[reeftool]

Given the state of the ecomomy, I don't think it would be wise for Pentax to try to sell a camera in the 3 grand price range right now.All these posters who whine that they need a FF camera, why don't they just go out and buy one? If they feel that their photography is suffering they should shut up and go buy that Canon or Nikon they want. As a hobbyest or amatuer i'm not going to spend that kind of money on a camera. Pentax is giving us features on the K10D and later on the K20D for nearly half the cost of the competition. More people whined that the K20D cost 1200$ when it came out. Do you think they are going to spend 2 or 3 times that? While some say they need to build a FF to compete that remains to be seen yet. If they can build a quality FF and keep it under 2 grand I would consider upgrading.

[Wheatfield]

Pentax is going to find themselves in a bit of a jackpot, no matter what they do. If the refuse to go "full frame", they will get stuck with the perception that they are not keeping up.
Well, lets be serious, they are already stuck with that perception, it would just get worse.
OTOH, if the decide to go full frame, they need to do it as a completely seperate line at this point, since they have discontinued all but a small handful of their full frame glass, and are in no position to stop supporting the present cropped sensor user base.
Full frame means top end. If they release a FF camera, it has to come out with a complete lens line at the same time. They won't be able to get away with the spotty introduction of new lenses that they've been getting away with for the past few years.
If they release a FF camera without lenses available for it right now, it looks like exactly what it would be, which is a desperate attempt by a losing team.
And as much as I like the concept of full frame, I don't think they can do it and keep in body shake reduction. Even FF lenses don't have the image circle to support it.
What I would like to see is a larger, but not full frame, sensor. Something where in body SR takes the sensor to the limit of FF lens coverage.
Something in the range of a 20mm x 30mm sensor would be fine. Auto cropping for small sensor optimized lenses, full support for A series lenses, and a few zoom lenses to support the new format with a fairly rapid introduction of a full lens line shortly thereafter.

This is, of course, a pipe dream.

[konraDarnok]

I doubt they'll go 'full frame'. It's just a marketing ploy. As others have stated, if their pictures are suffering from not having FF, there are cameras with that capability. Go buy one.

This is what I think tho. Pentax looks solid -- they have good products at the right price point and a loyal user base.

Nikon and Canon are in a cut throat market of very little margin -- they'll hurt most from the recent down turn -- as I'll bet their profits are razor thin to under cut the other guy.

Pentax doesn't care -- and doesn't need to care about competing in that market.

Pentax is trying to position itself as the Apple of the camera market -- boutique market of loyal users and stable profit margins.

Faster and better AF in low light would make me ecstatic tho.

But then, I think the whole idea of an SLR is pretty dated.

[Cambo]

Seems there is a consistent call (whine?) for:

better AF
more FPS
higher clean ISO

and maybe FF

So...let's say Pentax grants your wish and builds you this camera (the K30d). How much are you willing to pay for it. Seriously. Tomorrow. What dollar figure will you plunk down for such a beast assuming it is the real deal? And no "gee, if I won the lottery." Serious buyers.

And if you wouldn't buy it for a reasonable price (consider that the competition is all around $3K for that), do you still want them to build it?

Pentax FF at $3K will be a sales disaster. Some Pentax users here should learn that Canon 5D
can be purchased new for $1700 or even less, and 5DMK2 will be selling at $2500 in a month or 2. It is year 2009 , not 2006.
I will pay up to $2K for a decent FF Pentax camera with good low light performance (usable ISO 3200-6400) and accurate AF. FPS is not an issue for me.

Around £1k would be an ok price for the updated unit, round D300 level, I'd pay that.

I'd gladly pay @2,000.00 to $2500.00, and I already have suitable glass. Let's hope they do it, and that it's not too late.

Sincerely,
Cameron

[whatever7]

Consider how much the FA* 80-200mm is going for in the used market now, even selling one FF body to each 80-200mm* owner will gaurantee alot of FF body sells.

[pdo]

Consider how much the FA* 80-200mm is going for in the used market now, even selling one FF body to each 80-200mm* owner will gaurantee alot of FF body sells.

this is a funny statement.

[Samsungian]

The higher used price of 1990's era FA 80-200mm 2.8 was one of the reasons I added eos to my pentax system in 2008. I bought a brand new canon 70-200mm 2.8L IS for $1,459. Good luck finding any condition used FA 80-200mm 2.8 for that. Thesedays you can get same Canon lens at B&H for $1,488 free delivery. And as a Bonus, Canon makes 1.4x Teleconverter that actually autofocuses my f2.8 zoom lens. I know because I bought it too.

I wonder when pentax will make a full functional 1.4x autofocus teleconverter?

Not a roadmapped item to issue at somepoint in the future but an actual 1.4x autofocus teleconverter. Isn't this the 23rd or 24th year since Pentax launched autofocus lenses?

Consider how much the FA* 80-200mm is going for in the used market now, even selling one FF body to each 80-200mm* owner will gaurantee alot of FF body sells.

