[gazonk]

By your "logic" I never see a natural image since I'm wearing glasses

Hehe. But not quite, after all your glasses don't have a focusing screen :-)

[Kunzite]

johnmflores:
You have talent; I'd love to see a copy after it's finished

1. Is my own estimation, based on the current entry level FF camera prices.
2. If it's cheap, OK, one can accept no AF, no automation. If you buy it with new lenses and want to use some old 50mm found at the flea market, fine.
However, if I'm a Pentax user with some quite expensive Limiteds and * lenses and I'm told that's how I must use them, that would be unacceptable.
3. The K-mount user base can and will grow. Maybe it is large enough, maybe it isn't - we'll see.
OTOH, your FF MILC starts with zero users; how is that better???
4. Doing it different just for the sake of doing it different? You'll have to come up with a better reason
By the way, I said it in the past - since everyone seems to go mirrorless, doing it differently should mean "stay with DSLRs"
5. And now there are several strong players on the MILC market; the conditions aren't any better than on the DSLR one.
Except for the lack of a high-end solution, which we don't know if it's required.

gazonk: I was hoping he won't notice that, but you gave me away
Anyway, I'd call what you see through an optical instrument a "natural image". The matte screen is nothing more than a surface on which that "natural image" can be projected, and with a high quality matte screen the result can be impressive.

[Emacs]

By your "logic" I never see a natural image since I'm wearing glasses

Don't forget: focusing screens change DOF view. Glasses are not.

[eddie1960]

Hehe. But not quite, after all your glasses don't have a focusing screen :-)

mine do but they back focus

[Kunzite]

Don't forget: focusing screens change DOF view. Glasses are not.

So? An EVF messes up everything, including DOF.

[eddie1960]

Sorry but even having seen 4k TV I still don't see replacing the OVF with an EVF. Even 4K TV still looks like TV (damn good TV but TV nonetheless), and no EVF comes close to it.
OVF (at least until the shot) feels completely connected to the scene (But then I still prefer a really good RF where there is no blackout and i can shoot with both eyes open (Leica m3 for instance)

[johnmflores]

johnmflores:
You have talent; I'd love to see a copy after it's finished

Two chapters done. Mile to go...

1. Is my own estimation, based on the current entry level FF camera prices.

Oh. I wonder how much of the cost of a 5DII or D700 is the pentaprism/mirror/PDAF? FF MILC won't need those steampunk mechanisms

2. If it's cheap, OK, one can accept no AF, no automation. If you buy it with new lenses and want to use some old 50mm found at the flea market, fine.
However, if I'm a Pentax user with some quite expensive Limiteds and * lenses and I'm told that's how I must use them, that would be unacceptable.

For current Pentax customer, buying a FF mirrorless does not turn their K-x, K-r, K20d, K-5, etc... into dust. Their cameras will still work - how cool is that? FF mirrorless is a complement to current cameras, not a replacement. And FF mirrorless doesn't mean that Pentax won't replace the K-5 with a K-3. Heck, they may introduce a FF mirrorless and FF dSLR at the same time that share the same sensor and other components. This is not necessarily an either/or scenario.

3. The K-mount user base can and will grow. Maybe it is large enough, maybe it isn't - we'll see.
OTOH, your FF MILC starts with zero users; how is that better???

Nothing Pentax has done in the last 10 years has brought them double-digit market share. Nothing. Not SR. Not AA batteries. Not weather-sealing. Not class-leading ISO performance. Not precious primes. Nothing. If you think that FF dSLR will change that, I refer you again to Sony. And if you think 0% is daunting, I refer you to Panasonic, Sony NEX, et. al. A FF MILC acts as a bridge to current Pentax owners and to owners of other brands.

4. Doing it different just for the sake of doing it different? You'll have to come up with a better reason
By the way, I said it in the past - since everyone seems to go mirrorless, doing it differently should mean "stay with DSLRs"

LOL. Still too many dSLRs being sold by Canon and Nikon to be "different". All the differentiation that Pentax has tried in the past 10 years with dSLRs (see above) has failed to increase market share. At the end of the day, they weren't different enought.

