The cheapest way for Pentax to make FF camera

**BigDave** · 10-04-2010, 02:49 PM

OR...
Take the 645D body, downsize the sensor and use all the 645 lenses....

Too expensive? Maybe not if the sensor was the right size/price.

RonHendriks1966 · 10-04-2010, 02:52 PM

Originally posted by BigDave

OR...
Take the 645D body, downsize the sensor and use all the 645 lenses....

Too expensive? Maybe not if the sensor was the right size/price.

You clearly haven't seen the pricelist for 645 FA glass. Way to expensive.

Blue · 10-04-2010, 08:30 PM

Originally posted by ogl

To say honest, I think if HOYA ever makes FF camera -
1. it will be FF EVIL with new bayonet
2. or it will be classical FF camera, but with new bayonet too.

K mount won't last at new FF system.

The k-mount came from a FF system. Furthermore, Nikon is using there bayonet mount just fine. That's a very weak argument.

Originally posted by ogl

Bayonet K is a brake of progress. It's valid technical reason.

We can see now that HOYA develops amateur APS-C system with DA lenses and pro MF system.
FA LIMITED is already NOT MADE IN JAPAN. The days are numbered.
We will see only slow DA and 2 macro (DFA) lenses for APS-C system in the nearest 1-2 years.
DFA and FA line of lenses died. And 90% of FA and FA* died on 2004.

And - remember, the man -
No Pentax. Pentax is just name of brand and photo division of HOYA.

All of Pentax lenses are currently assembled in Vietnam and the bodies in the Philippines. Do you want them to move facilities to China like Nikon?

Furthermore, if Pentax orphans the K-mount, they will be gone. Messing around with mounts is very risky for companies. That is a historical fact.

Blue · 10-04-2010, 08:31 PM

Originally posted by Adam

Pentax already has a full-frame body- the *istD- now it's time to re-release it with a full-frame sensor inside!

Along with the new af system.

+1

sjwaldron · 10-04-2010, 10:27 PM

Originally posted by Blue

:bigthumbsup: Along with the new af system.
+1

Originally posted by Adam

Pentax already has a full-frame body- the *istD- now it's time to re-release it with a full-frame sensor inside!

Okay, I wasn't sure what you meant at first, but I looked at the *ist D photos and it does look like the hole is FF sized. Everything else would need to be changed out though.

Kunzite · 10-04-2010, 10:39 PM

Blue:
... and completely new electronics (PRIME II-based), and a new metering system, and a new mirror mechanism, and a new viewfinder, and the SR mechanism, and a SDM-compatible mount, and a bigger LCD, and...
A lot to stuff into that tiny *istD body, isn't it?

As sjwaldron said, everything must be changed - but I'd include some extensive body modifications, most likely unpractical (i.e. it would be better to start with a new body). What's to be gained, then?

Why are people talking like the body itself is the most difficult to make? "If they have a body, everything else is easy - just put a "FF" sensor inside" - it doesn't work that way.
I'll say again: there are no shortcuts. And if you hope for a magical solution that would get you an extremely cheap "FF"... it ain't gonna happen. A Pentax "FF" would be priced close to the Canikon equivalents, they must do it in order to get a profit with a lower volume.

Blue · 10-04-2010, 11:06 PM

Originally posted by Kunzite

Blue:
... and completely new electronics (PRIME II-based), and a new metering system, and a new mirror mechanism, and a new viewfinder, and the SR mechanism, and a SDM-compatible mount, and a bigger LCD, and...
A lot to stuff into that tiny *istD body, isn't it?

As sjwaldron said, everything must be changed - but I'd include some extensive body modifications, most likely unpractical (i.e. it would be better to start with a new body). What's to be gained, then?

Why are people talking like the body itself is the most difficult to make? "If they have a body, everything else is easy - just put a "FF" sensor inside" - it doesn't work that way.
I'll say again: there are no shortcuts. And if you hope for a magical solution that would get you an extremely cheap "FF"... it ain't gonna happen. A Pentax "FF" would be priced close to the Canikon equivalents, they must do it in order to get a profit with a lower volume.

