[Uluru]

We await to see what may or not happen (and have no clue)

However

Just to raise the full frame concept (sorry!!!)
Here's another pundit who reckons it (i.e.that concept) might be limited (and he's not a digital baby by any means)

Full Frame Myth

Maybe Pentax don't need to go FF
Maybe an excellent APCS camera (K3 anybody) with superlative lens will do the job

I rest my case

Thank you for the link. In many views I do agree with LL's assessment, albeit they don't go in such a detail to clear distinguish all the APS-C categories and how versatile is that market.

But even if their article is a starting point to a conversation, there is indeed much more to be said. One obvious problem scarcely mentioned in discussions is the current global economic situation — it is hardly an atmosphere to feel crazily enthusiastic and indulge in a production of an all new lineup no one can buy (but people instead are economising and thinking thrice before committing, also asking themselves is the FF really that much better than an APS-C? Or, on the other hand, it is even more dangerous to — despite of unfavourable economic climate — introduce a camera and in some way promise all the goods and heavens ... which are to come in the future, but only if it is a favourable one.

I think many users hardly understand the complexity of problems imaging industry — and the manufacturing industry in general — is now in. The economic model we have been riding on thus far is also an old horse, in a manner of speaking, and the ride on it cannot be sustained. There are practical limits to the economy we have been (ab)using. I am afraid that all production and manufacturing must be strictly controlled, expectations reasoned, product lines optimised thoroughly, unnecessary lines dropped entirely, and people spend only within their real limits.

In a way, I am afraid — and the imaging industry may as well be the indicator of it — that if sales of cameras go up again into very unrealistic numbers as it was seen only a few years ago, we shall be facing another crisis much sooner than expected, and then, it can be deadly for many manufacturers as well as for many users. Because the current economic model is unsustainable. If nothing else, I believe it is the time for an industry-wide consensus, to keep the foot off the accelerator, expectations steady and products made for long term investment and long term relationship with customers. Otherwise, I am afraid they risk losing everything.

I do not doubt for a second that LL's article is, at some level, enticed by such everyday common-sense (real economical) thinking as well. If users asks themselves such questions, perhaps manufacturers are asking themselves that question as well? Wasn't it about the time that we have more common-sense companies out there, not only crazily unrealistic ones?

---

Last edited by Uluru; 12-29-2013 at 06:26 AM.

[Rondec]

I don't really understand all of the negativity here. The FA limiteds have needed an update for awhile and they are getting it . End of story . If you currently own one or more of them, it probably won't be worth it to update. Although if the PF and flare were reduced that would be awfully nice.

Pentax has always been a company that is about small lenses. Keeping the screw drive in all camera bodies, in body image stabilization, and yes, slow apertures have made it that way. I don't resale see the point in them tryng to match Nikon lens for lens or body for body. If canon/Nikon stuff works better for a photogs needs then there is no harm with going with them.

[Zygonyx]

We await to see what may or not happen (and have no clue)
...
Full Frame Myth

Maybe Pentax don't need to go FF
Maybe an excellent APCS camera (K3 anybody) with superlative lens will do the job

I rest my case

I have to say i quite don't see where Mr Reichmann wants to lead us... and i doubt the american car comparison with photography gear has any sense...
I personnally do challenge the long-lasting A7 compacity & concept advantage over time, when i look at the old 35mm film era bodies, even M42 mounted : there is room for size optimisation in the digital FF SLR era !
Look at this Spotmatic versus K-5 image :

[audiobomber]

Just to raise the full frame concept (sorry!!!)
Here's another pundit who reckons it (i.e.that concept) might be limited (and he's not a digital baby by any means)

There is something that I consider more important than sensor size, and is not even mentioned in the LL article. I need real AF-C and superior tracking for some of the things I like to shoot. MILC can't compete with DSLR for sports, action, BIF, etc. I would not even consider trading my K-3 for an A7R, or any MILC. Maybe MILC will catch up eventually, but right now, DSLR is the only complete camera system.

Maybe Pentax don't need to go FF
Maybe an excellent APCS camera (K3 anybody) with superlative lens will do the job

I don't need or want a FF DSLR. 24mp APS-C puts more pixels on the target than any current FF, smaller size and lower price are welcome advantages. Current APS-C noise performance is good enough for me.

I could be interested in a FF MILC later, but I would still need and keep my APS-C DSLR. Ricoh should do an APS-C MILC with a new mount, that would allow FF K-mount (i.e. Speed Booster module).

