The latest FF speculation

Simen1 · 08-17-2015, 01:30 AM

Originally posted by rawr

Only two? Are they even trying?

.. in October - November. They didn't say how many in December. ;-)

But seriously, it sounds great for me. Both the K-3 size and two price points from the start. (It means i probably will buy the cheaper soon rather then waiting for an expensive to become cheaper when new models get launched maybe a year or two from now. Hope both have built in astro tracer and pixel shift mode. If the speculation turns out to be on spot.

**Rondec** · 08-17-2015, 02:40 AM

Originally posted by JPT

I don't think the FF could literally have the same body as the K-3. But what struck me when I saw the FF mockup at CP+ was how close it was in overall size and ergonomics to the K-3. People were holding their K-3s against the glass to judge how big it was and it was only really the prism that makes it any bigger.

The other mysterious thing for me was that they showed it with the FA31 attached, not their latest and greatest DFA giants. That made me think that this isn't really the model that they are meant for. That's when I started thinking that there would probably be two models, with the other one being bigger.

Let's face it, there isn't one single magic spec and price point that would keep everyone satisfied. The competitors offer products at multiple price points, and if Ricoh doesn't, their system will look very limited in comparison. Also, the logic of having to make a whole line of lenses but only having one body to capitalise on it looks suspect to me.

Actually, making camera bodies is the east part for Ricoh, comparatively. Making several new cameras a year is business as usual for camera companies. Ricoh currently make DSLRs bigger and smaller, and they redesign things like SR, AF, metering, the prism and the mirror mechanism every couple of generations anyway. Two FF cameras OK in quick succession is totally feasible.

Originally posted by thibs

Of course it would need slight body update but FF in k3 body here imo means the same as D300 body talking about the D700 which really are the same body but mirror box and prism.

All well and good. The discussion on the previous page was delving into how Pentax could released one camera with the same body type, but turn off features on the cheaper one.

I am sure that a full frame sensor would fit in a K3 body without any problem. But if Pentax is going to release a newly designed full frame body, wouldn't it make more sense to put two different sensors in it aka the K50/K500 models, rather than retro-fit the K3 body for a different sensor?

Anyway, I just think this is one of those rumors that doesn't really have much real information behind it.

Winder · 08-17-2015, 04:44 AM

Originally posted by Rondec

I am sure that a full frame sensor would fit in a K3 body without any problem.

I'm not sure they can put the FF SR into a K-3 body. The SR system has to get bigger in every way. looking at cutaways of the K-3 I don't think it is possible. You could squeeze the FF sensor in to the K-3 body if you took out the SR system, but Ricoh isn't going to do that (hopefully).

deus ursus · 08-17-2015, 05:08 AM

Unless they develop a more compact SR mecanism.

Zygonyx · 08-17-2015, 05:51 AM

Originally posted by Winder

I'm not sure they can put the FF SR into a K-3 body. The SR system has to get bigger in every way. looking at cutaways of the K-3 I don't think it is possible. You could squeeze the FF sensor in to the K-3 body if you took out the SR system, but Ricoh isn't going to do that (hopefully).

Same with pentaprism for FF : it definitely doesn't fit in K-3 body unless ridiculous magnification and coverage.

D1N0 · 08-17-2015, 06:59 AM

The K-3 was designed for aps-c. Apart from sr and pentaprism, the mirror housing has the grow. I don't think there is a lot of empty space around it. You'd have to totally redesign it and you'd still have a compromise. Much cheaper to use the FF base for a second maybe more compact en cheaper FF.

Mistral75 · 08-17-2015, 08:21 AM

Originally posted by dcshooter

Eat my hat.

(...)

Bon appétit !

rawr · 08-17-2015, 01:35 PM

Originally posted by Winder

'm not sure they can put the FF SR into a K-3 body.

