[ManuH]

So, what are your thoughts about a FF made by Pentax? ;-)

[RonHendriks1966]

So, what are your thoughts about a FF made by Pentax? ;-)

well currently I'm strugling with the 16 megapixels of the K-5 so woepthadoe lets get 36 megapixel and see how that slows down my working methods

[falconeye]

For example what's the advantage to generating 1:1 previews on say a 400 image import if I'm probably only interested in working with 50 or less files? (usually less). I can easily determine with a glance at the 'minimal' import preview what those files will be.

Well, I am not that smart in figuring out with a glance which 50 to keep. Too often I want to look which one of a couple very similar photos is sharpest and only keep that one. I may reject photos in normal size because they are no good photos, then of the remaining, reject photos because they are not sharp enough, then, if no photo from a series survived, go back and loosen the criteria, artistically and/or technically. In doing all this, I don't want to wait.

Theoretically, if I could reject photos on import, I could have already deleted them in camera, right? I am equally bad at both.

Moreover, I am not concerned about unneeded 1:1 previews. They are deleted with the rejected photos, and discarded after a while anyway. They don't hurt.

[jsherman999]

So, what are your thoughts about a FF made by Pentax? ;-)

I have an empty spot on my shelf that I keep dusted and ready for the K-1.



.

[jsherman999]

Well, I am not that smart in figuring out with a glance which 50 to keep. Too often I want to look which one of a couple very similar photos is sharpest and only keep that one. I may reject photos in normal size because they are no good photos, then of the remaining, reject photos because they are not sharp enough, then, if no photo from a series survived, go back and loosen the criteria, artistically and/or technically. In doing all this, I don't want to wait.

Theoretically, if I could reject photos on import, I could have already deleted them in camera, right? I am equally bad at both.

Well, after thinking about it, I think I get why you and others prefer it that way. Horses for courses. My typical import is probably about 400 images, which would take over 30 minutes for me to import if I generated a 1:1 preview on import. That would annoy me. I think I prefer to generate 1:1 as needed when I see something interesting in 'develop', but I'll try 'walking away' from a long 1:1 import next time to see if the whole experience is better (it may be.)

Now, back to FF. Will Ricoh greenlight? A: yes.

.

[ManuH]

Will Ricoh greenlight? A: yes.

If they have any real ambition, I also think it's a YES. But they need a good sensor. The 18MP Kodak doesn't cut it IMHO.

[Ubuntu_user]

So, what are your thoughts about a FF made by Pentax? ;-)

I'd buy it. I'm soo ready for FF. Really though, I think that if Pentax did it right they could come out with something that would really rock the boat (no, no, I'm not talking about mirrorless). Fact is, if Pentax just had a little more advertising power, the K-5 would be one of the top purchased DSLRs right now because it's the best [apsc to date]. Have no fear, if Pentax did make a FF it would be good.

Ricoh... Let's have it.

[Fl_Gulfer]

Now, back to FF. Will Ricoh greenlight? A: yes.

Not a chance, FF camera's arn't big sellers in the camera world. P&S are. so which way would your company go if it was yours?

[jsherman999]

Not a chance, FF camera's arn't big sellers in the camera world. P&S are. so which way would your company go if it was yours?

.



I would definitely not put a lot of eggs in the P&S basket, that's for damn sure. It's being squeezed out from the bottom by increasingly good camera phones at a pretty fast rate.

I would put into motion plans that would bring me to this place:

Tier 1: At least one model of interchangeable lens mirrorless compacts, with the sensor being larger than the Q but smaller than aps-c, possibly BSI, possibly m4/3, with phase-detect AF implemented on sensor - which would allow blisteringly-fast AF lock. Probably two models here, one with EVF, one without, the lower model very affordable.. Competitive video of course.

Lenses available initially: Very small, quality primes with FF equiv FL to 16mm, 35mm, 200mm, 400mm (yes) and a very fast 50mm. Standard (very small) kit zooms, and least one very high quality constant aperture zoom.

Tier 2: APS-C mirrorless, phase-detect on sensor, super-high-quality EVF, competitive video.

Lenses available initially: Pancakes, pancakes. A few more DA Limiteds. Regain the small prime, high IQ lead in a big way. This tier could look so sexy for Pentax Ashton Kutcher would jump ship. Also, standard zooms, constant aperture zooms.