[Fogel70]

I have to say i quite don't see where Mr Reichmann wants to lead us... and i doubt the american car comparison with photography gear has any sense...
I personnally do challenge the long-lasting A7 compacity & concept advantage over time, when i look at the old 35mm film era bodies, even M42 mounted : there is room for size optimisation in the digital FF SLR era !
Look at this Spotmatic versus K-5 image :

All you need to do is remove all electronics from a DSLR and you can make it the same size as a manual focus SLR.

[Zygonyx]

I know, but still... there must be some way to reduce size of electronics let even shake-reduction system.
Of course this is/should be true for any system : have a look at new panasonic GM-1 for example...

[monochrome]

All you need to do is remove all electronics from a DSLR and you can make it the same size as a manual focus SLR.

I know, but still... there must be some way to reduce size of electronics let even shake-reduction system.
Of course this is/should be true for any system.

You could accomplish a lot by substituting a battery the size of a dime.

Of course, charge it every three photos.

[Fogel70]

I know, but still... there must be some way to reduce size of electronics let even shake-reduction system.
Of course this is/should be true for any system : have a look at new panasonic GM-1 for example...

The fun thing is that there is not a whole lot of more space behind the sensor on a Pentax DSLR than on Panasonic GM-1.
It's probably 5-7mm difference, which SR probably take half of that distance. And cameras like Sony A7/A7r has more space behind the sensor than a Pentax DSLR.

[Winder]

I just hope Pentax is taking a good look at what Fuji is doing with lenses. Fuji is designing some high quality, modern primes that are fast and compact. Lenses like the 23mm that have the aperture ring on the lens, are fast, and compact.

[fuent104]

It was an illustration of Pentax–User relationship. Users don't know at all what is available to Ricoh Imaging, what kind of technologies, patents and production ideas. We have zero clue, and all our wishes are made from the material we know. That is why users can hardly imagine a good innovation that makes product more desirable — they just continue riding the horse, cannot predict a shift, nor the company is willing to share it before the right time comes.

For example AA simulator; no one had any clue it will be delivered in a Pentax camera, or that is doable in more than a theoretical game (it was never mentioned here on PF) and that is one of the most innovative technological solutions in 2013 that will undoubtedly sell more Pentax cameras that previously imagined.

And so forth.

I now understand your point. We are looking at this from different perspectives. I am aware that there is a reality that Ricoh has to deal with. However, my bigger concern is how what Pentax does affects users, such as myself. Ricoh has choices to make, and the choices they've made benefit some people, and do not benefit others.

When Ricoh bought Pentax, they bought the market share, user base, brand, and history. I still believe they have moved away from offering a full compliment of lenses, fast primes in particular. They used to offer fast primes. They don't offer many at this time. That is a fact.

As I mentioned in another thread, I also feel betrayed by their lack of "serious" primes for the Q system. As I mentioned in that thread, the Q was advertised as a miniature version of a "serious" system camera. Wide and telephoto primes are parts of most serious systems, yet there is no indication that they are in the works. Is it wrong for me to be angry in this case? I don't think so. The reason that no such lenses have been offered is immaterial to me. It simply doesn't affect my experience as a Q user. Not having those lenses does affect my experience as a Q user.

I am a huge fan of faux AA filter, and of SR in general. That usage of the SR system actually was predicted a few years ago on the forum.

[Fogel70]

I just hope Pentax is taking a good look at what Fuji is doing with lenses. Fuji is designing some high quality, modern primes that are fast and compact. Lenses like the 23mm that have the aperture ring on the lens, are fast, and compact.

Pentax has a equivalent lens - FA 31/1.8 Ltd, they just need a FF camera for it too.

[Uluru]

I know, but still... there must be some way to reduce size of electronics let even shake-reduction system.
Of course this is/should be true for any system : have a look at new panasonic GM-1 for example...

K-3 design process goes like this:

Pentax engineers ask themselves how the all-round, all-weather, all-circumstances K-mount camera must be made if you mount on it a DA*50-135 and a 540 flash. Or DA*200 and a flash. Even DA*60-250. How it should be designed if it had an extra battery grip. Add weather-sealing too. 3.2" screen. Then new state of the art SR mechanism with AA simulation. New 200,000-accutations shutter. Dual card slots. Etc.

All these concerns never existed when the Spotmatic was designed!

On the other hand, all minuscule cameras done for the m4/3 are *not* designed in that way, because they were designed first to be as small as possible, then everything else (functionality, performance, battery life, etc) is added and only if possible.

