[thibs]

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.

Well, no. New mirrorbox and if high end camera new shutter are required.

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

I hope so but Samsung has been quite a bit anemic to say the least until now.

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.

They probablyu could, but I don't Hoya wants Pentax to be in the same economical situation than Sony.

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.

Agreed, they have to be careful but waiting for economy to recover is a very bad idea.

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

Agreed as well but going to fast as Sony will f*** their financial situation.

[Kunzite]

Well, no. New mirrorbox and if high end camera new shutter are required.

I'd say it needs a completely new chassis, new mirror/shutter, new viewfinder; a new sensor, a new SR system, a new AF system, a much faster processor to handle 20+MP...
In other words, a completely new camera

[Boris]

What's wrong with an old mirror, viewfinder and shutter from any of the film cameras of the old days? I mean, they are of the same size and do exactly the same thing...

Pentax has now a processor that can successfully handle 14MP of K20D. I don't think that a new processor to handle, say 18 MP, needs to be much faster, only 20% faster if it is linear dependency.

In fact, Pentax are in position (IMO from marketing POV) to introduce a FF camera with weaker spec than Nikon D700 that will cost less, say $1700 when introduced that will create huge market reaction for Pentax and lots of surprised looks from Pentax rivals...

[awo425]

What's wrong with an old mirror, viewfinder and shutter from any of the film cameras of the old days? I mean, they are of the same size and do exactly the same thing...

Pentax has now a processor that can successfully handle 14MP of K20D. I don't think that a new process to handle, say 18 MP, needs to be much faster, only 20% faster if it is linear dependency.

In fact, Pentax are in position (IMO from marketing POV) to introduce a FF camera with weaker spec than Nikon D700 that will cost less, say $1700 when introduced that will create huge market reaction for Pentax and lots of surprised looks from Pentax rivals...

People here think that Pentax FF camera should cost no less then $3000, it's some sort of magic number, I guess.

BTW what was the camera capable of 4fps and 1/6000 shutter speed that had FF mirror box, PZ-1p? Still faster than K**D generation. I hope they still have blueprints.

[thibs]

People here think that Pentax FF camera should cost no less then $3000, it's some sort of magic number, I guess.

BTW what was the camera capable of 4fps and 1/6000 shutter speed that had FF mirror box, PZ-1p? Still faster than K**D generation. I hope they still have blueprints.

1/8000and 1/250 flash sync for Z1/Z1p. Z1p had a somewhat faster frame rate however.

[Kunzite]

People here think that a Pentax FF would cost about the same as other FF cameras. Which means about $2700-3000 for an entry-level FF camera, like it or not (and we're talking street prices!).
Let's not open again this silly dispute.

[awo425]

People here think that a Pentax FF would cost about the same as other FF cameras. Which means about $2700-3000 for an entry-level FF camera, like it or not (and we're talking street prices!).
Let's not open again this silly dispute.

Silly me, sorry, I am not even trying to dispute. I completely agree with you.
In addition I think that Pentax APS-C cameras MUST cost as other APS-C cameras.
Pentax K20D street price should be $1,179.95 like Canon 50D and K2000 MUST cost like, for example, Nikon D60, or even more, why not?

[Kunzite]

Silly you, indeed (at least your sarcasm is).
Good luck waiting for the 2000$ Pentax FF DSLR.

[GaryM]

People here think that a Pentax FF would cost about the same as other FF cameras. Which means about $2700-3000 for an entry-level FF camera, like it or not (and we're talking street prices!).
Let's not open again this silly dispute.

That doesn't consider the economics of scale. Pentax can expect to sell a lot less of any product than the big companies, and so the per unit manufacturing cost is higher for them. That's why offering 'me too' products has been a losing proposition.

[Kunzite]

That's what I'm trying to say. Economics of scale, the necessity to develop a lot of new stuff (while Canon e.g. can take many parts from the 5D to the MkII)... and they can't afford to lose money on each camera either. Unless a miracle happens, I don't see how a Pentax FF could drastically (700-1000$) undercut the price of the competition.
That's why I would like to see a ~1.3 crop factor camera. Fully featured, excellent image quality, fast, a viewfinder rivaling FFs (it's possible, look at what Oly did with the E3) and most importantly, affordable. This could be their niche and could appeal to people who want a step-up from APS-C but can't really afford FF.
But, que sera, sera.

