[monochrome]

I initially was thinking it was a mistake as well to miss the Holiday season, but the more I thought about it, the more I don't know if it really matters. It is not like if it was a new release it was going to have a Black Friday deal attached to it. And this is not a gift type of camera. I would never expect my husband to have one waiting for me under the tree. Plus, the whole black Friday thing is a very North American (and more specifically US) thing.

Retailer orders for Holiday Sales, marketing plans, shelf space, ad buys, co-brand packaging - everything to do with selling consumer gear between November 15th and January10th - was all decided 60 days ago, in mid-July. I doubt in mid-July Ricoh was prepared to commit to deliver versus orders placed, so retailers placed few or no 'Premium/Featured' orders. Once the order cycle is missed there's really no reason to just throw the camera out there and hope for the best. Far, Far better to use extra months to refine the product and the manufacturing process.

As I have said many times (though I too get caught up in the hype), they'll release the FF when it is ready - not before.

Seems B&H's Feb, 2015 Expected Ship for pre-ordered 70~200/2.8's was prescient.

---

Last edited by monochrome; 09-20-2015 at 09:21 AM.

[Matthew Saville]

Pentax uses a full magnesium alloy body, instead of just a frame and ibis will also make it heavier.

Understood. The question is, will Pentax ever be able to offer a bigger/smaller sibling type lineup, as Nikon and Canon have done with their "affordable full-frame" lineup that has arrived in the last couple years.

There is a lot to be said for Pentax making a full-frame DSLR that folks who lust after medium format can "settle for". Such a camera can be as big and weighty as it wants, because to some folks that simply equates to a feeling of awesomeness. Nothing wrong with that! But I only really need one full-frame and one crop-sensor camera that are so ridiculously indestructible. The K-3 II and "K-3 FF" will fill those slots nicely. However when I go on a backpacking trip and really want to have TWO or even THREE camera bodies for timelapse photography in the wilderness, I kinda really only need one of those bodies to be rock-solid, the other two can be lesser, lighter B-roll type cameras. I'd go for a K-S2 for at least one of those bodies, for example, however having a full-frame K-S2 would be fantastic as well.

Hope this makes sense. I know Pentax is a small company compared to Canon and Nikon, but considering their clout with medium format digital, I hope their full-frame digital endeavors are highly successful and lead to not just a 1-camera lineup, but at least two different body styles in the long run. Because there's no way in heck I'm lugging three ~1KG camera bodies up a mountain. ;-)

[Fogel70]

Understood. The question is, will Pentax ever be able to offer a bigger/smaller sibling type lineup, as Nikon and Canon have done with their "affordable full-frame" lineup that has arrived in the last couple years.

Pentax FF seems to be about the same size as the smallest FF DSLRs on the market. It might even be the smallest as it's not much wider than a K-3 II. But it's probably be heavier other DSLRs of the same size because of SR and higher build quality.
Compact Camera Meter

[D1N0]

Understood. The question is, will Pentax ever be able to offer a bigger/smaller sibling type lineup, as Nikon and Canon have done with their "affordable full-frame" lineup that has arrived in the last couple years.

There is a lot to be said for Pentax making a full-frame DSLR that folks who lust after medium format can "settle for". Such a camera can be as big and weighty as it wants, because to some folks that simply equates to a feeling of awesomeness. Nothing wrong with that! But I only really need one full-frame and one crop-sensor camera that are so ridiculously indestructible. The K-3 II and "K-3 FF" will fill those slots nicely. However when I go on a backpacking trip and really want to have TWO or even THREE camera bodies for timelapse photography in the wilderness, I kinda really only need one of those bodies to be rock-solid, the other two can be lesser, lighter B-roll type cameras. I'd go for a K-S2 for at least one of those bodies, for example, however having a full-frame K-S2 would be fantastic as well.

Hope this makes sense. I know Pentax is a small company compared to Canon and Nikon, but considering their clout with medium format digital, I hope their full-frame digital endeavors are highly successful and lead to not just a 1-camera lineup, but at least two different body styles in the long run. Because there's no way in heck I'm lugging three ~1KG camera bodies up a mountain. ;-)

I wouldn't expect a mid ranger full frame until they can offer it under $1000. That will take a few more years. When taking multiple bodies why not mix up aps-c and FF. Most people looking for a cheaper camera will have plenty of choice in the aps-c offerings. I expect the FF to be priced against the D750 but able to compete with the D810. If so it will be a great buy.

[Mistral75]

I wouldn't expect a mid ranger full frame until they can offer it under $1000. That will take a few more years. When taking multiple bodies why not mix up aps-c and FF. Most people looking for a cheaper camera will have plenty of choice in the aps-c offerings. I expect the FF to be priced against the D750 but able to compete with the D810. If so it will be a great buy.

...not to mention second-hand cameras.

[GlassJunkie]

- Lifting vignetting shadows in camera will reduce DR at the edges and corners. Vignetting sometimes gives a nice intended touch to the image. Vignetting compensation should be overridable, but why spend time on location on setting this details in a menu?
- Choosing crop factor is about weighting corner performance against needs. In portraits people would accept lower corner performance then in landscapes. Who would want to spend time on location considering that in addition to everything else?
- Cropping gives us freedom to choose aspect ratio within the acceptable performance of the image circle. Why spend time on location considering this too?