Pentax engineers could probably do it. The IBIS mechanism in the 24MP Sony A7 II, for example, as one can see from LensRental's teardown of the A7II, shows that SR does add bulk but can be made rather compact, even for a FF. The basic design of the mechanism resembles Pentax SR a lot, the image circle of E-mount is about the same as K-mount, and the K-3 body is larger than the A7 II too.

Cannikin · 08-17-2015, 02:02 PM

If any of you have seen a Pentax APS-C DSLR cut in half, you will see that about 1/4 of the mirror box is taken up by the PDAF system at the bottom. It protrudes well into the lens mount circle, all the way up to the bottom of the APS-C sensor, which is not a problem because of APS-C coverage, but will most certainly interfere with a FF mirror and image circle.

There is no room to expand upwards because of the pentaprism, and no room to expand downwards because of the PDAF system. If Pentax could somehow shrink the PDAF system and pentaprism while at the same time making their coverage significantly larger, that would be quite the feat of wizardry (and something not supported by their trend of forgoing small size in favor of optical performance in their recent lenses like the 16-85, 70-200 and 150-450).

And yes, you would have to expand both upwards and downwards, because if you move the sensor downwards, it will no longer be centered on the lens mount. And the lens mount cannot be moved downwards because that would be off the body.

No, I'd say there is a 0% chance of cramming a FF sensor in the K-3 body.

**Dano** · 08-17-2015, 02:18 PM

FF? There goes my household budget!!

mee · 08-17-2015, 02:28 PM

Originally posted by Cannikin

If any of you have seen a Pentax APS-C DSLR cut in half, you will see that about 1/4 of the mirror box is taken up by the PDAF system at the bottom. It protrudes well into the lens mount circle, which is not a problem because of APS-C coverage, but will most certainly interfere with a FF mirror and image circle.

There is no room to expand upwards because of the pentaprism, and no room to expand downwards because of the PDAF system. If Pentax could somehow shrink the PDAF system and pentaprism while at the same time making their coverage significantly larger, that would be quite the feat of wizardry (and something not supported by their trend of forgoing small size for optical performance in their recent lenses like the 16-85, 70-200 and 150-450).

And yes, you would have to expand both upwards and downwards, because if you move the sensor downwards, it will no longer be centered on the lens mount. And the lens mount cannot be moved downwards because that would be off the body.

No, I'd say there is a 0% chance of cramming a FF sensor in the K-3 body.

Well if you don't try to force the idea literally it is possible.. K-3 body can mean face value the actual K-3 body, a modified K-3 body, or a body that is K-3 like..

**geomez** · 08-17-2015, 02:31 PM

Originally posted by Cannikin

If any of you have seen a Pentax APS-C DSLR cut in half, you will see that about 1/4 of the mirror box is taken up by the PDAF system at the bottom. It protrudes well into the lens mount circle, all the way up to the bottom of the APS-C sensor, which is not a problem because of APS-C coverage, but will most certainly interfere with a FF mirror and image circle.

There is no room to expand upwards because of the pentaprism, and no room to expand downwards because of the PDAF system. If Pentax could somehow shrink the PDAF system and pentaprism while at the same time making their coverage significantly larger, that would be quite the feat of wizardry (and something not supported by their trend of forgoing small size in favor of optical performance in their recent lenses like the 16-85, 70-200 and 150-450).

And yes, you would have to expand both upwards and downwards, because if you move the sensor downwards, it will no longer be centered on the lens mount. And the lens mount cannot be moved downwards because that would be off the body.

No, I'd say there is a 0% chance of cramming a FF sensor in the K-3 body.

Hybrid on-sensor PDAF?

Quicksand · 08-17-2015, 03:03 PM - **1 Like**

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!

Cannikin · 08-17-2015, 03:07 PM

Originally posted by mee

Well if you don't try to force the idea literally it is possible.. K-3 body can mean face value the actual K-3 body, a modified K-3 body, or a body that is K-3 like..

At the very least it would have to be about 1cm or so taller than the K-3 to accommodate the expanded mirror box/sensor and larger viewfinder. Which is pretty much what the CP+ FF mockup looks like to me.