[jeffkrol]

The higher used price of 1990's era FA 80-200mm 2.8 was one of the reasons I added eos to my pentax system in 2008. I bought a brand new canon 70-200mm 2.8L IS for $1,459. Good luck finding any condition used FA 80-200mm 2.8 for that. Thesedays you can get same Canon lens at B&H for $1,488 free delivery. And as a Bonus, Canon makes 1.4x Teleconverter that actually autofocuses my f2.8 zoom lens. I know because I bought it too.

I wonder when pentax will make a full functional 1.4x autofocus teleconverter?

Not a roadmapped item to issue at somepoint in the future but an actual 1.4x autofocus teleconverter. Isn't this the 23rd or 24th year since Pentax launched autofocus lenses?

They used to make one, 1987 ~ 1997:
F 1.7X AF

[pdo]

Pentax will not make alot of money on a FF body. Pentax cannot release a FF body without a complete line of FF lenses with SDM motor.

[Samsungian]

It autofocuses a manual focus lens. It has no screw drive for full autofocus function with a autofocus lens.

Pentax 1.7x MF>AF is a very cool item. I use mine with 300mm 2.8 tamron adaptall 2 lens for autofocus assist. You rough focus lens and the elements move inside 1.7x TC to fine tune focus. Cool item. Nikon made one and sigma made one for minolta alpha mount too that coincidentally looks just like the nikon version.

Pentax has never made a fully functional autofocus teleconverter. But 1.4x SDM TC is roadmapped so maybe we're just a year or two away from it being buyable?

They used to make one, 1987 ~ 1997:
F 1.7X AF

[Blue]

. . . so it'll have to be priced between the D300 and D700 because it's not a "name brand".

. . .

Then neither is Leica or Olympus which from an optics standpoint is silly.

[sluggo913]

I'll take a K20d with faster Af both normal and low light, min. 6fps continuous jpeg until card is full (like the K10D), clean high iso, 100% viewfinder. This does not have to be a FF unit but if it is ok I'd put up between $1800.00 and $2200.00 for it. I do shoot sports with my K10 and do ok with it but would like a little more flexability.

If I want to take video I'll use my camcorder and if I wanted to use the LCD screen to compose a shot I would use my wifes P&S. By the way don't change the size of the body smaller is no good for my hands.

[awo425]

D700 shows $2999 less $300 rebate (which may disappear soon). Maybe you have some secret deal?

5D is an old model so it is heavily discounted.

5DMkII is $2699 and backordered

Sony a900 is $2999

$3K is an arbitrary number I threw out as that is the current MSRP of the main players.

Why are they taunting and tempting you if you've already got 2 FF bodies? I agree that the K20d is a great camera, and gets lost in the FF shuffle by many here.

5D is an old model so it is heavily discounted.
I wish our beloved Pentax can offer me a camera like 5D in K mount in 2009 for $1700. I'd buy it in a New York minute. And I mean 5D MKI, I am not even wishing for 5DMK II, I understand that this is not possible for Pentax.

[alien]

Pentax FF at $3K will be a sales disaster. Some Pentax users here should learn that Canon 5D
can be purchased new for $1700 or even less, and 5DMK2 will be selling at $2500 in a month or 2. It is year 2009 , not 2006.
I will pay up to $2K for a decent FF Pentax camera with good low light performance (usable ISO 3200-6400) and accurate AF. FPS is not an issue for me.

Ditto!

[lol101]

I doubt they'll go 'full frame'. It's just a marketing ploy. As others have stated, if their pictures are suffering from not having FF, there are cameras with that capability. Go buy one.

This is what I think tho. Pentax looks solid -- they have good products at the right price point and a loyal user base.

Nikon and Canon are in a cut throat market of very little margin -- they'll hurt most from the recent down turn -- as I'll bet their profits are razor thin to under cut the other guy.

Pentax doesn't care -- and doesn't need to care about competing in that market.

Pentax is trying to position itself as the Apple of the camera market -- boutique market of loyal users and stable profit margins.

Faster and better AF in low light would make me ecstatic tho.

But then, I think the whole idea of an SLR is pretty dated.

After trying it for some length of time, I can assure you that FF is not only a "marketing ploy". A bigger sensor does give you better IQ, whether or not the difference is enough to justify the price is for everyone to decide.

Saying that Pentax doesn't need to compete in the DSLR market because the position themselves as the Apple of camera market is pretty ludicrous IMO.

Sure, Pentax doesn't need to own 35% of the market but they still need to be profitable and not to loose too much market share. I can assure you that Canon and Nikon make ample profits from their lineup and the higher grade, the higher the margin per unit (not even counting the profit generated by the "add-ons" like accessories and high grade lenses).

If they really want to be the Apple of the DSLR market, they have to set themselves apart as a viable alternative for every photographer with original products not found anywhere else.

Apart from 3 pancake lenses, what do they have that the others don't? (And I am being provocative on purpose here...)