I don't understand why anyone* would use the auto-crop function. Its better to choose aspect ratio, crop factor and vignetting compensation in the post process. It gives you more time to focus on important things like lights, angles, composition lines, look for the right moment, choosing DoF and so on. This is things you cant compensate or choose in the post process.

* Ok, if i lend the camera to my mother or others that have to be told where the shutter button is, then i probably will set the camera in full auto with auto crop and jpeg just for the convenience.

Great points. My point is that they should allow the lens based crop"i refer to it as auto crop" to not be hard coded to a set APSc frame to allow for exactly what you suggest, at minimum for maximizing resolution. Turning that off would allow for the flexibility to chose how much remains, which I am also fine with...

[Gimbal]

I don't understand why anyone* would use the auto-crop function. Its better to choose aspect ratio, crop factor and vignetting compensation in the post process. It gives you more time to focus on important things like lights, angles, composition lines, look for the right moment, choosing DoF and so on. This is things you cant compensate or choose in the post process.

Although when you compose the picture in the viewfinder it might be good to know where the borders are.

[thibs]

Although when you compose the picture in the viewfinder it might be good to know where the borders are.

Exactly, specially with crops like 1:1, it really changed everything (for me).

[MMVIII]

Exactly, specially with crops like 1:1, it really changed everything (for me).

My Mz5-n had the nice feature of a mask for covering the top and bottom part of the viewfinder directly at the ocular. Make this adjustable with two weels, there we go. It could be even used to close the viewfinder, no more lost covers...

[thibs]

My Mz5-n had the nice feature of a mask for covering the top and bottom part of the viewfinder directly at the ocular. Make this adjustable with two weels, there we go. It could be even used to close the viewfinder, no more lost covers...

Indeed. But they could do this à la Nikon, in the VF, more flexible but that's the idea.

[Matthew Saville]

Pentax FF seems to be about the same size as the smallest FF DSLRs on the market. It might even be the smallest as it's not much wider than a K-3 II. But it's probably be heavier other DSLRs of the same size because of SR and higher build quality.
Compact Camera Meter

I'm more and more excited. SR, a killer optical viewfinder, AND rugged weather sealing in a body that doesn't weigh like a brick? Bring it on!

I'd still love to see a two-camera lineup, eventually. If they can do this with their flagship, they could do awesome with a full-frame K-S2 as well. :-)

=Matt=

[stillshot2]

I would like to think one day there will be another surge in dslr sales with full frame cameras like there was back in 2010-2011 when aps-c started to become very affordable. If it wasn't for my wife wanting a dslr so bad (not even knowing anything about them other than they can take "good pictures of food for her food blog") and me happening to stumble upon my mass produced Sony a330 I got at costco for $429 with 2 kit lenses, I would have never been where I am today.... the one now obsessed with photography, LBA, etc. where she now doesn't give a rat's bottom about cameras anymore lol.

[Hattifnatt]

I'm mostly shooting landscapes at sunset, high contrasts pretty much all the time. I would need better DR, a FF is supposed to give me this right? I don't like HDR so most of the times I underexpose and push the shadows... will I get any benefit from the FF? I think I will be able to afford it when it comes.

Also, I have the outstanding (but inconsistent) Sigma 35mm 1.4 Art, and I can't help thinking about how it will perform on a bigger res FF body. And a bit wider too.

[Matthew Saville]

I'm mostly shooting landscapes at sunset, high contrasts pretty much all the time. I would need better DR, a FF is supposed to give me this right? I don't like HDR so most of the times I underexpose and push the shadows... will I get any benefit from the FF? I think I will be able to afford it when it comes.

Also, I have the outstanding (but inconsistent) Sigma 35mm 1.4 Art, and I can't help thinking about how it will perform on a bigger res FF body. And a bit wider too.

Of all the aspects of sensor quality that you can measure, dynamic range is one of the least size-constrained in my opinion.

For example, Nikon offers 24 megapixel sensors both in 1.5x and FX sizes. The Nikon D750 and D7200 are two of the most recent iterations of the original sensor designs, (both from Sony in one way or another) ...and yet the D7200 is measured to have 0.1 stops better DR than the D750, by DXO.

Even if you like to throw DXO measurements out the window, and/or allow for a real-world fudge-factor, ...this still proves that generally speaking, a crop sensor is still capable of quite a great amount of dynamic range.

Heck, the Pentax 16 MP and 24 MP APS-C sensors have already far surpassed any full-frame Canon sensor for dynamic range, and that's a difference you'll see even in the most casual real-world situations!

In other words, unless there is some major technological breakthrough in sensor technology, (Sony's BSI technology in the A7R II actually HARMED dynamic range, compared to the original A7R sensor, according to DXO) ...you can expect the full-frame Pentax to have roughly similar or only marginally better dynamic range than the existing 16 MP and 24 MP crop sensors, which already have pretty amazing DR.

TLDR; if I were a betting man, I'd put $10 on 14-15 stops of DR.

=Matt=

[biz-engineer]

Heck, the Pentax 16 MP and 24 MP APS-C sensors have already far surpassed any full-frame Canon sensor for dynamic range, and that's a difference you'll see even in the most casual real-world situations!

Personally, using real cameras, I did not find the same result as DXO. Even if on DXO the K-5 and K-3 are supposed to have a better DR than the 5DII, it is practically not true. Practically, K-3 has less than 10 stops of DR, not more. The image quality that we get out of APSC now is great. But the image quality from FF of more than five years ago still beats the best APSC. When I see photos from the 5DII and 5DIII, I don't buy DXO scores.