[Kunzite]

They surely had something else in mind than copying the NEX but with a larger sensor. Yes, we know it will be a SLR. They said so.

[jsherman999]

[EDIT:] I think this will be my final post on the FF subject.[/EDIT]

Are we taking odds? (there's too much left to say, especially if we actually see real product rumours!)

[monochrome]

Are we taking odds? (there's too much left to say, especially if we actually see real product rumours!)

My schtick is getting old and no one really wants to hear it any more. If there are real product rumors they'll do all the talking without my help.

[jsherman999]

The legacy is not a problem as stated by Uluru. It is almost 100% positive because, indeed, people having those lenses will buy an FF and those not having such lenses can get them for cheap. So starting an FF system would be VERY cheap (compared to Canikon) BUT....

Pentax has no take measures so the new FF line lenses will sell. Those lenses need to offer something previous one didn't.

Those might be:
* acceptable price (if they didn't jack up the prices months ago, the difference would have been huge... just an example)
* Weather sealing
* Silent AND fast focussing (if they use their new AF system, it might explain some of the delay for the new lenses)
* IQ
* General mechanical quality
* lens IS (who knows?)
* compactness

This list are just ideas of course and depending on what they wanna do with a specific lens, they'll pic some of them.
Anyway, they need to offer something which will make us buy the new lens rather than the previous ones.

Agreed. The 'legacy lens' problem is not a problem, and here's why:

The folks that have legacy lenses they want to shoot on a FF body and are willing to spend $1500+ on a new body (maybe $2000+) and are unwilling to ever buy new or updated FF lenses is pretty small.

The 'legacy shooter' will probably fit this description closer: Has legacy lenses, and maybe some manual focus lenses. Buys into the FF system to use them at their full capability, and once committed, continues to buy a new/updated lens every year, or every couple years, to shoot on the FF body. After a while, the body itself is upgraded to the next FF model.

The "I'm willing to pay 2K for an FF body, but new lenses just don't interest me" customer barely exists - Pentax doesn't need to worry much about them. Even for the few who are like that - Pentax got a body sale from them, and kept them from jumping to something like a last-gen used Nikon/Canon FF body, or a FF MILC/adapter solution

.

[ElJamoquio]

Full frame offers no advantage.

FF is far, far easier to track.
FF allows for a digital zoom. If you have a Xmm lens and pre-crop to APS-C then you're stuck with 1.5X or so. FF allows you to have a digital zoom to take pics on those rare and special occasions where you're 'too close'.

The difference between a D600 and D7100 is ~5% of an ultra-long birding lens.

There's really not a ton of advantage to APS-C in birding.

[derekkite]

...And then another manufacturer got there first, and they went back to the drawing board. How is Pentax going to be unique in the FF marketplace now?

EDIT: Sorry, there are no multicoloured FF DSLRs yet, so Pentax is bound to serve that hole in the market that needs plugging so desperately.

Indeed. Hence the delay. If I were them I would put together a D800 level machine, which is pretty well K-3 tech for $1k more than the K-3 price.

[cali92rs]

They surely had something else in mind than copying the NEX but with a larger sensor. Yes, we know it will be a SLR. They said so.

OK, so if it wasn't mirrorless, it's going to be a DSLR....what can possibly be the reason for waiting this long? Are they waiting for complete market saturation before jumping in?

[Kunzite]

I will quote again Mr. Toshiyuki Kitazawa, Head of Business Development, Pentax Ricoh Imaging Company (that happened before the A7/7r - so it couldn't possibly be a reaction to it):
"Even though there was possibility to bring FF into this segment, it was our conclusion that APS-C should be the utmost size for mirrorless segment."
"we are discussing development of FF SLR" (translation by lensroar)
There's no "if it wasn't mirrorless"; it was clear from the beginning what's going to be.

if you expect me to try and find one reason for what happened since the MZ-D prototype, I won't even attempt to.
I'll only say this: Ricoh took over in October 2011, and started talking about FF by the end of 2012. About 1 1/2 years ago.

