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

That is already the case with any current DSLR, due to the autofocus.
Only 50%* is reflected to the viewfinder, the rest goes through the semitransparent mirror to the secondary mirror and then down to the autofocus sensors.
People falsely believe the mirror in a classic DSLR is not transparent. And transparency means loss of light for the viewfinder (and the light metering System which is up there too).


*=That is a guess, but more light in the viewfinder inevitably means less light for the autofocus module. And who wants the autofocus to be a poor low light performer?

[Rondec]

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 think a lot of people doubt the veracity of the rumor based on a combination of the details and the source. If this came from Asahiman or Kenpo, I would be more likely to take it seriously.

I would be quite unsurprised if Pentax does release a cheaper full frame camera as well as an expensive one. The biggest thing they want to do is to sell these lenses they have designed for full frame and the best way to do that is to sell more cameras. I just am pretty dubious about this rumor specifically and the timing as well.

[Winder]

I think they are a conservative company and will take a conservative approach. If they did two bodies they would have to be different enough to justify it and not simply a stripped down version for price point. I would love to see a MILC (K-mount) styled after the LX with a high quality EVF and a traditional DSLR with OVF. Same sensor and image processor, but 2 different cameras for different shooters with the same mount. All the old glass like the A 50mm F/1.2 and A* 85mm F/1.4 would be amazing with a high quality EVF with peaking and magnification. Companies like Zeiss and Voightlander might actually re-release their MF glass for K-mount if sales are decent. Of course it would still have PDAF on sensor so AF performance would still be good. I think Ricoh is too conservative for this type of camera.

[IchabodCrane]

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...

Didn't Ricoh file a patent for a variable transmission mirror? Seems that could address much of the drawback you outlined.

[Zygonyx]

Think also about this : OVF with special treatment allowing both reflection when the mirror is active, and coupled with a backstage EVF transmitting through the pentaprism when the mirror is up.
I know i might be dreaming

[GlassJunkie]

I hate to be a "wet blanket" (maybe not), but why oh why would RP make a 24mp FF (12mp in APSC equivalent resolution)? Who would buy such a thing (other than wedding photogs, boat and realty brokers, or sports photogs sick of CaNikon's superior pro-trade support)? All 73 buyers could get together for a book club....

Maybe matching buggy whips, SONY cassette Walkmen, or 5.25" floppy drive accessories would boost sales...

IMHO a 24mp FF is being sold to photogs that don't know better, or want "big and wide" like an EDSEL...

[rawr]

24mp FF is being sold to photogs that don't know better

Lots of D600/D610/D750, A7/A7ii/A7s, and even 5DIII/6D users would disagree. Not to mention the 1Dx and D4s pros.

If Pentax released a D750 clone for a good price, what's to dislike about that?

[thibs]

IMHO a 24mp FF is being sold to photogs that don't know better, or want "big and wide" like an EDSEL...

Lots of D600/D610/D750, A7/A7ii/A7s, and even 5DIII/6D users would disagree. Not to mention the 1Dx and D4s pros.

If Pentax released a D750 clone for a good price, what's to dislike about that?

Well those who needs resolution in APS today (tele + crop or something like that) will pass on the FF if it has 24MP. That's it ans that's all.
More MP (36-42) or D810 range cams AND price. No reason to moan. At all. Really.

So I fully agree with Rawr.
For most people, 12MP in APS mode is more than enough.
Wants more? Pay more. Or use an FF body AND an APS body. That's not the end of the world.

[GlassJunkie]

Well those who needs resolution in APS today (tele + crop or something like that) will pass on the FF if it has 24MP. That's it ans that's all.
More MP (36-42) or D810 range cams AND price. No reason to moan. At all. Really.

So I fully agree with Rawr.
For most people, 12MP in APS mode is more than enough.
Wants more? Pay more. Or use an FF body AND an APS body. That's not the end of the world.

You and Rawr are correct in the price point. I guess, from a business point ( I want RP to succeed in their plan), I have difficulty with the deployment of a FF that is an "also ran" as opposed to a "better tool". Probably a bit "picky" a view, but a 42MP FF will get "serious attention" as opposed to a FF using "old glass" that is a yawn.

I am "jaded" in the view of APSc resolution as a wildlife and abstract shooter, and am concerned that the CA on a FF using older glass will be a "death nell" for Pentax. Many users will say "why did I spend the money", particularly the folks that generate income from shooting...

IMHO, Pentax needs newer, better FF glass (coatings, weight, WR seals, electronics) to make FF actually "worth it" in a cost/return view. Why one would take a world class (I actually AM an optimist) DFA*24-70 F2.8 and put it on a 24MP FF as opposed to a 42mp FF is a reach for me. A 16-50 DA* costs less, will provide comparable results (on a K-3, K-3II), with lower weight.

