New Ricoh/Pentax rumors surface today...

glanglois · 12-20-2011, 11:46 AM

Originally posted by thibs

Yep, a full frame with a very good OVF and a full K mount compatibility.
That'd sell here on the forum

It would, without doubt. But then what?

thibs · 12-20-2011, 01:20 PM

Well just that, which is why I wrote about the forum. Note sure at it would sell that well

gazonk · 12-21-2011, 01:29 AM

Originally posted by glanglois

It would, without doubt. But then what?

It would be a nice way to "top off" the K-mount before everything goes EVF. Suppose that they make a 24mp K-3 APS-C, maybe they could reuse almost all the electronics in that camera for a 24mp FF K-1? I.e. that the development costs could be kept really low. Then maybe it doesn't really have to sell all that much.

Livanz · 01-13-2012, 08:42 AM

Philbaum :

"I also think that just following along on the heels of Canikon and Sony FF cameras is not going to be a successful bid - unless they do something different with the FF sensor. Make the camera stand out in some way.
Eliminate the mirror for sure, and stuff it in a K5 size body. It would be smaller than any other FF out there and likely cheaper. Keep the K mount."

Correct Philbaum , I agree that this would be a reasonable approach , but could Pentax fit in a FF sensor in a K-5 body with the Shake Reduction Module attached to it ? No , so you have to choose , either a K-5 APS-C with SR or a modified K-5 with FF sensor but without Shake Reduction . I myself find SR in my K20D inefficient so it stays on "OFF" all the time so an affordable K-(5) FF , simple , robust and providing higher image quality would be me decision if I were the boss of Ricoh . Fortunately I am not ...

eddie1960 · 01-13-2012, 09:01 AM

Originally posted by Livanz

Philbaum :

"but could Pentax fit in a FF sensor in a K-5 body with the Shake Reduction Module attached to it ? No , so you have to choose , either a K-5 APS-C with SR or a modified K-5 with FF sensor but without Shake Reduction . I myself find SR in my K20D inefficient so it stays on "OFF" all the time so an affordable K-(5) FF , simple , robust and providing higher image quality would be me decision if I were the boss of Ricoh . Fortunately I am not ...

What makes you so certain they couldn't fir it in a K5 size body? I'll give some extra height required for the bigger OVF but if you look at the *ist D it's body was designed for FF (being switched to APSC due to lack of a good enough sensor) then compare it to the K5

*istd w h d
129 x 94.5 x 60 mm
K5
130.5 x 96.5 x 72.5 mm

Even if it came with a 2.5 mm depth penalty (based on the Canon 5 D i doubt it's needed though - there product is excessively big) and a 2.5 mm height penalty a FF based on the K5 would still be smaller than any FF except the M9

5d2
152.0 x 113.5 x 75.0mm

d700
147 x 123 x 77mm

K1 possible??
130.5 x 99 x 75

ozlizard · 01-13-2012, 05:33 PM

I would expect a FF camera to be a bit larger. If you want a smaller camera get an APS-C. The take up of a FF would most likely be pros and very serious photogs. The size or weight will not deter those groups. This is never an issue for me and I don't understand the amount of discussion on this. A DSLR needs to be a certain size to maintain good ergonomics and functionality.

**bushwhacker09** · 01-13-2012, 08:16 PM

Originally posted by redpigeons

I only shoot with Pentax , K-5 and K-7 and K20D I love these , and mostly I love the lenses , but the new Penatx lenses are still way noisier then what Canon and Nikon use to , and the auto focus still slower , and what is most important to the average consumer the image processor inside the camera is better for Canon and even for Nikon . JPGs strait of the camera looks just better, as with Pentax the LTD lenses makes magic , (expensive magic) . but always you need to do some tweaks in camera or in post to get the right tones . I know you will jump on me for the last part , this is my personal opinion. but I do believe that the masses thinks like me
__________________

I usually just read these posts, but I agree wholeheartedly with you about Pentax. Love the lenses--just wish the cameras (mainly autofocus speed & accuracy) were consistently equivalent to the big boys. I still choose my K-7 (a good camera) mainly, but still won't let go of my D80.

Mehlsack · 01-14-2012, 04:53 AM

Seriously guys, when you dont like the colors and the sharpness etc, configure it for your own needs and to your own wishes, we are talking about jpeg engines and that you dont like the colors? This camera stuff costs a fortune(at least for me as a student) so, why dont you use it in a way it is supposed to be ?!

