[Rondec]

People interested in full frame aren't going to want to be limited to a Live View camera. You just flunked marketing 101.

.)

My point was not to name all the specs that the K-02 would have. Clearly, it would have a decent EVF, faster frame rate than the K-01, faster auto focus, etc. But it wouldn't have to have an optical viewfinder to compete with the NEX series cameras.

I certainly would expect that if the K-02 had a full frame sensor that there would also be an SLR style of full frame camera that came out as well.

[Clavius]

People interested in full frame aren't going to want to be limited to a Live View camera. You just flunked marketing 101.

Honestly, what would be handy would be a K-01 with a Q sensor (Exmor-R). Before you laugh: maybe you should take another look at the Q and what a smaller sensor does for you.
With a 5.5x crop factor, it gives you super-telephoto (cheaply) on the one end (great for birding/wildlife, people shooting their kids in sports, etc.) and on the other end a small sensor gives you tremendous DOF. When does that come in handy? When you shoot macro. Instead of getting a slice of the bug in focus (with a full frame) you get the entire bug in focus (for example). And the 12.1 megapixel Exmor-R puts more pixels in the image than a K-5 cropped to the equiv. degree (when comparing the same lenses). The DFA 100mm macro would sell like hotcakes on such a camera because it would give you superb high DOF macro and a 550mm telephoto (equiv. field of view) on the Q-sized sensor.

You can do this with the Q now (using adapters) but you lose all the automatic and autofocus stuff. Not so if you put the Q sensor in the K-01.

The Q is the best camera (highest technology) combined with the worst marketing (look! It's small!) in the world. Read the OWNER reviews and you'll see the word "joy" and "fun" more than any other camera you'll find. Once people get past the size of the sensor, and take a look it is impressive image quality with RAW capability and all the controls you would get on a DSLR, they realize that this isn't a camera to replace their DSLR but it is a tool that can *extend what they can do photographically* just like a new focal length lens (or other accessory does). Especially with the price of the Q coming down... I think it deserves another look by a lot of Pentax shooters (actually ANY shooter because with the proper adapter you can put just about any lens on the front of it... OM, m42, Nikon, Canon FD...)

People with a K-5 will think nothing of spending $500-600 for a lens. Think of the Q as another accessory like a lens (rather than a standalone replacement for your DSLR) that you can actually get into places a DSLR kit won't go (think museums/concerts/overnight-backpacking/etc) and you'll want one also. Imagine the Q in a K-01 form factor that can use all the DA/FA/DFA lenses (plus legacy glass) only with a 5.5x crop factor.

(I just bought a used 01 8.5mm f1.9 prime Q kit [with c-mount and k-mount adapters and an extra battery] yesterday and will have it in my hot little hands on Monday. I never seriously looked a what the Q could do because I never thought about it past the "sensor is small - has to be crap" thought. Once I did look at it, I was amazed. It extends my capabilities at the macro and super-telephoto ends with the lenses I have now.) I spent less than $400 shipped. A returned 01 Kit (next to new) was on Amazon Warehouse Deals this past week for $335. At these prices, the Q is a no-brainer and fully half what it originally sold for. The Q deserves another look (or maybe, if you were prejudiced like me, a good first look).

I am one of those Q-sceptics, but I have to admit that this makes a lot of sense. Dang, now I want a Q too. No... I want that Pentax LXD with exchangeable sensors to become a reality!

[RonHendriks1966]

Maybe Pentax needs to look at a full frame K-01 sequel? Seriously, that would be about as small as you could make a full frame camera.

Well I'm still in favor for a FF K-11!

People interested in full frame aren't going to want to be limited to a Live View camera. You just flunked marketing 101.

The biggest mistake you make is to think that there is just one kind of market for Full Frame. That is not even true for the current market that divers from a Canon 5Dii for 1675 euro up to a Leica M9M for 6799 euro (current pricing at a Dutch store).

There is a market for a 'normal' K-1 FF dslr as there is for a FF K-11 (based on the K-01 model) as long as the price is right in the market.

[LamyTax]

Honestly, what would be handy would be a K-01 with a Q sensor (Exmor-R).

How about that: A native PK to PQ adapter. It's announced for Photokina.

If you want better ergonomics on the Q, maybe build a rig.

[cheekygeek]

How about that: A native PK to PQ adapter. It's announced for Photokina.

