[RMabo]

YAs for the MF system; it production facilities have just been closed down in Japan. I refuse to believe that Pentax will retool in Vietnam for film MF camera and lenses. I don't know MF sales but must be close to zero. If Pentax retool for the MF lenses in Vietnam it probably means that the 645D has gotten the go ahead. The closure of the MF manufacturing in Japan is why the Pentax boss says a decision about the 645D needs to be made soon. I the face of the economic recession and Hoyas decision that any Pentax camera has to generate money, the 645D is highly unlikely.

Producing new digital MF (or 24x36) at the Phillipines camera manufacturing plant is not that big of a deal really. As for lenses... 24x36 has the same problem. The 24x36 lenses was made in Japan. But yes there is a difference, the FA 35 f/2, 50 f/1.4 and the FA Limiteds are still popular lenses so moving production to Vietnam will be worth it for thoose lenses. But for new lenses... Both MF and 24x36 needs new lenses.
Considering the fierce market in the 3K USD sector, where 24x36 has mutiple players now, it is unlikely to see a 24x36 from Pentax being profitable. I have my doubts about the Sony A900 earning profit.

So, from an economical standpoint, both the MF and 24x36 are unlikely. But MF are less unliley than 24x36 of two unlikely products. The digital MF would compete in a market without Canon, Nikon and Sony - and because of this it is easier for it to suceed.

Problem is the financial decline, the regression in economics etc.

[philmorley]

Producing new digital MF (or 24x36) at the Phillipines camera manufacturing plant is not that big of a deal really. As for lenses... 24x36 has the same problem. The 24x36 lenses was made in Japan. But yes there is a difference, the FA 35 f/2, 50 f/1.4 and the FA Limiteds are still popular lenses so moving production to Vietnam will be worth it for thoose lenses. But for new lenses... Both MF and 24x36 needs new lenses.
Considering the fierce market in the 3K USD sector, where 24x36 has mutiple players now, it is unlikely to see a 24x36 from Pentax being profitable. I have my doubts about the Sony A900 earning profit.

So, from an economical standpoint, both the MF and 24x36 are unlikely. But MF are less unliley than 24x36 of two unlikely products. The digital MF would compete in a market without Canon, Nikon and Sony - and because of this it is easier for it to suceed.

Problem is the financial decline, the regression in economics etc.

but I would guess that pentax would go for the budget end of the mf market???, that part of the market competes against dslrs. seen a number of comments elsewhere of people saying they were thinking of mamiya but bought 1dsmkiii / 5dmkii / a900.

[Art Vandelay II]

but I would guess that pentax would go for the budget end of the mf market???, that part of the market competes against dslrs. seen a number of comments elsewhere of people saying they were thinking of mamiya but bought 1dsmkiii / 5dmkii / a900.

I've always made the case that FF is not needed, but if Pentax does enter the FF market low end is exactly what I hope they do. If a K200D body can sell for $600 and a K20D can sell for $900 then surely they can make a FF equivalent for $1500 or so. Every other FF camera on the market is $2700+ and has pricey features such as magnesium bodies. They could cut out some of the frills and have a big hit on their hands. Well, at least for a year until the other manufactures create an "entry level" FF camera to compete.

It doesn't have to be anything crazy, 3fps & 95% prism, even use their 2.7" LCD if they need to cut corners. Their slow 180th flash sync would probably even be ok. Just so long as it's something people with a collection of old glass can use.

[*isteve]

but I would guess that pentax would go for the budget end of the mf market???, that part of the market competes against dslrs. seen a number of comments elsewhere of people saying they were thinking of mamiya but bought 1dsmkiii / 5dmkii / a900.

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.

[Samsungian]

Actually canon 5D are still on market at B&H for $2199. So thats $500 less than "$2700". Do a ebay search and you'll find cameta selling D700 for $2569 plus $18 to you door. That said I bought my 5D from Cameta on June 26th for $1,750 during canon's $300 instant cash off, no forms required rebate.

I think if pentax issued a $3,000 full frame with image stabilization like sony a900
they'd sell a bunch. I'd guess more than sony will sell first year. And thats assuming the Pentax/Samsung version would be a heck of alot cleaner noise wise than the sony a900.

For me I don't think we'll see lower than $1,750 full frame dslrs for two or three more years. I was amazed by the $1,750 full frame deal and could not resist the opportunity to buy brand new full frame for less that it sells for used at places like KEH.

