[Winder]

Well, throwing in either or both WiFi and GPS does make a pretty large difference, in a number of functional areas in a product like a camera.

• GPS - It requires power, which will drain the battery faster. It also takes time to sync up with the satellites, which have a very weak signal and does not penetrate inside buildings. So, do you want to wait up to a couple of minutes while you sync up the birds - especially if the last time you took a picture was in New York City, and now that you are in Alaska for dinner, you want to take another. Then, if you are inside a building, how long do you want to wait for the satellite signals that will not be coming?
• WiFi - Again, it needs power. Do you want it to sync up with any network it finds, or just yours? What if it can't find a network?

How large of a battery do you want? Where should we put the GPS antenna - you don't want your hand covering it - bad for signal acquisition. What range do you want on the WiFi, and how are you going to manage the setup, or do you want to be broadcasting your images to every Stabucks in town.


The 6D is a lot larger, and the 645 is tremendously larger than the K5/II/IIs. The K mount is already full frame, its a matter of accommodating the larger sensor, and the supporting infrastructure, along with the new power requirements. Then there is the additional processing for the enlarged sensor, along with all of those new "features". The half life of the parts you designed in 6 months ago (or 3 years ago) will all need to be redone, this time for production based on the length of the model run. Then there are the manuals, testing, production tools, and test equipment, along with the manufacturing instructions and training - plus let's not forget about QC.

I would rather have the body not much larger than the K5/II/IIs and certainly no larger than the K20.

You realize you can turn GPS and WiFi off if you are concerned about battery power. Battery power is a pointless argument against features that can be disabled.

The K-5 is 9% narrower than the 6D
The K-5 is 12% shorter than the 6D
The K-5 is 2% thicker than the 6D
The K-5 is 1% lighter than the 6D

When you say the 6D is A LOT LARGER what do you consider "A LOT"? I have to use the grip on the K-5 especially with the 85mm F/1.4. I would actually be happy if the K-5 was taller and I could get all my fingers on the grip without using the aftermarket grip.

[Fogel70]

The Canon 6D is not much bigger than a K-5 and the K-5 is actually thicker.
.

It might not be possible fr Pentax to make a FF as small as the Canon 6D, as the SR mechanism need a lot of space inside the camera. So Pentax might end up with something the size and weight of Canon 5D mk III or Nikon D800.

[Iksobarg]

Is Pentax still using Sony sensors? I know only of Sony sensors in the kx.

[thibs]

Is Pentax still using Sony sensors? I know only of Sony sensors in the kx.

Yep. All have been but K20D and K-7.

[Winder]

It might not be possible fr Pentax to make a FF as small as the Canon 6D, as the SR mechanism need a lot of space inside the camera. So Pentax might end up with something the size and weight of Canon 5D mk III or Nikon D800.

it will probably be bigger, and it probably needs to be bigger. I can only get 3 fingers on the K-5 without the grip. I would like for the body to be at least tall enough to get all 4 fingers on the grip. People who buy full frames are also more likely to buy bigger, faster glass. The current K-5 body is great with the small Limited primes, but throw the Sigma 85mm F/1.4 on it and the K-5 is very unbalanced.

I tried out a Sony A99 not long ago and it was just tall enough to get 4 fingers on the grip. The the CZ85 on it, it balanced out much better than my K-5 with the Sigma 85mm.

For people who shoot wide and want a really compact body then APS-C or the Sony RX1 are the way to go. I shoot people and I need fast 50mm, 85mm, & 135mm. There will never be a good "pancake" lens for what I do.

[RobA_Oz]

I have had the somewhat dubious pleasure of working for two medium sized companies that were acquired by much larger ones. Both of the smaller companies were highly regarded in our technical field and the purchasing companies were growing into new markets through acquisition. In both instances the more well known names of the acquired companies disappeared completely within four months in favor of the new parent company names. Consistent "branding" was the watch word of the moment and it was critical to the new management that all work was to be done under the new name in each instance.