[thibs]

I think Ricoh will want their FF system to be a really credible challenger to Canon and Nikon. If they just wanted to keep a nominal presence in the camera market, they could have done that with their Ricoh brand. By acquiring Pentax, they signalled that they mean to challenge the big players.

No, they just got a headstart and more importantly a nice bunch of patents.

IAs for the 645D II release, it is clearly happening now because of the availability of the new sensor. It has nothing to do with it being prioritised over FF.

Mmm more importantly, releasing a 645D (first or second one) needs investment in the body only. It boasts image for not much money and they undercut every competitor. They even offer better stuff including very good AF (lol we're talking MF and yes, Pentax AF is very good in MF world).

Talking FF, they need to take a stand on the older FF lenses / newer incompatible lenses.
Then, they need to know if they need to make real money on the body or only on the lenses.
If only on the lenses, body will have anice price but lenses price will suffer a lot.
If body too, body will be more expensive but lenses will priced OK.

See ? Not that esay ...

[Uluru]

OK, so if it wasn't mirrorless, it's going to be a DSLR....what can possibly be the reason for waiting this long? Are they waiting for complete market saturation before jumping in?

Because the FF Dslr we imagine (some D800 performance at D610 prices) would be a total waste of resources. It would kill Pentax. The camera would create a black hole in the used lens market and made no ROI, which in system camera business comes only from the sales of new lenses. The camera cannot be sold at high enough price and there are no sufficient new FF lenses to avoid the catastrophe the FF Dslr would incur in the current crop sensor lineup.

On the other hand, a mirrorless FF would mean new mount and making all the current user base very, very angry. The loss would be even greater.

They are caught in between two fires and there is no easy answer. A real and not so easy answer must involve a gargantuan effort and lots of time.

The only possible answer is to load the FF with tons of gizmos and unique tech, something that defies and exceeds everyone's expectations. Say a super large pentaprism, EVF overlay, sci-fi age AF, dual imaging engine, dual card slots, internal static RAM, solar powered mode, etc. and all new sci-fi tech in FF lens design etc. to validate high enough price of such a product. Which won't be below $4k.

The fact remains that the FF from Pentax cannot be Joe's everyday FF.

So we have possible answers for delay: the (a) typical Dslr FF is delayed deliberately before they announce at least 15 new FF lenses, or, it is (b) the ultra tech FF almost impossible to comprehend.

Things never change with Pentax: any answer for FF means another hope for a Hail Mary pass.

[monochrome]

The fact remains that the FF from Pentax cannot be Joe's everyday FF.

I agree with this. We already have a D610 to fill that need.

[Kunzite]

So we have possible answers for delay: the (a) typical Dslr FF is delayed deliberately before they announce at least 15 new FF lenses, or, it is (b) the ultra tech FF almost impossible to comprehend.

Neither is plausible - are you actually serious with those, or just thinking the most ridiculous "possible answers" you could?

And as many times as you repeat it, I don't see any reasons to believe that a normal FF DSLR would fail because it can use existing lenses. The second hand market is so thin, and we can e.g. see lenses on ebay for ridiculous prices - FA* 85mm f/1.4 for about $1300, you could buy a Canon 85mm f/1.2 for that much.

I was hinting at the most likely reason for this "delay" in my previous post; I'll say again: Ricoh took over in October 2011, and started talking about FF by the end of 2012. About 1 1/2 years ago.
It's as simple as that: there is no FF yet because it isn't ready.

[cali92rs]

Neither is plausible - are you actually serious with those, or just thinking the most ridiculous "possible answers" you could?

And as many times as you repeat it, I don't see any reasons to believe that a normal FF DSLR would fail because it can use existing lenses. The second hand market is so thin, and we can e.g. see lenses on ebay for ridiculous prices - FA* 85mm f/1.4 for about $1300, you could buy a Canon 85mm f/1.2 for that much.

