every manufacturer, and Pentax has released the K10 in September 2006, K20 in January 2008 and the K7 in may 2009...

The pattern here is 1 year and 5 mounts between releases. So if they stick to this pattern, the next top of the APS-C line will be announced in September this year, and from what I've seen in the past releases of the Kx and 645D, Hoya will bring us a very good product at a tempting price!

[thibs]

Nonsense? You can make any excuse for A900/850's failure. But the fact remains that the Canon/Nikon duopoly on the FF market is hard to break - even with the marketing/distributing might of Sony.

Indeed it is difficult to break. IMO, it goes like this:
* Yes the (un)success of a850/900 is indicative. It does not mean the same will happen to Pentax but it does mean that bringing an FF won't automatically bring the success/sales one would await from such camera. Remember Sony has the FF lenses, and still, it did not work.

* Sony sensor (FF 24Mpix) isn't quite good but then the D3X has the same. Did it sell? Yes it did, quite better than the Sony? I dunno but wouldn't be surprised (relatively speaking of course, taking market conditions into account). So the sensor isn't the only thing. Very important , but not unique point.

[Ben_Edict]

I know you know it, but paying more for a body to be able to use cheaper lenses is priceless! But sadly those cheap lenses won't stay cheap for long

The discussion is interstig. One moment somebody say, Pentax could earn good money with a FF body, the next moment you recommend the old glass.

BUT glass is, where the money lies, not the single camera body. Pentax has early no FF glass available and certainly nothing in the "20 bucks" range. FF glass would be needed and not slowly introduced over a couple of years. And it won't be cheap.

So, the whole FF camera thing can only be looked at from a system-point. If Pentax could deliver a full FF system at al, that would certainly be not cheap. It may be cheaper than a EOS 1Dx or Nikon 3Dx body, but even competing with te 5DMkII will be hard, as Pentax sells so much less cameras.

I'd be all over it when a FF Pentax is on the same price level, but things like wide-open metering with old glass and a Pentax user interface with Hyper Program is definitely worth a premium. This will easily make up for the (initial) lack of lenses and earn kudos from the whole photographic community, even from Nikon and Canon land. Remember: C&N are selling tools, not cameras to be proud of which you want to take with you into your grave

Pentax will certainly not support the fully fledged use of old lenses - why would they. As I wrote above, the money is in the lenses and not the camera body.

I personally consider my Pentax equipment as a tool set, too and will certainly not take it with me into my grave. May be my son will have use for it...

Ben

[Supernaut]

Indeed it is difficult to break. IMO, it goes like this:
* Yes the (un)success of a850/900 is indicative. It does not mean the same will happen to Pentax but it does mean that bringing an FF won't automatically bring the success/sales one would await from such camera. Remember Sony has the FF lenses, and still, it did not work.

* Sony sensor (FF 24Mpix) isn't quite good but then the D3X has the same. Did it sell? Yes it did, quite better than the Sony? I dunno but wouldn't be surprised (relatively speaking of course, taking market conditions into account). So the sensor isn't the only thing. Very important , but not unique point.

Good points. For amateurs, I think there is a price barrier at about $1500-1600 that would make a lot of people buy the camera. Remember that K-7 hit the market at $1300. A few more $100 to get FF will most people give imo.

The A850 broke the $2000 barrier, which was great, but still a bit high for the masses I think. Especially as it's a light variant of the a900 with an outdated sensor in many eyes.

[Ben_Edict]

Indeed it is difficult to break. IMO, it goes like this:
* Yes the (un)success of a850/900 is indicative. It does not mean the same will happen to Pentax but it does mean that bringing an FF won't automatically bring the success/sales one would await from such camera. Remember Sony has the FF lenses, and still, it did not work.

* Sony sensor (FF 24Mpix) isn't quite good but then the D3X has the same. Did it sell? Yes it did, quite better than the Sony? I dunno but wouldn't be surprised (relatively speaking of course, taking market conditions into account). So the sensor isn't the only thing. Very important , but not unique point.

