[Clavius]

Can you answer the question, then? How could a sensor that doesn't exist (and would have to be custom made) help them in getting the camera out faster?

Having one sensor custom made and fitted into an existing body is finished faster then developing almost an entire line of FF lenses.

And it's probably "cheaper" too. APSH will trigger more demand for Pentax (DA) lenses. An FF camera now, without a full lens line up, would only trigger more demand for off-brand FF lenses. Having a sensor custom made costs a bit extra, but doesn't trigger customers to shop elsewhere. Sounds like a better investment untill the full FF line up is fully completed somewhere in the future.

[Digitalis]

APS-H would fit a non-mainstream camera very well. Like some kind of mirrorless, maybe even square format, camera.

Exactly, I saw the K-01 to be a bit of an experiment in terms of ergonomics and in terms of marketability. If a camera maker makes something interesting, there is bound to be an audience for it.

[Clavius]

AFAIK the FF+SR issues are only speculation (and Sony had that working).

I hope you're right, but...

1. Pentax representatives themselves said FF would mean developing a new mount. Most probably because of the SR.

2. And how much wider is the Sony mount compared to the K-mount? 46,1mm vs 42,8mm is quite a bit larger, and Sony's SR is still worse then Pentax SR. (corners)

3. It would also explain why Pentax is/was so reluctant to go FF for so long: Next to a new mount, it would also mean developing an ENTIRE new range of lenses, not just filling gaps.

So, it's very plausible that SR+FF+K-mount is troublesome. But, maybe they'll invent some really good workaround for it.

[eurostar]

Having one sensor custom made and fitted into an existing body is finished faster then developing almost an entire line of FF lenses.

And it's probably "cheaper" too. APSH will trigger more demand for Pentax (DA) lenses. An FF camera now, without a full lens line up, would only trigger more demand for off-brand FF lenses. Having a sensor custom made costs a bit extra, but doesn't trigger customers to shop elsewhere. Sounds like a better investment untill the full FF line up is fully completed somewhere in the future.

We don't know what are the minimum volume of production of a sensor to say "it's cheaper".

Surely FF lenses could be used also on APS-C camera, so they can be aimed at the whole number of Pentax-K users, while an APS-H (or FF) reflex is aimed at few. To me, the only onvious path would be to introduce this year some FF lenses to replace some of the current APS-C-only ones, and then bring on the FF camera. An alternative could be a FF stylish-vintage reflex to marry the three amigos. But they are not WR, and not SDM... it seems too old technology to interest the market, and not just some diehard Pentax fans.

[bxf]

I can't help but feel that some are missing the point.

As I understand things, an FF body would necessarily be larger than that of a K-5, so I'm not interested. But, give me a small body with a sensor larger than APS-C, and I'd jump for it. Why wouldn't I?

[Kunzite]

Having one sensor custom made and fitted into an existing body is finished faster then developing almost an entire line of FF lenses.

And it's probably "cheaper" too. APSH will trigger more demand for Pentax (DA) lenses. An FF camera now, without a full lens line up, would only trigger more demand for off-brand FF lenses. Having a sensor custom made costs a bit extra, but doesn't trigger customers to shop elsewhere. Sounds like a better investment untill the full FF line up is fully completed somewhere in the future.

Let's compare apples to apples. Pentax can launch a FF camera faster, because:
a. they're already working on it
b. there are readily available suitable sensors.
They only need the camera and about 2 newly developed lenses, in the beginning; a full line of FF lenses will be built in time. APS-H would require a new line of lenses, too.

I hope you're right, but...

1. Pentax representatives themselves said FF would mean developing a new mount. Most probably because of the SR.

To my knowledge, Pentax never said that.

[Ash]

I can't help but feel that some are missing the point.

As I understand things, an FF body would necessarily be larger than that of a K-5, so I'm not interested. But, give me a small body with a sensor larger than APS-C, and I'd jump for it. Why wouldn't I?

Not necessarily. There has been previous talk about the ability to fit a FF sensor into a *ist D body. Now *that* would be both innovative and highly sought after. If you're after a small body, the K-01 is quite small for an APS-C, and it is currently going for prices of a compact camera at the moment.

[Kunzite]

Adam, at least the viewfinder housing will have to be larger (and please, Pentax, make it as big as it needs to be; don't sacrifice the viewfinder for size). The body should probably be slightly larger to incorporate SR, and maybe a new AF and other higher-end technologies could need space, too.
But I don't expect a dramatic difference, not to the point I wouldn't want to carry it around.

[Digitalis]

it's very plausible that SR+FF+K-mount is troublesome. But, maybe they'll invent some really good workaround for it.