I was hinting at the most likely reason for this "delay" in my previous post; I'll say again: Ricoh took over in October 2011, and started talking about FF by the end of 2012. About 1 1/2 years ago.
It's as simple as that: there is no FF yet because it isn't ready.

It's not going to fail in the same way that the k-3 hasn't failed. It will be a great camera, maybe even be top of the heap. But it wont cause people outside of the tiny Pentax sphere to switch. That's fine I guess.

[Uluru]

Legacy lens support is 100% not a bad thing. Look at the most popular milcs like the NEX system for example. That's not only backwards compatible, but also sideways and diagonally. Nevertheless it sells well, and its users don't stick to manual focus only, they want a few autofocus lenses as well.

No, it doesn't sell well. It does not sell as it was expected.
Availability of old lenses that are still good enough for use on current crop sensors and availability of adapters is what cripples the sale of new lenses. A camera company wants to sell a new lens, not an adapter for you to use your grandpa's lens on a new camera!

---------- Post added 03-05-2014 at 01:16 PM ----------

Neither is plausible - are you actually serious with those, or just thinking the most ridiculous "possible answers" you could?

And as many times as you repeat it, I don't see any reasons to believe that a normal FF DSLR would fail because it can use existing lenses. The second hand market is so thin, and we can e.g. see lenses on ebay for ridiculous prices - FA* 85mm f/1.4 for about $1300, you could buy a Canon 85mm f/1.2 for that much....

I was hinting at the most likely reason for this "delay" in my previous post; I'll say again: Ricoh took over in October 2011, and started talking about FF by the end of 2012. About 1 1/2 years ago.
It's as simple as that: there is no FF yet because it isn't ready.

.

Used lens market is readying for the Pentax FF because all the sellers are well aware Pentax has a poor FF lens lineup atm. Wait till that FA*85 comes to $2K if the camera is announced!

They, and almost all PF members around here, for some economically implausible reason expect Pentax brand to come with a cheap DSLR; users to finally get their hands on the FF to use their old 135 format lenses, and sellers of used lenses to maximise their gain on sales of those same lenses. Everyone wins, right?

No. The real loser is the Pentax brand, as it gets no return on investment, and very slim profits from current lens sales. It has only a handful of lenses ready and half of them must be updated. The ROI pours entirely into the used lens market!

It would a catastrophic decision on Ricoh Imaging's part.

So if we exclude the impossible and economically suicidal, we are left with two possible answers:

1 — Ricoh Imaging to completely revamp the entire FF lens lineup, create lens choices and introduce an affordable DSLR camera, or
2 — Invest into a much more expensive FF camera, that challenges everything out there, pushes the barriers, and keep the lens choices at a bare minimum of selected ones. An absolutely premium stuff in terms of everything, and absolutely different from the competition.

Each option requires lots of energy and money, and time, but only the second option guarantees unique selling point, new technological and usability breakthroughs. Second option also clearly cuts the legacy burden from the equation too: the old should definitely be not good enough to be bothered with on a camera that costs $4K. If someone is spending $4K for a camera, one can also spend $1K on a new lens, not on an old dog of a lens from the used market for the same price or higher.

The camera must justify investment in new lenses, only available from Pentax.

[JPT]

New lenses would be better than old ones in a variety of ways. They would likely be sharper, lighter, have new coatings, be WR, have silent focusing motors and quick shift. That's quite a few reasons to opt for the newer lenses versus the older ones. On top of that, they would come with a warranty.

Another thing is that most of the lenses you would expect to come first have not been on production for ten years or more. There is demand for them even among APS-C users. I'm thinking about lenses like a 85mm, a 24mm, a new 50mm, a 24-70mm f2.8, a 70-200mm.

Also, Canon and Nikon may seem to have the market stitched up in the old developed countries, but in more recently developed countries, there are large numbers of potential customers who are not committed. That's why markets like India are so important to Ricoh. Even in the established markets there is still opportunity to pick up disgruntled customers from Sony, Nikon or Canon.