[texandrews]

The question is whether they can sell it at a reasonable price....
But I also think that it is the only way foreward for someone having an FF camera in the line-up in addition to MF.

I don't think it's the only way forward. It would be a great way forward, though. Personally, I think the best way forward is to have 2 models, a crop frame camera that has some improved bells and whistles that comes in close to where other ones are selling, and then a FF model. I think Pentax could develop these and then stand pat for as many years as they have already with the Z. I'd certainly be in the market for the crop frame camera with IBIS, PS, composition adjust, better video, touch screen focus with more focus points, maybe another wrinkle or 2.

It seems like there is a lot of room between Phase One's price for a body with that sensor (I'm seeing 56,000 dollars new for the body, back, and a lens?) and where GFX-100 is selling at. Clearly Pentax has cheaper lenses than Phase One and I wonder if they couldn't have a body with this sensor for 20K. That isn't cheap, but it would significantly undercut where Phase One is at. Share features with the K-1 III and you could have a very nice update to the system.

Agreed---and I think they could do it for a lot less than 20K. Phase is working/milking the B to B market in a vacuum today, and the prices show it.

[Wheatfield]

It's just that the older X series are large lenses, apart from the 35 (18 and 27). The amount of software corrections they apply to their 27mm is criminal and their 18mm is not exactly the lens everybody likes, from reading around. I'm not sure their 14mm is more interesting than the DA 15mm.

I don't mind the size so much, it's a tradeoff for maximum aperture, which I find desirable. I didn't have anything to prefer one way or the other between the XF 14/2.8 and DA 15/4 other than the extra stop. Both are good lenses. However, the 23/1.4 is a gem, and to me a better lens than the DA21, the 35/1.4 was what drew me to Fuji as Pentax didn't have a fast standard lens at all (one place that IMHO they failed the user base), the 56/1.2 is fantastic as well. Pentax wasn't providing a fast portrait lens. The 60 Macro is as good a macro as anything, and a more useful focal length to me on the APS-C format than the 50mm or 100mm.

[gatorguy]

I don't mind the size so much, it's a tradeoff for maximum aperture, which I find desirable... the 56/1.2 is fantastic as well. Pentax wasn't providing a fast portrait lens.

A Pentax *55 1.4 is fast enough for me, and always worked well as a portrait lens even if not so much for action.

[Wheatfield]

A Pentax *55 1.4 is fast enough for me, and always worked well as a portrait lens even if not so much for action.

I never quite fell for that lens. I did use it extensively and my customers were always happier with the results than I was. I suspect part of that was my Pentax bodies at the time were very prone to focus errors using modelling lights. My K5 was a debacle in the studio and I had just recently acquired the K3 and still harbored reservations about Pentax in the studio because of the K5 when I started collecting the Fuji gear.
Of course, shortly after that the K1 was released and I sold off just about all of my APS-C Pentax stuff and stopped using the Fuji gear entirely anyway. Between the time I got the K1 and yesterday I shot exactly 215 images with the Fuji stuff, seventy three of which were at a car show in Sept 2021 where I wanted to carry a smaller camera.
Up until yesterday I hadn't even had my Fuji stuff out of the bag since Sept 2021.

[reh321]

I don't think it's the only way forward. It would be a great way forward, though. Personally, I think the best way forward is to have 2 models, a crop frame camera that has some improved bells and whistles that comes in close to where other ones are selling, and then a FF model.

…….

I think they could do it for a lot less than 20K. Phase is working/milking the B to B market in a vacuum today, and the prices show it.

Aren’t these the same issues people dealt with when the K-mount first became digital??

Obviously, some people became sufficiently settled with “crop K-mount” that it met all their needs. I believe that is why we still hear from those who want a flippy LCD on the K-3. They use the K-3 in the field also - not for mushroom moving very fast.

[Lacunapratum]

I'd find a full frame 645 sensor DSLR from Pentax super exciting. Not that the 645Z was bad, but Pentax always had the potential for a larger format 645 because of their lens coverage. At that size, the mirrorless vs DSLR difference is also much less relevant. The other day I was comparing my Pentax 645 kit versus my Fuji GFX kit, and there weren't really that much weight and size differences. Pentax will also do well as they managed to reduce mirror slap to negligible. Fortunately, there is already such a sensor out there, and if Pentax would manage to come in at $10K they'd once more have a winner, especially since they already have three compatible lenses.

I am one of those who loves the current 150 because of the way it renders portraits, but a new well-corrected lens would be really exciting. And another "attempt" at the 25mm focus length range?! Pentax, PLEASE. This really would be a viable niche for Pentax. Always had been hoping they'd go for the bigger sensor anyway.

