[Kunzite]

I'm not diminishing their technical abilities; they're very capable (even tough "lacking" in some areas, e.g. an ultra-fast AF-C/more than 11 points autofocus system is still missing from their portofolio). I'm absolutely sure they can build great cameras, APS-C, "FF" or larger; well, they did that on the past, didn't they?

Having the technical advantage - Pentax had the advantage on the DMF market, because they were able to share components/R&D/expertise from their APS-C cameras - a luxury other DMF makers don't have. The result was a very modern, low cost but fully featured DMF camera.
Nothing like that exists on the "FF" market. Others are well established here (or, they tried hard to be). The others have a complete lens line-up; Pentax would have to build their own, true, not from scratch. The others have modern, excellent by all standards "FF" cameras; Pentax would have to play catch-up. The others already have "FF" components - camera bodies, AF modules, shutter/mirrors capable of fast action; Pentax would have to make them (how about a SAFOX IX, 11 point "FF" camera?).
Can be done? Yes, of course; I was talking about an advantage, not an unbreakable wall.

I try to be realistic about their resources. First, they can't afford loss-leaders; a "FF" will appear only if they believe they can make a profit from it. Second, they're in no position to start a price war (in such cases, the company with the largest pockets is usually the surviving one). Third, the market doesn't seem to move towards cheap "FF" cameras (and even cheaper APS-C ones).
A+B+C = no 1600$ "FF" for now.

Btw, I'm far from being against a Pentax "FF"; I'd welcome such an addition. I don't expect it to be (much) cheaper, I don't expect it to be way better, I don't expect it to take over the "FF" market. Just the usual: it would be the kind of excellent photographic tool Pentax keeps giving us.

The coming month? No, I don't think the coming month would have surprises for me, at least when talking about cameras. Would it, for you?

[Rondec]

Or k-x ++ which makes it look more like an equation and is in line with the Pentax tradition of unpronounceable and non-searchable product names.

How about *k-x-ist-+?

[Rondec]

why would everything be much more expensive in a full frame world? i may be making a stupid simplistic assumption, but it seems to me that the development of the APS-C sensor was poor judgement to begin with. All old lenses for which Pentax maintained backward compatibility were engineered to project light on a 24x36 sensor (35mm film). The APS-C introduced a crop factor for use of these lenses which has remained since (keeping a penalty on the use of old glass). A kind presumtionis that the smaller sensor was designed because it saved a bit on cost and the market-place was competitive. Somebody correct me if I am wrong, but if a FF sensor was engineered to collect light just as the old lenses were engineered to project it, wouldn't the old lenses would work at 100% efficiency in the digital world? Of course they would. That is the threat to the manufacturer and the reason FF is kept expensive. To keep the amateurs purchasing new lenses in their quest for better image quality. If a FF camera came out that allowed the old glass to perform at the max, the lens market would be impacted.

Again, correct me if I am wrong, but a camera system (forget the bells and whistles) is nothing more than a lens focusing light on a target collector (sensor, film, whatever) to produce a recordable image.
If the lens focus equals the collector area, you have an efficient lens/camera combination. Old lenses would not fall to the wayside, they would become 100% efficient. New optics would not be required.

Saying that FF should be left to the pros is a silly remark. why not draw the line at point and shoot and let the pros have the rest? The fact is that FF systems with mediocre glass will outperform APS-C systems with the best glass (per what I have read on various posts by FF reviewers and commentators). This has nothing to do with pro or not. And to say that most of the people here would not benefit from Ff is silly too. You should not have to make a living at photography to benefit from better technology. The whole point of amateur photography is to make the best photos possible. If the answer is FF then why not?

I personally believe that the reason for the ASP-C in the first place was to make the old lenses not as desirable as the "new lenses designed specifically for the digital camera". Although an original sensor in the FF 24x36 format would have been the most logical for the user, manufacturer profit motive was the reason we didn't have it. So, unless someone proves me wrong with some real science, I feel that there is no reason a FF couldn't be introduced that had a manufacturing cost within 20% of the current model, (this 20% being the cost differential between the small sensor and the larger). I have no basis for the numbers, but a sensor twice the size should not be a huge percentage of the total manufacturing cost.

