[mecrox]

Staff note: This post may contain affiliate links, which means Pentax Forums may earn a small commission if a visitor clicks through and makes a purchase. If you would like to support the forum directly, you may also make a donation here.

---

Different angle here: I don't particularly want to see the unicorn camera taking up every spare cent of development money Pentax have. The meat of their offer is solid, well-made, up-to-date APS-C picture-taking machines. And in particular, their lens range. Having just returned from a long holiday weekend, I could really have used some WR primes with quiet motors - and sharp enough across the frame for good landscape shots. If I leave Pentax it won't be because of FF, about which, to be honest, I don't give a stuff. It will be because they have neglected their bread-and-butter customers in favour of fantasy photographers (not that I think this will happen). Pentax have quite a few things going for them, I think. Look at Fuji, for example: the hype is ridiculous, they cook their ISO figures and their lenses are often ludicrously expensive. It can be argued that a more dangerous path than "no FF" is betting the farm on an APS-C range priced at such a premium that when the penny drops you'll be deserted en masse by people who've realized that the lower rungs of FF offer far better value and not much more if anything in terms of size and weight (compared to those hefty Fuji primes, for example). This is where Fuji are, I think. I hope Pentax see that one coming and keep away. Hiring Zack Arias to promote your wares is more than enough to turn me off any company.

[monochrome]

But you know that Pentax FF is going to set you back at least $2000,- if not more. While you can also get a nice deal on that tiny Sony A7 for $1,399 on eBay US (Click here). You can get a nice small FE prime for what you save there.

Please, please do. Go shoot with it. Now would be a fine time.

[monochrome]

Different angle here: I don't particularly want to see the unicorn camera taking up every spare cent of development money Pentax have.

clearly it isn't. That's why we've had so many other things and no FF.

[Winder]

Of course they could. They did not for obvious reasons.

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.

[Zygonyx]

Different angle here: I don't particularly want to see the unicorn camera taking up every spare cent of development money Pentax have. The meat of their offer is solid, well-made, up-to-date APS-C picture-taking machines. And in particular, their lens range. Having just returned from a long holiday weekend, I could really have used some WR primes with quiet motors - and sharp enough across the frame for good landscape shots. If I leave Pentax it won't be because of FF, about which, to be honest, I don't give a stuff. It will be because they have neglected their bread-and-butter customers in favour of fantasy photographers (not that I think this will happen). Pentax have quite a few things going for them, I think. Look at Fuji, for example: the hype is ridiculous, they cook their ISO figures and their lenses are often ludicrously expensive. It can be argued that a more dangerous path than "no FF" is betting the farm on an APS-C range priced at such a premium that when the penny drops you'll be deserted en masse by people who've realized that the lower rungs of FF offer far better value and not much more if anything in terms of size and weight (compared to those hefty Fuji primes, for example). This is where Fuji are, I think. I hope Pentax see that one coming and keep away. Hiring Zack Arias to promote your wares is more than enough to turn me off any company.

Don't forget last marketing trick promise : 1/32000 s shutter speed for XT-1 !
You can pay for this, obviously. Even if you will never use it.
Unless it was definitely developped to calm your nervous and retro-look annoyed photog subjects

[gazonk]

Zeiss Sonnar FE 35/2.8 comes to mind.

If Pentax makes a 35/2.8, this forum will cry out: "What?? They make a 2.8 lens when we desperately need 1.4 lenses?? Pentax is doooooomed!"

[GoremanX]

But you know that Pentax FF is going to set you back at least $2000,- if not more.

So what? I'd buy it at that price. That's what a D750 sells for. That's what a 5D sells for. That price isn't the issue.

(and the first one who comments that I must have more money than sense will get run over by my 14 year old rust-infested car)

The issue is that Pentax executives have been confirming in interviews that a FF is in development for at least 2-3 years now, and no hair of it ever shows itself.

A couple of fat lens mules and yet another "confirmation" by yet another executive does not make FF any more real.

---

Last edited by Ash; 10-27-2014 at 01:21 PM. Reason: language

[Clavius]

... "nice small FE prime".... how many with decent IQ?

How silly of me, you are right, Sony, Carl Zeiss, Rokinon, Zunow, Samyang, and SLR magic - who are all making FE lenses - make super crappy optics off course.

