[gazonk]

Now that Apsc has pretty much reached its limits with the 24mp bodies, and Nikon Canon and Sony pulling FF in the direction of mainstream territory, ánd Pentax having the secure backing of Ricoh, it would be inexplicable if Pentax did not release a FF camera before the end of 2014. On the long term it would completely marginalize them as a serious camera maker. I don't think they can afford to wait until 2015 either, Sony is on full steam and those looking for a FF camera to use e.g. the Fa ltd's on, will see the A7(r) drop in price by the end of 2014, and if there's no concrete Pentax FF offering by then, I wonder how many will go Sony/Novoflex.

On the other hand, if they get an FF camera out within a few months, they might even start with just the refreshed FA limiteds and still have a more complete lineup than the A7/A7r currently has :-)

A compact, stylish camera with those three lenses (and a standard zoom and 70-200ish lens on the roadmap) may be enough to draw customers from both Canikon and Sony. With the relatively small FA limiteds, a K-3-sized FF DSLR may suddenly look quite small besides the A7: Compact Camera Meter

[monochrome]

a K-3-sized FF DSLR

Think more K20 form factor and work down from there. Heat sinks may be an issue, as well as battery size..

[Zygonyx]

Yep, that would be a not so bad option, but please with a deeper K-3 style grip !
And keep DLi90 also...

[IchabodCrane]

A different fork from the FF conversation but I took the comments on miniaturization of sub-systems to imply we'll see shake reduction coming to the GR. Could the GR and not the K-01 be the base for Ricoh's overall MILC strategy?

[jsherman999]

On the other hand, if they get an FF camera out within a few months, they might even start with just the refreshed FA limiteds and still have a more complete lineup than the A7/A7r currently has :-)

Lol, excellent point. I can't believe Sony is almost making the same big mistake twice (compelling FF option in A900/A800 with only a small fleet of expensive lenses to go with them)



.

[gazonk]

Lol, excellent point. I can't believe Sony is almost making the same big mistake twice (compelling FF option in A900/A800 with only a small fleet of expensive lenses to go with them)

.

They're betting on hordes of FF-starved pentaxians to buy A7s and cheap Chinese K-adapters :-)

[Chris Mak]

Lol, excellent point. I can't believe Sony is almost making the same big mistake twice (compelling FF option in A900/A800 with only a small fleet of expensive lenses to go with them)



.

I believe they just tapped into the biggest lens vessel you can imagine...., amongst which the pentax FA ltd's.
But ok, until metabones decide to put out a Pentax k adapter, it will be manual focus and setting the aperture on the lens, but then again, with focus peaking and instant exposure evaluation in the EVF, the Voigtlander or Novoflex K mount adapter is tempting.

The 24-70/4 is out soon, and more coming next year, I think it's a different prospect for Sony this time..

[Uluru]

What realities that users are refusing to see are different now from five years ago, say? If you read this article in the NY Times, it would appear that it's the camera-makers who are having trouble with reality....

We are writing about different things obviously.
I know not why have you gone into this discussion, which is irrelevant regarding to my answer about the realities of Pentax in particular, and their choice of 645D instead of FF.

However, in view of particular points from your reply, two emerge unaddressed. Firstly, users now, and five years ago do and did have unrealistic appetites, and they imagine an economy that cannot sustain their desires, or more concretely, cannot sustain crediting their desires. Global debt crisis is all about it.

Secondly, all camera manufacturers today in the digital age are doing far better than in best days of film.



Canon alone sells 5-8 times more digital EOS cameras than film EOS cameras. What this graph doesn't show is the level of actual production, which exceeds even that, an already big number, as largest camera manufacturers are facing involuntary inventory build-up. Involuntary means they had unrealistic expectations and used inventory to artificially lower down the cost on production which they could write off in the next term to show better current results.

That is something all analysts for some reason fail to compare and are writing consumerist fairy tales as an explanation instead. Smartphones or not, when analysing in proportion, per capita, today we have more digital cameras than we had film cameras in film age. Where in the past a family had owned a camera, today it is more likely that each individual has a digital camera of some sort too — together with a smartphone and all other utilities. So the imaging itself is not in crisis.

