[rawr]

IIRC in one of the interviews Kitazawa-san hinted at not going for a stripped down FF

I may have missed something in all the recent discussions, but what is the current thinking about the features Pentax could add to make a FF body that is more than a 'stripped down' D600 grade FF? Would a D4 or D800 clone qualify?

[Kunzite]

Samsung sensor compromised, is that what you're saying? That's stupid.
Whan it came K20D sensor was no slouch at all. If Pentax chose to go Samsung again for K-7 that's Pentax fault, not Samsung's.

Nope, I wasn't talking about Samsung sensors in the second paragraph; I was referring to lenses, in response to rawr's post - my bad, I made a context switch without being clear about it.
My point was that Pentax have to ask a comparable price on their lenses, or to make some compromises; and I'd rather have the first.

I may have missed something in all the recent discussions, but what is the current thinking about the features Pentax could add to make a FF body that is more than a 'stripped down' D600 grade FF? Would a D4 or D800 clone qualify?

You have a point - the D600 is not exactly stripped down but a decent camera.
But Pentax could easily target an upper-level camera (I would guess, something between the D600 and the D800). A dedicated AF module (instead of "borrowing" an APS-C one), 1/8000 shutter, USB 3.0, a higher grade construction... small things which adds up. I'm not saying we'll see all these.

[bossa]

Good thing I already have most of my FF lens bases covered But I don't think I will be early-adopting any new FF camera. I can wait.

You're assuming that a Pentax FF camera would have a K-mount. Consider if they were to bring out a new mount to accommodate SR on the FF? But I suppose a simple adapter may be possible, depending on the mounts spec's.

[tram57]

Looks like you didn't finish your thought?

I like some of dpreview's reviews. I like the existence of their studio shots but don't think they always carry out those tests well.

For sensor performance I really prefer to use DxOMark. YMMV, of course... but DxO shows the advantage between the D600 and the K-5 at equivalent resolution is about 2-3x the advantage between the K-5 and the K-x.

It looks like DxO hasn't tested the D7100 yet.

To finish my thought, it may be that, for the time being, pixel density higher than 16MP on APS-C sized sensors by not be able to maintain as good high ISO performance as we have enjoyed with the K5; hence my thought that it would be clever for pentax to go to 24MP with a slightly larger sensor (like APS-H) to maintain the high ISO performance of the K-5 with higher resolution. FF would be best, obviously, but cost/size constraints my be prohibitive for a camera slotted at or slightly more than the K5. Going without the AA filter would also add more resolution.

[mattt]

Pentax have to ask a comparable price on their lenses

... to generate interest from Bricks and Mortar distributors. No margins = no stores . The only time to implement an MSP is at the launch of a product (read bodies could be more expensive too!) The Unilateral Pricing agreement blew up in their face because the market had stabilized at an "accepted norm". Unfortunately that norm was too low a price for "showrooming" of product at a B&M retailer to allow for adequate in store sales conversions to justify B&M retailers to keep the line in stock.

Savy marketing and product development would also need to be accompanied by a winning distribution strategy to increase market share. Any business plan ignoring the distributor part of the equation will surely leave us (the Pentaxian Nation) in the same place as we are now with a small share and limited sources of distribution. I have to say if Adorama or B&H were the only sources I'd jump ship to Nikon because I prefer to buy local (and Canon creature comforts leave me wanting).

[monochrome]

Savy marketing and product development would also need to be accompanied by a winning distribution strategy to increase market share.

Which is why Thom Hogan recently surmised Pentax is one company of a few that might simply go to a global internet-only distribution strategy.

[Kunzite]

I wasn't talking about the U.S. situation; Pentax simply is at a disadvantage regarding economy of scale, i.e. assuming everything else a constant it would cost them more to produce a certain lens because they sell fewer of them.
Of course, everything else is not a constant, and Pentax' operating costs should be nowhere near the big two. Still, I doubt it's possible for them to make a top-notch lens, sell it cheaper (by a significant amount) and still make enough profit to sustain R&D for future products.
What helps is the lack of in-lens stabilization (not needed). I'd like for their top of the range lenses to be otherwise excellent, in every regard - including AF; and I'm willing to pay Canikon prices for that.

But indeed, UPP is another aspect. I also prefer to buy local, and I hope the U.S. situation will get better in this regard (instead of going internet-only).

[mee]

I think this thread ran it's course too.. around 3 pages in.

[Tesla]

I think this thread ran it's course too.. around 3 pages in.

Well this or next week it will die.

[Digitalis]

You're assuming that a Pentax FF camera would have a K-mount. Consider if they were to bring out a new mount to accommodate SR on the FF? But I suppose a simple adapter may be possible, depending on the mounts spec's.

I'll repeat this again, the dimensions of the lens K mount has no effect on how large an image a lens can project onto the sensor, the only effect increasing the diameter of the mount would have is that it would allow pentax to make lenses faster than f/1.2 - the exit pupil of an f/1.0 lens gets pretty big with a 45.46mm flange. Also changing the flange by either shortening it or lengthening it will pose serious issues for legacy lens users. I do not think Pentax will change the mount at all....I don't see any reason for it.

[LamyTax]

I'll repeat this again, the dimensions of the lens K mount has no effect on how large an image a lens can project onto the sensor, the only effect increasing the diameter of the mount would have is that it would allow pentax to make lenses faster than f/1.2 - the exit pupil of an f/1.0 lens gets pretty big with a 45.46mm flange. Also changing the flange by either shortening it or lengthening it will pose serious issues for legacy lens users. I do not think Pentax will change the mount at all....I don't see any reason for it.

Even if they wanted to do that, they simple can't afford to add yet another lens lineup.

[rawr]

Consider if they were to bring out a new mount to accommodate SR on the FF?

IMHO that would be way too risky - in PR and commercial terms.
I'm sure they will be able to figure out a way to keep K mount under FF digital, even if it involves moving the SR into the lens. In-lens stabilisation will also unfortunately mean adding even more cost (and bulk) to any new FF lenses.

[Ash]

IIRC in one of the interviews Kitazawa-san hinted at not going for a stripped down FF, Ash, this is what you're talking about?)

Yes, and I expect it will cost considerably more than the D600 RRP by virtue of the Pentax FF camera taking a higher stance as a more serious enthusiast camera. I didn't mean to say the D600 was stripped-down, but I do consider it cheaper than the D800 (for example) for many good reasons. I'd like to see Pentax go with a FF more in the realm of the D800 rather than the D600.

[thibs]

Yes, and I expect it will cost considerably more than the D600 RRP by virtue of the Pentax FF camera taking a higher stance as a more serious enthusiast camera. I didn't mean to say the D600 was stripped-down, but I do consider it cheaper than the D800 (for example) for many good reasons. I'd like to see Pentax go with a FF more in the realm of the D800 rather than the D600.

But it is stripped down. Not in a sense of quality etc.. at all.
But in terms of features and positioning, yes it is. For very good marketing reasons btw.

Will it take worse pictures because of that? Nope.

[Ash]

But it is stripped down. Not in a sense of quality etc.. at all.
But in terms of features and positioning, yes it is. For very good marketing reasons btw.

Will it take worse pictures because of that? Nope.

I don't suppose Pentax are keen on mirroring this marketing strategy (for better or for worse) just to get a cheaper product out there.
Looking back in history, all Pentax dSLRs, whether entry level or flagship, were solidly-built and well featured.

I would personally be more pleased with a stronger contender to the D800 than I would with a competitor to the 6D/D600. There's more to life (for a photographer) than a couple hundred dollars saved towards an investment into a higher end tool that both brings more satisfaction in the shooting process as well as performance that matters.