[Winder]

I'm honestly surprised at how much "nuh uh, no way, can't do it, impossible" there is in this thread.

I'm not going to be a Pentax apologist -- I have seen too many flubs in recent years to give them a complete pass -- but have a little faith in the talent, cleverness, competence, and perseverance of the engineers who have worked on this!

I agree. Ricoh knows they can't just warm up the K-3 with a FF sensor and be successful. The FF is going to have to have some of the new technology that Ricoh has patented over the last few years.

Switchable mirror?
Hybrid OVF?
New AF technology?

All things Ricoh has filed a patent on in the last few years. When it comes to cutting edge technology, the bar is pretty high right now. If Rich wants to get anyone attention outside of the K-mount loyalists, they have to come out with something innovative.

[mecrox]

I agree. Ricoh knows they can't just warm up the K-3 with a FF sensor and be successful. The FF is going to have to have some of the new technology that Ricoh has patented over the last few years.

Switchable mirror?
Hybrid OVF?
New AF technology?

All things Ricoh has filed a patent on in the last few years. When it comes to cutting edge technology, the bar is pretty high right now. If Rich wants to get anyone attention outside of the K-mount loyalists, they have to come out with something innovative.

I rather hope they don't. The last time Ricoh tried something truly innovative we got the GXR, with a great deal to admire but one guesses a sales failure and a cul de sac. People spending a lot of money on this stuff, and especially anyone who earns a living from it, surely want something above all which works very well, is predictable and doesn't require re-learning "how to use a camera". This may be a little dull perhaps, but so long as it is up there with the best of breed and does what it says on the tin, folks are generally happy. A case in point is a hybrid VF, basicaly an OVF with an EVF overlay that can be switched on and off. Unless this works absolutely brilliantly and without fault, it will be more of a hindrance than a help and many users might feel they'd be better off with a conventional EVF (dons tinfoil hat). Of course, if Ricoh can get such an innovation to work to top standards ...

[Glorfindelrb]

I assume you mean getting rid of the separate PDAF system entirely and going with on-sensor. That would mean either going full mirrorless or heavily redesigning the mirror beam splitter to redirect light towards the sensor.

What about removing the secondary mirror ? The second flux goes directly to the sensor with pdaf sensors on it. The mirror is simplified, the body is more compact. What would be the drawback of such design ?

[mee]

But why?

Let's see that there is a flagship camera that is coming out with a new style body, that has plenty of space for the sensor and wiring and whatever else you need to put in a full frame camera, why would you not use that? Why would you use a K3 body instead?

Cost? less retooling? Differentiate it from the flagship visibly? I'm not sure exactly..

[noelpolar]

I'd take the rumor as implying the K3 like camera is the one we were shown....similar in type, layout etc. The Pro one would be a larger body ala the pro competition. Showing us the K3 type one was all the hand they needed to show us at that time.

[Cannikin]

Cost? less retooling? Differentiate it from the flagship visibly? I'm not sure exactly..

It wouldn't do any of those things. I'm very certain the cost and retooling by simply go with a slightly larger metal chassis and reusing mature technology is far less than inventing some incredible technological, geometric and optical wizardry while trying to cram things with more than 50% greater linear dimensions into a body which is already about as tightly packed as is physically possible with APS-C components (not to mention already significantly more compact than others in the high-end APS-C class). And if visual differentiation were a concern, why would they make something in a totally different class look exactly the same as the K-3?

[monochrome]

And if visual differentiation were a concern, why would they make something in a totally different class look exactly the same as the K-3?

I've thought most* Pentax cameras were visually attractive designs - some such as the SV are beautiful - and I expect the same from the FF.




* SFx bodies were clearly exceptions

[Cannikin]

I've thought most* Pentax cameras were visually attractive designs - some such as the SV are beautiful - and I expect the same from the FF.

I like the look and design of Pentax DSLRs as well (especially compared to the Canikon "melted plastic" look), but I guess this comes down to the difference between "similar designs" and "the same body".

The K-5 series and the K-3 series are visually very similar (minus the headphone jack hump). But I don't think anyone calls the K-3 body the same as the K-5. So it goes with the K-3 and the FF(s). To me the FF mockup looks like the K-3/K-5 scaled up vertically and with a larger, pointy viewfinder hump. Is that what the rumor considers "the K-3 body"?

If so, sure, that's what we've been expecting. If they literally mean fitting FF into the K-3 chassis, then no, that is clearly impossible without very costly and lengthy R&D to produce revolutionary optical and electronic technology, all to reuse a hunk of metal which is about 10% shorter.

[monochrome]

I expect the FF will not be an actual K-3 body with a complete FF camera squeezed inside. I also don't believe it will draw from the K10/K20 ethic, as some suggest.

I do think, though, it will be an evolution of the basic design theme evident since the K-7, rather than a revolution. It will be recognizably Pentax.

[konraDarnok]

They've been working toward the grand scheme: The K1, K2, and K3II

Just like Canon they can keep issuing revision numerals. K1II, K2II etc. Where else are they going to go?

[solar1]

They've been working toward the grand scheme: The K1, K2, and K3II

Just like Canon they can keep issuing revision numerals. K1II, K2II etc. Where else are they going to go?

K1 deux, K2 deux, K3 deux

[rawr]

Switchable mirror?
Hybrid OVF?
New AF technology?

Lasers would be cool too.
Pls add that to the list Ricoh.

[ColiNiloK]

Interesting, if there info is true looks like Ricoh is planning to doing a D810 & D750/D610 or 5D & 6D competitor combo, which IMHO is better than 1 model FF release to gain more sales and markets. I'm waiting to see more specs for both, however looking at the sensors, it seems like the same sensor as Sony A7II and A7R II would used. Wonder how they are going to name them? K2 & K1?

Also wondering what lenses they would release to accompany those 2 models, I remember the lens road map released earlier this year shows a possible 24-70mm f2.8, 28-135mm f4/24-105/120mm f4, 16-35mm f2.8 lens.

[ddamski]

yes, it would be great move to have two FFs for the people to chose, cant wait!
.. my K-3 is already sold and i am waiting :-) till then i using my wifes K-3. Hopefully the uwd lens will come also this year :-)

[Mistral75]

What about removing the secondary mirror ? The second flux goes directly to the sensor with pdaf sensors on it. The mirror is simplified, the body is more compact. What would be the drawback of such design ?

If the main (and only) mirror is translucent, à la Canon Pellix, the main drawback is that only part of the light is directed towards the viewfinder, making it quite dark; in addition, the image sensor receives less light, making it necessary to increase the sensitivity, all things being equal.

If the mirror is a conventional one, it needs to be up for the imaging sensor to perform autofocus and, during this time, you don't see anything in the viewfinder...