The crisis is the result of various factors combined together, but especially ill-behaviour of some camera manufacturers. If camera manufacturers had more realistic appetites in particular, and were more about (1) adding a real value, (2) optimising lineups instead of expanding them with no real differentiating substance, and (3) slightly undersupplying instead of oversupplying the market (which means acting in accordance with realities of economy, not imagination of consumerism), the crisis in camera manufacture wouldn't be such an issue.

As for the FF itself, the consumerist fantasy is now at its most unrealistic heights, being fuelled with more groundless analysis of imaging tech pundits, which see a salvation in the FF. To them, FF shines like some kind of heavenly light above the dark valley, supposed to solve all imaging problems and make camera industry happy and healthy again.

But what they grossly fail to understand is that to sustain a production of FF imaging technologies there must be a wide, strong and healthy basis of systems that allow an FF system to be plausibly financed and economised. New tech is first introduced in smaller chips, then scaled up to an FF size — if ever, pending to economic realities. So if one wants to finance the FF, all other systems must be well protected, well cared for and be very healthy.

And then not forget that 35mm film is not same as 35mm FF digital; if 35mm film was one of the smallest commercial film sizes (therefore its appeal), 35mm FF is one of the largest sensor types, totally unnecessary bulk, expense and a false economy of geeky pretentiousness to obtain an image for everyday use.

[ChristianRock]

Flickr is getting full with A7/A7r pictures taken with non-Sony lenses. There's some awesome pictures taken with some Zuikos, Canon FD, Rokkor, Nikkor, old Zeiss, etc... I'd say they have a niche hit with a lot of people who have old lenses. But at some point a lot of those people will have an A7 and sales will stop. What will Sony do then?

I can understand why Ricoh is taking their time, they probably want a line of FF cameras that will have longevity, not just something to please those of us who have old glass. That market is kind of covered already.

[mecrox]

We are writing about different things obviously.
I know not why have you gone into this discussion, which is irrelevant regarding to my answer about the realities of Pentax in particular, and their choice of 645D instead of FF.

I'm not sure it is irrelevant: the 645D vs FF vs APS-C vs M43 is like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. The article is about the view which comes from stepping back from that. I suppose the argument is that the camera companies have simply pushed out what suits them, convinced that an ever-expanding digital market entitled them to set the terms. Going for the 645D rather than FF suited Pentax but it's an open question whether it suited their customers. At a guess, nearly all the customers for whom APS-C isn't enough haven't moved on to a 645D, they've sold up and left the brand for FF elsewhere. Now the remaining ones are being tempted by near-parity pricing on some off-brand FF cameras and quite a lot more are sure to have moved on by the time a Pentax FF appears, if ever it does. That's your high-spenders gone. Suddenly, the choice of the 645D starts to look like a very, very expensive choice for Pentax even though it suited them at the time. I'm sure the same could be said of other forays by other manufacturers, the Nikon 1 line for example. They thought they could make customers pay huge sums of money not to use a DSLR: what could possibly go wrong?

On the other hand, consumers have voted with their pocketbooks by showing that they want connectivity and convenience, and if the camera companies won't provide it then they ain't buying but will happily use their smartphones instead. I suspect the next thing that consumers are going to turn down flat is any more lens lock-in, a mainstay of the K-mount concept. The interest in the A7 series must come from "use any lens + adapter" as much as from the series' form factor and sensors. This might not translate into sales, of course, but once consumers have smelled this particular coffee there will be no turning back.

So you see if there is a substantial shake-out in the camera market, which many say is now happening, companies really need to start with a clean sheet of paper. Canon, Nikon, Pentax, Panasonic, Olympus et al have spend the past few years selling what suits them with a hefty does of lock-in and that approach has landed a whole lot of them in the soup. Someone wants lens A on camera B in format C (with connectivity a given) or they ain't buying. They don't want "You will take lens A on camera A in format A and buy a separate wifi dongle for nearly the cost of a mobile phone - or hit the highway". That's the challenge over the next few years.