Why do people buy FF cameras from Canon and Nikon? I think, because these manufacturers have established themselves as the professional photographer's choice ver the last decades and most pros use already their equipment. Some amateurs will always follow th pros, because tey need the same level of equipment sophistication or they have enough money "to afford the best".

For the pros, there are several decisive points: availability of lenses and system components and service.

We are not talking about a set of three leses (or five) for a start, but about a choice of >10 lenses with the usual focal lengthes and fast pertures, tat pros expect.

We are not talking about the outsourced servicing with turnaround times of many weeks (as many of us have experienced first hand with Pentax).

We are talking about rental stations at large events, we are talking about repair turnaround times of a couple of days and rentals in the mean time. etc. etc.

Pentax has nothing to offer, be it choice of FF lenses or be it service. Why, would anybody, except a few enthusiasts, the entx fanboys, buy into such a incomplete system? Why would anbody risk his business and his economic existience, buying into such an incomplete system?

It's bad enough with the Pentax APS-C cameras, but at least the lens choice is a bit wider. And the bodies are so cheap, that I can buy a replacement immediately, if one breaks - with FF you'll think twice about the cost.

Ben

[Rondec]

Sony's full frame failures had a lot to do with not having a good base of users to feed their upper end cameras. This is where Nikon and Canon have succeeded. They have enough entry and semi pro users that they can push through into their upper end cameras when they feel like they need something higher. In particular, many semi pros use full frame lenses on their crop frame cameras, so when they decide to move up, it is much less of an investment if they can just buy a body.

Sony on the other hand just went out and tried to build an SLR for every price point from entry level to full frame. They never got a base developed -- never got over about ten percent of the market and with that kind of a base, the upper end cameras just languished.

I think the time for full frame is almost here, but the idea that Hoya builds a great full frame camera and sells it for cheap (1800 dollars?) and then people flood away from Nikon/CAnon to buy it is absurd. By the time you buy a full frame camera, you are seriously invested in a system. You are not going to switch easily. Therefore, there have to be enough entry level, semi pro users of Pentax already there to feed a full frame camera, or it will flop and flop big.

[Asahiflex]

The discussion is interstig. One moment somebody say, Pentax could earn good money with a FF body, the next moment you recommend the old glass.

BUT glass is, where the money lies, not the single camera body. Pentax has early no FF glass available and certainly nothing in the "20 bucks" range. FF glass would be needed and not slowly introduced over a couple of years. And it won't be cheap.

So, the whole FF camera thing can only be looked at from a system-point. If Pentax could deliver a full FF system at al, that would certainly be not cheap. It may be cheaper than a EOS 1Dx or Nikon 3Dx body, but even competing with te 5DMkII will be hard, as Pentax sells so much less cameras.

Pentax will certainly not support the fully fledged use of old lenses - why would they. As I wrote above, the money is in the lenses and not the camera body.

I know what you mean, but otherwise it's a 'catch-22' for Pentax. There is almost no FF glass (most primarily zooms), so instead of bringing out a FF model with a slew of new lenses (which they cannot) they could offer full K-mount support instead. This will keep the whining down for a while. Also, I see this as the USP for such a FF model. Not a 'me-too' camera but a typical Pentax camera: full support down to the earliest SLR lens. They might even attract new customers this way. And I'm sure it will sell like hot cakes.

In the meantime they can produce some new FF zooms, which should offer USP's too (WR and OS, maybe even SDM II with true ring motors) with unsurpassing sharpness and bokeh.

To conclude: what USP's do C and N offer, besides being Full Frame? They will never have full support for the old lenses. You still talk about Pentax 'competing' with the big two but I don't see them as competing products. Maybe it will be a side-effect, but Pentax definitely needs a flagship. I see Pentax users fleeing every day, and that's not a good sign...

I personally consider my Pentax equipment as a tool set, too and will certainly not take it with me into my grave. May be my son will have use for it...