Look how much smaller the K-7 is than the K20d. The point you missed is the *istD was originally drawn up to be a full frame body.

ilya80 · 10-05-2010, 02:02 AM

Originally posted by Biro

Please understand, FF fans, I'm not putting you down in anyway. Just because I'm happy with APS-C dosn't mean I can't understand why you want FF. I understand your point. I'm just saying it's time to stop waiting. Either Pentax has what you want or it doesn't. Let the marketplace speak.

Thanks, very glad to see positive attitude to us poor FF whiners

And yes these threads have been popping up here and on DPReview since Canon 5D was out. A little too long for myself now, Falconeye very precisely assessed the limit of my patience in his blog post on why Pentax should have announced its plans regarding FF body.

**Rondec** · 10-05-2010, 04:13 AM

Originally posted by sjwaldron

Okay, I wasn't sure what you meant at first, but I looked at the *ist D photos and it does look like the hole is FF sized. Everything else would need to be changed out though.

Well, the *ist D was actually released in two versions, the *ist and *istD. I bought the *ist because I wasn't rolling in cash at the time and I was OK with film. As I recall the D version was around 900 dollars with the 6 megapixel sensor while the film version was more like 250.

Anyway, everything is the same between the cameras except for the sensor/electronics components. So, technically, if there had been a decent full frame sensor available at the time, you could have slapped one in there.

Kunzite · 10-05-2010, 09:25 AM

Blue, and it's still bigger than the *istD

The *istD itself not being a "FF" body, even if the project may have been started like that (of which I'm not really sure, it could be they just reused the already available mirror&mirror box).
Room must be made for the bigger prism and for the SR. The battery compartment should be modified, so it'll accept dedicated LiIon and not AAs. And even then, we can't be sure everything else will fit - and for what, for the privilege of using an old body?
I would start from the K-7/K-5 design and modify it accordingly, btw. But they know better.

The *istD body was very much different than the *ist.

TomE · 10-05-2010, 09:33 AM

How about the MZ-D, I expect this will hold a FF sensor?

MZ-D

kalison · 10-05-2010, 10:25 AM

I'm all for Full Frame. But, you guys gotta move on from this at some point.

Pentax is going to milk APSC for a while.

Also Sony FF?? No thanks, Pentax doesn't market studio only cameras. The Sony resolves really well and has awesome dynamic range, however that's ISOs under 1000. Pentax has a nice look and a reputation for rugged bodies, they need something for all sorts of shots. Day, night, rain, snow, you know what I mean

Just be patient, it will happen sometime. But, it's no use trying to post here and hope Pentax goes "oh yeah! Why didn't we think of that!?". They have their reasons.

Blue · 10-05-2010, 10:26 AM

Originally posted by Kunzite

Blue, and it's still bigger than the *istD

The *istD itself not being a "FF" body, even if the project may have been started like that (of which I'm not really sure, it could be they just reused the already available mirror&mirror box).
Room must be made for the bigger prism and for the SR. The battery compartment should be modified, so it'll accept dedicated LiIon and not AAs. And even then, we can't be sure everything else will fit - and for what, for the privilege of using an old body?
I would start from the K-7/K-5 design and modify it accordingly, btw. But they know better.

The *istD body was very much different than the *ist.

Frankly, the *ist was smaller than the *istD so your prism argument is a stawman argument from the beginning. Some of you guys are really weak on SLR history. Granted the *ist had a .7 (990%) prism. The MZ-S had a .75 (92%) and the MZ-3 had a 0.8 (92%) and either of those prisms would have fit the *istD which was a bigger body than the *ist. The MZ-D prototype has already been mentioned, but it had a built in battery grip that added substantially to the size.

Kunzite · 10-05-2010, 11:10 AM

The *ist was a smallish, plastic (Canon-toy-like) film camera. It didn't had a pentaprism, but a pentamirror; it didn't had the solid stainless steel chassis the *istD had; it didn't had room for a DSLR electronics &sensor.
I don't use strawmen when arguing, I'd like to think I have arguments in my (point of view's) favour. And what I'm saying is not that the *istD body can't be adapted; but:
- it would have to be adapted - here making room for the SR (not the pentaprism) could be the most difficult task as I don't think there is enough room for it; remember, the K series was bigger because of the SR.
- it doesn't make much sense, a K-7/5-like body would be preferable. Even if it would work (not without effort!), identifying your latest&greatest creation with an outdated design is not a bright idea, IMHO.

