[vinzer]

I have an even stronger disagreement about the lenses; plenty of film-era lenses have been used on digital FF bodies with great results. Now if you're talking the cheap, mediocre lenses from that era, that's a different story, but the high quality lenses will produce good results. There's a ton of FUD out there about the alleged "need" for the "latest, greatest" lenses to take "full advantage" of FF (particularly high-res FF) sensors, but that's just more BS to push product. The real irony here is that crop sensors place higher demands on the lenses than FF sensors, because when you crop you force the lens to resolve the details that much smaller. Smaller format lenses always have placed higher demands on lens quality, and always will; larger formats will always place less demands on lens quality. This is an optical issue, and has nothing to do with film vs. digital, pixel counts or densities, etc. - it's a fact and it's not going to change. Thus, the notion that the legacy lenses we get great results with on the crop cameras are going to "disappoint" on a FF body is pure nonsense. As for the use of legacy lenses on digital bodies, what do you think people with legacy lenses are doing now?! We're not rushing out to buy new APS-C only lenses, I can tell you that! Pentax wouldn't HAVE much of a customer base without those legacy lenses and backward compatibility, and if they don't get to FF before too much longer, they'll lose a good bit of business as those who want it buy other makes. Furthermore, as the technology continues to improve (i.e., as yields continue to increase, waste continues to decrease, and sensor costs continue to decline), FF prices will continue to come down, and as they do you'll be amazed at how many people who have declared their lack of interest will suddenly rethink their views.

I've never been one to shun FF and say it's unnecessary, only that at current price levels, I wouldn't buy one (more so since I haven't FF glass to go with it, too). So yes, you're right about the right price point.

I would like to disagree about DA lenses placing more demands on lens design. I think it's a wash between different formats. That's probably marketing speak from Olympus when they introduced their 4/3 format (telecentricity and all that). If you've got a good design, then you've got a good design, no matter the format, and I reckon one format is just as hard to make a design for as another.

[thibs]

FF prices will continue to come down

Yes but how much we do not know and APS-C (and FourThird and P&S size ones) will lower by the same proportion.

[24X36NOW]

Yes but how much we do not know and APS-C (and FourThird and P&S size ones) will lower by the same proportion.

I don't think so, because sensors are the variable we're talking about and at some point as cheap as the sensors might get, you still have the cost of the other camera components to keep prices from falling below a certain point. The margins will be squeezed down on APS-C before they will on FF, since they've already gone through much of their price reductions, and since the R&D, particularly for higher end cameras, will increasingly shift to FF as access to it increases.

[Pål Jensen]

Look at it this way - if they can sell the K-M in volume, even if most of the buyers will never buy another Pentax accessory (as I imagine it is with the D40) - they're still making money, and widening the exposure of the brand.

How can that be a bad thing?
....

The bad thing is IF. Is there any reason to expect the K-m to sell in large numbers? My guess is no. The Nikon and Canons and even Sonys are in every shop. Pentax is not. And the K-m don't seem outstanding either and use that same crappy Sony sensor whose only quality is that it is cheap.
I love to be proven wrong though....

[wlachan]

The bad thing is IF. Is there any reason to expect the K-m to sell in large numbers? My guess is no. The Nikon and Canons and even Sonys are in every shop. Pentax is not. And the K-m don't seem outstanding either and use that same crappy Sony sensor whose only quality is that it is cheap.
I love to be proven wrong though....

Not presenting in chain stores really hurt.

[ryan s]

Agreed...

Here in town (~200,000 people) the only places that stock Pentax are the 3 Camera Company locations. Now imagine if the 2 Best Buys and 2 Circuit Citys and 2 Sears etc had Pentax...

[thibs]

I don't think so, because sensors are the variable we're talking about and at some point as cheap as the sensors might get, you still have the cost of the other camera components to keep prices from falling below a certain point. The margins will be squeezed down on APS-C before they will on FF, since they've already gone through much of their price reductions, and since the R&D, particularly for higher end cameras, will increasingly shift to FF as access to it increases.

I was barely talking sensor costs. The rest indeed lowers the difference in the end, but this is true in all ways.

[m8o]

As the nonsequitor (sic) that it may be, to address the OP again, regardless of what I may have said in the past, my feelings have shifted to to the 'admiration' of what was announced.

