[Uluru]

...

FWIW, I think (I know nothing) a FF camera is coming sooner than most people here think it will - and I think most people here will complain about something when it does.

It may be so because the new 645D was, apparently, delayed. The FF project (again, apparently) had an absolute priority after the K-3 release.

I wondered why Pentax bothers with the new 645D coming out first anyway, when it is more prudent and viable to keep the existing K-mount user-base happy and expanding in contracting camera market. The loss of any user is now a big loss, with a possibility of never returning them back. The new 645D, if it comes out a few months sooner or later, makes little difference as it is a niche category.

But this is when everything becomes confusing. Apparently, the new 645D is now scheduled for spring release, which means, within the next 2 months. I have no explanation (apart from total lack of insight on RI’s side, or some ‘super-secret master plan’) that the FF should be scheduled for later release date than the new 645D, especially if the former (FF) by all accounts had a priority over the latter (645D).

If they wait for Photokina 2014 for the FF release, which is in 7 months from now, and want to release new 645D in 2 months from now — yet both being at a similar stage of completion (and they have more FF lenses ready than 645D lenses ready) — then they are out of their minds.

The new 645D could be showed now (incomplete, as it appears to be under that glass in Yokohama), and then officially released at Photokina, but not the FF. I’m not sure what kind of eccentric game they are playing, but it is not right. The FF momentum would be a fantastic boost for the 645D release (and compacts, lenses, etc.), but it won’t work as well if it’s other way round. Moreover, to drown the FF in the sea of other FF releases during the Photokina …?

The situation is both interesting and confusing. But not quite encouraging.

---

Last edited by Uluru; 02-25-2014 at 09:18 PM.

[ogl]

vacuous interview...

[ElJamoquio]

It may be so because the new 645D was, apparently, delayed. The FF project (again, apparently) had an absolute priority after the K-3 release.

I wondered why Pentax bothers with the new 645D coming out first anyway, when it is more prudent and viable to keep the existing K-mount user-base happy and expanding in contracting camera market. The loss of any user is now a big loss, with a possibility of never returning them back. The new 645D, if it comes out a few months sooner or later, makes little difference as it is a niche category.

But this is when everything becomes confusing. Apparently, the new 645D is now scheduled for spring release, which means, within the next 2 months. I have no explanation (apart from total lack of insight on RI’s side, or some ‘super-secret master plan’) that the FF should be scheduled for later release date than the new 645D, especially if the former (FF) by all accounts had a priority over the latter (645D).

If they wait for Photokina 2014 for the FF release, which is in 7 months from now, and want to release new 645D in 2 months from now — yet both being at a similar stage of completion (and they have more FF lenses ready than 645D lenses ready) — then they are out of their minds.

The new 645D could be showed now (incomplete, as it appears to be under that glass in Yokohama), and then officially released at Photokina, but not the FF. I’m not sure what kind of eccentric game they are playing, but it is not right. The FF momentum would be a fantastic boost for the 645D release (and compacts, lenses, etc.), but it won’t work as well if it’s other way round. Moreover, to drown the FF in the sea of other FF releases during the Photokina …?

The situation is both interesting and confusing. But not quite encouraging.

Market wise, I'm not sure that there's much difference between July and October in terms of sales. Perhaps you could stem the tide a bit.

I'm not sure on what basis you assume that the FF is 'ahead' of the 645DII.

Pentax should take every user it can get, and the 645DII people are going to pay quite a bit more than I will for their camera.

I'd rather have had the Pentax FF last October when I think it should've been intro'd, but I'm not privy to the trials and tribulations of intro'ing a new camera, and if the D600 stole Pentax's thunder, etc., etc.

[pinholecam]

I'd had hoped that the interview brought certain ground info across to Pentax too, and with that hard questions, rather than a rather "read off the question list" type session.

[Alizarine]

On the other hand I wonder why they're pushing through with the K-xxx line. I mean it's nice to have a 3-model line, but its difference against the K-xx line should be big enough to warrant its own line... otherwise I think just WR the whole entry-kit would've been a better move... but that's just me.

[6BQ5]

You have to give Pentax some credit though. They aren't going to stir up the rumour mill with FF thoughts. Why say anything at all if there's no product coming? Of course they're doing R&D on the technical side and they are watching the market to see when a FF would be ready to sell in high enough quantities to make it worth their time.

I'd rather see an investment that lowers prices on new lenses due to technical breakthroughs and expands the Q system vs. a FF K-mount DSLR.

[totsmuyco]

You have to give Pentax some credit though. They aren't going to stir up the rumour mill with FF thoughts. Why say anything at all if there's no product coming? Of course they're doing R&D on the technical side and they are watching the market to see when a FF would be ready to sell in high enough quantities to make it worth their time.

I'd rather see an investment that lowers prices on new lenses due to technical breakthroughs and expands the Q system vs. a FF K-mount DSLR.

Well, I hope that if they make a FF camera it will be using a K-mount. I'm not an engineer and I don't know if my K-mount APS-C lenses will be usable with FF. But yes, I agree, Pentax (Ricoh) should come up with more APS-C lenses. That will surely keep their customers alive. Coming from another system, I really found the Pentax sensor to be a lot better.