If you want better ergonomics on the Q, maybe build a rig.

a) I haven't complained about ergonomics. I've stated that while, with adapters you can put K-mount lenses on a Q you don't get automatic metering (other than stop-down) and you lose autofocus capabilities.
b) the Pentax Q to K Adapter was shown at the last CPP++ and nobody has one to sell YET. In addition, if you look at the photos of the one shown at CPP++ (Verge link) You'll see it still doesn't give you AF or automatic metering. It gives you a bigger tripod socket foot. I have no idea what the numbers thing is on the top, though. No matter: If it is priced anything like their optical viewfinder they should sell 8 or 10 of them worldwide. In short, it looks pretty much like what you can get on ebay for $30 now.

[Pål Jensen]

These images are not the real thing. You can safely assume that early mockups never have much actual substance. All the development still has to be done.
Also, to make a very long lens only for APS-C and not for FF doesn't make much sense. The actual differences in design would be almost negligible. The price for such a lens is mainly defined by the glass used, and this is dominated by the front element: 560mm/5.6=100mm. The money you can save for not making it work well on FF is negligible. So that's what you do, you make it for FF.

The reason the the mock is probably correct is that this is a true telephoto lens; ie it is 560mm long. Hence, to make it competitive lenghtwise to traditional telephotos it is maybe collapsible.
It is true that usually there's no point in making long telephotos to only fit a smaller image circle except in exactly the construction Pentax have choosen. It will probably have about 1/8 of the number of glass elements than a image stabilize super telephoto with similar focal lenght form Nikon and Canon. The front element as well will be cheaper as it isn't needed to be such a well corrected optic for corner sharpnes (the corners are cropped away on FF). This will make the lens very cheap for what it is. An ED IF 560/5.6 would have costed at least $8000; you can bet that the DA 560/5.6 will be much cheaper than this.
The lens will also have reduced (hopefully not by much) performance at closer focusing distances.

[KungPOW]

If Sony came out with a FF NEX it would be high on my list of cameras to consider.

My NEX-5N uses stop down metering for all its lenses. Including my Pentax-M lenses.

The result of this is that the aperture is effectively coupled to the metering system.

Sure the K-01 meters off the sensor as does the Sony, but I understand you need to "hit the green button"

I was really surprised at how well the NEX-5N functions. With M lenses it handles more like my MX then any Pentax DSLR I have owned.

I expect we are going to see sub $2000 FF cameras from Sony, Nikon, and Canon well before we see a FF camera from Pentax.

I would rather use an EVF on a NEX-7 then get the inconsistent metering from using Pentax-M lenses on a Pentax DSLR.

So if Sony releases a FF NEX, and Pentax fails to announce a FF DSLR, why would I not buy the Sony?

[Schraubstock]

...that you can actually get into places a DSLR kit won't go (think museums/concerts/overnight-backpacking/etc)

Hi

Everything you say is pretty right, however to be fully operational in all those places you mention above you do need a proper viewfinder, one you can actually put your eyeballs up against. Try to operate the K-01 in a darkened concert/theater room with its bright screen, you will be accused, abused, shouted down and be made clear in no uncertain words to turn the thing off.

Any, even half serious, camera deserves a proper VF. I speak only for myself, and I do recognise I am perhaps a bit old-fashioned, but this photographer would never buy a cam without a viewfinder.

If they invented a "Steinway" with a virtual keyboard, you reckon anybody half serous into piano playing would buy such a thing ? (You know what I am trying to say, don't you)

Greetings

[TomTextura]

If they invented a "Steinway" with a virtual keyboard, you reckon anybody half serous into piano playing would buy such a thing ? (You know what I am trying to say, don't you)

I actually like that analogy. There are a lot of advantages to a DSLR, and an OVF is one I wouldn't be too keen to do without.

[RobA_Oz]

The reason the the mock is probably correct is that this is a true telephoto lens; ie it is 560mm long. Hence, to make it competitive lenghtwise to traditional telephotos it is maybe collapsible.

Now, correct me if I'm wrong here, but I thought the term "telephoto" indicated that it was collapsed, ie the distance from the front element or group to the focal point is less than the effective focal length. If I have remembered my optics lessons correctly, this requires an additional (negative) element or group to shorten the distance to the focal point, providing the collapsing, or telescoping effect.

If the length to the focal point equals the focal length, it certainly implies simplicity of design, as you only need one objective group, but it's then just a long FL lens, and not a telephoto. Of course, my optics classes were a long time ago, but the laws of physics haven't changed, although the terminology may have.

[LamyTax]

The lens will also have reduced (hopefully not by much) performance at closer focusing distances.