[imadethis]

I vote YES, and please pack it with an awesome digital to analog converter please. Pretty please with a cherry on top. Thank you.

[tigrebleu]

But don't expect a FF Pentax DSLR until late 2010 at best...

The FF market only represents 2-3% of all the actual DSLR sales. I don't think it's in Pentax's (Hoya, actually) priorities to release a FF DSRL soon: APS-C is much more profitable, if only for the sheer volume of sales compared to the FF market.

After the worldwide economical mayhem, maybe? Sounds more realistic.

And sure, I'd love to have a FF Pentax DSLR... But if it's worth two grands, will I have the money to buy it? Not sure...

I think we're more likely to see a 645D before a Pentax FF DSLR. The market is even smaller, but also much more profitable on a per-unit basis, thanks to higher margins (well, if I compare to PhaseOne, Mamiya and Hasselblad).

Just my two cents.

[Mountain Vision]

The fascination behind a format that worked for film (to a degree) is mind blowing to me. I'm actually glad to see the desire is pretty much split.

Anything more than $1500 is too much for me for a body. Better to spend the money on travel IMO, where you will get some interesting shots no matter what camera you use.

When you really look at FF the only advantage is the viefinder, and I keep saying this but the days of the mirror and optical viewfinder are numbered. Once EVFs (and the Panasonic G1 is a step in the right direction) reach the level of an optical viewfinder the optical viewfinder and mirror will be gone.

The question is with autofocus everything do most people really care about the current viewfinders, especially the better APS-C vs. FF? Not sure they do. Marketing is really going to play a big role in this. I mean Canon went all out on camera based shake reduction a year or two ago, they took out full page adds with false information. At some point Canon will go after the competition with the FF vs. APS-4/3 debate in a similar way, and just like they released the budget IS kit zooms to counteract the bleed to camera based SR systems.

[Adnan EROL]

...The FF market only represents 2-3% of all the actual DSLR sales. I don't think it's in Pentax's (Hoya, actually) priorities to release a FF DSRL soon: APS-C is much more profitable, if only for the sheer volume of sales compared to the FF market...

Even if nobody buys FF camera, I think presence of FF on the shelves will make cropped ones and even compact cameras sell more... why do you think almost everybody buys canikon models?
OTOH, where is Pentax brand image? People began to call our camera as "minitax" or smth like that, here.

[ewalk]

This was over at DPReview regarding the new Nikon 35mm f/1.8.

The other obvious question was why the lens should be restricted to the DX format, given that Nikon now makes three FX, full-frame bodies: "It's about price, size and weight. We wanted this to be a lens for the entry-level. If we'd tried to make an FX 35mm F1.4 it might cost €1400, rather than €200, and we wanted to make sure it was an affordable lens." Drean says.

Robert Cristina offers some context: "The main target is D40/D60/D90 owners. They make up 80% of our DSLR sales and there wasn't really an inexpensive prime lens for them. So far, the lens offering for that market has included some really good zooms, but this offers them something they were missing."

Being a standard lens, the 35mm focal length offers flexibility, but doesn't lend itself to portraiture as a 50mm lens (that many APS-C users have become used to), could at a push. And, while neither would be drawn on specific future lens plans, they did hint that more primes might be seen for the DX format: "DX is not over," Drean says: "we plan to increase the offering. The prime lenses were definitely something that was missing."

Drean says the company's lens plans are not contingent on the 35mm being a hit, though Cristina is optimistic about its chances: "If even 5% of the D40, D50, D60, D80, D90 owners buy this lens, that's a huge number," and, he adds: "this is not the last lens announcement we'll be making this year."

I'd rather Pentax keep to APS-C...and they've already had DX primes for ages now - where's the marketing? Where's the press? Bundle the K2000 with the DA 40!!