Tier 3: FF DSLR, with 100% OVF, state of the art sensor, state of the art video capability (yes, in this tier.) AF performance of a modern DSLR, not a 2005 DSLR. Smallish form factor for the body, as small as possible without getting very expensive or losing performance - something that doesn't have to be tiny, but should feel smaller in the hand than the CaNikon equivs when standing at the counter, especially when wearing an FA Limited.

Lenses: Big ticket zooms, all current FA Limiteds, new FA Limiteds, like a 20mm f/2.8 or f/4, 120mm f/2.8 and maybe a superb 180mm f/2.8. A DA* 500 f/4.5.

Tier 4: Probably none. 645D may go away. Halo product exists one tier down.



During the transition I'd entertain keeping an OVF'd DSLR in the aps-c tier, probably high-end like K-5. I think in the longer run it would make more sense to have that need filled by a lower-end Tier 3 FF DSLR though, when FF sensor prices drop a bit more and yields increase, a $1800 FF DSLR body vs a $1300 aps-c DSLR body makes a lot of sense. (I'm envisioning the top line FF body in tier 4 debuting around $2600.)

At some point a mirrorless FF could possibly straddle tier 2 and tier 3.


.

[markac]

Not a chance, FF camera's aren't big sellers in the camera world. P&S are. so which way would your company go if it was yours?

Point and Shoot are a dime a dozen and the profit margin is very small. FF cameras have a big profit margin. Create the right FF camera that gets a whole lot of customers into Full Frame, and the rewards can be big.

[Kunzite]

.I would put into motion plans that would bring me to this place:

I don't like it. It's suggesting Pentax should replace it's main source of revenue and lose most of their customers in the process. Abandoning us and starting from scratch is not an option.
Besides, can the K-mount be sustained only with one FF DSLR? Can it survive with a market share of way less than 1%, and get enough money for all the high-tech things you're asking for?
Last but not least, why should Pentax give up on the 645D, i.e. on a market where they can be truly competitive? Should they spent fortunes instead trying to fight Canikon's flagships? Should they use as a "halo" product a me too FF DSLR?

[Blue]

I don't like it. It's suggesting Pentax should replace it's main source of revenue and lose most of their customers in the process. Abandoning us and starting from scratch is not an option.
Besides, can the K-mount be sustained only with one FF DSLR? Can it survive with a market share of way less than 1%, and get enough money for all the high-tech things you're asking for?
Last but not least, why should Pentax give up on the 645D, i.e. on a market where they can be truly competitive? Should they spent fortunes instead trying to fight Canikon's flagships? Should they use as a "halo" product a me too FF DSLR?

The could run a ff or 2 along with 2 or 3 aps-c slr bodies. The k-mount is versatile like that.

[Kunzite]

Of course, but that wasn't jsherman999's plan.

[uccemebug]

I would put into motion plans that would bring me to this place:

What you're describing looks an awful lot like Nikon (plus some primes). I think Ricoh's demonstrated more creativity than Nikon, and hope that that continues. Variations on the GXR theme, or something like the rumoured µ43 version of the L1 show better innovation, to my mind.

As for producing yet another MILC that's between the Q and the entry K bodies, I don't see the point. See, for instance, this post and the comments.

[stanleyk]

I remain skeptical about the market for $2500 Pentax body. I have the K5 and all the DA Limiteds, the FA 31, 43, 77, the D FA 100 macro, and the 50-135mm and I categorically wouldn't buy a FF camera unless the body was $1500 or less. I just don't see them making that kind of camera body because 100 or so people on a Pentax forum want one. Maybe Ricoh comes in with a different release strategy, but I think the 645D was their answer to the Canon/Nikon/Sony full frames.

The "so I can use my old lenses" argument is probably not a very persuasive argument for a camera company exec. At least you can use them even if everyone isn't happy with the lack of complete functionality.

As for the rumored new Panasonic, that one looks like a real winner if it's accurate. That said, as a Panasonic user they are woeful when it comes to getting their products to the retailers. I'm still waiting on the 25mm F1.4. Great cameras (the G3 is very good), but terrible distribution.

I think Panasonic and Olympus have the right strategy of not trying to compete directly with Canon and Nikon. They also appear to have made a good judgement call on what a large segment of the market wants. The Q is a interesting idea but too probably expensive.