You can stick with the APS-C if you wish. For my part, my K7 is the last APS-C I will own. The other manufacturers have offered FF to their base (though I think the prices charged would not be justified if the truth were known). If pentax doesn't follow they will lose followers including me.

At the time at which APS-C came out, it was a compromise. Better than point and shoots, but not astronomically expensive either. The fact that you could use old lenses with it was neither here nor there. In the late 90s, full frame just wasn't really possible.

Obviously times change and full frame sensors are very capable and cheaper than they were then.

I would argue with a couple of things. First of all, to me, the big benefit of APS-C is size. Camera bodies and lenses are smaller. That is a good thing. I am more likely to take my K7 and my 50-135 with me than I would a D700 and 70-200. Sure, in certain situations, the D700 will shoot circles around the K7. I understand that and deal with it. Stick a limited prime on and I have a very comfortable sized walk around camera.

It is not true that full frame with lousy glass will out shoot APS-C with good glass. If I am shooting at f2.8 on an APS-C camera and you are shooting at f5.6 on a full frame camera, your shots may look considerably worse. In addition, older wide angles are often very soft in the corners and have considerable vignetting that was tolerated on film, but isn't really on digital. Newer lenses like Nikon's 14-24 have addressed much of these issues, but they aren't exactly cheap.

I want to see full frame for Pentax, but I think I am sticking with APS-C for quite a while. A K7 sized full frame camera would tempt me, but as of right now, I think that is a pipe dream.

[Steelski]

How about *k-x-ist-+?

Talk to me baby. YEAAAAAAAAAAH.
DIRTAAAAAIIIIIIIIII

[mecrox]

Bear in mind that what any Japanese camera-maker can do at the moment is constrained by the relentless rise of the Yen against the dollar. It must be almost impossible to bring forward "bargains", like an FF for well under $2000, when you are already dealing with an exchange rate that's probably 30 per cent higher than anyone really wants. There must be a temptation to sit tight and reduce risk by sticking with the way the market is segmented now, and only introduce a game-changer when the economics of the situation are a little more stable. If ever they are.

[rparmar]

OTOH, Pentax did undercut other camera makers by $10,000 with the 645D (even cameras with the same sensor). So saying that it cannot be done is silly.

No, you are comparing apples to pork pies. The MF market had only players with large margins and big support networks, catering to professionals. Pentax was able to undercut Hasselblad etc. by:
1) leveraging existing technology in MF (645N) that other APS-C manufacturers don't have
2) leveraging existing tech in K-7
3) not investing in same intensive systems infrastructure
4) accepting lower margins
5) taking a financial hit for the sake of honour and prestige

This is exactly the same thing they did in film days -- they stepped in to produce a semi-pro camera with great IQ at lower price.

None of these advantages exist in the FF arena. Pentax would be stupid to enter without developing a much larger resource base (read: market) first. Sorry, no amount of wishful thinking will change this.

[Kunzite]

I'm not sure 5) taking a financial hit - is really the case... the 645D is a success, most likely making them a nice profit.
Otherwise, well put.

[Steelski]

I'm not sure 5) taking a financial hit - is really the case... the 645D is a success, most likely making them a nice profit.
Otherwise, well put.

You guys are really going off topic.
future K series discussion.

[glennm]

At the time at which APS-C came out, it was a compromise. Better than point and shoots, but not astronomically expensive either. The fact that you could use old lenses with it was neither here nor there. In the late 90s, full frame just wasn't really possible.

Obviously times change and full frame sensors are very capable and cheaper than they were then.

I would argue with a couple of things. First of all, to me, the big benefit of APS-C is size. Camera bodies and lenses are smaller. That is a good thing. I am more likely to take my K7 and my 50-135 with me than I would a D700 and 70-200. Sure, in certain situations, the D700 will shoot circles around the K7. I understand that and deal with it. Stick a limited prime on and I have a very comfortable sized walk around camera.