The MZ-D prototype - now that is an outdated design!

Blue · 10-05-2010, 02:51 PM

Originally posted by Kunzite

The *ist was a smallish, plastic (Canon-toy-like) film camera. It didn't had a pentaprism, but a pentamirror; it didn't had the solid stainless steel chassis the *istD had; it didn't had room for a DSLR electronics &sensor.
I don't use strawmen when arguing, I'd like to think I have arguments in my (point of view's) favour. And what I'm saying is not that the *istD body can't be adapted; but:
- it would have to be adapted - here making room for the SR (not the pentaprism) could be the most difficult task as I don't think there is enough room for it; remember, the K series was bigger because of the SR.
- it doesn't make much sense, a K-7/5-like body would be preferable. Even if it would work (not without effort!), identifying your latest&greatest creation with an outdated design is not a bright idea, IMHO.

The MZ-D prototype - now that is an outdated design!

I think you are missing the big picture. What we were getting at is a ff body doesn't have to be the size of the Titanic like the CaNikon ff bodies are. Those suckers are the size of medium format dSLR bodies!

10-04-2010, 08:30 PM	#63
Blue Moderator Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Florida Hill Country Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,377	Originally posted by ogl To say honest, I think if HOYA ever makes FF camera - 1. it will be FF EVIL with new bayonet 2. or it will be classical FF camera, but with new bayonet too. K mount won't last at new FF system. The k-mount came from a FF system. Furthermore, Nikon is using there bayonet mount just fine. That's a very weak argument. Originally posted by ogl Bayonet K is a brake of progress. It's valid technical reason. We can see now that HOYA develops amateur APS-C system with DA lenses and pro MF system. FA LIMITED is already NOT MADE IN JAPAN. The days are numbered. We will see only slow DA and 2 macro (DFA) lenses for APS-C system in the nearest 1-2 years. DFA and FA line of lenses died. And 90% of FA and FA* died on 2004. And - remember, the man - No Pentax. Pentax is just name of brand and photo division of HOYA. All of Pentax lenses are currently assembled in Vietnam and the bodies in the Philippines. Do you want them to move facilities to China like Nikon? Furthermore, if Pentax orphans the K-mount, they will be gone. Messing around with mounts is very risky for companies. That is a historical fact. Last edited by Blue; 10-04-2010 at 08:36 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Cheapest alternative to the Pentax 17-70mm?	lastdodobird	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	10	07-13-2010 05:45 PM
where is the cheapest place you can get a pentax dslr?	rustynail925	Pentax DSLR Discussion	7	10-01-2009 08:50 AM
Cheapest and Sharpest Pentax?	sagar	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	5	12-29-2008 10:57 PM
Cheapest place to buy a K-1XXD camera	Buschmaster	Pentax DSLR Discussion	11	11-21-2007 01:26 PM
Why doesn't Pentax make a camera that uses another manufactures lens mount?	steffi	Pentax DSLR Discussion	44	04-18-2007 08:14 AM

10-04-2010, 02:49 PM	#61
BigDave Site Supporter Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: Hudson Valley, NY Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,626	OR... Take the 645D body, downsize the sensor and use all the 645 lenses.... Too expensive? Maybe not if the sensor was the right size/price.

10-04-2010, 02:52 PM	#62
RonHendriks1966 Banned Join Date: Jan 2009 Photos: Gallery Posts: 9,675	Originally posted by BigDave OR... Take the 645D body, downsize the sensor and use all the 645 lenses.... Too expensive? Maybe not if the sensor was the right size/price. You clearly haven't seen the pricelist for 645 FA glass. Way to expensive.

