[thibs]

I hope they release a series of cameras, rather than just one. MANY of us have expressed the desire for a more basic, K1000-D type camera, without all of the bells and whistles, and without the associated cost. I'd love to see something that resembles the Fuji XT-1, which of course, resembles the Pentax ZX-5N in its brilliant simplicity.

I've been almost shot here for asking for such a cam.

That being said, they'll release a flagship first but nothing prevents them to release a prosumer 24MP FF 6 to 9 months later

[normhead]

I've been almost shot here for asking for such a cam.

That being said, they'll release a flagship first but nothing prevents them to release a prosumer 24MP FF 6 to 9 months later

I'm just going for what 's cheapest. Using K-3 components as they did in the 645z, is probably cheaper than custom designed chips that make it more manual.

[Kunzite]

Well, Thibs, the problem with requesting such a product can be seen in fuent104's post: "without the associated cost". On the contrary, a feature stripped - thus niche - camera will be more expensive.
How much for a D610? How much for a Df? And they only stripped the video...

[kadajawi]

I've been almost shot here for asking for such a cam.

That being said, they'll release a flagship first but nothing prevents them to release a prosumer 24MP FF 6 to 9 months later

The problem is the expectation that leaving away features reduces the price. Dropping the HDMI port... a few cents less perhaps? No headphone out and mic in, couple more cents? Physical items are what can reduce the price. Dropping AF would save them a bit of money, but people will then say "no AF? I was hoping it would at least have AF...". Lower sales = higher prices.


Off the shelf parts help them save money. For example Samsung is using the same sensor and (probably) processor that is found in the NX1 for the NX500. It's quite possibly the most advanced imaging processor in the world, and more than overkill for the NX500 (they don't make use of all the functionality and of the speed it has). But designing a new processor may increase the cost of the camera. Now yes, camera processors are more modular nowadays, so they could for example leave away the HEVC encoder if it didn't have to have video. But Samsung designs and produces everything itself, if Pentax were to do that they have to ask Fujitsu to do it and produce custom parts for them. And the kind of functionality you'd want them to drop won't save any money.


If Pentax really made such a stripped down camera, expect it to have all the functionality simply disabled. Think Nikon Df... it is perfectly capable of recording video, they just disabled the functionality. Enabling it wouldn't cost them a single cent.


The only reason why such a camera would be cheaper is because they can't ask as much for it, and they limited it to force people to spend more on the next step up model. (Think the Canon 1000D series... they artificially limited the speed of the camera. Or all Canon point & shoots use the same processors you'd also find in their DSLRs, and they support raw etc., but it's not activated). Also, retro styling is a reason to increase the price. Would you spend more on a camera that is like what you ask for? Limited production runs, custom hardware (or the same hardware, with some features disabled), ...? Or do you only want that because you think you can save money with it?


Think about the 645Z. It supports video. It doesn't make sense that it does, because the video it produces is a joke. But it does. Because Pentax was simply using the processor from the K-3, which supports video. And the sensor is able to output a video feed for live view. Implementing video was thus trivial.

[Blue]

Well, Thibs, the problem with requesting such a product can be seen in fuent104's post: "without the associated cost". On the contrary, a feature stripped - thus niche - camera will be more expensive.
How much for a D610? How much for a Df? And they only stripped the video...

Those of us that are interested in a "K2" type full frame digital body are more interested in it being optimized for manual focus and ttl metering rather than p-ttl for flash.

[clackers]

Those of us that are interested in a "K2" type full frame digital body are more interested in it being optimized for manual focus and ttl metering rather than p-ttl for flash.

I don't remember voting for you to speak on our behalf, Blue.

I think both your claims unlikely.

Autofocus and P-TTL are modern demands of modern cameras.

People value their performance so much there may be complaints if the K-2 simply reuses the K-3 components - which may well be the case. :-)

[Kunzite]

If disabling video was able to raise the Df price up to D810 level, removing autofocus would probably throw it in Leica territory. Not feasible for Pentax.
As a side note, even Leica started to include modern features - live view and movie mode, for example.

[RGlasel]

No, I want to spend $2000+ on a digital version of my Super Program. 6 mp resolution, ISO 6 to 3200 (visible noise above 400), 36 image storage capacity that I have to pay a third party to download, process and erase, full time manual focus, no SR, no rear LCD, top LCD only displays shutter speed; anything else is frivolous. Why can't it automatically operate like a manual film camera?