The result of that sudden change in identity was SERIOUS confusion with our clients for quite some time. The good thing was that the quality of the work we were doing stayed the same and in quite a few ways improved due to deeper pockets and greater resources. It took three years to settle down the first time I went through this and it's been two years this, second, time and things are still in transition. It's never easy to go through that major a disruption in work, but things do settle down and for the most part improve with age. (Think good scotch if you need an analogy.)

The whole matter of the importance of branding strategy was, I think, hijacked on many occasions by new CEOs who wanted to put their stamp of change on an organisation before moving on to bigger and better things elsewhere. It isn't the only example of a rapacious sociopath damaging a company for personal gain, but it's probably a good one for a future PhD or two. You can also lay some blame on business schools who tout this sort of thing, without issuing cautions about unintended consequences.

Fortunately, Japanese companies tend to ignore Western business school fads, and they have a habit of doing things with sound, long-term reasons behind them (I make the obvious disclaimer about rogue boards, such as the previous one at Olympus). Where Ricoh took over and obliterated some of their competition (at least in name, if not in production or sales capacity) in the copier business, I believe they did so in markets where they were already present. Although some (probably few) of us here are old enough to remember Ricoh film SLRs, that name hasn't been in the DSLR market at all, and only had a very small presence in the P&S market anywhere. On this basis, I find it hard to believe that Ricoh are going to phase out the old-established Pentax name, with its heritage and existing market presence, as small as it might be in the West, in favour of a name that has no recognition at all in the DSLR market, at least in the medium term.

[Schraubstock]

The whole matter of the importance of branding strategy was, I think, hijacked on many occasions by new CEOs who wanted to put their stamp of change on an organisation before moving on to bigger and better things elsewhere. It isn't the only example of a rapacious sociopath damaging a company for personal gain, but it's probably a good one for a future PhD or two. You can also lay some blame on business schools who tout this sort of thing, without issuing cautions about unintended consequences.

Fortunately, Japanese companies tend to ignore Western business school fads, and they have a habit of doing things with sound, long-term reasons behind them (I make the obvious disclaimer about rogue boards, such as the previous one at Olympus). Where Ricoh took over and obliterated some of their competition (at least in name, if not in production or sales capacity) in the copier business, I believe they did so in markets where they were already present. Although some (probably few) of us here are old enough to remember Ricoh film SLRs, that name hasn't been in the DSLR market at all, and only had a very small presence in the P&S market anywhere. On this basis, I find it hard to believe that Ricoh are going to phase out the old-established Pentax name, with its heritage and existing market presence, as small as it might be in the West, in favour of a name that has no recognition at all in the DSLR market, at least in the medium term.

Hi Rob
There has been analysis to paralysis on this topic here, but I think yours is the definitive assessment.

Greetings

[RobA_Oz]

it will probably be bigger, and it probably needs to be bigger. I can only get 3 fingers on the K-5 without the grip. I would like for the body to be at least tall enough to get all 4 fingers on the grip. People who buy full frames are also more likely to buy bigger, faster glass. The current K-5 body is great with the small Limited primes, but throw the Sigma 85mm F/1.4 on it and the K-5 is very unbalanced.

I tried out a Sony A99 not long ago and it was just tall enough to get 4 fingers on the grip. The the CZ85 on it, it balanced out much better than my K-5 with the Sigma 85mm.

For people who shoot wide and want a really compact body then APS-C or the Sony RX1 are the way to go. I shoot people and I need fast 50mm, 85mm, & 135mm. There will never be a good "pancake" lens for what I do.

This is a tricky problem for a small company like Pentax to address. They can't yet afford to have a range of bodies that will suit all hand sizes, such as Nikon and Canon have, even though they're probably addressing basically different market segments. Their main market, as we've seen elsewhere, is in Japan, where hands tend to be smaller than in much of the West. Their biggest potential geographical markets are probably in China and India, where hand sizes tend to be bigger than Japanese ones, but still smaller than in the West. The only way they can really do this is with good design and the pricing of the battery grip, which they could also make more versatile, by incorporating other features - eg the GPS unit in it - to add value. They could also offer to bundle the grip with the body.

[Barry Pearson]

How "from scratch" does it need to be?

