[dagaetch]

Maybe. No idea really, I didn't stop to talk to them. But the gear I noticed was shiny new and the people carrying it did not seem all that familiar with it. My point was only that there are people who think nothing of dropping 2-3 grand on a camera because they can afford it and they assume it will get them better pictures. Maybe it will. I'm not going to debate the photographer versus gear thing. These were people who were going on a 'trip of a lifetime' and wanted to make sure they had the best pictures they could get. I suspect taking a photography class would have improved the pictures more than a FF camera, but that's just my opinion.

The guy with the K-7 was no more familiar with his gear than the folks toting brand new MkIII's so it isn't just a FF thing. People there were trying to get the best images they could and many (most) seemed not all that familiar with any camera. But they were determined to record what the saw anyway.

What I saw was not a scientific study but I was surprised at the number of FF cameras I saw in the hands of people who did not have the other gear usually associated with 'photographers' they were just out with their families and the 5D MkIII was the 'family' camera. That is a high end market but I think a viable one for a company with the right message (small, ergonomic, light, WR, small lenses) In other words a light, easy to carry FF camera with good marketing has potential. And I cannot think of anyone better than Pentax to pull that off. If they get their act together.

So I was thinking as I read this that "until Pentax is sold in Best Buy they won't gain market share", but then I realized that may not be true anymore. Does anyone know where the majority of camera bodies are bought these days? Is it Best Buy, or online at Amazon, or elsewhere?

[derekkite]

I've run into the same number of D800 owners as Pentax owners in my limited sample.

Another small thing I learned. My K5 and lens is off for repair, and my co worker lent me his Canon Rebel with kit long zoom. A couple years old. If the K-500 IQ is close to the K-5, coupled with the 55-300, Pentax has a low price offering that is staggeringly better than Canon. The lens is pure trash, soft and very similar to 30 year old Pentax glass for CA. The body is surprisingly terrible even with moderately high ISO (1000).

I don't know what the low priced Nikons are like.

If someone had experience taking shots with one of these, ie. had kids, bought dslr from somewhere with a lens, looked at shots and was disappointed. Then they go on a trip. They wouldn't take their low price offering from Canon with them. If they didn't know better, they would buy whatever someone they asked said took great shots. Even if it cost a few $K.

[mamethot]

I used a D40 and 18-135 this week-end. The D40 wasn't all that bad but the 18-135 felt very cheap. It had severe zoom creep (not even needed to hold it down, just an angle was sufficient for the lens to come out), was wobbly and felt plasticky. My former DA 18-55 or even my DAL 70-300 feel a lot better than this.

[D1N0]

I don't see why a FF should be much larger than a aps-c larger mirror house and larger pentaprism, but pentax was able to make perfectly compact film slr's so why not for digital? The reason why full frames are bigger is mainly because they are pro dslrs which have always been bigger than consumer models for durability and ergonomic reasons. A D7000 is not much smaller than a D600.

[K David]

"I don't see why a FF should be much larger than a aps-c larger mirror house and larger pentaprism, but pentax was able to make perfectly compact film slr's so why not for digital? The reason why full frames are bigger is mainly because they are pro dslrs which have always been bigger than consumer models for durability and ergonomic reasons. A D7000 is not much smaller than a D600."

Certainly in time they will be smaller, but FF sensors with in-camera stabilization require larger mounts. Also, the hardware to process the data takes more space. More material generates more heat and that required larger and better heat removal systems. All that requires a a larger frame which inandof itself needs to be slightly heftier to carry all the added stuff.

[wigelII]

Would half an inch taller so I could hold it comfortably without the grip count as "screwing with" the design"? I'm tired of of choosing between getting cramps in my hand or my wrist/forearm.

I fully agree.
I always have the grip on my K5 just because it lacks height.
The best sized of all cameras I ever used was the Olympus E3 (which, by the way, also had the best viewfinder)

[jogiba]

I don't see why a FF should be much larger than a aps-c larger mirror house and larger pentaprism, but pentax was able to make perfectly compact film slr's so why not for digital? The reason why full frames are bigger is mainly because they are pro dslrs which have always been bigger than consumer models for durability and ergonomic reasons. A D7000 is not much smaller than a D600.

Compare a full frame DSLR with a film SLR with motor drive and 500 shot bulk film back since a FF DSLR has motor drive and SDXC slot.