That's the thing I'm a bit worried about. If the shortest focus distance of this lens is 12m or so, it'll be useless for anything small, like birds. If the performance at that range is already not that great, forget extension (not that there's AF extension on sale anyway).

Now, correct me if I'm wrong here, but I thought the term "telephoto" indicated that it was collapsed, ie the distance from the front element or group to the focal point is less than the effective focal length. If I have remembered my optics lessons correctly, this requires an additional (negative) element or group to shorten the distance to the focal point, providing the collapsing, or telescoping effect.

If the length to the focal point equals the focal length, it certainly implies simplicity of design, as you only need one objective group, but it's then just a long FL lens, and not a telephoto. Of course, my optics classes were a long time ago, but the laws of physics haven't changed, although the terminology may have.

Sounds right .

[wanderography]

a) I haven't complained about ergonomics. I've stated that while, with adapters you can put K-mount lenses on a Q you don't get automatic metering (other than stop-down) and you lose autofocus capabilities.
b) the Pentax Q to K Adapter was shown at the last CPP++ and nobody has one to sell YET. In addition, if you look at the photos of the one shown at CPP++ (Verge link) You'll see it still doesn't give you AF or automatic metering. It gives you a bigger tripod socket foot. I have no idea what the numbers thing is on the top, though. No matter: If it is priced anything like their optical viewfinder they should sell 8 or 10 of them worldwide. In short, it looks pretty much like what you can get on ebay for $30 now.

You loose auto focus yes, but you still have auto metering... Losing metering and stop-down metering is used on K-Mount cameras with old K-Mount lenses, you even get full metering with M42 lenses, this is because on the old k mount lenses the aperture is stuck open, hence the reason for the green button, it closes the shutter so you can get a proper metering with pre PKA lenses, stop down metering. The green function is on the Q but I have no clue why because all apertures on adapted lenses open and close freely which allows full auto metering, so if your to lazy to set your settings on the Q in manual just switch over to AV mode, it'll work just fine... I'm thinking a lot of people on these forums are confused on what stop down metering is and why it's used on K-Mount cameras...

[mattiag]

I think that Pentax FF is actually a chimera. There are no reasons for Pentax to introduce a new line of camera and dedicate lenses when it can provide to improve present lines.
Yes, today there are still in production some FF lenses such the FA31, FA43, FA77, and D-FA100, and some of DAs works on FF but unofficially (as DA35 macro, DA40, DA200 and DA300. Pentax however lacks of dedicated FF zooms (even if seems that the DA*60-250 works well on FF).
I would prefer that Pentax concentrates his work on improvement of mirrorless line: the idea of a mirrorless that uses regular SLR lens it's great, but I expect that it's thinner and lighter than K-01, with an EVF, and possibly similar to old Pentax SLR of mid '80 (like the LX, MX or P30 for example).

look at this page for a list of Lenses designed for Pentax aps-c on FF compatibility:

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-slr-lens-discussion/31629-da-lens-...ts-thread.html

[thibs]

You loose auto focus yes, but you still have auto metering... Losing metering and stop-down metering is used on K-Mount cameras with old K-Mount lenses, you even get full metering with M42 lenses, this is because on the old k mount lenses the aperture is stuck open, hence the reason for the green button, it closes the shutter so you can get a proper metering with pre PKA lenses, stop down metering.

Nope AFAIK. A aperture-ringless lens will stay wide open on an old K-mount but it will close to smaller aperture when shooting i.e. f/22 or f/32.
Never tried myself but this is what I read many times. It is logical as well since the A position has always been the smalest aperture as well (f/22 or f/32 most of the times).

[Clavius]

I think that Pentax FF is actually a chimera. There are no reasons for Pentax to introduce a new line of camera and dedicate lenses when it can provide to improve present lines.
Yes, today there are still in production some FF lenses such the FA31, FA43, FA77, and D-FA100, and some of DAs works on FF but unofficially (as DA35 macro, DA40, DA200 and DA300. Pentax however lacks of dedicated FF zooms (even if seems that the DA*60-250 works well on FF).
I would prefer that Pentax concentrates his work on improvement of mirrorless line: the idea of a mirrorless that uses regular SLR lens it's great, but I expect that it's thinner and lighter than K-01, with an EVF, and possibly similar to old Pentax SLR of mid '80 (like the LX, MX or P30 for example).

look at this page for a list of Lenses designed for Pentax aps-c on FF compatibility:

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-slr-lens-discussion/31629-da-lens-...ts-thread.html

They only lack a kit zoom or two. They could easily introduce those together with the FF unicorn camera. They could even just use old but updated FA formulas.