Tonto · 01-14-2012, 05:26 AM

I reckon the Ricoh purchase + Japan Tsunami put announcements back at least 6 months so unless something was in the pipeline before the sale I don't think we are gonna see any major news in a while........well thats what I'm telling myself

in the meantime I just keep shooting with my 31/K7 combo

ihasa · 01-14-2012, 05:29 AM

Originally posted by ozlizard

I would expect a FF camera to be a bit larger. If you want a smaller camera get an APS-C. The take up of a FF would most likely be pros and very serious photogs. The size or weight will not deter those groups. This is never an issue for me and I don't understand the amount of discussion on this. A DSLR needs to be a certain size to maintain good ergonomics and functionality.

Actually I'm sure there are plenty of pros and serious togs who curse the size and weight of their kit. They would tend to get another system for 'leisure' use (APSC or mirrorless) and a few have downsized to APSC entirely. However there would seem to be an obvious niche for a relatively compact FF body, which would also include more casual users who are attracted by the IQ of FF but are put off by weight/size.

A big FF DSLR from Pentax would compete squarely with the models from Canon/Nikon, and there would be no reason for any enthusiast or pro to pick it over the (well supported) big two.

MegaPower · 01-14-2012, 07:19 AM

i am not going to believe it but I am buying a FF once it came out

Winder · 01-14-2012, 07:23 AM

Right now, the one thing Pentax needs to get right is AF speed and accuracy. Accuracy is the most important thing. If the move to a larger AF sensor and add a 2nd processor for AF (like a Canon 1DX) how much will it add to the size of the camera?

A new K-3 with:
24MP Sony ASP-C sensor
21-point AF (smaller more accurate points with a better spread)
SR that comes on when your eye is at the VF and "locks" faster.

But if Pentax does not have the resources to develop tethering (per-interview) then do we really think they have the resources to address really challenging features like better AF and SR?

Livanz · 01-14-2012, 12:04 PM

Eddie1960 :
"What makes you so certain that they couldn't fit it in a K-5 body ? ..."

By looking at this The Guts: Sony A850, A900 Image Stabilization | Popular Photography I imagine that it would be ( very ) difficult , plus the necessary space for a larger OVF as you mentioned and then the whole concept of a low-price , as simple as possible and robust and compact FF would be lost . It wouldn't be neither simpler nor low-cost anymore , it would be a Pentaxsony 900 . My point was that most
serious pentaxians already have a very good APS-C camera with Shake Reduction ( and video if we refer to the K-5 ) so a "stripped down" K-(5) FF with even better image quality would be a perfect complement to the system , would'n imply massive investment in a new chassi and you could even use the same battery grip...
It would be the perfect "combo" which would make everybody else jealous and would nicely fit the gap ( no sense denying there is one Pentax...) between K-5 and 645D . Canon and Nikon are making expensive FF monsters and Sony , being what they really are , an electronics company , have started making electronic "things" . In this context Petax should remember what they primarily are , an innovative PHOTOGRAPHIC company and act accordingly .

Vylen · 01-14-2012, 05:14 PM

It doesn't help that the SR module in Pentax cameras were always big in the first place.

Geoff H · 01-15-2012, 10:28 AM

Originally posted by ihasa

Actually I'm sure there are plenty of pros and serious togs who curse the size and weight of their kit. They would tend to get another system for 'leisure' use (APSC or mirrorless) and a few have downsized to APSC entirely. However there would seem to be an obvious niche for a relatively compact FF body, which would also include more casual users who are attracted by the IQ of FF but are put off by weight/size.

A big FF DSLR from Pentax would compete squarely with the models from Canon/Nikon, and there would be no reason for any enthusiast or pro to pick it over the (well supported) big two.

Ding

Why are FF's so big? It's because it's a big macho marketplace. . Current pro FF's are medium-format sized. I don't remember any pros from 30 years ago arguing that their F1's were too small and saying they wanted a medium format sized 35mm camera? It's willy waving...

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
RICOH Establishes PENTAX RICOH IMAGING COMPANY, LTD.	Adam	Homepage & Official Pentax News	20	10-13-2011 03:31 AM
Photo Rumors: The first Pentax Boutique in the US is now closed	kevinschoenmakers	Pentax News and Rumors	33	07-02-2011 02:43 PM
Pentax mirrorless/Evil system rumors!?	Adam B.	Pentax News and Rumors	323	10-27-2010 08:42 AM
Pentax KE-60 All Surface Matte Focusing Screen	montman	Ask B&H Photo!	5	07-02-2010 10:39 AM
Pentax EVIL, 645D price rumors	eigelb	Pentax News and Rumors	58	01-12-2010 08:08 AM

12-20-2011, 11:46 AM	#121
glanglois Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Madison, Wis., USA Posts: 1,506	Originally posted by thibs Yep, a full frame with a very good OVF and a full K mount compatibility. That'd sell here on the forum It would, without doubt. But then what?