[Zygonyx]

Compare a full frame DSLR with a film SLR with motor drive and 500 shot bulk film back since a FF DSLR has motor drive and SDXC slot.

[Kunzite]

FF sensors with in-camera stabilization require larger mounts.

I doubt this is the case; after all, there were non-stabilized FF cameras with mounts smaller than Pentax K. And the Minolta mount can accommodate in-body stabilization.
Of course, you're absolutely right when saying there are many things on the digital camera which simply needs space. The SR system itself, all the electronics, the back LCD... lots of things were added, compared even to a modern AF film camera.

[D1N0]

Stabilisation will be a bit problematic with full frame but Sony managed it with their a99. You probably need to correct vignetting (but with the dr of modern chips that should not be a problem). The image processor won't be bigger since chips have been getting smaller and more powerful since 2010 (Prime II) and it will not be more than a 24mp sensor. The main reason why dslr's are bigger than slr's is the presence of a lcd in the back and the need for a bigger print plate. But mainly those have been design choices about how to make a digital slr that's still a slr. You could probably make a better design. e.g. put de sensor with stabilisation inside the print plate instead of on top of it.

[IchabodCrane]

Maybe. No idea really, I didn't stop to talk to them. But the gear I noticed was shiny new and the people carrying it did not seem all that familiar with it. My point was only that there are people who think nothing of dropping 2-3 grand on a camera because they can afford it and they assume it will get them better pictures. Maybe it will. I'm not going to debate the photographer versus gear thing. These were people who were going on a 'trip of a lifetime' and wanted to make sure they had the best pictures they could get. I suspect taking a photography class would have improved the pictures more than a FF camera, but that's just my opinion.

The guy with the K-7 was no more familiar with his gear than the folks toting brand new MkIII's so it isn't just a FF thing. People there were trying to get the best images they could and many (most) seemed not all that familiar with any camera. But they were determined to record what the saw anyway.

What I saw was not a scientific study but I was surprised at the number of FF cameras I saw in the hands of people who did not have the other gear usually associated with 'photographers' they were just out with their families and the 5D MkIII was the 'family' camera. That is a high end market but I think a viable one for a company with the right message (small, ergonomic, light, WR, small lenses) In other words a light, easy to carry FF camera with good marketing has potential. And I cannot think of anyone better than Pentax to pull that off. If they get their act together.

Thanks for sharing. I still feel it needs to be placed in proper context as the FF segment of the DSLR market is still rather small by all accounts. No doubt there are some non-enthusiats who spend a lot on new camera equipment but are they buying Mark III's and D600/800's because they want a truly superior camera or are they buying them because they want the best Canon and Nikon offer without thinking about it too much (short of a D4 or something like that)? If it's the latter, Pentax is going to have a tough time cracking that nut, IMHO.

[Quicksand]

I fully agree.
I always have the grip on my K5 just because it lacks height.
The best sized of all cameras I ever used was the Olympus E3 (which, by the way, also had the best viewfinder)

I'm a large, tall dude (6'4") but I still really enjoy the K-5 form factor. I don't want to see it go away in favor of larger bodies.

That having been said, I could get behind the idea of a "Mini Grip" that adds a little height - and maybe an extra battery, but no controls - for the whiners valued customers ( ) who want it.

[Raffwal]

Compare a full frame DSLR with a film SLR with motor drive and 500 shot bulk film back since a FF DSLR has motor drive and SDXC slot.

Not to mention the ENIAC computer attached to it.

[wigelII]

I'm a large, tall dude (6'4") but I still really enjoy the K-5 form factor. I don't want to see it go away in favor of larger bodies.

That having been said, I could get behind the idea of a "Mini Grip" that adds a little height - and maybe an extra battery, but no controls - for the whiners valued customers ( ) who want it.

Do I understand you well?
People who think that the form factor of the K5 is not perfect (or people with big hands) are whiners?

[wigelII]

Coming back to the title of this thread: are there or aren't there (prosumer) cameras coming this year? Does somebody know more?
Olympus launched the great EM-1, Sony comes with FF Nex, Nikon is rumored to come with the D610, Canon will launch a high spec M-series, and Pentax ..................?
I think somebody at Ricoh abuses the expression "no news is good news".