[pingflood]

As much as I would love to see an MF sensor in that price range, I just don't think it's feasible. Take a look at how much the competition's cameras cost, and while there's no doubt they make money off them I don't think the price could be knocked down 80% and still remain viable. The D700 is around $2200 or so now street price, and the closest MF rig I can find to what I imagine Pentax could come up with would be the Mamiya (now there's a company I admire for doing their own thing and coming up with some truly classic cameras) DL28. Which is not cheap.

Now if they'd come up with a MF digital camera with good high ISO, *that* would be something exciting. The current ones are pretty much designed for tripod/studio work. How about a 20-25MP medium format sensor with optional pixel binning (to take it down to half res but with higher sensitivity) and ISO 25,600+ capabilities? Now we're talking!

brian s.: I did the same thing a while back, and look where it got me...

edit: by the way, Ken Rockwell (of all people) made a good point recently. When manufacturers state resolution it's always in megapixels making the jump from 10MP to 15MP seem much bigger than it really is (50% more pixels but nowhere near as much gain in horizontal/vertical res), but when they talk about sensor size it's alway by "crop factor" making a 1.5x crop factor not seem so bad when the sensor is literally HALF the size...

---

Last edited by pingflood; 01-19-2009 at 01:46 PM.

[drewdlephone]

I didn't see an option for "I already have a Pentax full frame"

[whatever7]

There is so much more potential money in FF (even to Pentax) than MF that I am surprised nobody has mentioned it.

Hoya/Pentax are not sensor companies, they are optical companies. Whether they go with MF or FF, Pentax will have to buy the sensor off somebody, which means either Kodak, Sony or Samsung are making the profit, not Penrtax. Pentax make most of the money when they sell glass.

However, which system will sell Pentax more lense, MF or FF? Obviously FF will sell a lot more lens, because it crosses over to the current APS owners.

Even if the FF body is as expensive as D700 and few Pentax owners can afford it, it will still make a lot of APS owners upgrade to FF lenses in preparation of upgrading 1 or 2 generations down the road. Now can Pentax sell some 645 lenses to curret K20D owners? No, the mount is different its useless to them. A FF body can act as a halo product and spokesman for all current Pentax products not any 645 body can.

Now you may say Pentax doesn't sell FF zooms anymore. But neither are they selling 645 lens so this argument doesn't work. You can argue Pentax should cancel any FF/MF plan, in which case I am not arguing with you.

BTW, the MF sales figure I heard from Dpreview gossip is really low. I think it was 60k bodies per year for the most popular brand. That's so low I am surprised there is enough money for more than one company to profit.

[Confused]

Hi folks

Sorry I'm late joining this particular discussion, but I'd like to pick up on the earlier comment by Eurostar when he said:

I don't believe there is a market for a FF Pentax.

Hindsight is admittedly a wonderful thing but few of us need reminding that some decades ago Pentax management were effectively forced to play catch-up with the 'big-boys' after failing to grasp the full implications of the gathering digital onslaught. I genuinely hope that Hoya don't fall into a similar trap and fail to deliver on the realistic possibility of a FF Pentax DSLR body at some time in the near future, but I'm afraid I'm holding my breath on this one…..that is unless anybody else on the forum has some bona fide information to the contrary ?
C***n, N***n & S**y are already at the banqueting table, lest anyone need reminding.....
Despite the fact that a major economic downturn is regrettably upon us, imho every photographic brand needs a serious flagship-model to which to aspire and I remain thoroughly convinced that there is still sufficient demand out there for a FF Pentax DSLR, provided that the manufacturer can hit the correct price-point. The major fly in the ointment would appear to be the somewhat less than comprehensive range of available Pentax lenses, but then that's another matter altogether.

---

Last edited by Confused; 01-30-2009 at 02:14 PM.

[24X36NOW]

Hi folks

Sorry I'm late joining this particular discussion, but I'd like to pick up on the earlier comment by Eurostar when he said:



Hindsight is admittedly a wonderful thing but few of us need reminding that some decades ago Pentax management were effectively forced to play catch-up with the 'big-boys' after failing to grasp the full implications of the gathering digital onslaught. I genuinely hope that Hoya don't fall into a similar trap and fail to deliver on the realistic possibility of a FF Pentax DSLR body at some time in the near future, but I'm afraid I'm holding my breath on this one…..that is unless anybody else on the forum has some bona fide information to the contrary ?
C***n, N***n & S**y are already at the banqueting table, lest anyone need reminding.....
Despite the fact that a major economic downturn is regrettably upon us, imho every photographic brand needs a serious flagship-model to which to aspire and I remain thoroughly convinced that there is still sufficient demand out there for a FF Pentax DSLR, provided that the manufacturer can hit the correct price-point. The major fly in the ointment would appear to be the somewhat less than comprehensive range of available Pentax lenses, but then that's another matter altogether.