10-04-2010, 08:31 PM	#64
Blue Moderator Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Florida Hill Country Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,377	Originally posted by Adam Pentax already has a full-frame body- the *istD- now it's time to re-release it with a full-frame sensor inside! Along with the new af system. +1

10-04-2010, 10:27 PM	#65
sjwaldron Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2009 Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,235	Originally posted by Blue :bigthumbsup: Along with the new af system. +1 Originally posted by Adam Pentax already has a full-frame body- the istD- now it's time to re-release it with a full-frame sensor inside! Okay, I wasn't sure what you meant at first, but I looked at the ist D photos and it does look like the hole is FF sized. Everything else would need to be changed out though.

10-04-2010, 10:39 PM	#66
Kunzite Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Romania Posts: 15,132	Blue: ... and completely new electronics (PRIME II-based), and a new metering system, and a new mirror mechanism, and a new viewfinder, and the SR mechanism, and a SDM-compatible mount, and a bigger LCD, and... A lot to stuff into that tiny *istD body, isn't it? As sjwaldron said, everything must be changed - but I'd include some extensive body modifications, most likely unpractical (i.e. it would be better to start with a new body). What's to be gained, then? Why are people talking like the body itself is the most difficult to make? "If they have a body, everything else is easy - just put a "FF" sensor inside" - it doesn't work that way. I'll say again: there are no shortcuts. And if you hope for a magical solution that would get you an extremely cheap "FF"... it ain't gonna happen. A Pentax "FF" would be priced close to the Canikon equivalents, they must do it in order to get a profit with a lower volume.

10-04-2010, 11:06 PM	#67
Blue Moderator Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Florida Hill Country Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,377	Originally posted by Kunzite Blue: ... and completely new electronics (PRIME II-based), and a new metering system, and a new mirror mechanism, and a new viewfinder, and the SR mechanism, and a SDM-compatible mount, and a bigger LCD, and... A lot to stuff into that tiny istD body, isn't it? As sjwaldron said, everything must be changed - but I'd include some extensive body modifications, most likely unpractical (i.e. it would be better to start with a new body). What's to be gained, then? Why are people talking like the body itself is the most difficult to make? "If they have a body, everything else is easy - just put a "FF" sensor inside" - it doesn't work that way. I'll say again: there are no shortcuts. And if you hope for a magical solution that would get you an extremely cheap "FF"... it ain't gonna happen. A Pentax "FF" would be priced close to the Canikon equivalents, they must do it in order to get a profit with a lower volume. Look how much smaller the K-7 is than the K20d. The point you missed is the istD was originally drawn up to be a full frame body.

10-05-2010, 02:02 AM	#68
ilya80 Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Saint-Petersburg, Russia Photos: Albums Posts: 410	Originally posted by Biro Please understand, FF fans, I'm not putting you down in anyway. Just because I'm happy with APS-C dosn't mean I can't understand why you want FF. I understand your point. I'm just saying it's time to stop waiting. Either Pentax has what you want or it doesn't. Let the marketplace speak. Thanks, very glad to see positive attitude to us poor FF whiners And yes these threads have been popping up here and on DPReview since Canon 5D was out. A little too long for myself now, Falconeye very precisely assessed the limit of my patience in his blog post on why Pentax should have announced its plans regarding FF body.

10-05-2010, 04:13 AM	#69
Rondec Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Gladys, Virginia Photos: Gallery Posts: 27,653	Originally posted by sjwaldron Okay, I wasn't sure what you meant at first, but I looked at the ist D photos and it does look like the hole is FF sized. Everything else would need to be changed out though. Well, the ist D was actually released in two versions, the ist and istD. I bought the *ist because I wasn't rolling in cash at the time and I was OK with film. As I recall the D version was around 900 dollars with the 6 megapixel sensor while the film version was more like 250. Anyway, everything is the same between the cameras except for the sensor/electronics components. So, technically, if there had been a decent full frame sensor available at the time, you could have slapped one in there.