It is not true that full frame with lousy glass will out shoot APS-C with good glass. If I am shooting at f2.8 on an APS-C camera and you are shooting at f5.6 on a full frame camera, your shots may look considerably worse. In addition, older wide angles are often very soft in the corners and have considerable vignetting that was tolerated on film, but isn't really on digital. Newer lenses like Nikon's 14-24 have addressed much of these issues, but they aren't exactly cheap.

I want to see full frame for Pentax, but I think I am sticking with APS-C for quite a while. A K7 sized full frame camera would tempt me, but as of right now, I think that is a pipe dream.

you may be absolutely correct that FF requires a big and bulky body to carry the sensor. but, having drawn out the footprints it seems to me that you are going from a postage stamp size sensor to a larger but still postage stamp size sensor. given the ability of manufacturers to miniaturize in virtually all technologies (the cell phone being a very good example), i still don't understand why a tank sized body should be required. i leave open the possibility that the bulkiness of current FFs may be so that people buying those units perceive they are getting more for their big money. a k7 sized ff may very well be achievable, but not a good marketing idea just yet.

As for your challenge re: lenses on ASP-C vs FF, you may also be correct, but this is not what I have been reading. You may wish to go to some of the FF forums and issue such a challenge to see if it indeed would bear out.

[dotchoucou]

why would everything be much more expensive in a full frame world? i may be making a stupid simplistic assumption, but it seems to me that the development of the APS-C sensor was poor judgement to begin with. All old lenses for which Pentax maintained backward compatibility were engineered to project light on a 24x36 sensor (35mm film). The APS-C introduced a crop factor for use of these lenses which has remained since (keeping a penalty on the use of old glass). A kind presumtionis that the smaller sensor was designed because it saved a bit on cost and the market-place was competitive. Somebody correct me if I am wrong, but if a FF sensor was engineered to collect light just as the old lenses were engineered to project it, wouldn't the old lenses would work at 100% efficiency in the digital world? Of course they would. That is the threat to the manufacturer and the reason FF is kept expensive. To keep the amateurs purchasing new lenses in their quest for better image quality. If a FF camera came out that allowed the old glass to perform at the max, the lens market would be impacted.

Again, correct me if I am wrong, but a camera system (forget the bells and whistles) is nothing more than a lens focusing light on a target collector (sensor, film, whatever) to produce a recordable image.
If the lens focus equals the collector area, you have an efficient lens/camera combination. Old lenses would not fall to the wayside, they would become 100% efficient. New optics would not be required.

Saying that FF should be left to the pros is a silly remark. why not draw the line at point and shoot and let the pros have the rest? The fact is that FF systems with mediocre glass will outperform APS-C systems with the best glass (per what I have read on various posts by FF reviewers and commentators). This has nothing to do with pro or not. And to say that most of the people here would not benefit from Ff is silly too. You should not have to make a living at photography to benefit from better technology. The whole point of amateur photography is to make the best photos possible. If the answer is FF then why not?

I personally believe that the reason for the ASP-C in the first place was to make the old lenses not as desirable as the "new lenses designed specifically for the digital camera". Although an original sensor in the FF 24x36 format would have been the most logical for the user, manufacturer profit motive was the reason we didn't have it. So, unless someone proves me wrong with some real science, I feel that there is no reason a FF couldn't be introduced that had a manufacturing cost within 20% of the current model, (this 20% being the cost differential between the small sensor and the larger). I have no basis for the numbers, but a sensor twice the size should not be a huge percentage of the total manufacturing cost.

You can stick with the APS-C if you wish. For my part, my K7 is the last APS-C I will own. The other manufacturers have offered FF to their base (though I think the prices charged would not be justified if the truth were known). If pentax doesn't follow they will lose followers including me.

Mmmm I don't know actually.
Perhaps it is because I still cannot afford the best Pentax has to offer because not enough money. I just ordered my first prime limited lense (DA 40mm) and I am still stuck with a K100D after 6 years.

But tell me if I am wrong.
I believe ultra wide angle lenses to be much cheaper to build than FF for the same 35mm vision angle and the same optical quality. I also believe the same for lenses >150mm.

