[Kunzite]

I meant I don't have to use marketing speak - I can bluntly say "this is good enough for my needs". How Pentax is marketing and selling their products it's their job, not mine.

[illdefined]

sorry, wasn't just picking you out Kunzite. as you well know, Pentax product and marketing decisions isn't our job but that doesn't prevent us from discussing both as a community (a lot). there are just as many as brand evangelists here as there are critics, none belong more than the other as long as we're all Pentax users.

[Kunzite]

Yeah, but that's a different discussion

[TomTextura]

But FYI, even the "full frame" can't escape from being "good enough". True, it's a better "good enough".

Actually, a 35mm full frame sensor provides the very best you can ever expect from any of the 35mm mount systems, be it the Pentax K, Canon EF, Nikon F, Leica M, Sony A, or Sigma SA (which is also without any FF sensor).

[Kunzite]

Actually, the so-called "full frame" was able to dethrone the larger formats in terms of popularity because it was "good enough" and affordable (two of the APS-C's traits, right now). Having several viable small format mounts was a consequence.

[TomTextura]

I would have a difficult time agreeing with or sympathizing with the upsizing demands from users of systems like Four Thirds, Fuji X, or Samsung NX since none of those systems are compatible with any larger sensor than what they are already using. Pentax's K-mount though, it's not reaching its potential. Ricoh needs to take advantage of what they just acquired. Ricoh would have to be out of their minds to buy the K-mount and then let it stagnate by only ever putting an APS-C sensor behind it. It'd be like building a V-8 engine that only ever fires four of its cylinders. Sure, such an engine might be more economical but it's never going to be as high performance as it could be if it were to fire all eight cylinders.

[Kunzite]

I don't think it's anything as dramatic as "stagnating" and "not reaching its potential" The K-mount just supports a larger sensor size, that's all.

[illdefined]

I don't think it's anything as dramatic as "stagnating" and "not reaching its potential" The K-mount just supports a larger sensor size, that's all.

...that the K-Mount's competition, the only other two DSLR manufacturers left, take full advantage of (and leverage more and more everyday)

[Laurentiu Cristofor]

I would have a difficult time agreeing with or sympathizing with the upsizing demands from users of systems like Four Thirds, Fuji X, or Samsung NX since none of those systems are compatible with any larger sensor than what they are already using.

Many people purchased a NEX/NX/X/GXR as the next best thing to use M mount lenses with, not just because they were interested in their lens lineups. Were you to offer them a FF MILC in their current mount, they wouldn't say no. They would buy such camera regardless of what mount it uses, as long as they can adapt M lenses to it.

[TomTextura]

Many people purchased a NEX/NX/X/GXR as the next best thing to use M mount lenses with, not just because they were interested in their lens lineups. Were you to offer them a FF MILC in their current mount, they wouldn't say no. They would buy such camera regardless of what mount it uses, as long as they can adapt M lenses to it.

Do any of those set ups allow AF? I know almost nothing about adapter options but have always been under the impression that there aren't any adapters that retain AF ability. I know I could use my two FA lenses on a Canon with an adapter but don't much care for the idea of having to always focus manually, stop down meter, or putting up with the wonky ergonomics on Canon DSLRs.

[gazonk]

Do any of those set ups allow AF? I know almost nothing about adapter options but have always been under the impression that there aren't any adapters that retain AF ability. I know I could use my two FA lenses on a Canon with an adapter but don't much care for the idea of having to always focus manually, stop down meter, or putting up with the wonky ergonomics on Canon DSLRs.

AF for M-mount, that would be something new

Sony has an adapter for using a-mount lenses on NEX that contains a PDAF module, and Olympus has an adapter that allows AF with 4/3 lenses on m4/3. Can't think of any others right now.

[John Poirier]

This is a very good point, good enough for me to "like" it. I agree with it completely. I myself can't tell the difference between an APSC image and an FF image in 9 out of 10 cases. But...