10-05-2010, 09:25 AM	#70
Kunzite Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Romania Posts: 15,132	Blue, and it's still bigger than the istD The istD itself not being a "FF" body, even if the project may have been started like that (of which I'm not really sure, it could be they just reused the already available mirror&mirror box). Room must be made for the bigger prism and for the SR. The battery compartment should be modified, so it'll accept dedicated LiIon and not AAs. And even then, we can't be sure everything else will fit - and for what, for the privilege of using an old body? I would start from the K-7/K-5 design and modify it accordingly, btw. But they know better. The istD body was very much different than the ist.

10-05-2010, 09:33 AM	#71
TomE Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 299	How about the MZ-D, I expect this will hold a FF sensor? MZ-D

10-05-2010, 10:25 AM	#72
kalison Veteran Member Join Date: May 2010 Location: Utah Posts: 376	I'm all for Full Frame. But, you guys gotta move on from this at some point. Pentax is going to milk APSC for a while. Also Sony FF?? No thanks, Pentax doesn't market studio only cameras. The Sony resolves really well and has awesome dynamic range, however that's ISOs under 1000. Pentax has a nice look and a reputation for rugged bodies, they need something for all sorts of shots. Day, night, rain, snow, you know what I mean Just be patient, it will happen sometime. But, it's no use trying to post here and hope Pentax goes "oh yeah! Why didn't we think of that!?". They have their reasons.

10-05-2010, 10:26 AM	#73
Blue Moderator Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Florida Hill Country Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,377	Originally posted by Kunzite Blue, and it's still bigger than the istD The istD itself not being a "FF" body, even if the project may have been started like that (of which I'm not really sure, it could be they just reused the already available mirror&mirror box). Room must be made for the bigger prism and for the SR. The battery compartment should be modified, so it'll accept dedicated LiIon and not AAs. And even then, we can't be sure everything else will fit - and for what, for the privilege of using an old body? I would start from the K-7/K-5 design and modify it accordingly, btw. But they know better. The istD body was very much different than the ist. Frankly, the ist was smaller than the istD so your prism argument is a stawman argument from the beginning. Some of you guys are really weak on SLR history. Granted the ist had a .7 (990%) prism. The MZ-S had a .75 (92%) and the MZ-3 had a 0.8 (92%) and either of those prisms would have fit the istD which was a bigger body than the *ist. The MZ-D prototype has already been mentioned, but it had a built in battery grip that added substantially to the size.

10-05-2010, 11:10 AM	#74
Kunzite Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Romania Posts: 15,132	The ist was a smallish, plastic (Canon-toy-like) film camera. It didn't had a pentaprism, but a pentamirror; it didn't had the solid stainless steel chassis the istD had; it didn't had room for a DSLR electronics &sensor. I don't use strawmen when arguing, I'd like to think I have arguments in my (point of view's) favour. And what I'm saying is not that the istD body can't be adapted; but: - it would have to be adapted - here making room for the SR (not the pentaprism) could be the most difficult task as I don't think there is enough room for it; remember, the K series was bigger because of the SR. - it doesn't make much sense, a K-7/5-like body would be preferable. Even if it would work (not without effort!), identifying your latest&greatest creation with an outdated design is not a bright idea, IMHO. The MZ-D prototype - now that* is an outdated design!

10-05-2010, 02:51 PM	#75
Blue Moderator Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Florida Hill Country Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,377	Originally posted by Kunzite The ist was a smallish, plastic (Canon-toy-like) film camera. It didn't had a pentaprism, but a pentamirror; it didn't had the solid stainless steel chassis the istD had; it didn't had room for a DSLR electronics &sensor. I don't use strawmen when arguing, I'd like to think I have arguments in my (point of view's) favour. And what I'm saying is not that the istD body can't be adapted; but: - it would have to be adapted - here making room for the SR (not the pentaprism) could be the most difficult task as I don't think there is enough room for it; remember, the K series was bigger because of the SR. - it doesn't make much sense, a K-7/5-like body would be preferable. Even if it would work (not without effort!), identifying your latest&greatest creation with an outdated design is not a bright idea, IMHO. The MZ-D prototype - now that* is an outdated design! I think you are missing the big picture. What we were getting at is a ff body doesn't have to be the size of the Titanic like the CaNikon ff bodies are. Those suckers are the size of medium format dSLR bodies!