[falconeye]

But they probably need the obligatory pair of 2.8 normal and tele zooms too.

Meanwhile, with FF becoming more affordable and small, there is now that obligatory pair of 4.0 normal and tele zooms too, as well as the trio of 1.8 primes.

[Digitalis]

the trio of 1.8 primes

well pentax pretty much has that covered - though a full frame f/1.8 lens wider than 31mm would be most welcome.

[gazonk]

well pentax pretty much has that covered - though a full frame f/1.8 lens wider than 31mm would be most welcome.

A 24/1.8 would be great, but even wider doesn't need to be that fast - I'd rather have a remake of the FA20/2.8, thank you!

[Mistral75]

Which is why they have no choice but to shoot for the stars. They can't afford to be conservative.

The floods hit Asia in late 2011 and production for many Sony products (and other camera companies) was crippled for the 1st qtr of 2012. Does Sony's fiscal year end with the calendar year or does it end in November? I shoot corporate events for several companies the close their books at the end of November.

As for many Japanese companies, Sony's fiscal year ends on 31st March.

[Aristophanes]

For the sake of your arguments clarity, let me say that this is technically false.

Two lenses made for different sized image circles but of given equivalent specification (read: rendering the same images and image quality) have equal mechanical spec (size and weight) and its price of production monotonically decreases (rather than increases) with sensor size. Please refrain from argueing about this established fact (should you sense an urge to do so).

Of course, full frame lenses tend to be larger than their equivalent counterparts from the APSC domain, i.e., they tend to be non-equivalent or more specifically, better than equivalent.

Btw, this is where I see an important niche still to occupy for Pentax in a full frame world: Provide "APSC-style" lenses for full frame, small and covering the FF image circle.

Adding in the criteria of:

"...but of given equivalent specification (read: rendering the same images and image quality)"

...is of course the issue.

The market seems not to care very much about this equivalence. In mass consensus, the entire photographic industry moved this way because the vast majority of sales and gross revenues are for snapshots.

That's an established fact.

The equivalence is a false assumption of market demand that is only pursued by a few, very elite users. And Sony and Leica and Canikon all price it that way. The RX-1 has a true FF f/2.0 lens and is a full 2 stops (I know you would like to get away from f/stops, but here it ties into the vernacular). So the Ricoh GR has APS-C and is an f/2.8 lens for an equivalent to the Sony of f/4.3 and less DR etc., you're "better than equivalent".

You know what? 99% of all photos are viewed online now. People are starting to get you don't need FF and the suppliers are pricing it high on purpose to max the ROI from APS-C and leverage gross profits from FF. The perceived IQ between a true f/2 and an equivalent f/4.3 is more than good enough at the right prices.

With the Sony it's basically a huge chunk of awesome optics that still will not fit into a pocket. The GR fits in the pocket. So an economic trade-off is made and the loss of the equivalence. ISO gains have a made a lot of the need for fast glass moot. Most of the discussions for shallower f/stops revolve around playing with ultra-shallow DOF.

And you still have to corral the issue that zooms make the market, not primes. Fuji found their X-series stalling in sales because they don't compare to the mass market DSLR's without a zoom option. This is another equivalence trade-off. People hesitate to move their feet or change lenses, and will readily accept a loss in IQ and a gain in size, by purchasing a zoom. There are practical decisions that trump technical.

A market is definitely NOT monotonic.

Is there a market for a small Pentax FF with smaller prime lenses? Maybe. Maybe if you dump K-mount and move to an all mirrorless, and the Pentax has to source an outstanding (Sony RX-1 equivalent) EVF which may not come cheap especially if it come from out-of-house. Dumping K-mount is a HUGE risk. DSLR's have a proven track record and have been Pentax's bread and butter. Ricoh bought the K-mount.

If they stay with K-mount all sorts of other issues converge where the form factor cannot really get that much smaller, probably something between a K-5 and a D600. So the gains are incremental on the whole of the form factor, plus the FF OVF is going to be larger in any case to do it right.

As for the lenses, lots of discussion there on other threads about the capabilities of the above-35mm current DA line-up. the real issue will be on the wider end and for that we circle back towards mirrorless (and get all tangled up in sensor microlenses).

I think the real problem is that Pentax cannot find enough buyers for that concept at a $2,000 FF body no matter how small the lenses are, how innovative the form factor, and whether or not to Pentax is more like Fuji which has to make the best out of APS-C and hope the market has actually mostly moved on at the value end from FF "equivalence".

[mecrox]

I think the real problem is that Pentax cannot find enough buyers for that concept at a $2,000 FF body no matter how small the lenses are, how innovative the form factor, and whether or not to Pentax is more like Fuji which has to make the best out of APS-C and hope the market has actually mostly moved on at the value end from FF "equivalence".

Yup, except if that is true one might argue that the market has also moved on from lavishly priced APS-C lenses too, so that even if Pentax don't move up to FF they are caught with an APS-C line-up which is out of kilter with the times, doubly so if you think that lens motors are expected, not optional, these days. There are no easy options, I guess. I've read rumours (!) that the forthcoming Samsung Galaxy Note 3 will feature a 13 mp camera with IBIS, a 3x optical zoom and plenty of controls (in software, no doubt). The point being that as tablet/smartphone cams gradually improve, the value offered by the whole camera industry starts to slide downwards except perhaps for the top-end, professional stuff.

The irony is that if Pentax want to charge top-dollar for their wares, then isn't their best bet is to move up the market into FF? Beautiful if rather old-fashioned all-metal lenses for APS-C are marvellous but, imho, as a sales proposition for 2013-2020 they are a non-starter, I'd guess.

[ElJamoquio]

A 24/1.8 would be great, but even wider doesn't need to be that fast - I'd rather have a remake of the FA20/2.8, thank you!