So I guess that ends up being whether you consider the FF mockup as just a modified K-3 body that's about 1cm taller, with a pointy viewfinder hump and minus the headphone jack hump, or a separate "new" body.

Originally posted by geomez

Hybrid on-sensor PDAF?

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 (which still wouldn't solve the lens mount centering issue by shifting the center of the sensor downwards).

Yeah, I don't think Ricoh is going to spend millions in R&D to bend over backwards making everything somehow fit in the K-3, probably making several performance compromises along the way, when they could just solve everything by simply making the chassis 1cm taller (which is apparently what they did with the mockup). Especially since the rumor is the "K-3 body FF" is the "budget" model.

It's not like that would make it gigantic either. The K-3 and K-5 series are already the smallest in the high end APS-C class. Increasing the height would only make it about the overall size of the D7200 (minus the pointy tip of the viewfinder hump).

**Rondec** · 08-17-2015, 03:44 PM

Originally posted by mee

Well if you don't try to force the idea literally it is possible.. K-3 body can mean face value the actual K-3 body, a modified K-3 body, or a body that is K-3 like..

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?

08-17-2015, 02:02 PM	#54
Cannikin Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: SW Washington Posts: 833	If any of you have seen a Pentax APS-C DSLR cut in half, you will see that about 1/4 of the mirror box is taken up by the PDAF system at the bottom. It protrudes well into the lens mount circle, all the way up to the bottom of the APS-C sensor, which is not a problem because of APS-C coverage, but will most certainly interfere with a FF mirror and image circle. There is no room to expand upwards because of the pentaprism, and no room to expand downwards because of the PDAF system. If Pentax could somehow shrink the PDAF system and pentaprism while at the same time making their coverage significantly larger, that would be quite the feat of wizardry (and something not supported by their trend of forgoing small size in favor of optical performance in their recent lenses like the 16-85, 70-200 and 150-450). And yes, you would have to expand both upwards and downwards, because if you move the sensor downwards, it will no longer be centered on the lens mount. And the lens mount cannot be moved downwards because that would be off the body. No, I'd say there is a 0% chance of cramming a FF sensor in the K-3 body. Last edited by Cannikin; 08-17-2015 at 02:30 PM.

08-17-2015, 03:07 PM	#59
Cannikin Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: SW Washington Posts: 833	Originally posted by mee Well if you don't try to force the idea literally it is possible.. K-3 body can mean face value the actual K-3 body, a modified K-3 body, or a body that is K-3 like.. At the very least it would have to be about 1cm or so taller than the K-3 to accommodate the expanded mirror box/sensor and larger viewfinder. Which is pretty much what the CP+ FF mockup looks like to me. So I guess that ends up being whether you consider the FF mockup as just a modified K-3 body that's about 1cm taller, with a pointy viewfinder hump and minus the headphone jack hump, or a separate "new" body. Originally posted by geomez Hybrid on-sensor PDAF? 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 (which still wouldn't solve the lens mount centering issue by shifting the center of the sensor downwards). Yeah, I don't think Ricoh is going to spend millions in R&D to bend over backwards making everything somehow fit in the K-3, probably making several performance compromises along the way, when they could just solve everything by simply making the chassis 1cm taller (which is apparently what they did with the mockup). Especially since the rumor is the "K-3 body FF" is the "budget" model. It's not like that would make it gigantic either. The K-3 and K-5 series are already the smallest in the high end APS-C class. Increasing the height would only make it about the overall size of the D7200 (minus the pointy tip of the viewfinder hump). Last edited by Cannikin; 08-17-2015 at 03:36 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Pure speculation... FF to include GPS?	Conqueror	Pentax Full Frame	21	06-19-2015 11:42 AM
Speculation: What if Pentax did not go FF but rather a 1.3x?	brecklundin	Pentax DSLR Discussion	36	08-13-2013 10:36 PM
Anyone heard of the latest FF rumor on Pentax Discuss Mail List?	LFLee	Pentax Full Frame	39	07-03-2013 02:05 PM
The latest pentax ff news!!	PentaxSX	Pentax Full Frame	10	03-24-2013 06:33 AM
speculation about FA lenses on FF DSLR	lpfonseca	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	19	11-05-2009 10:34 AM