Pentax FF speculation : no date, no price... are you nostradamus ?

Nope, but for some odd weird reason I have a feeling that a Pentax FF camera will not be cheaper then their APS-C flagship. It will be priced above that. And not merely 1 cent above it either.

[aleonx3]

It is probably make sense (IMHO) that Ricoh wanted to ensure the initial rush/enthusiasm of the 645Z have slowed down a bit before launching the future FF so as not to compete with existing product lines.

[normhead]

The issue is that Pentax executives have been confirming in interviews that a FF is in development for at least 2-3 years now, and no hair of it ever shows itself.

Actually that's not accurate. This is the first time Pentax has said their engineers were engaged with the Full Frame.
The last thing they said before that was that when the K-3 was done the engineers were moving onto the 645 upgrade not the Full Frame... this is the first time they've said the FF had gone beyond a marketing decision. Before now, they were looking for a concept, marketing thought they could sell. That's very different from "engineering is engaged". I don't know why this has to be said over and over, it's getting a little stale.

---------- Post added 09-19-14 at 11:01 AM ----------

Nope, but for some odd weird reason I have a feeling that a Pentax FF camera will not be cheaper then their APS-C flagship. It will be priced above that. And not merely 1 cent above it either.

My guess is a lot of people are going to be disappointed with the price. Pentax like to bring out a high end model, and then make competitively priced cheaper modles that borrow technology from the high end model, but the high end model with the big sticker pays for product development. My guess, a great camera packed with features, for around $2800 to $3200. it will be more bang per buck than other cameras in it's price range, but won't compete with the high end models of other makers that run $5000 and over. That's the Pentax MO, maybe not the best, but maybe the best you can afford.

[GoremanX]

I've written to Ricoh HQ, Japan, and have received an affirmative reply, very recently. So, sorry, my comments are not just wishful thinking.

I wrote to Pentax once many years ago... I had this neat idea for a wide angle rear lens converter that would make the image circle of a FF lens fit on an APS-C sensor without cropping, thereby giving us back the full field of view of Pentax FF lenses on an APS-C body, while simultaneously increasing light gathering. I got a positive, enthusiastic response from Pentax. It was very encouraging. There was some communication back and forth, with confirmation that engineers were looking into the feasability of making it happen.

Then nothing. The end. All communication stopped.

2 years later, Metabones comes out with my product idea for m4/3 cameras and it sells like hotcakes Go figure.

[Andi Lo]

I
2 years later, Metabones comes out with my product idea for m4/3 cameras and it sells like hotcakes Go figure.

Maybe they sold your idea to metabones

[normhead]

If you look at the results of a lot of 3rd party TCs and results for the Pentax HD DA 1.4 TC, you realize, what's good enough for a lot of manufacturers is often not good enough for Pentax. That's part of why they are who they are.

A lot of folks decry the image degradation they get with 3rd party TCs.
A lof ot Pentax TC users wonder if the TC isn't actually increasing their IQ.
You have no idea if the 4/3 TCs you speak of would meet Pentax standards, in the same way all the negative posts on TC were completely out of place, once Pentax released theirs. All those guys thought they were TC authorities, but they weren't. In fact, they spread erroneous information.

[Na Horuk]

But a speed booster for Pentax lenses on Pentax cameras would be great.
And that Pentax 1.4 TC took way too long to be produced, no? It was announced so long ago. Pentax shouldn't reinvent the wheel for every product they make

[GoremanX]

Actually that's not accurate. This is the first time Pentax has said their engineers were engaged with the Full Frame.
The last thing they said before that was that when the K-3 was done the engineers were moving onto the 645 upgrade not the Full Frame... this is the first time they've said the FF had gone beyond a marketing decision. Before now, they were looking for a concept, marketing thought they could sell. That's very different from "engineering is engaged". I don't know why this has to be said over and over, it's getting a little stale.

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 ----------

A lot of folks decry the image degradation they get with 3rd party TCs.
A lof ot Pentax TC users wonder if the TC isn't actually increasing their IQ.
You have no idea if the 4/3 TCs you speak of would meet Pentax standards, in the same way all the negative posts on TC were completely out of place, once Pentax released theirs. All those guys thought they were TC authorities, but they weren't. In fact, they spread erroneous information.

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?