I've always made the case that FF is not needed, but if Pentax does enter the FF market low end is exactly what I hope they do. If a K200D body can sell for $600 and a K20D can sell for $900 then surely they can make a FF equivalent for $1500 or so. Every other FF camera on the market is $2700+ and has pricey features such as magnesium bodies. They could cut out some of the frills and have a big hit on their hands. Well, at least for a year until the other manufactures create an "entry level" FF camera to compete.

It doesn't have to be anything crazy, 3fps & 95% prism, even use their 2.7" LCD if they need to cut corners. Their slow 180th flash sync would probably even be ok. Just so long as it's something people with a collection of old glass can use.

[jeffkrol]

Actually canon 5D are still on market at B&H for $2199. So thats $500 less than "$2700". Do a ebay search and you'll find cameta selling D700 for $2569 plus $18 to you door. That said I bought my 5D from Cameta on June 26th for $1,750 during canon's $300 instant cash off, no forms required rebate.

I think if pentax issued a $3,000 full frame with image stabilization like sony a900
they'd sell a bunch. I'd guess more than sony will sell first year. And thats assuming the Pentax/Samsung version would be a heck of alot cleaner noise wise than the sony a900.

For me I don't think we'll see lower than $1,750 full frame dslrs for two or three more years. I was amazed by the $1,750 full frame deal and could not resist the opportunity to buy brand new full frame for less that it sells for used at places like KEH.

$1750 is still close to double that of most of the Pentax line. For some that is nothing, for others that is a large mountain to climb. Ask yourself is the advantages 2x that of an APS-C? For most yardsticks the answer is no regardless of what some want you to believe. I believe this is also how Pentax feels................. and since their history is really involved in "miniaturization" (The D, for a brief time, was THE SMALLEST DSLR ever made) that also rules against a FF shake reduced camera...

[Samsungian]

For me I needed a full sized viewfinder due to aging eyes. I've had hit and miss with smaller aps-c even though its better pentaprism version. I still use film bodies and my capture is just fine so I knew I needed a film camera like viewfinder. With full frame dslr in hand my assumptions proved correct.

I find it intersting that when you compare weight of K20D to magnesium bodied 5D with batterys and cards installed the K20D is only 1/4 of one ounce lighter. Smaller dimensionally for sure but its almost a wash weight wise.

I'd guess alot of pentaxians would gladly pay $1,750 Today for full frame k mount dslr. Make it spec just like 5D, slow flash sync, 3 fps, no weather seals or image stabilization and they'd sell a ton of them. That totally plays to the ads stating we've got "24,000,000" lenses made since 1964 that are compatible with full frame or as the pitch goes: aps-c dslrs

$1750 is still close to double that of most of the Pentax line. For some that is nothing, for others that is a large mountain to climb. Ask yourself is the advantages 2x that of an APS-C? For most yardsticks the answer is no regardless of what some want you to believe. I believe this is also how Pentax feels................. and since their history is really involved in "miniaturization" (The D, for a brief time, was THE SMALLEST DSLR ever made) that also rules against a FF shake reduced camera...

[deejjjaaaa]

The digital MF would compete in a market without Canon, Nikon and Sony

was't Nikon rumored to be ready to enter MF market, was it ?

[vinzer]

For me I needed a full sized viewfinder due to aging eyes. I've had hit and miss with smaller aps-c even though its better pentaprism version. I still use film bodies and my capture is just fine so I knew I needed a film camera like viewfinder. With full frame dslr in hand my assumptions proved correct.

I find it intersting that when you compare weight of K20D to magnesium bodied 5D with batterys and cards installed the K20D is only 1/4 of one ounce lighter. Smaller dimensionally for sure but its almost a wash weight wise.

I'd guess alot of pentaxians would gladly pay $1,750 Today for full frame k mount dslr. Make it spec just like 5D, slow flash sync, 3 fps, no weather seals or image stabilization and they'd sell a ton of them. That totally plays to the ads stating we've got "24,000,000" lenses made since 1964 that are compatible with full frame or as the pitch goes: aps-c dslrs

If Pentax does release a FF DSLR, I doubt that it won't have weather seals and in-body stabilization, as those two (along with price) are the main selling points of the Pentax DSLRs (save for the lack of seals on the K-m).

I'm sure there will be a lot who'd pay ~$2000 for such a model, though maybe not this year (global economy woes and all that).