08-17-2015, 01:30 AM	#46
Simen1 Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Tromsø, Norway Photos: Albums Posts: 1,031	Originally posted by rawr Only two? Are they even trying? .. in October - November. They didn't say how many in December. ;-) But seriously, it sounds great for me. Both the K-3 size and two price points from the start. (It means i probably will buy the cheaper soon rather then waiting for an expensive to become cheaper when new models get launched maybe a year or two from now. Hope both have built in astro tracer and pixel shift mode. If the speculation turns out to be on spot.

08-17-2015, 02:40 AM	#47
Rondec Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Gladys, Virginia Photos: Gallery Posts: 27,650	Originally posted by JPT I don't think the FF could literally have the same body as the K-3. But what struck me when I saw the FF mockup at CP+ was how close it was in overall size and ergonomics to the K-3. People were holding their K-3s against the glass to judge how big it was and it was only really the prism that makes it any bigger. The other mysterious thing for me was that they showed it with the FA31 attached, not their latest and greatest DFA giants. That made me think that this isn't really the model that they are meant for. That's when I started thinking that there would probably be two models, with the other one being bigger. Let's face it, there isn't one single magic spec and price point that would keep everyone satisfied. The competitors offer products at multiple price points, and if Ricoh doesn't, their system will look very limited in comparison. Also, the logic of having to make a whole line of lenses but only having one body to capitalise on it looks suspect to me. Actually, making camera bodies is the east part for Ricoh, comparatively. Making several new cameras a year is business as usual for camera companies. Ricoh currently make DSLRs bigger and smaller, and they redesign things like SR, AF, metering, the prism and the mirror mechanism every couple of generations anyway. Two FF cameras OK in quick succession is totally feasible. Originally posted by thibs Of course it would need slight body update but FF in k3 body here imo means the same as D300 body talking about the D700 which really are the same body but mirror box and prism. All well and good. The discussion on the previous page was delving into how Pentax could released one camera with the same body type, but turn off features on the cheaper one. I am sure that a full frame sensor would fit in a K3 body without any problem. But if Pentax is going to release a newly designed full frame body, wouldn't it make more sense to put two different sensors in it aka the K50/K500 models, rather than retro-fit the K3 body for a different sensor? Anyway, I just think this is one of those rumors that doesn't really have much real information behind it.

08-17-2015, 04:44 AM	#48
Winder Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: Tennessee Posts: 6,617	Originally posted by Rondec I am sure that a full frame sensor would fit in a K3 body without any problem. I'm not sure they can put the FF SR into a K-3 body. The SR system has to get bigger in every way. looking at cutaways of the K-3 I don't think it is possible. You could squeeze the FF sensor in to the K-3 body if you took out the SR system, but Ricoh isn't going to do that (hopefully).

08-17-2015, 05:08 AM	#49
deus ursus Pentaxian Join Date: Nov 2012 Location: Stårheim, Norway Posts: 658	Unless they develop a more compact SR mecanism.

08-17-2015, 05:51 AM	#50
Zygonyx Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: Ile de France Posts: 4,032	Originally posted by Winder I'm not sure they can put the FF SR into a K-3 body. The SR system has to get bigger in every way. looking at cutaways of the K-3 I don't think it is possible. You could squeeze the FF sensor in to the K-3 body if you took out the SR system, but Ricoh isn't going to do that (hopefully). Same with pentaprism for FF : it definitely doesn't fit in K-3 body unless ridiculous magnification and coverage.