Well said. As for the "fly in the ointment," many (present company included) already possess a full range of full frame PK mount lenses, and thus will have no difficulty making immediate use of a FF dSLR. It is the renowned backward compatibility that makes Pentax a still viable brand, as a requirement that people start from scratch with an entire new camera and lens system would more than likely cause many to go with the "big three" as it were.

[Pedro Ernesto Guerra Azevedo]

Yes in 2010 !

[awo425]

Just a small observation, I went to take some pictures with a local photo club this weekend.

1 Canon EOS Film camera.
1 Rolleflex TLR (Viewfinder on this thing is something out of this world)
1 Nikon D300
1 Canon 5D
2 Canon 5D II
4 Nikon D700
1 Pentax istD, that would be me.

Observation #1: All those people except the guy with Rolleflex TLR were using APS-C format cameras just a year ago.
No, dear Pentax we don't need no stinking FF!


Observation #2: Only the guy with D300 is a professional weddings photographer, everybody else are quite knowledgeable photographers, but hobbyists.
FF is needed only for professionals, yep looks like this one is true too.

[Confused]

In reply to awo425:

No, dear Pentax we don't need no stinking FF!......FF is needed only for professionals

Oh dear, where to begin with such sweeping generalisations ?? Should I thus deduce from your statement that because I continue to use a 5" x 4" technical camera alongside both medium format and 35mm film cameras, I therefore automatically qualify as a professional photographer ? I hardly need remind awo425 that there remain many thousands of serious amateur enthusiasts out there who have saved up for and gradually amassed collections of professional photographic equipment, often over many years. Hopefully having gained a modicum of experience, many of us still derive enormous satisfaction from using such equipment, whilst hopefully producing results of which some of today's practising professionals would be duly proud.
If I recall correctly, when the subject of digital SLR's was initially raised by the manufacturers some decades ago, the theory went that users of 35mm cameras fitted with interchangeable film backs would simply be able to replace them with some form of digital full-frame 36 x 24mm equivalent. Nevertheless the sheer financial investment required to manufacture these CCD's coupled with significant technical difficulties in fabricating flawless digital sensors in sufficient quantities meant that this changeover took years longer than expected. However, never once at that particular time do I EVER recall the APS-C standard being mentioned as a serous substitute for a 36 x 24mm sensor, but only as a temporary stop-gap……which turned out to be a highly profitable one for the manufacturers as things turned out.

Perhaps I should take the liberty of rephrasing your sentiments thus:

No, dear Pentax we don't need no stinking APS-C. We need FF

---

Last edited by Confused; 02-02-2009 at 04:49 PM.

[GaryM]

Just a small observation, I went to take some pictures with a local photo club this weekend.

1 Canon EOS Film camera.
1 Rolleflex TLR (Viewfinder on this thing is something out of this world)
1 Nikon D300
1 Canon 5D
2 Canon 5D II
4 Nikon D700
1 Pentax istD, that would be me.

Observation #1: All those people except the guy with Rolleflex TLR were using APS-C format cameras just a year ago.
No, dear Pentax we don't need no stinking FF!


Observation #2: Only the guy with D300 is a professional weddings photographer, everybody else are quite knowledgeable photographers, but hobbyists.
FF is needed only for professionals, yep looks like this one is true too.

FF is 'needed' (desired) by bokeh lovers and high ISO shooters. I doubt that's everyone, or even a majority, but anyone in that category has every right to want one. I'm not that kind of photographer, so I have no desire for FF at the present time. I like my DSLRs to be smaller and easy to carry around.

The local camera club here is a bit different: over half of them are using Nikon D40's, and only the club president (and the only working pro) is using a FF body, a D700 that he uses along with his D300. There are only two Canon shooters, one with a 40D and another with a 10D. The 10D owner is a retired doctor with lots of money, but he's an 'old school' guy who thinks the 10D is fine - definitely not the sort of person who buys the newest-and-shiniest toy every few years! All the rest are using Nikons. I was only visiting, and they eyed my Pentax gear with puzzled glances.