[jeffkrol]

For me I needed a full sized viewfinder due to aging eyes. I've had hit and miss with smaller aps-c even though its better pentaprism version. I still use film bodies and my capture is just fine so I knew I needed a film camera like viewfinder. With full frame dslr in hand my assumptions proved correct.

I find it intersting that when you compare weight of K20D to magnesium bodied 5D with batterys and cards installed the K20D is only 1/4 of one ounce lighter. Smaller dimensionally for sure but its almost a wash weight wise.

I'd guess alot of pentaxians would gladly pay $1,750 Today for full frame k mount dslr. Make it spec just like 5D, slow flash sync, 3 fps, no weather seals or image stabilization and they'd sell a ton of them. That totally plays to the ads stating we've got "24,000,000" lenses made since 1964 that are compatible with full frame or as the pitch goes: aps-c dslrs

Glad that worked for you. When they finally perfect an electronic viewfinder you no longer will even need to squint into a viewfinder. In my dreams I always like to imagine a small lcd clipped onto my glasses w/ a wireless interface to the camera so I don't have to get on my belly in the humus to take some tiny mushroom photos........ Eye control would be a plus.. APS or FF who would care as long as it had tons of pixels!!!
Actually one of the more common denominators in the Pentax community (let's face it, buying old lenses is cheap) is a bit of err... fiscally conservative... A lot of us old film shooters picked Pentax for the "bang for the buck". A Pentax FF would not be a big seller unless 1)Cheaper than the competition 2) More higher spec'd. A Pentax FF equiv to the "old" Canon 5D (frame rates ect.) would get ABSOLUTELY no respect. Doesn't mean some won't buy it but a "home run".... forget it.
Look at the k10D. 3-4 awards. High praise in most corners. Cheap for what you were getting...and it still wasn't enough to drive market share up significantly. Then the K20. Seems to be actually better in all respects to the k10 (minus the minor DR issue which appears controversial) BUT at a more realistic (like can make a profit) price.. market share/unit sales dives.......
Pentax needs the 645D just to get the "bling" points that will help sales of the low end. This will never happen in FF no matter how the camera specs out unless it is sooo good and soooo cheap as to be unprofitable....... If their going to develop a "loss leader" it may as well be a 645D. 1-2 years of losses w/ respect being developed (it better be worth it) should drag the bottom end into profitability...... Then again, maybe not
Canon to get to where it is did NOT take the safe route...
Then again Pentax seems to be plagued by bad timing. K10, was a hit just as they got absorbed by Hoya, who had to jam on the brakes and reconfigure the whole organization throwing FUD all through the retail/consumer chain.

[Art Vandelay II]

For me I needed a full sized viewfinder due to aging eyes.

I still think we haven't seen the best APS-C viewfinder yet. I'd like to see Pentax do with the 30D what Olympus did with the E-3. Oly made that 4/3's viewfinder look as good as APS-C viewfinders. I have to admit I do enjoy a nice FF view finder. That is honestly the only FF feature I really want. I have no need for more than 15 megapixels or ISO3200, but a larger VF is always welcome. I wonder how one would look if they jack up they magnification to 1.15x.

[philmorley]

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.

yep, maybe "budget end" isn't the right term when the competition starts at $10k LOL!

value for money would be better term. $6000-$8000 for 51mp MF would be a bargain and they would very quickly dominate the digital MF market (which is only small but would get bigger with that on the market).

personally I think pentax would succesful with $2500 a900 like ff and a 645 and a higher end apsc (but obviously production is the issue and I dont really have much clue of the market

[Art Vandelay II]

This is one of the funniest (and eye opening) things I've read in a while. LL actually compares prints from a $40,000 medium format Hassleblad to a $500 Canon G10 pocket camera. So I guess this kind of belongs in this thread.

www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/kidding.shtml

[philmorley]

This is one of the funniest (and eye opening) things I've read in a while. LL actually compares prints from a $40,000 medium format Hassleblad to a $500 Canon G10 pocket camera. So I guess this kind of belongs in this thread.

www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/kidding.shtml

ROFLMAO! & wow!

[Alan 2]

This is one of the funniest (and eye opening) things I've read in a while. LL actually compares prints from a $40,000 medium format Hassleblad to a $500 Canon G10 pocket camera. So I guess this kind of belongs in this thread.

www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/kidding.shtml

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. Pixel peepers may get chills and thrills comparing this or that camera looking for small differences but when it comes to the print there is virtually no difference. The difference between ASP-C and FF are nonexistent on a print.