I recall that they were planning on incorporating IS into the 645D - they could get the sensor to move...the problem was stopping it from moving, the 645D's sensor has far too much mass for in-body IS.That is why Pentax went for optical stabilisation with the HD D-FA645 90mm f/2.8 Macro.

please, Pentax, make it as big as it needs to be; don't sacrifice the viewfinder for size

I agree, 0.70X magnification with 100%coverage - is the barest minimum I will settle for.

[Digitalis]

46,1mm vs 42,8mm is quite a bit larger, and Sony's SR is still worse then Pentax SR. (corners)

I would be interested in finding out what your sources were for those numbers...The flange for the Pentax K mount has always been 45.46mm*, the same as the M42 screwmount. The Minolta MD (RIP) mount is 43.5mm**



*Measurement from Pentax LX
**Measurement taken from a Minolta X-700

[RonHendriks1966]

I would be interested in finding out what your sources were for those numbers...The flange for the Pentax K mount has always been 45.46mm*, the same as the M42 screwmount. The Minolta MD (RIP) mount is 43.5mm**



*Measurement from Pentax LX
**Measurement taken from a Minolta X-700

I guess he is talking abouth the width off the mount. No idea if this is of any importance.

[Digitalis]

I guess he is talking abouth the width off the mount. No idea if this is of any importance.

The width of the mount has next to nothing to to with the image circle projected from a lens - the one thing that does have a very real impact on sensor coverage this is the flange distance. This is why vignetting is generally more problematic on digital RF cameras than SLR cameras.

[Clavius]

To my knowledge, Pentax never said that.

True, Pentax never says anything out straight. However, the 2012 Kitazawa interview hints towards it.

Please regard this question:
Why is the image circle of Sony's FF A-mount lenses larger then the FF image circle?

Answer:
To accomodate the sensor movement of the large FF sensor. That is exactly the same reason why DA lenses have an image circle larger then the required APS-C image circle.

Now, how big is the image circle of all current Pentax FF glass? Exactly: it's the FF image cirlce, without accomodating extra room for IBIS like Sony does. It's the old film format image circle and film didn't bounce around like a sensor on IBIS.

That means Pentax doesn't need to fill in a few gaps; they need to develop an ENTIRE new lens lineup if they want to go FF. Or, dump SR and introduce stabilisation in the lens.

I would do some looooonnnng deep thinking before making such a decision too, just like Pentax.

@Digitalis, I wasn't talking about flange distance, but diameter. But the image circle is what's the most relevant.

[Rondec]

Strange, as technically the APS-H should be better at wide angle then APS-C. And better at tele then FF. Glass is half empty, or full?

I seriously still like the idea. It would have been much less hassle for Pentax to implement that sensor size. I think it could have just been mounted in an existing body, like the K5. In contrast to FF there would be no need to develope a entirely new body, solve SR problem and develope a whole new range of lenses.

.)

APS-H isn't any better at tele than FF, particularly if you are taking it off of the same wafer that were using to make either the D600 or D800. As far as wide angle, the question is whether pentax's lenses (on the wide angle side) would cover APS-H. If the DA 15 and DA 12-24 wouldn't cover APS-H, then there would be no benefit with regard to APS-H over current APS-C offerings. The widest angle lens in current line up guaranteed to work on APS-H would be the FA 31 and that wouldn't be that wide.

I don't see any benefit of APS-H, I think you would still have to develop new lenses and I think the SR problem is solvable for full frame. Better to go that way.

[Kunzite]

True, Pentax never says anything out straight. However, the 2012 Kitazawa interview hints towards it.

Please regard this question:
Why is the image circle of Sony's FF E-mount lenses larger then the FF image circle?

Answer:
To accomodate the sensor movement of the large FF sensor. That is exactly the same reason why DA lenses have an image circle larger then the required APS-C image circle.

Now, how big is the image circle of all current Pentax FF glass? Exactly: it's the FF image cirlce, without accomodating extra room for IBIS like Sony does. It's the old film format image circle and film didn't bounce around like a sensor on IBIS.

That means Pentax doesn't need to fill in a few gaps; they need to develop an ENTIRE new lens lineup if they want to go FF. Or, dump SR and introduce stabilisation in the lens.

I would do some looooonnnng deep thinking before making such a decision too, just like Pentax.

@Digitalis, I wasn't talking about flange distance, but diameter. But the image circle is what's the most relevant.

An exact quote where Kitazawa-san hinted precisely what? Since the only thing he more than hinted was the development of a FF DSLR.

Where is that question from, and who answered? if it's about Sony E-mount, it AFAIK uses in-lens stabilization.

A new lens lineup is required anyway (haven't I already said this?) - but some of the current one will work, regardless.
Even the worst case scenario, is some vignetting at the extreme corners with some of the current lenses. Easily solvable by a slight crop, which can't be said about choosing the wrong sensor size.