[Pål Jensen]

Interesting article, and I'm not surprised. It's taken me some time to figure out that things changed with digital (and this coming from a former MF film shooter). Unlike film, bigger is not necessarily better. .

Huh? Theres nothing new here; you can't see difference between a Minox and a large format camera if you print small enough.
The whole experiment is silly and doesn't say anything that hasn't been known since photography was invented.

[Pål Jensen]

Budget end? Interesting description but in a way you are right. However I am fairly sure Pentax can offer more value for money than Mamiya or Hassy are doing at the moment. Its what made the 645 a success and they must wonder at what price point they could pull it off again.

Mamiya and Hassy are offering about the same resolution as the 1DS for around double the price (or more if you look at the whole system).

Pentax are talking about 51MP (double) at a price to attract the top end SLR users. Bear in mind that the processing costs of 645 film are elimated, the resolution of the Kodak 51MP sensor is comparable with LF film, the DR is far better than any 35mm based camera and the price would not have to be THAT low to make it look attractive.

Also, with their SLR experience and partner Samsung, the camera is likely to be much more responsive and slicker than the Mamiya.

All this is all well and good but I don't think its realistic in face of the current economic crisis. Pentax/Hoya is careful in good times; how would they react to the bad? The K-m doesn't change the picture one bit. It is unremarkable and target the entry level, first time buyers that all are going to dissapear in the current economic environment. The P&S crowd is simply cutting down on buying new toys. The dedicated enthusiast is probably going to spend money on their hobby still, but a significant decline is to expected here as well. Hoya hasn't delivered; no new life has been injected into Pentax. I'm quite pessimistic......

[Alan 2]

Huh? Theres nothing new here; you can't see difference between a Minox and a large format camera if you print small enough.
The whole experiment is silly and doesn't say anything that hasn't been known since photography was invented.

So, let me get this straight, a 13 x 19 print is small. Interesting.

[Bophoto]

About FF or FX, very few gona buy a Pentax 24X36 even at a low price below a Canon 5D, compare how K10D was seling vs Canon 40D. Sony is a big company that has afford to flop with the Alfa 900 or perhaps they pay for a FX(FF) camera just too show they have it. Hoya/Pentax can look at a smal market there Canon, Nikon and Sony rule, and they think they can´t afford it. And how about the lenses, witch lenses are good for 24X36 in corners with SR?

If FX is a thing for same here because of the smal viewfinder in existing models, i say look at the new Panasonic Lumix G1. Electronic viewfinder is the future for us "older" photografer i think, it can be bigger and lighter on a APS or 4/3 camera than on a FX(FF) viewfinder.

I think a Pentax 645D can easy compete with Mamiya, Hasselblad and probably Leica S2 is in another priceclass. But if Nikon comes with a MF, i think Pentax can have a problem.

[Pål Jensen]

So, let me get this straight, a 13 x 19 print is small. Interesting.

Small enough prints. The whole thing is complete bogus.

"In 2001 I wrote that the 3 Megapixel Canon D30 produced files competitive with scanned 35mm film at smaller print sizes. I was derided and vilified then, but of course was ultimately proven correct – digital simply outperforms film, and few people today think otherwise."

What does this mean? The Canon D30 produce lousy images that is outperformed by any film. This is an undisputable fact. Pentax say 14,6 mp is comparable to 35mm film.
The fact is that any number of megapixel will be comparable to scanned 35mm film at small enough print sizes. It depends of the prints size not to mention the scanner. Hell, with small enough print size even one pixel is identical to film!
"Digital simply outperforms film". What has that statement to do with the nonsense served about the D30? I'm sure some digital cameras outperfroms some film cameras but that fact has nothing to do with the D30.

[Bophoto]

All this is all well and good but I don't think its realistic in face of the current economic crisis. Pentax/Hoya is careful in good times; how would they react to the bad? The K-m doesn't change the picture one bit. It is unremarkable and target the entry level, first time buyers that all are going to dissapear in the current economic environment. The P&S crowd is simply cutting down on buying new toys. The dedicated enthusiast is probably going to spend money on their hobby still, but a significant decline is to expected here as well. Hoya hasn't delivered; no new life has been injected into Pentax. I'm quite pessimistic......

