[Andi Lo]

What TC? What are you talking about? I was referring to a wide angle converter idea that I had as an example that communication with Pentax is meaningless as a source of reliable information. Who said anything about the questionable quality of teleconverters?

Are you in the wrong thread?

He's implying that the metabones isnt good enough to bear the pentax logo, had it been developed by them.

[normhead]

From the CP+ interview in February:
Research and development into full-frame is still ongoing. We cannot talk about it yet.

Just because you repeat something until it feels stale doesn't make it any more true.

---------- Post added 09-19-14 at 11:26 AM ----------



What TC? What are you talking about? I was referring to a wide angle converter idea that I had as an example that communication with Pentax is meaningless as a source of reliable information. Who said anything about the questionable quality of teleconverters?

Are you in the wrong thread?

NO, if I need to be more blunt...
The fact that you had an idea that Pentax decided didn't meet their standards doesn't mean it was a good idea.
Like the TCs before the Pentax TC, the fact that Metabones has produced this product, Metabones isn't Pentax, they may have lower standards.
Your post seems to imply that you are smart and Pentax is dumb. I'm suggesting there might be other alternatives to that theory.

I can be even more blunt if that isn't getting through.

[thibs]

If they were at the point in development where they could have displayed lenses with the correct marking on them, I'm pretty sure they would have.

No they wouldn't have if those lenses are FF designs, ti would be announcing a camera.
If they don't want to announce an FF camera, they can't announce FF lenses.
But they can tease, and that's exactly what they do.

[monochrome]

From the CP+ interview in February:
Research and development into full-frame is still ongoing. We cannot talk about it yet.

Just because you repeat something until it feels stale doesn't make it any more true.

Just because you call BS until calling BS is stale doesn't mean it is BS.

[Winder]

No they wouldn't have if those lenses are FF designs, ti would be announcing a camera.
If they don't want to announce an FF camera, they can't announce FF lenses.
But they can tease, and that's exactly what they do.

So when they announced the D-FA 100mm macro was it the same an announcing a FF camera? Nobody (Canon, Nikon, Sony) cares if Pentax finally releases a FF body. Nobody is going to change their marketing or development plans because of Ricoh. The only reason for Ricoh to keep quiet is that they have not fully committed to a FF design. Maybe they haven't committed to FF of any kind. They say they are watching the market, so maybe that means they want to see if mirrorless is where they want to invest.

In the current market Ricoh would be better laying out a clear plan if they have one. Look what is happening with Sony A-mount. See what happens when a company starts being secretive?

Youtu.be

Youtu.be

IF Ricohs goal it to create more doubt, they are doing a great job.

[monochrome]

Nobody (Canon, Nikon, Sony) cares if Pentax finally releases a FF body. Nobody is going to change their marketing or development plans because of Ricoh. The only reason for Ricoh to keep quiet is that they have not fully committed to a FF design.

You know this . . . . . how, again? Citation available?

[Winder]

You know this . . . . . how, again? Citation available?

The other option is they are idiots, so I might be wrong. Creating doubt is not a good business plan. Its the same with how Sony handled the A-mount at this years Photokina. The top topics on the internet were not about the new E-mount products, but about the lack of any A-mount. Not a single A-mount product was shown at Photokina. Sony people are now sounding like Olympus did when they were talking about the future of 4/3. Ricoh seems to have the same marketing plan.

[GoremanX]

NO, if I need to be more blunt...
The fact that you had an idea that Pentax decided didn't meet their standards doesn't mean it was a good idea.
Like the TCs before the Pentax TC, the fact that Metabones has produced this product, Metabones isn't Pentax, they may have lower standards.
Your post seems to imply that you are smart and Pentax is dumb. I'm suggesting there might be other alternatives to that theory.

I can be even more blunt if that isn't getting through.

I never said any of those things. To paraphrase:

- some guy said he emailed Pentax and they told him "It's true! FF is coming!"
- I related a story as an example that what Pentax replies via email is usually meaningless and not indicative of what will come to market

Everything you grasped onto is completely irrelevant and meaningless. You went on some really screwed up trip to some unknown places, deep within your own head.

---------- Post added 09-19-14 at 09:07 PM ----------

Just because you call BS until calling BS is stale doesn't mean it is BS.

erm... sure!

In any case, I don't think it's BS. I think they really have been developing a FF camera. Heck, they even developed an MZ-D once upon a time. Does that mean it'll be coming to market any time soon? Or at all? I won't get my hopes up for nothing again. I've been disappointed often enough by Pentax already.

[Rondec]

So when they announced the D-FA 100mm macro was it the same an announcing a FF camera? Nobody (Canon, Nikon, Sony) cares if Pentax finally releases a FF body. Nobody is going to change their marketing or development plans because of Ricoh. The only reason for Ricoh to keep quiet is that they have not fully committed to a FF design. Maybe they haven't committed to FF of any kind. They say they are watching the market, so maybe that means they want to see if mirrorless is where they want to invest.

IF Ricohs goal it to create more doubt, they are doing a great job.

I don't know what Ricoh is doing and I don't know that they are completely certain, either. The market is very different now than it was five years ago. It is just really crowded in full frame territory and Pentax will not be able to make a profit selling a full frame camera at 1500 dollars. They are probably trying to figure out right now just how much they need to include in order to be able to price it just a hair below the D810 and still have it sell.