12-20-2011, 01:20 PM	#122
thibs Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Belgium Photos: Albums Posts: 7,001	Well just that, which is why I wrote about the forum. Note sure at it would sell that well

12-21-2011, 01:29 AM	#123
gazonk Pentaxian Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Oslo area, Norway Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,746	Originally posted by glanglois It would, without doubt. But then what? It would be a nice way to "top off" the K-mount before everything goes EVF. Suppose that they make a 24mp K-3 APS-C, maybe they could reuse almost all the electronics in that camera for a 24mp FF K-1? I.e. that the development costs could be kept really low. Then maybe it doesn't really have to sell all that much.

01-13-2012, 08:42 AM	#124
Livanz New Member Join Date: Dec 2011 Posts: 13	Philbaum : "I also think that just following along on the heels of Canikon and Sony FF cameras is not going to be a successful bid - unless they do something different with the FF sensor. Make the camera stand out in some way. Eliminate the mirror for sure, and stuff it in a K5 size body. It would be smaller than any other FF out there and likely cheaper. Keep the K mount." Correct Philbaum , I agree that this would be a reasonable approach , but could Pentax fit in a FF sensor in a K-5 body with the Shake Reduction Module attached to it ? No , so you have to choose , either a K-5 APS-C with SR or a modified K-5 with FF sensor but without Shake Reduction . I myself find SR in my K20D inefficient so it stays on "OFF" all the time so an affordable K-(5) FF , simple , robust and providing higher image quality would be me decision if I were the boss of Ricoh . Fortunately I am not ...

01-13-2012, 09:01 AM	#125
eddie1960 Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Toronto Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 13,666	Originally posted by Livanz Philbaum : "but could Pentax fit in a FF sensor in a K-5 body with the Shake Reduction Module attached to it ? No , so you have to choose , either a K-5 APS-C with SR or a modified K-5 with FF sensor but without Shake Reduction . I myself find SR in my K20D inefficient so it stays on "OFF" all the time so an affordable K-(5) FF , simple , robust and providing higher image quality would be me decision if I were the boss of Ricoh . Fortunately I am not ... What makes you so certain they couldn't fir it in a K5 size body? I'll give some extra height required for the bigger OVF but if you look at the ist D it's body was designed for FF (being switched to APSC due to lack of a good enough sensor) then compare it to the K5 istd w h d 129 x 94.5 x 60 mm K5 130.5 x 96.5 x 72.5 mm Even if it came with a 2.5 mm depth penalty (based on the Canon 5 D i doubt it's needed though - there product is excessively big) and a 2.5 mm height penalty a FF based on the K5 would still be smaller than any FF except the M9 5d2 152.0 x 113.5 x 75.0mm d700 147 x 123 x 77mm K1 possible?? 130.5 x 99 x 75

01-13-2012, 05:33 PM	#126
ozlizard Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Bridgetown West Australia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 903	I would expect a FF camera to be a bit larger. If you want a smaller camera get an APS-C. The take up of a FF would most likely be pros and very serious photogs. The size or weight will not deter those groups. This is never an issue for me and I don't understand the amount of discussion on this. A DSLR needs to be a certain size to maintain good ergonomics and functionality.

01-13-2012, 08:16 PM	#127
bushwhacker09 Site Supporter Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: Blue Ridge Parkway Posts: 67	Originally posted by redpigeons I only shoot with Pentax , K-5 and K-7 and K20D I love these , and mostly I love the lenses , but the new Penatx lenses are still way noisier then what Canon and Nikon use to , and the auto focus still slower , and what is most important to the average consumer the image processor inside the camera is better for Canon and even for Nikon . JPGs strait of the camera looks just better, as with Pentax the LTD lenses makes magic , (expensive magic) . but always you need to do some tweaks in camera or in post to get the right tones . I know you will jump on me for the last part , this is my personal opinion. but I do believe that the masses thinks like me __________________ I usually just read these posts, but I agree wholeheartedly with you about Pentax. Love the lenses--just wish the cameras (mainly autofocus speed & accuracy) were consistently equivalent to the big boys. I still choose my K-7 (a good camera) mainly, but still won't let go of my D80.