[Kunzite]

Companies should not be expected to do something which doesn't "suits" them (whatever that means). They are entitled to choose their strategies, and in many time they're responsible to their shareholders for going with the "right" one. They are entitled to refuse to follow the strategies and directions made in 5 minutes on some internet forum.
Of course, they are surviving (and more than that, making a profit) by offering products people wants to buy. Yet they will never be able to please everyone.

Why 645D rather than "full frame"? I think that's an invalid question, because those aren't mutually exclusive (Pentax had for years both small format and medium format products).

645D was an easier target, with their ability to share R&D and components with the high volume APS-C, making an inexpensive and very competitive digital medium format camera - one that was guaranteed to be sold in high volumes for its market - was an easy task. And they already had a lens line-up. The digital medium format market allowing them to be "the big fish in small pond" better than anything else; I'm not surprised Pentax was able to persuade Hoya to have a go.

The small format, however, is a completely different matter; much more competitive, much more demanding. It requires considerable R&D effort, a new, comprehensive lens line-up; and they would have to align their prices with the competition's while selling much lower volumes.
An owner busy with cost-cutting, one that was looking for a buyer would not approve this.

By the way, I don't believe that people who would buy "connectivity and convenience" and would be happy with a smartphone won't ever consider something like an A7. Most likely, the alternative would be the cheapest, crappiest viewfinderless mirrorless; 3 years old models sold below cost.

[Uluru]

Flickr is getting full with A7/A7r pictures taken with non-Sony lenses. There's some awesome pictures taken with some Zuikos, Canon FD, Rokkor, Nikkor, old Zeiss, etc... I'd say they have a niche hit with a lot of people who have old lenses. But at some point a lot of those people will have an A7 and sales will stop. What will Sony do then?
I can understand why Ricoh is taking their time, they probably want a line of FF cameras that will have longevity, not just something to please those of us who have old glass. That market is kind of covered already.

Sony is in a different boat altogether and people seem not to realise that.

They don't care; they can supply their camera division with sensors at a cost price, and can deliver FF sensors and cameras that are enabled by millions of APS-C and other sensor sizes sold to all other manufacturers who buy sensors from Sony. Again, Sony has it all at a cost price — no pending minimum orders either.

In camera business Sony risks little, and all its camera production is sustained by others. But they still need to sell enough of other sensor types to invest further.

Where Sony is obviously reluctant is the lens commitment at present circumstances. Which means, if they really did well, they'd issue a range of lenses for the A7s. But they didn't. The market is very uncertain still, and for a while, geeks may have some fun experimenting with old film lenses. And that is most likely everything we shall all see from the FF market commitment for a long while.

I'd be hugely surprised if Ricoh Imaging comes out with anything more than two modest FF zooms with their FF camera — while already having FA limiteds and two macro lenses in the current offer.

Also, I would not be surprised if Sony in a few years becomes a supplier of sensors alone, having only a small subsidiary camera garage specialised in compacts (RX line), with A7 experiment staying at what it is now — being a sort of open-mount escapade, able to use lenses of other systems.

[Kunzite]

I'd be hugely surprised if Ricoh Imaging comes out with anything more than two modest FF zooms with their FF camera — while already having FA limiteds and two macro lenses in the current offer.

I think you will be surprised

[kenyee]

Sony is on full steam and those looking for a FF camera to use e.g. the Fa ltd's on, will see the A7(r) drop in price by the end of 2014, and if there's no concrete Pentax FF offering by then, I wonder how many will go Sony/Novoflex.

?
I thought that you need Sony's magic "FE" lenses to get a FF FOV/DOF on the A7? That's because of the shorter registration distance of the new body design.
So if you stuck FA Ltds on it, you'd see the same FOV/DOF as you would on a K-3

[Kunzite]

Was that a joke? (it's late and humor might elude me)
The angle of view depends solely on the focal length and the frame dimensions; not on the registration distance.