I hope you post a few years from now and give us another camera club update. I kind of doubt it will be in this forum, however, since you're obviously pining for a FF body of your own.

[Blue]

Just a small observation, I went to take some pictures with a local photo club this weekend.

1 Canon EOS Film camera.
1 Rolleflex TLR (Viewfinder on this thing is something out of this world)
1 Nikon D300
1 Canon 5D
2 Canon 5D II
4 Nikon D700
1 Pentax istD, that would be me.

Observation #1: All those people except the guy with Rolleflex TLR were using APS-C format cameras just a year ago.
No, dear Pentax we don't need no stinking FF!


Observation #2: Only the guy with D300 is a professional weddings photographer, everybody else are quite knowledgeable photographers, but hobbyists.
FF is needed only for professionals, yep looks like this one is true too.

The EOS film camera IS FF and the TLR (6x6) is beyond full frame relative to 35mm film.

[nostatic]

I had an interesting brief exchange with the guy who bought my old Nikon D70. He asked me what I had and I said I shoot Pentax. He said, "oh those aren't very popular, but they have great image quality." I commented that I liked the small prime lenses. He said he was a beginning shooter and while he thought the IQ was better with Pentax he bought the Nikon (to replace one he had some time back) and he wanted Nikon as there were other users around who could help him. Interesting point, though that's what the interwebs is for...

[kristoffon]

A few reasons why I think a Pentax FF should be imminent:

1. R&D is minimal over existing cameras given a sensor is available. Just make a bigger camera.

2. Samsung won't like to play second fiddle to Sony for too long. Surely they have a FF sensor up their sleeves.

3. Sony went from a crappy first camera (A100) to a full lineup in two years. No reason Pentax, with much more camera expertise, shoudn't do the same.

4. They can't wait for the end of economic troubles or it'll be too late. They must already have the cameras available when everybody decides to get new cameras.

5. Hoya bought Pentax to make money. They won't see a return on investment by sitting still and not expanding the product line.

So there.

[Blue]

A few reasons why I think a Pentax FF should be imminent:

1. R&D is minimal over existing cameras given a sensor is available. Just make a bigger camera.

2. Samsung won't like to play second fiddle to Sony for too long. Surely they have a FF sensor up their sleeves.

3. Sony went from a crappy first camera (A100) to a full lineup in two years. No reason Pentax, with much more camera expertise, shoudn't do the same.

4. They can't wait for the end of economic troubles or it'll be too late. They must already have the cameras available when everybody decides to get new cameras.

5. Hoya bought Pentax to make money. They won't see a return on investment by sitting still and not expanding the product line.

So there.

Sony acquired the defunct Minolta factory and hired many of its employees including engineers. That had to help a lot with Sony getting up to speed so quickly. However, Pentax isn't as far behind as Sony was.

[KungPOW]

The only reason the standard sensor size (ie most common), is APS-C and not 135 is cost.

Imagine if a 135(FF) sensor was the cheaper and easier to build of the two. Would there be a market for APS-C bodies that cost two to three times more than a FF body? If the manufacturing costs were reversed, along with the technical challenges, would people want to buy the more expensive APS-C format for the benifit of the "crop factor" and slightly smaller lenses and bodies?

I expect the answer is no. I would expect most people would buy a $1,700 D700 over a $2,800 D300.

But in the real world, FF costs more. But as all technology does, the production costs will drop. The price divide between a FF and a APS-C will narrow. Eventually I would expect to see companies like Nikon offer both a FF and an APS-C body with similar specs, and at the same price. I really believe all companies will eventually offer an advanced amature model in both FF and APS-C. Even Olympus and Pentax.

Penatx was slow to offer a pro body with autofocus. Canon did, and it was a great move for them. Pentax was slow to sell a DSLR, and now they are playing catchup with Canon and Nikon. So now the game is to introduce a FF model into the lineup. Again, I expect Pentax will be slow to respond.

I really hope that Pentax is able to get their act together before we see a D105 (entry level Nikon FF) for the same cost as a K50D APS-C.

[ilya80]

A few reasons why I think a Pentax FF should be imminent:

Those points do seem reasonable. I can only hope you are right. If Pentax would come out with a $2500 FF camera I'd start saving right away.

Ok call me a pixelpeeper and gadgetomaniac now