I don't want to revive old disputes but ATM the major difference between FF and modern APS-C sensors is due to the pixel density. Whilst K20D's sensor has 4Mp/sq.cm the 12Mp FF sensors have o lot less (like 1,4) and even the higher res FF sensors are well bellow this value - 2.4Mp for the 1DSMark3 depreview's FF camera for Canon system. So this puts less "pressure" on the lens to perform on FF than on a modern APS-C camera. But, IMO as the pixel density will increase it will only wreak havoc more and more on older lenses. And they will lose the "sweet spot" advantage that they may have on APS-C sensors so the vignette will increase and border quality will only decrease. Also the diffraction limit is different for the 2 sensor sizes so older lenses may perform better on FF also from this reason (some are at their best let's say from f8 to f11 which is too much for APS-C diffraction wise). The final nail in the coffin is the level of CA and absence of digital optimised coatings.

It is wise to say that anyone can appreciate for him/herself the quality of an image but if you want to see what an older design "revived" by Sony actually performs on a modern digital sensor look here: Sony 35mm f/1.4 G ( SAL-35F14G ) - Review / Test Report
Yes it's FF, yes it's 1.4 (and thorougly unusable there), yes it has magnificent CA, larger than usual distorsion for a 35 mm prime, over twice the weight of DA35 and it could be yours (if you may want it) for the same price as a K20D + DA35Macro or K20D + FA35/2 (whom btw will probably smoke it big time on the K20D - they perform both very close or better on a 10Mp camera vs the 12Mp for the Sony). Even more the lens has a modern digital coating that helps only to reduce the disaster and cannot take place of a modern design.

Radu

Not presenting in chain stores really hurt.

I don't think Pentax really had the lineup to be in the chain stores. I think now they do and I would hope that Pentax has got production set up for the K-m/k2000 so that the shelves can be filled with them.
Let's hope the other guys don't throw a flash into their kit before Christmas. I think including that is a master stroke on Pentax's part. I can see other people buying the kit just to get an extra flash along with a backup body.
Now if only Pentax could make the K-m/K-2000 controllable as a slave as well. Set everything up, press the shutter on your K10 or K20 or whatever and voila, master camera takes a shot, both flashes fire and also the slave camera takes a shot.

[Pål Jensen]

The final nail in the coffin is the level of CA and absence of digital optimised coatings.

You assume that DA lenses are an improvement over good older lenses and that the DA lenses don't suffer from edge problems and color fringing. This is not necessarily so. I would be surprised if you find any old Pentax lens covering the 16 to 50mm range that distort, fringe and flare as much as the DA* 16-50/2.8. If that is a nail in the coffin for older lenses it should be for newer zoom lenses as well.

[24X36NOW]

You assume that DA lenses are an improvement over good older lenses and that the DA lenses don't suffer from edge problems and color fringing. This is not necessarily so. I would be surprised if you find any old Pentax lens covering the 16 to 50mm range that distort, fringe and flare as much as the DA* 16-50/2.8. If that is a nail in the coffin for older lenses it should be for newer zoom lenses as well.

The APS-C lenses may have even more issues, due to the compromise design of APS-C (being based on a FF lens mount and register distance). If you look at the image circle for APS-C, it leaves far more "extra" room around the format rectangle than a FF image circle does, and yet there is still vignetting/light falloff etc. with APS-C lenses, which means the problem is worse (i.e., covering more of the image circle) than with FF. "New designs" might be more meaningful if you designed an APS-C system from scratch with a downsized lens mount and register distance, but as executed, there are serious design compromises involved.

[chadvw]

The argument on why pentax released the KM is the same argument that the nikonians had just a few years ago with the release of the D40. The KM is not meant for us, we already have a pentax camera. What the KM is there for is to offer first time dSLR camera buyers another system to invest into.

Think of the KM as a gateway drug, its cheap, readily available, and enticing. Once you get hooked into the drug that is Pentax, then you'll move on to the harder stuff... the k20D, DA* lenses, etc.

This was acutely a smart move on Pentax, I just think it was 3-4 years too late. Hopefully with plenty of sales of the KM, their market reach will increase and bring pentax back into the local camera stores, where they'll make more money, increase their R&D budget, and have that leeway to design and develop that full frame for a price point that we've come to expect from Pentax.

Do I wish pentax had a full frame camera? Hell yeah, but I think they're making the right move, even if it is a few years too late.