[Tesla]

I've been almost shot here for asking for such a cam.

Me too.

[monochrome]

No, I want to spend $2000+ on a digital version of my Super Program. 6 mp resolution, ISO 6 to 3200 (visible noise above 400), 36 image storage capacity that I have to pay a third party to download, process and erase, full time manual focus, no SR, no rear LCD, top LCD only displays shutter speed; anything else is frivolous. Why can't it automatically operate like a manual film camera?

That camera would cost $3,000+

[filoxophy]

I don't remember voting for you to speak on our behalf, Blue.

I think both your claims unlikely.

Autofocus and P-TTL are modern demands of modern cameras.

People value their performance so much there may be complaints if the K-2 simply reuses the K-3 components - which may well be the case. :-)

Not sure if you are talking about the same thing...

Pentax K2 - Pentax Manual Focus Film SLRs - Pentax Camera Reviews and Specifications

Or maybe you are, whatever.

I would like a stripped-down FF myself, but would I choose it over the Full-Featured FF? I don't know. I do know that if I were a Nikonian, I would get the Df over the D800/750/whatever in an instant, but the Df isn't exactly "stripped down", video notwithstanding.

[harrisonww]

I don't remember voting for you to speak on our behalf, Blue.

I think both your claims unlikely.

Autofocus and P-TTL are modern demands of modern cameras.

People value their performance so much there may be complaints if the K-2 simply reuses the K-3 components - which may well be the case. :-)

I would have to agree. Speed up them sync speeds and get that auto focus going. cross type and a TON of em

[kadajawi]

No, I want to spend $2000+ on a digital version of my Super Program. 6 mp resolution, ISO 6 to 3200 (visible noise above 400), 36 image storage capacity that I have to pay a third party to download, process and erase, full time manual focus, no SR, no rear LCD, top LCD only displays shutter speed; anything else is frivolous. Why can't it automatically operate like a manual film camera?

I present to you: Epson R-D1. Or just pick up a Leica. And get a 64 MB SD card.


I think Pentax will use newer components in the new FF, but that they will show up in Pentaxes that follow. Things like the processor they may just use the latest that Fujitsu offers, as long as it doesn't require big modifications to the firmware. And perhaps even the AF sensor. One with reasonable coverage for FF would have great coverage for APS-C. Might be nice to have that in a pro level APS-C camera.


I don't think removing AF would cost Pentax, apart from the drop in demand that may raise the price. They could use a simpler, 100% reflective mirror. The AF sensor isn't needed anymore. Screw drive motor can be dropped. etc. That's one of the few things where removal may actually lower cost.

[loveisageless]

Yeah ... I had not thought about getting a "slightly" used K3 ! (without the machine gun issue though)
That would make sense !

---------- Post added 02-05-15 at 12:12 PM ----------



That would be fine with me then.
Whether Pentax will opt to update its firmware(s) to accommodate the new lenses on "older" bodies remains to be seen.

---------- Post added 02-05-15 at 12:14 PM ----------



Seriously ? You sold the K3 in favour of the K5IIs ?
I'll have to ask you about how it performs with the new lens(es) later when you get one! (or both? )

I felt the same way about the image quality of the K-3 vs. K-5IIS. The K-5IIS just seemed to handle noise better.

[fuent104]

I don't why some people here speak in such absolutes, as though they know they are correct.

There are plenty of companies that sell electronics-related products for lower prices with lesser features. It's pretty absurd to pretend that it doesn't happen.

In the camera world, I would look at a company like Blackmagic Design, and their cinema cameras. The original idea was to put a sensor in a box, give it a minimum ability to process information, and sell it at the lowest cost on the market. Their first few cameras have been EXTREMELY successful. Their more recent Ursa have not captured the market's attention in the same way.

Obviously both Leica and Hasselblad have been selling stripped down systems for years. There's no need to pretend the price needs to be high for the Leica M cameras. It's not because they don't have autofocus.

If you are all convinced that it's possible for a company that's never made a cinema camera to suddenly release one that records uncompressed RAW at a lower cost than any other camera on the market, but it's not possible for a camera company that's been around for more than half a century to release a full frame camera with stripped down features, and not charge an arm and a leg for it, then I don't think there's anything I can say that will convince you otherwise.

And the reason I'd like it to be shaped like a K1000 or ZX-5N is because I happen to enjoy the ergonomic experience of using those cameras more than the ergonomic experience of using my dslrs. Is that really so hard to comprehend?