Of course, that was meant as a "tongue in cheek" statement. I just wanted to say that Pentax should create something really good, above the body quality of the 5DMkII. That's not that hard, as the K-7 is already better than almost all Canon bodies. IMHO.

[Kunzite]

You mean, fully supporting very old lenses can attract new customers (who don't have such lenses and, most probably, want AF)? Something like, "we can't give you a high quality standard zoom but you can find cheap K-/M- on e-bay"?
IMHO both extreme opinions (that Pentax need to launch a full complement of FF lenses, or that they can launch just the camera at the beginning) are wrong. But a (FF) camera and 2-3 (zoom) lenses, that can be done.

[Asahiflex]

You mean, fully supporting very old lenses can attract new customers (who don't have such lenses and, most probably, want AF)? Something like, "we can't give you a high quality standard zoom but you can find cheap K-/M- on e-bay"?
IMHO both extreme opinions (that Pentax need to launch a full complement of FF lenses, or that they can launch just the camera at the beginning) are wrong. But a (FF) camera and 2-3 (zoom) lenses, that can be done.

You may find it a strange thing to do, but then tell us: what USP should Pentax offer with the new FF model? I'm sure you don't want a 'me too' camera.

I haven't done market research, but I'm fully convinced of the fact that a large chunk of the Pentax userbase has at least a few manual focus primes. You know, even Pentax's marketing refers to that ("You're a Pentaxian. A loyalist..." etc.)

All I ask is that Pentax does what they're always bragging about in their marketing materials: that the cameras have backwards compatibility, but not the half-assed "compatibility" used since 2004 (which is a bloody shame), but FULL compatibility. Otherwise I'm afraid there's indeed no place for a Pentax FF camera, being a "me too" product which will fail just like the Sony A900.

[philippe]

Pentax will certainly not support the fully fledged use of old lenses - why would they. As I wrote above, the money is in the lenses and not the camera body.
Ben

This exactly what Leitz was thinking with the release of the leica M5 in the early '70ties, look what happened...
"Sell the body as cheap as possible and win on the lenses", lucky they had the Canadians from Ontario to save the day (and the M camera line)!

[Kunzite]

You may find it a strange thing to do, but then tell us: what USP should Pentax offer with the new FF model? I'm sure you don't want a 'me too' camera.

What USP? Certainly, not "full compatibility with decade old lenses" - which is nice to have but not something that will sell many cameras. You're making it sound that few people clinging to some $20 lenses are the only possible market for a Pentax FF camera - if so, then they shouldn't make one, ever.
Being a Pentaxian and even a loyalist have nothing to do with wanting to use decade old lenses instead of new/modern ones, and Pentax certainly prefer the latter

[Asahiflex]

What USP? Certainly, not "full compatibility with decade old lenses" - which is nice to have but not something that will sell many cameras. You're making it sound that few people clinging to some $20 lenses are the only possible market for a Pentax FF camera - if so, then they shouldn't make one, ever.
Being a Pentaxian and even a loyalist have nothing to do with wanting to use decade old lenses instead of new/modern ones, and Pentax certainly prefer the latter

Maybe, but then there should be lenses available in the first place. There hasn't been a new lens for ages (apart from the FF DA 100 Macro WR) so there's not much to choose from.

BTW, the days that those lenses were $20 are long over. If you find a SMC Pentax 15mm f/3.5 or 28mm f/2 or 18mm or... etc. etc. then please drop me a note! Most old Pentax prime lenses are currently worth more than many new lenses from different manufacturers. And that's for a reason, because Pentax does not have any new ones for sale.

And I thought Pentax wanted to be a quality brand, finding its own niche. If Leica can do it for much, much more money (Leica M9 accepts all old lenses) then surely Pentax can do that for a little less

[thibs]

The 15/3.5 has fallen in price much (not up to bargain but still) as it seems it really isn't up to it's reputation on aps-c at least.