01-14-2012, 04:53 AM	#128
Mehlsack Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: Innsbruck Posts: 283	Seriously guys, when you dont like the colors and the sharpness etc, configure it for your own needs and to your own wishes, we are talking about jpeg engines and that you dont like the colors? This camera stuff costs a fortune(at least for me as a student) so, why dont you use it in a way it is supposed to be ?!

01-14-2012, 05:26 AM	#129
Tonto Inactive Account Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: Wellington Posts: 969	I reckon the Ricoh purchase + Japan Tsunami put announcements back at least 6 months so unless something was in the pipeline before the sale I don't think we are gonna see any major news in a while........well thats what I'm telling myself in the meantime I just keep shooting with my 31/K7 combo

01-14-2012, 05:29 AM	#130
ihasa Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: West Midlands Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,066	Originally posted by ozlizard I would expect a FF camera to be a bit larger. If you want a smaller camera get an APS-C. The take up of a FF would most likely be pros and very serious photogs. The size or weight will not deter those groups. This is never an issue for me and I don't understand the amount of discussion on this. A DSLR needs to be a certain size to maintain good ergonomics and functionality. Actually I'm sure there are plenty of pros and serious togs who curse the size and weight of their kit. They would tend to get another system for 'leisure' use (APSC or mirrorless) and a few have downsized to APSC entirely. However there would seem to be an obvious niche for a relatively compact FF body, which would also include more casual users who are attracted by the IQ of FF but are put off by weight/size. A big FF DSLR from Pentax would compete squarely with the models from Canon/Nikon, and there would be no reason for any enthusiast or pro to pick it over the (well supported) big two.

01-14-2012, 07:19 AM	#131
MegaPower Veteran Member Join Date: May 2010 Location: Hong Kong / Irvine, CA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 636	i am not going to believe it but I am buying a FF once it came out

01-14-2012, 07:23 AM	#132
Winder Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: Tennessee Posts: 6,617	Right now, the one thing Pentax needs to get right is AF speed and accuracy. Accuracy is the most important thing. If the move to a larger AF sensor and add a 2nd processor for AF (like a Canon 1DX) how much will it add to the size of the camera? A new K-3 with: 24MP Sony ASP-C sensor 21-point AF (smaller more accurate points with a better spread) SR that comes on when your eye is at the VF and "locks" faster. But if Pentax does not have the resources to develop tethering (per-interview) then do we really think they have the resources to address really challenging features like better AF and SR?

01-14-2012, 12:04 PM	#133
Livanz New Member Join Date: Dec 2011 Posts: 13	Eddie1960 : "What makes you so certain that they couldn't fit it in a K-5 body ? ..." By looking at this The Guts: Sony A850, A900 Image Stabilization \| Popular Photography I imagine that it would be ( very ) difficult , plus the necessary space for a larger OVF as you mentioned and then the whole concept of a low-price , as simple as possible and robust and compact FF would be lost . It wouldn't be neither simpler nor low-cost anymore , it would be a Pentaxsony 900 . My point was that most serious pentaxians already have a very good APS-C camera with Shake Reduction ( and video if we refer to the K-5 ) so a "stripped down" K-(5) FF with even better image quality would be a perfect complement to the system , would'n imply massive investment in a new chassi and you could even use the same battery grip... It would be the perfect "combo" which would make everybody else jealous and would nicely fit the gap ( no sense denying there is one Pentax...) between K-5 and 645D . Canon and Nikon are making expensive FF monsters and Sony , being what they really are , an electronics company , have started making electronic "things" . In this context Petax should remember what they primarily are , an innovative PHOTOGRAPHIC company and act accordingly .

01-14-2012, 05:14 PM	#134
Vylen Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Sydney, Australia Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,262	It doesn't help that the SR module in Pentax cameras were always big in the first place.

01-15-2012, 10:28 AM	#135
Geoff H Forum Member Join Date: Dec 2011 Posts: 52	Originally posted by ihasa Actually I'm sure there are plenty of pros and serious togs who curse the size and weight of their kit. They would tend to get another system for 'leisure' use (APSC or mirrorless) and a few have downsized to APSC entirely. However there would seem to be an obvious niche for a relatively compact FF body, which would also include more casual users who are attracted by the IQ of FF but are put off by weight/size. A big FF DSLR from Pentax would compete squarely with the models from Canon/Nikon, and there would be no reason for any enthusiast or pro to pick it over the (well supported) big two. Ding Why are FF's so big? It's because it's a big macho marketplace. . Current pro FF's are medium-format sized. I don't remember any pros from 30 years ago arguing that their F1's were too small and saying they wanted a medium format sized 35mm camera? It's willy waving...