---

Last edited by totsmuyco; 03-01-2014 at 09:42 PM. Reason: grammar

[Paul the Sunman]

Well, I hope that if they make a FF camera it will be using a K-mount. I'm not an engineer and I don't know if my K-mount APS-C lenses will be usable with FF. But yes, I agree, Pentax (Ricoh) should come up with more APS-C lenses. That will surely keep their customers alive. Coming from another system, I really found the Pentax sensor to be a lot better.

I believe Pentax has the best selection of APS-C lenses of any of the manufacturers. Canon, Nikon, and Sony have many FF lenses too, that can be used on APS-C, though they are often unnecessarily large for the purpose. However, Pentaxians do suffer from reduced availability of 3rd party lenses compared to Nikon and Canon, which may leave you with the impression that there's not enough choice. That and the dearth of fast glass from Pentax.

[6BQ5]

I believe Pentax has the best selection of APS-C lenses of any of the manufacturers. Canon, Nikon, and Sony have many FF lenses too, that can be used on APS-C, though they are often unnecessarily large for the purpose. However, Pentaxians do suffer from reduced availability of 3rd party lenses compared to Nikon and Canon, which may leave you with the impression that there's not enough choice. That and the dearth of fast glass from Pentax.

Everyone else's lenses are bigger than similar Pentax lenses because Pentax incorporates image stabilization in the body. The lens really is a tube full of glass that slides in and out - not up, down, left, right like other systems. Even more amazing to me is how Pentax managed to incorporate image stabilization and still keep the body similarly sized to the competition. Sometimes they're even smaller than the competition. Pentax really knows how to pack a camera body!

[dfujevec]

Everyone else's lenses are bigger than similar Pentax lenses because Pentax incorporates image stabilization in the body. The lens really is a tube full of glass that slides in and out - not up, down, left, right like other systems. Even more amazing to me is how Pentax managed to incorporate image stabilization and still keep the body similarly sized to the competition. Sometimes they're even smaller than the competition. Pentax really knows how to pack a camera body!

Lenses are smaller because they are APS-C only and because they are much slower than other lenses. If you are enjoying slow lenses that is fine. If you want DA15 to be f2,8, or DA21 to be f2 they will be at least so big than 24mm or 35mm FF lenses.

[thibs]

Lenses are smaller because they are APS-C only and because they are much slower than other lenses. If you are enjoying slow lenses that is fine. If you want DA15 to be f2,8, or DA21 to be f2 they will be at least so big than 24mm or 35mm FF lenses.

Not only.. I'll take a spectacular example and put side by side the Sigma 28/1.8 and FA LImited 31/1.8.
Except for the small focal difference, they should rather be alike, souldn't they ?

Quite not....
And there's no in lens motor or stabilization in either of them.

[Cynog Ap Brychan]

It's a good strategy to keep plans secret from competitors, but it also makes sense not to tell the customer base too much, either. For example, if one knew for definite that an FF camera was to debut later this year, would one buy a K-3 now? Just a thought.

[ElJamoquio]

Lenses are smaller because they are APS-C only and because they are much slower than other lenses. If you are enjoying slow lenses that is fine. If you want DA15 to be f2,8, or DA21 to be f2 they will be at least so big than 24mm or 35mm FF lenses.

They're smaller because they're slower and Pentax has chosen 'smallness' as an objective at the expense of correction, etc. I'd leave the FF argument out of it, all the regulars here know that a 24mm F/6 is smaller/lighter/cheaper/better than a 15mm F/4...

For the 15mm it's not a big deal because

1) often landscapes are taken in good light,
2) often you want a big DOF or don't care
3) flare suppression should be easier with slower lenses, and flare suppression is very desirable in a landscape lens.

[monochrome]

They're smaller because they're slower and Pentax has chosen 'smallness' as an objective at the expense of correction, etc. I'd leave the FF argument out of it, all the regulars here know that a 24mm F/6 is smaller/lighter/cheaper/better than a 15mm F/4...

For the 15mm it's not a big deal because

1) often landscapes are taken in good light,
2) often you want a big DOF or don't care
3) flare suppression should be easier with slower lenses, and flare suppression is very desirable in a landscape lens.

You make a really important point.

It seems Pentax isn't (at this time) aggressively competing for Sports Indoor, where fast is a requirement. Pentax seems to say over and over they make 'Field Cameras' which I assume means they optimize for small size and to shoot Landscape. Stands to reason if I have to lug gear in a backpack to a location I'd want smaller and lighter, assuming my final IQ is comparative.

I think many of our users' complaints about shortcomings occur because Pentax has chosen a narrow, discrete niche to exploit.

[Uluru]

All strategy starts from the desired goal; Pentax is interested to be a company focused on outdoors and landscape photography. To that goal, design specifics are tailored. Lenses need not be fast and heavy, cameras will be sealed and rugged, there are lenses for both good and bad weather, etc.
Thus before staring to complain about missing this or that, understand company's goal first, see where it wants to focus its strengths, and then see if they do things right.