I would sign on to the argument where "we all want a better... AF, Shutter, Flash Sync speed, or functionality request" in either format, and would demand it in a 36-42mp FF, but would rather see an improved APSc (30+mp, better AF, Sync speed, shutter, etc) be their R&D investment as opposed to a 24mpFF...

The DFA 150-450 is a "blow away" for me, and K-3 leveled the "brand war" in the APSc space. Kept me from looking elsewhere after using PTX for 35+ years. Even the 70-200 and 24-70 are of interest to me, as is the wide zoom (hopefully F2.8 in a 12-24mm something or better) on APSC. I'll take the 1/2/stop in those lens classes... Nice to have. but I wouldn't dilute it with a move to 24mp FF, since I don't go that wide... Others with the Ultra WA need might. I want Pentax to sell a bunch of whatever sells, as long as the quality is there, profits are there, and the roadmap continues fwd... IMHO

[pathdoc]

Potential goodies that could differentiate a high-level from a low-level FF:

ISO (50 or less in the high model; either improved high-ISO performance or higher maximum ISO in the pro model)
GPS vs. inbuilt flash (high and low respectively - the consumer FF needs to have one; pros will already have more flashes than they know what to do with).
Frame rate in burst mode and buffer size.
Battery grip vs. not.
How far forward and back does the sensor have room to move? In-body autofocus, anyone? Get close with your manual lens - a touch either side of AF confirm - and the camera will do the rest. Pro model only.

Perhaps you can't stick a full-frame sensor in the K3 body without losing something (e.g. SR), but there's no doubt that whatever the form of this "low level FF" is, Pentax engineers will be working hard to put it into the smallest possible package. I would not be surprised if they managed to fit one in approximately the same size as the K3 body, even if a drop-in replacement were impossible.

OTOH it should be quite easy to go the other way. And if Pentax end up throwing us game-changing goodies that aren't absolutely dependent on the presence of a full-frame sensor, that's what the new APS-C camera will be.

[GlassJunkie]

Potential goodies that could differentiate a high-level from a low-level FF:

ISO (50 or less in the high model; either improved high-ISO performance or higher maximum ISO in the pro model)
GPS vs. inbuilt flash (high and low respectively - the consumer FF needs to have one; pros will already have more flashes than they know what to do with).
Frame rate in burst mode and buffer size.
Battery grip vs. not.
How far forward and back does the sensor have room to move? In-body autofocus, anyone? Get close with your manual lens - a touch either side of AF confirm - and the camera will do the rest. Pro model only.

Perhaps you can't stick a full-frame sensor in the K3 body without losing something (e.g. SR), but there's no doubt that whatever the form of this "low level FF" is, Pentax engineers will be working hard to put it into the smallest possible package. I would not be surprised if they managed to fit one in approximately the same size as the K3 body, even if a drop-in replacement were impossible.

OTOH it should be quite easy to go the other way. And if Pentax end up throwing us game-changing goodies that aren't absolutely dependent on the presence of a full-frame sensor, that's what the new APS-C camera will be.

With a little "shoehornin' " and a few MM in the light box, they could come close. I still like the look (although dated in MP and functionality) of the MZ-D. Sexy look.

I like your note on "consumer FF" ... Good nomenclature... Is it an oxymoron, based on the now arbitrary nature of sensor size? Lots of fun to be had waiting for the next launch. I always thought the flash was handy for quickie "outdoor fill", when I'm marching through the swamp. Never looked down my nose at a built-in. If PTX was smart they would figure out how to put "two occupants on the same mountain" (as an old Japanese photographer once said about Interchangeable, betering, and other 35mm finders.

I am really glad I can fit a Metz in my pocket for the other stuff....

[pathdoc]

As far as fill-flash is concerned, you'd be surprised what the on-board is capable of when you have an f/1.8 (or better, f/1.4) lens mounted rather than a kit f/3.5. Those extra two to two and a half stops fully open translate to a LOT of extra light coming into the camera.

[GlassJunkie]

As far as fill-flash is concerned, you'd be surprised what the on-board is capable of when you have an f/1.8 (or better, f/1.4) lens mounted rather than a kit f/3.5. Those extra two to two and a half stops fully open translate to a LOT of extra light coming into the camera.

Yup. Can't part with my F 50 1.4. Hung a Rodenstock on it, still solid...

So do you get to take pics of cool stuff? Based on your "handle" you must have some great abstracts...

[pathdoc]

Based on your "handle" you must have some great abstracts...

None of which I am allowed to share with you, unfortunately - medical confidentiality. Even if I de-identified the image, I think I could still get in a LOT of trouble.

[GlassJunkie]

None of which I am allowed to share with you, unfortunately - medical confidentiality. Even if I de-identified the image, I think I could still get in a LOT of trouble.

No need for that...