Tell me if I m wrong, but a lot of things acceptable 20 years ago on an amateur or expert lens cannot be acceptable nowadays when the computer at 100% crop does not forgive anything compare to a full size page print. So a lot of the old lenses prepared for amateurs/experts at this time won't be that good on a high end FF sensor. Of course Pentax makes excellent lenses (the best?) for ages (31 Li, 49 Li for exemple, 100 mm macro, 85mm ... etc) but they are not what I call cheap (or we don't fly in the same sky), and most of their best lenses are "only" prime lenses easier to build so reasonable in price.

This is why I say that. Of course I don't think of the body itself. It is a lot of electronics and in 2 years a FF will cost the price of the K-7 today I believe. I am just speaking of everything else.

I was last year to a photo lesson in Tampa. All the people there had FF expensive cameras from Nikon and Canon but they where all beginners and they all truly believed the best camera will give them the best.
EDIT: Half of the people had better camera than the instructor.
However, at the end of the day, most of my pictures still looked as good or even better compared to theirs on the 19 inch monitor than theirs with my K100D and my 18-55mm. And I am not a good photograph. I just know the basis of composition and I know all my camera has to offer. They did not benefit spending that much money and staying with an APS-C would be much better in their case. After, for me it is just a matter of ego.

This is alwas what I read everywhere.
Subject > Photograph > lens > Camera

Then I understand that if you make pictures for several years, you have all the best APSC pentax lenses and the best pentax camera available... AND you already are a very good photograph at the frontier of the professional word in you abilities, a FF will be perfect for you. But do you really think you are representative of "normal" users?

Remember I agree that a FF is necessary for Pentax, people like should not be blocked in their progression. But, if such equipment existed today in pentax catalog, 95% of the buyers would better stick to the APS-C. This being said, it is always better to be proud of the camera we carry when we meet other camera lovers equipped with a FF.

[Asahiflex]

I believe that there's a chance that the next K-5 or whatever name the top spec camera will have, will show Pentax's future sensor strategy.

What I´m referring to: at this time Pentax may not come out with a FF model (maybe never or whatever you believe), but they may have been already working on it. If so then there's the possibility that the next APS-C top model will show some traces of the FF development.

So what I'm hinting at? The mirror box! If the K-5 has a large mirror box and large mirror (larger than the K-7), then this may be a telltale sign of things to come...

This is not purely hypothetical. The *ist D, the first APS-C camera Pentax made, had a FF mirror box. Later models did not. I already posted pictures here to prove that fact: https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-news-rumors/100689-new-pentax-body...ml#post1057387. At that time when the mirror box was made smaller (when the *ist DS came) Pentax made the decision to stick with APS-C for the foreseeable future. As a result of this they scrapped the FA* series completely.

I really believe we'll see telltale signs of FF in all of the new products Pentax will announce, both in the new bodies and the lenses.

[dotchoucou]

...

That's a point, we will see that soon I guess...
PS: Nice series of lenses

[glennm]

Mmmm I don't know actually.
Perhaps it is because I still cannot afford the best Pentax has to offer because not enough money. I just ordered my first prime limited lense (DA 40mm) and I am still stuck with a K100D after 6 years.

But tell me if I am wrong.
I believe ultra wide angle lenses to be much cheaper to build than FF for the same 35mm vision angle and the same optical quality. I also believe the same for lenses >150mm.

Tell me if I m wrong, but a lot of things acceptable 20 years ago on an amateur or expert lens cannot be acceptable nowadays when the computer at 100% crop does not forgive anything compare to a full size page print. So a lot of the old lenses prepared for amateurs/experts at this time won't be that good on a high end FF sensor. Of course Pentax makes excellent lenses (the best?) for ages (31 Li, 49 Li for exemple, 100 mm macro, 85mm ... etc) but they are not what I call cheap (or we don't fly in the same sky), and most of their best lenses are "only" prime lenses easier to build so reasonable in price.

This is why I say that. Of course I don't think of the body itself. It is a lot of electronics and in 2 years a FF will cost the price of the K-7 today I believe. I am just speaking of everything else.