[clackers]

I'd find a full frame 645 sensor DSLR from Pentax super exciting.

I think Kawauchi finds it exciting, too, but his job is to make a financial model of that versus a financial model of crop 645.

There will be a demand curve that will be quite nasty I think for full 645 ... very few people able to afford it, which is why we've never seen a successor to the discontinued DA 560mm tele, for example.

I'm sure he has also has a business model that includes both kinds simultaneously.

[RobA_Oz]

Given that Hasselblad still lists their H6D-100c for a tad iunder US$33k, there’s probably an opportunity for a competitor, but it’s likely for a comparatively small number of well-paid specialist photographers or really well-heeled amateurs. I’d be surprised if a Pentax competitor couldn’t come in under that by a good margin. The question is whether the sales would justify it, and I’d imagine factors other than price would determine that. The lens range and support are two that come to mind.

[Rondec]

I think the main point is that Pentax needs to find a niche where they don't match up directly with Fuji. They don't need to sell a huge number of cameras per year to make it work, nor do they need a large number of new lenses -- their old ones are adequate for the time being and add three or four more over the next five years and they would be set.

Medium format cameras can be sold with minimal updating for a decade. People buy them for the sensors and not the features and so, they tend to be nice for the bottom line, even if they aren't selling millions of units per year.

[thibs]

I think the main point is that Pentax needs to find a niche where they don't match up directly with Fuji. They don't need to sell a huge number of cameras per year to make it work, nor do they need a large number of new lenses -- their old ones are adequate for the time being and add three or four more over the next five years and they would be set.

Medium format cameras can be sold with minimal updating for a decade. People buy them for the sensors and not the features and so, they tend to be nice for the bottom line, even if they aren't selling millions of units per year.

Pentax might be able to do it for 20K or something.
Still needs to sell enough at that price... Maybe.

[Smolk]

I do not know whether Fuji's lenses cover the full size of 645 (56 x 42mm), I seem to recall they could not shift to FF 645 but I might be wrong.
Their mount diameter of 65 mm is larger than that of Pentax 645 at 61.2 mm, but of course the flange distance is much shorter.
FF 645 has a diameter of 70 mm, but Pentax has a larger flange distance which may have an influence? I hope someone here knows.
I wonder what that might mean for the GFX lenses on FF if Fuji ever were to consider that—and if they can. The relevance being that Pentax may shift to FF but it wouldn't be such an advantage if Fuji can just follow suit.

[Mistral75]

We don't know whether the 100MP 40x53.4 frontside illuminated sensor is still available from Sony Semiconductor Solutions. Contrary to their 150MP 40x53.4 backside illuminated sensor it's not listed on their web site any more, meaning that any order would be a special order for a dedicated batch, with the associated costs to bear.

[thibs]

I do not know whether Fuji's lenses cover the full size of 645 (56 x 42mm), I seem to recall they could not shift to FF 645 but I might be wrong.
Their mount diameter of 65 mm is larger than that of Pentax 645 at 61.2 mm, but of course the flange distance is much shorter.
FF 645 has a diameter of 70 mm, but Pentax has a larger flange distance which may have an influence? I hope someone here knows.
I wonder what that might mean for the GFX lenses on FF if Fuji ever were to consider that—and if they can. The relevance being that Pentax may shift to FF but it wouldn't be such an advantage if Fuji can just follow suit.

I think Fuji did with GFX mount what they did with X mount : just crop and nothing else.

[sundown]

I think the main point is that Pentax needs to find a niche where they don't match up directly with Fuji.

I would like to believe (or dream) that niche will be a digital full frame LX. Obviously a small body like this will come with compromises (non-100% OVF coverage, but a business opportunity for their other modular view finders). Maybe the compromises can be artistically liberating for some

[Rondec]

I do not know whether Fuji's lenses cover the full size of 645 (56 x 42mm), I seem to recall they could not shift to FF 645 but I might be wrong.
Their mount diameter of 65 mm is larger than that of Pentax 645 at 61.2 mm, but of course the flange distance is much shorter.
FF 645 has a diameter of 70 mm, but Pentax has a larger flange distance which may have an influence? I hope someone here knows.
I wonder what that might mean for the GFX lenses on FF if Fuji ever were to consider that—and if they can. The relevance being that Pentax may shift to FF but it wouldn't be such an advantage if Fuji can just follow suit.

I thought the main issue was the registration distance being so short. This would make designing lenses to cover a larger sensor more challenging if you want to avoid vignetting and border softness.

Clearly, Fuji has designed their lenses for a smaller sensor and so they would need a new lens line up if they decided to try to accommodate a larger sensor.