The DFA 100 macro was merely a re-release of an existing lens with a different skin and aperture blades. Tough to read to much into that, just as it would be tough to read much into a re-release of the FA limiteds with sealing and new coatings. Sure, it could be an indication of a new camera, but it also might be just a way to charge an extra hundred dollars for the same lenses.

On the other hand, if Pentax released a 70-200 f2.8 zoom that covered a full frame circle and was a completely new design, it would be tough not to read a little more into that.

[noser]

I don't see any lack of clarity or doubt or whatnot at all. Pentax were quite clear.

There is no FF at Photokina, and there is no plan to sell a FF body.

There is no unicorn today.

That is it. That is all.

If you want FF, go buy a Sony, and your lenses will still work.

[bobdobbs]

I don't know what Ricoh is doing and I don't know that they are completely certain, either. The market is very different now than it was five years ago. It is just really crowded in full frame territory and Pentax will not be able to make a profit selling a full frame camera at 1500 dollars. They are probably trying to figure out right now just how much they need to include in order to be able to price it just a hair below the D810 and still have it sell.
.

I've been throwing spare brain cycles at this issue over the past few days since I read some stuff about how Pentax is going for high-margin sales instead of high-volume, low-margin. When I try to fit the Q-S1 into that scheme, I get a headache, but ignoring that, I think it boils down to this:

If they can sell a K-3 at $1000 and still make money (at their presumably "high-margin") then surely they can sell a full-frame version of that exact camera at $2000 and either maintain or better their margin

There's NO WAY a decent full-frame sensor costs $1000 more in volume than the sensor in the K-3. Not even $500 more, I'm sure. So, what's the hold-up? Right there's a high-margin camera Ricoh could be selling. If the issue is SR, drop the feature. I'd rather have a full-frame sensor than SR; I think a lot of people would. In fact, getting rid of SR ought to improve the margin even further.

Anyway, there you go. bobdobbs saving the world, one forum post at a time.

[normhead]

At the same time, we know that the full-frame market is growing. So, our engineers are engaged in the development of full-frames, but with the question of when to launch/release the product, we will want to carefully study the market trend.

Read more at: PF Interview with Ricoh Imaging at Photokina 2014 - Photokina 2014 | PentaxForums.com

, and there is no plan to sell a FF body.

Absolute hogwash...

If you listen to this guy you'll be using your Pentax glass with no AF or Auto-exposure on your Sony A7 when every Pentax shooter who wishes to do so, will be using their's with full support on a Pentax Full Frame.

Hey, I still may end up with an A7r or no full frame at all. It's only about a 20% increase in resolution going FF over a K-3, nice but not critical. As I said, a Sony A7 would fit in my current camera bag with no modification, and that's a big plus. But if you're going to a Sony, do it for what Sony is as a camera, not based on the notion that Pentax engineering is working on a full frame, but won't release it. That's just nonsense. How many million might they be willing to waste on that kind of insanity?

[monochrome]

I've been throwing spare brain cycles at this issue over the past few days since I read some stuff about how Pentax is going for high-margin sales instead of high-volume, low-margin.

I think you are referring to Jim Malcolm's interview with Imaging Resource (I think with IR), in which he was speaking about the USA Dealer network, He said Ricoh Imaging Americas (which apparnetly has some influence over Canada as well) prefers a lower volume Dealer who wants a high-margin product line such as Pentax - RIAC prefers that kind of Dealer to a high-volume Dealer that wants Revenue and a tiny margin (typically financed by the manufacturer). Sure - I'd like that, too. Then my store is their showroom and they finance the inventory; they train the salespeople; they advertise the product; the co-op buy my local ads; they give me counter demo units; they inventory wholesale product; and I essentially scrape a small margin off their short-term capital investment.

What a wonderful business model!!

Ricoh America won't do that.

Doesn't mean all of Ricoh Imaging markets that way all over the world. I imagine the story is different in Asia.

[monochrome]

In any case, I don't think it's BS. I think they really have been developing a FF camera. Heck, they even developed an MZ-D once upon a time. Does that mean it'll be coming to market any time soon? Or at all? I won't get my hopes up for nothing again. I've been disappointed often enough by Pentax already.

Fine by me. I personally feel differently this time. I guess we'll know more whenever we know, and you and I will do whatever we do whenever that is.

[normhead]

I've been throwing spare brain cycles at this issue over the past few days since I read some stuff about how Pentax is going for high-margin sales instead of high-volume, low-margin. When I try to fit the Q-S1 into that scheme, I get a headache, but ignoring that, I think it boils down to this:

Are you sure you really have spare brain cycles.?

The final cost of the Pentax full frame will be determined by volume. I'm sure they have a magic number that's their break even point, at a specific price. Their concern will be meeting that target. Saying they could make an FF for $2000, you mean like the Canon 6D or Nikon D610? uh, thanks but no thanks, I'll just buy an A7r. I'm not buying a camera that is out performed by my K-3, just because it's a full frame. After all APS-c does have it's advantages. Let's not be thinking they can go too cheap.

What will be a decent price point will be determined by what features the camera has. Without knowing the specs, it will be pretty had to speculate on that.