I was last year to a photo lesson in Tampa. All the people there had FF expensive cameras from Nikon and Canon but they where all beginners and they all truly believed the best camera will give them the best.
EDIT: Half of the people had better camera than the instructor.
However, at the end of the day, most of my pictures still looked as good or even better compared to theirs on the 19 inch monitor than theirs with my K100D and my 18-55mm. And I am not a good photograph. I just know the basis of composition and I know all my camera has to offer. They did not benefit spending that much money and staying with an APS-C would be much better in their case. After, for me it is just a matter of ego.

This is alwas what I read everywhere.
Subject > Photograph > lens > Camera

Then I understand that if you make pictures for several years, you have all the best APSC pentax lenses and the best pentax camera available... AND you already are a very good photograph at the frontier of the professional word in you abilities, a FF will be perfect for you. But do you really think you are representative of "normal" users?

Remember I agree that a FF is necessary for Pentax, people like should not be blocked in their progression. But, if such equipment existed today in pentax catalog, 95% of the buyers would better stick to the APS-C. This being said, it is always better to be proud of the camera we carry when we meet other camera lovers equipped with a FF.

thanks for the response and i don't mean to be argumentative. of course someone with compositional skills will take better photos than someone without. i was an art enthusiast before i became a photography enthusiast. in fact, art led me to photography. and i agree, people should study HOW to compose a good picture before they worry about hardware, etc.

that does not mean, however, that one should limit oneself by the tools he/she uses. in fact, my art teacher stressed the importance of investing in good brushes and artist quality paint ... even and especially if you are a beginner. my teacher said he had seen too may art students become discouraged and quit because "they were trying to make a silk purse using a sows ear". i don't see why photography should be different. our differences seem to be that i don't think the tools should limit the artist and you think you should be an artist before you try the tools...and are on an ego ride if you don't.

you have a good point regarding old glass. it may in fact have limitations relative to what is sold today. for me, that is where i let the pros have the edge. i, for one, do not plan to spend the money building a stable of "limited" glass. the cost of doing this would fast eclipse the cost of a FF body.

if it is true that i can get better results with the old glass on a ff body (and i believe this IS true), then the cheaper way for me to indulge my hobby is to spend more for the ff sensor and less for the lenses i hang on it. simple economics, not ego.

[Kunzite]

Asahiflex, interesting theory but... since they already have a fully-functional APS-C mirror box, it doesn't make sense to use a FF-sized one - even if they're working on a FF camera.
With the *istD I'd say they simply reused what they had at that moment. As soon as a "proper" size mirror box was available, they used that instead.
I doubt we'll see any telltale signs of "FF" in the new cameras

[Rondec]

thanks for the response and i don't mean to be argumentative. of course someone with compositional skills will take better photos than someone without. i was an art enthusiast before i became a photography enthusiast. in fact, art led me to photography. and i agree, people should study HOW to compose a good picture before they worry about hardware, etc.

that does not mean, however, that one should limit oneself by the tools he/she uses. in fact, my art teacher stressed the importance of investing in good brushes and artist quality paint ... even and especially if you are a beginner. my teacher said he had seen too may art students become discouraged and quit because "they were trying to make a silk purse using a sows ear". i don't see why photography should be different. our differences seem to be that i don't think the tools should limit the artist and you think you should be an artist before you try the tools...and are on an ego ride if you don't.

you have a good point regarding old glass. it may in fact have limitations relative to what is sold today. for me, that is where i let the pros have the edge. i, for one, do not plan to spend the money building a stable of "limited" glass. the cost of doing this would fast eclipse the cost of a FF body.

if it is true that i can get better results with the old glass on a ff body (and i believe this IS true), then the cheaper way for me to indulge my hobby is to spend more for the ff sensor and less for the lenses i hang on it. simple economics, not ego.

If your teacher says that the camera body is the most important factor in taking a good photo, then that is fallacious. The photographer, the lighting, and the lens are all much more important than the camera body. People who really want full frame are usually people who have already invested in high end full frame glass (for example 85mm f1.4) and want to benefit from it. Not people who expect to be able to skimp on glass by getting a better camera body.