I'm not suggesting that they do it different just for sake of doing it different. I'm talking about doing it in a way that clearly differentiates them from competitors. 43 failed because it wasn't different enough - a dSLR in a bulky package with locked-in lenses. Everyone's got that. Sony FF failed because it wasn't different enough from Canon and Nikon offering. M43 is succeeding because it offered a combination of features (size, design, etc...) that nobody else offered at the time.

5. And now there are several strong players on the MILC market; the conditions aren't any better than on the DSLR one.
Except for the lack of a high-end solution, which we don't know if it's required.

You're right that the MILC market is much more crowded now than it was a couple of years ago. But there's still a gap - affordable FF. Leica's got the upper end, but below that there's a huge vacuum. Pentax shook up the MF market with the 645D. They can do the same in FF MILC.

[Kunzite]

Good luck with your writing!

1. I doubt there would be a significant cost difference. Let's not forget the EVF is something new for Pentax, and new things costs more.
2. That's not the point. Why would a Pentax K-mount user want a FF mirrorless, instead of a K-mount camera? Well, it wouldn't - so one shouldn't use Pentax K-mount users as an excuse to build such a MILC.
3. Let's agree that Hoya was a so-so experience; we'll have to move forward, now it's Pentax Ricoh's era.
4. What I'm saying is that "do it differently" doesn't hold any value whatsoever. One can talk about finding a specific but large enough niche, or about doing the same kind of product like others - as long as there is a solid business case.
FF MILC is somewhat niche (still, competing with FF DSLRs), but is it large enough? I don't see how it could be any larger than for a high quality yet affordable FF DSLR. We're not talking about the kind of people who are easily fooled into buying no-viewfinder cameras.
FF MILC for legacy lenses is certainly niche, but very small and with no future.
IMO the best chances are with a K-mount DSLR. Much better potential - a MILC would have to attract new customers (and ones willing do spend lots of $$); but with this, there are guaranteed sales from upgrading K-mount users.
And... I'm not sure the Sony FF failed "because it wasn't different". I'd rather say the execution was somewhat lacking, unconvincing, and that Pentax can do better.
5. What do you mean by "affordable"? I'm afraid Pentax can't dramatically undercut the competition, so you're asking the impossible.
The 645D is a special case; they were able to share R&D and other costs with the smaller format (and much higher volume) cameras - this huge advantage allowed them to make it that cheap; there was no magic involved.
With a MILC, they would be at a disadvantage.

[jsherman999]

Two chapters done. Mile to go...


Oh. I wonder how much of the cost of a 5DII or D700 is the pentaprism/mirror/PDAF? FF MILC won't need those steampunk mechanisms

I noticed that you mention Steampunk a lot, figured you were a sci fi fan - but a writer! Is your Novel going to be Steampunkish by chance?

.

... Sony FF failed because it wasn't different enough from Canon and Nikon offering.

That, plus a lack of new lenses, no live view, sub-par-for-tier AF, and a very questionable treatment of the data coming off that sensor, leading to surprisingly noisy images. Didn't help that they went with 'Sony' instead of 'Minolta' for the DSLR lines, either.

Pentax can find lessons there and not make the same mistakes. As I've said many times in many ways, just because Sony didn't catch the world on fire in 2008-2009 with DSLR FF doesn't mean it's automatically a write-off for everyone else hereafter.

..You're right that the MILC market is much more crowded now than it was a couple of years ago. But there's still a gap - affordable FF.

I was more excited about that gap before I heard the strong 'three new FF models from Sony in 2012, none of which are DSLR' rumours that started popping up a few months ago. One will probably be a NEX-9, and probably be very affordable. Goodbye, mirrorless-FF gap. (Let's see if Sony learned their lens lesson, though.)

PS: FWIW I agree that a Pentax mirrorless FF body would be exciting, but switching off K-mount is a Homer-in-La Brea move, IMO.

.
.