Take the K-5 ergonomics and apply them to a slightly larger body with a FF sensor and VF. Throw in some mature technologies like WiFi and GPS and you have a great camera.

If "from scratch" you mean a new mount for a mirrorless body, then that is a different story.

The technologies we need are all mature and readily available. It is a matter of Pentax putting them together in a well designed package. The K-5 is a pretty well designed package, and I hope they don't go to far from that.

If that "new mount for a mirrorless body" were totally different from the K-mount, that would indeed be a serious disruption and decline of a key asset.

But if it was similar but with a smaller registration distance, which could easily be bridged for K-mount lenses by a (cheap or included) glass-less tube carrying the automation signals and aperture coupling, it might be a smart move.

[RobA_Oz]

If that "new mount for a mirrorless body" were totally different from the K-mount, that would indeed be a serious disruption and decline of a key asset.

But if it was similar but with a smaller registration distance, which could easily be bridged for K-mount lenses by a (cheap or included) glass-less tube carrying the automation signals and aperture coupling, it might be a smart move.

I'm with you on this last one. The first time I suggested it, the negative reaction was a little surprising, although the fear about introducing another element that could go wrong was understandable, if not wholly justifiable. I can only imagine that some bad experiences with non-OEM teleconverter linkages were behind that.

[Cynog Ap Brychan]

If Pentax makes an FF camera, I don't mind if it is larger than my K-5. The reason I prefer to go out and about with my Pentax system is not the bulk of my D800, it's the size and weight of the high-end Nikon lenses that cause me a problem. So, I would hope that Pentax would be able to produce reasonably small full-frame lenses, which may be possible if the SR is included in the body.

[gazonk]

But if it was similar but with a smaller registration distance, which could easily be bridged for K-mount lenses by a (cheap or included) glass-less tube carrying the automation signals and aperture coupling, it might be a smart move.

Given that most of the great Pentax lenses of the last years are screw driven, I think they need an adapter with built-in AF motor. But if they use a sensor with built-in PDAF, they could probably make an adapter that's smaller than Sony's chunky LE-A2 adapter!

[snake]

Who cares?

There will always be a K-mount architecture out there for those that want to stick with it.

Would you have preferred Hoya to continue to allow Pentax's employees to continue to mismanage it? People will often blame Hoya, and they certainly had a part, but much lies with Pentax's employees, too.

Without Ricoh, the roadmap for the K-mount might be extinction, perhaps going to Sony, if anyone else. So which do you prefer? Continuing progress and existence of the K-mount or the end of the roadmap? Who cares what label it has?

[Uluru]

Who cares?

There will always be a K-mount architecture out there for those that want to stick with it.
Would you have preferred Hoya to continue to allow Pentax's employees to continue to mismanage it? People will often blame Hoya, and they certainly had a part, but much lies with Pentax's employees, too.
Without Ricoh, the roadmap for the K-mount might be extinction, perhaps going to Sony, if anyone else. So which do you prefer? Continuing progress and existence of the K-mount or the end of the roadmap? Who cares what label it has?

Baking powder? I mean, I beg you pardon?

[Kunzite]

I'm with you on this last one. The first time I suggested it, the negative reaction was a little surprising, although the fear about introducing another element that could go wrong was understandable, if not wholly justifiable. I can only imagine that some bad experiences with non-OEM teleconverter linkages were behind that.

The negative reaction is not generated by fear; that's a silly way of downplaying solid arguments. It's about things like the following:
- people like me want DSLRs, not EVF cameras (even more so when talking about the better FF viewfinder). We're a far larger market than the EVF one.
- changing the mount is a hassle; and doing it for no benefit? It's a huge mistake to believe we would simply give up on OVFs, and buy adapters, and accept losing 2-way compatibility with our cameras and lenses.
A new mount should not retain mechanical aperture and AF linkages, by the way; it should be full electric. No sense to include old style technology in a mount designed for the future.
- starting a new system with one expensive camera made for the 4 times smaller MILC market would be much more difficult than expanding the existing K-mount system into FF territory. For lenses, the difference would be dramatic: it would be impossible to share them with the much larger APS-C user base.