08-17-2015, 06:59 AM	#51
D1N0 Pentaxian Join Date: May 2012 Location: --- Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,802	The K-3 was designed for aps-c. Apart from sr and pentaprism, the mirror housing has the grow. I don't think there is a lot of empty space around it. You'd have to totally redesign it and you'd still have a compromise. Much cheaper to use the FF base for a second maybe more compact en cheaper FF.

08-17-2015, 08:21 AM	#52
Mistral75 Pentaxian Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Paris, France Posts: 7,525	Originally posted by dcshooter Eat my hat. (...) Bon appétit !

08-17-2015, 01:35 PM	#53
rawr Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 11,913	Originally posted by Winder 'm not sure they can put the FF SR into a K-3 body. Pentax engineers could probably do it. The IBIS mechanism in the 24MP Sony A7 II, for example, as one can see from LensRental's teardown of the A7II, shows that SR does add bulk but can be made rather compact, even for a FF. The basic design of the mechanism resembles Pentax SR a lot, the image circle of E-mount is about the same as K-mount, and the K-3 body is larger than the A7 II too.

08-17-2015, 02:18 PM	#55
Dano Site Supporter Join Date: Aug 2015 Posts: 1	FF? There goes my household budget!!

08-17-2015, 02:28 PM	#56
mee Veteran Member Join Date: May 2010 Posts: 7,403	Originally posted by Cannikin If any of you have seen a Pentax APS-C DSLR cut in half, you will see that about 1/4 of the mirror box is taken up by the PDAF system at the bottom. It protrudes well into the lens mount circle, which is not a problem because of APS-C coverage, but will most certainly interfere with a FF mirror and image circle. There is no room to expand upwards because of the pentaprism, and no room to expand downwards because of the PDAF system. If Pentax could somehow shrink the PDAF system and pentaprism while at the same time making their coverage significantly larger, that would be quite the feat of wizardry (and something not supported by their trend of forgoing small size for optical performance in their recent lenses like the 16-85, 70-200 and 150-450). And yes, you would have to expand both upwards and downwards, because if you move the sensor downwards, it will no longer be centered on the lens mount. And the lens mount cannot be moved downwards because that would be off the body. No, I'd say there is a 0% chance of cramming a FF sensor in the K-3 body. Well if you don't try to force the idea literally it is possible.. K-3 body can mean face value the actual K-3 body, a modified K-3 body, or a body that is K-3 like..

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

08-17-2015, 02:31 PM	#57
geomez Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2013 Location: Roanoke, Virginia, USA Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,760	Originally posted by Cannikin If any of you have seen a Pentax APS-C DSLR cut in half, you will see that about 1/4 of the mirror box is taken up by the PDAF system at the bottom. It protrudes well into the lens mount circle, all the way up to the bottom of the APS-C sensor, which is not a problem because of APS-C coverage, but will most certainly interfere with a FF mirror and image circle. There is no room to expand upwards because of the pentaprism, and no room to expand downwards because of the PDAF system. If Pentax could somehow shrink the PDAF system and pentaprism while at the same time making their coverage significantly larger, that would be quite the feat of wizardry (and something not supported by their trend of forgoing small size in favor of optical performance in their recent lenses like the 16-85, 70-200 and 150-450). And yes, you would have to expand both upwards and downwards, because if you move the sensor downwards, it will no longer be centered on the lens mount. And the lens mount cannot be moved downwards because that would be off the body. No, I'd say there is a 0% chance of cramming a FF sensor in the K-3 body. Hybrid on-sensor PDAF?

08-17-2015, 03:03 PM - 1 Like	#58
Quicksand Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: Central Ohio (formerly SF Bay Area) Posts: 1,519	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!

08-17-2015, 03:44 PM	#60
Rondec Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Gladys, Virginia Photos: Gallery Posts: 27,650	Originally posted by mee Well if you don't try to force the idea literally it is possible.. K-3 body can mean face value the actual K-3 body, a modified K-3 body, or a body that is K-3 like.. 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?