[ElJamoquio]

At the end of the day, a FF Pentax dSLR is not going to be interesting to anyone but current Pentax customers. And the current user base of Pentax owners is not big enough to justify a FF dSLR. It's a cart/horse problem. FF in and of itself is not enough to attract new customers, just ask Sony.

Huh?

There's so many assumptions in there I don't know where to start.

Is the price the same as the Canon/Nikon? Is the size the same? Does it have the same lenses? Does it have equivalent ISO noise? Equivalent AF? Equivalent dynamic range?

I agree, if absolutely everything is the same - if Pentax buys a camera from Canon, and buys lenses from Canon, and puts the Pentax name on them - then you're correct, the Pentax camera won't be interesting to very many people.

[Spare Tire]

Sony making a Nex that doesn't use their current e-mount but another mount to fit bigger FF glass? I don't see that happening.

[Winder]

I think Pentax should go with an EVIL FF camera and ship an adapter for K-mount with the body. A FF the Size of the NEX-7 with better ergonomics and a better menu system would be very interesting. The NEX-7 is the hottest camera on the market right now. Sony is finally realizing how much demand there is for a serious EVIL camera.

If Pentax includes an adapter with full AF capabilities and built-in AF motor for screw drive support they will increase demand for all of their glass which is where the money is. Then bring out a line of lenses just for the new EVIL FF.

Maybe they will look into buying the new organic APC-C from Fuji.

[filorp]

my 2 penny to discussion:
i think Sony FF SLR failed because they didn't give anything, absolutely anything distinctive: average AF speed and accuracy, down the standard iso capabilities, average body with no modern function like decent live view... the only factor that was supposed to give them advantage was Zeiss glass. Lets assume that Pentax will release FF DSLR... will have decent very decent body well sealed with uncompromised ergonomic, LEGENDARY Pentax limiteds (3 for beginning but i thing 135f1.8 is on its way), Iso and DR will be top notch (better than nikon equivalent) with 20bit converter similar to k10D.... lets not hope to high: average AF speed and accuracy, smallest ruggest body in the history of FF DSLR - i know lots of professionals who started scratch heads to the blood seeing something like this.... at least for spare body with couple of lenses..... for beginning at least studio shutters and landschafters will be amazed..... Pentax FF DSLR is just condemned to success....

[Aristophanes]

Sony making a Nex that doesn't use their current e-mount but another mount to fit bigger FF glass? I don't see that happening.

No need to. The E-mount can handle FF.

[Aristophanes]

my 2 penny to discussion:
i think Sony FF SLR failed because they didn't give anything, absolutely anything distinctive: average AF speed and accuracy, down the standard iso capabilities, average body with no modern function like decent live view... the only factor that was supposed to give them advantage was Zeiss glass. Lets assume that Pentax will release FF DSLR... will have decent very decent body well sealed with uncompromised ergonomic, LEGENDARY Pentax limiteds (3 for beginning but i thing 135f1.8 is on its way), Iso and DR will be top notch (better than nikon equivalent) with 20bit converter similar to k10D.... lets not hope to high: average AF speed and accuracy, smallest ruggest body in the history of FF DSLR - i know lots of professionals who started scratch heads to the blood seeing something like this.... at least for spare body with couple of lenses..... for beginning at least studio shutters and landschafters will be amazed..... Pentax FF DSLR is just condemned to success....

The Sony Zeiss glass is excellent with their primes. And their legacy Minolta glass (beer cans) was also excellent, and with a larger installed base than Pentax.

But primes don't sell a system; zooms account for the vast majority of until sales both as kit and aftermarket.

And how is it that Sony making average AF is bad, but for Pentax it is good?

Let's face it. Anyone spending $2,500 on a DSLR body wants class-equivaent AF. I know pros too and for them anything less than Canikon AF (especially Nikon's low-light AF) will not be on the purchase list. All the weather-sealing and incrementally smaller form factor (neither of which have been sales determinants in the past) will not make up for "get the shot" capabilities and ultimately, IQ.