If Pentax had designed a K-body in that same GM-1 fashion, this forum would be non-existing, as Pentax brand would be blamed as the worst camera experience in the universe.

If there is a Spotmatic-like slim body to be designed for a K-mount, then Pentax engineers will start from different objectives. For example, how DA20-40 Ltd zoom balances the camera with on board flash raised. Then, how all DA Limiteds balance. FA limiteds. No SR this time? Or it is one? What kind of battery is needed (is 300 shots enough, 400, 500?). How many control wheels? Etc.

This second approach will undoubtedly produce a smaller footprint, but the camera must certainly be advertised as a camera made especially for smaller Pentax lenses and casual use — which for some folks may as well be the everyday use, as they don't consider a rugged DSLR with long zooms to be their cup of tea.

But before such a camera comes, there must definitely be a well-thought DSLR design or two, that utilises the entirety of Pentax gear and add-ons in the best way possible.

[Kunzite]

When Ricoh bought Pentax, they bought the market share, user base, brand, and history. I still believe they have moved away from offering a full compliment of lenses, fast primes in particular. They used to offer fast primes. They don't offer many at this time. That is a fact.

There are different "they" in this text.
- they, Ricoh who bought Pentax in 2011.
- they, who "have moved away from offering a full compliment of lenses" - that would be the old and defunct Asahi Optical Corporation. Some of their fast manual focus lenses didn't had an autofocus successor - there was no F/FA 35 f/1.4, 50 f/1.2, 135 f/1.8, 400 f/2.8. I've read somewhere that trying to offer a full compliment of lenses - with the A series - nearly killed them, but that's another story.
- they, who "used to offer fast primes", same Asahi Optical Corporation (and to a lesser measure Pentax Corporation).
- and they, Ricoh Imaging - Pentax and Ricoh's camera division combined - who couldn't possibly build a full compliment of lenses in a mere 2 years (reorganization included).

I believe we should properly distinguish between all those "they"s, and ask/expect from the current one only what's feasible and likely

Regarding the GM-1 example, I hope Pentax will never look for inspiration on such awful things. That's no photographic, but a marketing tool: "look, we have the smallest interchangeable lens camera - as long as you don't mount a lens". And you get a compromised product because of this, thanks but no, thanks.

[mecrox]

K-3 design process goes like this:

Pentax engineers ask themselves how the all-round, all-weather, all-circumstances K-mount camera must be made if you mount on it a DA*50-135 and a 540 flash. Or DA*200 and a flash. Even DA*60-250. How it should be designed if it had an extra battery grip. Add weather-sealing too. 3.2" screen. Then new state of the art SR mechanism with AA simulation. New 200,000-accutations shutter. Dual card slots. Etc.

All these concerns never existed when the Spotmatic was designed!

On the other hand, all minuscule cameras done for the m4/3 are *not* designed in that way, because they were designed first to be as small as possible, then everything else (functionality, performance, battery life, etc) is added and only if possible.

If Pentax had designed a K-body in that same GM-1 fashion, this forum would be non-existing, as Pentax brand would be blamed as the worst camera experience in the universe.

If there is a Spotmatic-like slim body to be designed for a K-mount, then Pentax engineers will start from different objectives. For example, how DA20-40 Ltd zoom balances the camera with on board flash raised. Then, how all DA Limiteds balance. FA limiteds. No SR this time? Or it is one? What kind of battery is needed (is 300 shots enough, 400, 500?). How many control wheels? Etc.

This second approach will undoubtedly produce a smaller footprint, but the camera must certainly be advertised as a camera made especially for smaller Pentax lenses and casual use — which for some folks may as well be the everyday use, as they don't consider a rugged DSLR with long zooms to be their cup of tea.

But before such a camera comes, there must definitely be a well-thought DSLR design or two, that utilises the entirety of Pentax gear and add-ons in the best way possible.

Why not follow the design process straight from the horse's mouth, in this case a Pentax document explaining how the K7 was put together. Both the K5 and K3 share much of it's DNA, in fact nearly all of it in the case of the K5. See attachment. BTW, the document describes the K7 as "medium class" so the term, recently used by current Pentax spokesmen to describe the K3, has a long pedigree.

[Winder]

Pentax has a equivalent lens - FA 31/1.8 Ltd, they just need a FF camera for it too.

They do, but that is a film era lens. When was the last time Pentax introduced a new lens like that?