Personally I'd like a 24mm F/2.8... but the 31mm is so nice that I guess the 20mm F/2.8 would be better for me.

[falconeye]

...
The equivalence is a false assumption of market demand ...

Aristophanes, I asked you not to argue.

I assumed nothing, just wanted to rectify a statement which was false technically.

You can believe and assume and I'll not mess up with your opinions. But when I run across a false technical statement, I'll continue to correct it occasionally. I said nothing about the market.

Thank You.

[glanglois]

Let's note that Sony makes a pile of money, except in consumer electronics (including cameras). Their larger investors are encouraging the board to dump the electronics lines and stick with the big money-makers: insurance and entertainment.

The board is stuck in the Walkman and "Sony, no baloney" eras and won't have it. At some point, they will have little choice. And Sony will be no more than a label, like Polaroid and Vivitar.

[Aristophanes]

Aristophanes, I asked you not to argue.

I assumed nothing, just wanted to rectify a statement which was false technically.

You can believe and assume and I'll not mess up with your opinions. But when I run across a false technical statement, I'll continue to correct it occasionally. I said nothing about the market.

Thank You.

You've got words and words about equivalence, but people purchase on difference.

Most of the market, derived from the last 10 years of digital, have absolutely zero reference point for FF in any case. They only remember film as a memory. FF might as well be Rolls Royce.

For over 3 years you've been stating that Pentax is in trouble without FF, yet here we are, 2013, still having the same argument. And I have consistently pointed out that you overestimated the demand for FF. For all the "sweet spot" of FF, APS-C continues its dominance, and most market growth is actually in smaller sensor sizes.

Meanwhile, I shoot K-5 and D800E side by side and therefore, I don't care so much anymore.

So while the technicalites are arguing in one direction, the CX, RX100, EOS-M, m43, X-series, GR and even Q crowd are designing and buying in another direction. Most of the industry capital is going the other way because that's where the price/performance market lies.

Equivalence is the wrong metric. Physically, the form factor market demand APS-C systems are in the middle between quite large FF and smaller mirrorless. The optical and sensor derived technicalities are almost non-issues in purchasing criteria. If so, they are lessened issues in design criteria. APS-C delivers enough DR and resolution for close scrutiny web viewing. Better ISO control makes APS-C still more than good enough...in fact we are spoiled now. Do really, it boils down to nostalgia over 135 DOF and some FOV.

Somewhere most industry players concluded (with near consensus no less) that all those 35mm standards and FL's and FOV's and DOF's are not really what the mass market cares about.

Consumers mostly care about AF, low noise/high-ISO, resolution, and "getting the shot" (and video). That's why I argue against the Pentax Q because its sensor is clearly low-light, fast AF inferior to what the other mirrorless players put out.

[seakayaker1]

If Pentax builds a full frame, consumers will come, and I do hope they make a decision to get into the market.

[Kunzite]

What is going on? Where are magiс toys for a big boys which Kunzite promised? He said that Pentax worked hard...Very hard....
I hope it will be on June. Right?

Ogl, stop lying. I never promised you any "magic toy"; even the idea that I would promise something on behalf of some magic toy factory is ridiculous. Stop linking your ridiculousness to my "name".

I also won't make any claims regarding a supposed June announcement.

What is true, however, is that Pentax is working on new products. It's true simply because it can't be false.

[Uluru]

There are some characteristics of optics and sensor size which are discernible even in scaled down images on web. Not to mention print.
Thus I see Pentax delivering on all ends, from a tiny 1/2.3" sensor up to 645D equivalent sensor.
Leaving FF DSLR aside for now, I'm intrigued by following:

1. New 645D, for which, according to Pentax, they have MANY new ideas.
2. APS-C compact camera(s), something like Ricoh GR.
3. FF compact camera(s), something like the RX1.

There are so many areas in digital photography where Pentax has not trialled anything yet, things that don't depend on any mount and which can attract everyone, despite which system camera people use, and I can't wait to see what will they deliver there.
I personally look forward to a premium compact that can beat X100s and X2 to dust. Add in a new 24MP sensor please and you redefine the books. When exposed to Pentax experience from such a camera, people may be more intrigued to try Pentax system cameras. It's the only way I see people buying into Pentax system, and I think it works for everybody.

[Pål Jensen]

Two lenses made for different sized image circles but of given equivalent specification (read: rendering the same images and image quality) have equal mechanical spec (size and weight) and its price of production monotonically decreases (rather than increases) with sensor size. Please refrain from argueing about this established fact (should you sense an urge to do so).

False. Lenses giving exactly the same image from different fomat need to display the same DOF wide open and same maximum DOF. They will have to display the same range of DOF. Also having the same magnification at all focusing distances and the same maximum magnification but they will never give the same exposure at the same DOF and ISO anyway. Such equivalent lenses doesn't exist and if they did some FF lenses doing the same as some APS lenses would be grossly complex and horribly expenive if viable at all. And nobody buy different formats in order for them to give the same image quality. What your are doing is intellectual cheating. You construct and argument with no real life relevance to fit your preconceived ideas.

But the most important point is that hardly anyone buy different formats in order for them to be equal; and not only in image quality. Quite the opposite in fact. Eg I have APS, FF and 645; I don't think I have any "equivalent" lenses between the systems (and I have more than 15 and I think I'm fairly typical). Hence, the point is moot.

[ElJamoquio]

Hence, the point is moot.

Not really. A F/4 normal-zoom FF isn't equivalent to a F/2.8 APS-C... it's better. I still compare the two so I can figure out what setup is best for me.

Dr. Camera: APS-C lenses aren't smaller, aren't lighter, and aren't cheaper.