My clients (advertising agency, realestate agencies) want me to shoot FF. Ohterwise they'll just find a different photographer. Even though I'm completely convinced that my beloved K5 can produce almost the same quality as my 12MP Canon 5D that I had to buy to get these assignments.

And because of such "bureaucracy" Pentax will only be seen as FULL by the pro's (or rather the clients of the pro's) if they actually deliver an FF camera. Despite the small advantage.

Not much has really changed in the last 30 years or more. I used to show up at meetings with a Leica hanging around my neck in order to obtain the required nods of approval. Then went away, shot with Pentaxes, and got lots of kudos for the quality of my work...

Unfortunately perception rather than fact is a big part of marketing.

I agree that APS-C meets the needs of most photographers, including pros. However, if Pentax wishes to compete with other brands in the perceptions of a certain class of clients, and of photographers who want to invest in systems with an upgrade route to full frame, they pretty much have to come out with a full frame body.

So, here is my pie-in-the-sky speculation for today.

I am sure that Pentax under new management has considered the FF thing in development of their business plan. Part of the strategic planning process includes something called an environmental scan, which I am sure would pick up a factor as obvious as the FF question. The resultant plan may or may not identify the target audiences mentioned above as worthwhile targets for growth. That sort of decision is based on confidential research, and no sane corporation is going to advertise its intentions to its competitors.

I have no idea where Pentax will go. My guess is that, having invested a substantial amount of money, Ricoh has assigned some very smart people to the job. I expect some pretty interesting products when the new development cycle has run its full course, which I think will happen sometime in 2013.

I would say that the takeover of Pentax by Ricoh is quite a different proposition from the Hoya episode. The latter left Pentax hanging as a separate, poorly resourced entity. For reasons I do not have time to go into here, I do not think Ricoh blew many millions of dollars on Pentax just to let it rot. Therefore, I think the resources allocated to Pentax by Ricoh will be substantially better than the support from Hoya.

It appears that Ricoh is integrating its photographic operations with Pentax at least to some extent.

I suspect that the process would have included some strategic planning by Ricoh prior to the purchase. After the purchase there would be a period of integration when staff from the two companies would get acquainted and exchange information about intellectual property- both patents and proprietary (eg confidential) technology. There would have to be stock-taking of staff in terms of skills, and a preliminary evaluation of the potential of the combined technologies. After that there would be another round of strategic planning. This round would include identification of potential growth areas, an outline of products targeted for those areas, and identification of new skills, technology and resources needed to produce viable products.

Then there would be a period of solidifying support from the parent organization, working staff into new roles, and hiring and integrating new staff. There would also be development and implementation of a new workflow model.

Only then would actual design of truly new products begin in earnest.

All of this takes time.

The bottom line is:

Do Not Panic!

[Blue]

many people here don't care about marketing. why should they? it's ostensibly a photography forum right? well no, it's actually a brand forum, and how this brand markets itself and it's position in the overall market affect us all greatly. whether people here choose to acknowledge it or not.

there's something legitimately marketable in being an underdog brand ("be interesting"), but that implies the brand is still fighting the good fight and not sitting still or resting on their laurels (K-5 comes to mind..)....even the great photo traditionalist and ultra-niche Leica has felt market pressure and has not only gone digital, but taken up video, gone FF, and even accepted the use of EVFs.....is Pentax really more special than Leica?

Actually, its a brand centric photography forum. There are a lot of images posted here.

[illdefined]

Actually, its a brand centric photography forum. There are a lot of images posted here.

not in News and Rumors.

[Dave L]

I'll take the size of the sensor any day of the week. And yes,the Nikon is still 3x better than any Pentax non medium format - it's that good

Certain posters keep saying that, which is a bit like saying "the K-5IIs is better than any non-FF Nikon - it's that good".

Perhaps Pentax would be better to just trump the lot and develop a smaller lighter 645D camera with lenses to match? Expensive yes but that'd set the cat among the professional pigeons.