Well, i think that Pentax K-m can compete better with Canon/Nikon than K20D or a K2D. In a supermarket and if they have Nikon D60, Canon 1000D, Sony A200, Olympus E420, Panasonic and Pentax there, K-m have a good chance, it´s a good camera. All first buyers don´t now Nikon/Canon so well and i think Pentax can sell K-m at a good price. The market in US has going down, but we in Europe are still buying cameras...

A Pentax 645D can sell in a low market to i think.
And i´m wating on a Pentax K2D in January at a price like Nikon D300/Olympus E3, but a better one ...

[24X36NOW]

A lot fewer people are going to buy a MF Pentax than a FF dSLR Pentax. The MF market is a lot smaller, and the product is going to be a great deal more expensive to produce. Amazing to me how all those arguments about how pricey sensors are and how many fewer you get from a wafer are suddenly forgotten by those who cheerlead the MF product (that they won't be buying, for the most part) as being a great way for Pentax to prosper, while naysaying the FF dSLR as being doomed in the marketplace, because they have to "compete," as if that is tantamount to suicide or something. By that measure, they should abandon APS-C dSLRs, since they have to "compete with Canon, Nikon and Sony" to sell those, too!

Pentax needs to consider this: Those with full frame legacy lenses that want FF dSLRs in Pentax K Mount aren't going to be dissuaded from buying them by competing brands, and those legacy customers are a sizable part of Pentax's (ever shrinking) customer base. Unless they're looking to push those customers away, which is exactly what they'll do if they persist with their foot dragging, they'll do themselves no bigger favor then to get their own FF offering into the market as soon as they can. An enthusiast-level FF body (similar construction to the K20D) can sell well below 3K and will do a great deal more to keep Pentax in the game than any MF offering.

[Art Vandelay II]

What does this mean? The Canon D30 produce lousy images that is outperformed by any film. This is an undisputable fact. Pentax say 14,6 mp is comparable to 35mm film...

I wouldn't get too caught up in the details, the point of the article is simply that even at large print sizes (and yes, 13x19" is a large print) even very experienced highly trained photographers struggle to tell the difference in photo's taken by two camera's with a $39,500 price difference. I'm sure had he compared the results to the Hassy to the new Canon 50D instead of a P&S it would have been even harder to distinguish because that would have narrowed the DOF gap between the two.

[vinzer]

A lot fewer people are going to buy a MF Pentax than a FF dSLR Pentax. The MF market is a lot smaller, and the product is going to be a great deal more expensive to produce. Amazing to me how all those arguments about how pricey sensors are and how many fewer you get from a wafer are suddenly forgotten by those who cheerlead the MF product (that they won't be buying, for the most part) as being a great way for Pentax to prosper, while naysaying the FF dSLR as being doomed in the marketplace, because they have to "compete," as if that is tantamount to suicide or something. By that measure, they should abandon APS-C dSLRs, since they have to "compete with Canon, Nikon and Sony" to sell those, too!

Pentax needs to consider this: Those with full frame legacy lenses that want FF dSLRs in Pentax K Mount aren't going to be dissuaded from buying them by competing brands, and those legacy customers are a sizable part of Pentax's (ever shrinking) customer base. Unless they're looking to push those customers away, which is exactly what they'll do if they persist with their foot dragging, they'll do themselves no bigger favor then to get their own FF offering into the market as soon as they can. An enthusiast-level FF body (similar construction to the K20D) can sell well below 3K and will do a great deal more to keep Pentax in the game than any MF offering.

I will agree with you that an FF DSLR would sell better than an MF DSLR, but I don't see how they're pushing away most of the existing consumer base (some, maybe, but not most) by not having an FF DSLR *now*. Only the more advanced photographers appreciate the difference between an APS-C sensor and a 35mm one, anyway, and the biggest market out there is still the entry-level buyers, who quite possibly won't need (nor could they afford) FF in the next couple of years, or even ever.

Canon, Nikon, and Sony all have the budgets, name recognition, and marketing muscle to cater to the pro-level bunch. Pentax needs to create a large user base first before showing an FF DSLR, if only because only a select few of the existing user base will buy it, and because the Pentax name does not carry as much weight with the younger crowd anymore. The K-m helps with that.

That said, I'm all for a Pentax FF DSLR, even if it's not for me.