Any new rumours about a Pentax FF DSLR yet?

nostatic · 01-26-2009, 02:46 PM

Originally posted by thibs

And Pentax is stuck to APS-C; what is the difference?
Leica does not have FF, neither, do they have better? Well let's in 2 years time if there are still around with new sensor format.

Leica S2 is 30x45mm, 37.5mp (ie about 60% larger than FF). The prototype is out and shooting already:

LEICA Camera AG - Aktuell

They appear to have abandoned 4/3, as the Digilux3 isn't really a "current" camera and the u4/3 lenses that Panasonic came out with were not Leica design or co-branding. Though maybe they have something in the pipeline. They just updated the M8 (roughly APC rangefinder) so that will likely remain stable for awhile. Their small sensor cams are all Panasonic builds with Leica tweaks.

thibs · 01-26-2009, 02:49 PM

Originally posted by nostatic

Leica S2 is 30x45mm, 37.5mp (ie about 60% larger than FF). The prototype is out and shooting already:

LEICA Camera AG - Aktuell

Because it is bigger it makes more sense? So what about moaners who say 645 is a bad idea and Pentax shoud go FF?

This is non sense, as usual. One can't chose to consider arguments only if it fits one's idea.

nostatic · 01-26-2009, 02:56 PM

Originally posted by thibs

Because it is bigger it makes more sense? So what about moaners who say 645 is a bad idea and Pentax shoud go FF?

This is non sense, as usual. One can't chose to consider arguments only if it fits one's idea.

what in the world are you talking about?

You seemed to be asking a question about Leica and FF. The S2 is the answer. Does it make sense for Pentax? Doubtful...but I wasn't suggesting it was.

I think that Pentax *should* go dMF. They are still making MF cameras - that would make the most sense to me and fufill a niche. It will not necessarily convince the sheeple who buy Canikon but neither will a Pentax FF.

thibs · 01-26-2009, 03:00 PM

No, the S2 is not a good idea, the S2 MAY be a good idea. They might have done better (we'll see in 2 years) if what they chose was beter. But saying Leica can't go FF because they go MF isn't an argument.

Try the same with Pentax. If Pentax announces they do not go FF because they go ahead with 645, 3/4 of the forum will shed in tears because they od not have their little baby Pentax FF.

On a stricly technical point of view, of course: better sensor = better. Reality is different. Look at discussions here. Clear enough IMO.

nostatic · 01-26-2009, 03:06 PM

Originally posted by thibs

No, the S2 is not a good idea, the S2 MAY be a good idea. They might have done better (we'll see in 2 years) if what they chose was beter. But saying Leica can't go FF because they go MF isn't an argument.
.

wtf? I never said any of those things. Who are you responding to?

Damn Brit · 01-26-2009, 07:43 PM

Originally posted by huqedato

Take a look here and stay back!

And your point? The images are a little soft and there is no side by side comparison. Gee that really makes me want to go out and buy a FF camera.

cousinsane · 01-26-2009, 08:00 PM

I think he was probably being sarcastic, hence the

Originally posted by Damn Brit

And your point? The images are a little soft and there is no side by side comparison. Gee that really makes me want to go out and buy a FF camera.

Damn Brit · 01-26-2009, 09:08 PM

Originally posted by cousinsane

I think he was probably being sarcastic, hence the

You're probably right but a few words and an emoticon don't always convey intent.

thePiRaTE!! · 01-26-2009, 10:37 PM

I personally burst at the seams at the idea. I'll be able to use my 125 as I use my 85 currently, my 85 as I use the Nokton (58) and the Nokton will become a more interesting normal. I'll capture all the swirly goodness the Biotar offers and capture the strong edges my money bought with the 25mm (without it 'becoming' a 37.5) Distagon.

Due to being able to stand closer to my subjects, given the extra image captured, I'll be able to work in a shallower depth of field if I choose and thus increase - bokeh. Its a magic word to me. One small change to a sensor makes a lot of interesting changes to everything I shoot.

On the other hand, the K20 is the only DSLR that offers the selection of manual lenses, at the price it does, with the SR in the body and live view to take full advantage. Very sweet.

Sony A900 has the SR, the MP, and a top notch view finder (so I've read), but no chance of any of the newer manual Zeiss and Voigts to take advantage of the inbody SR (and no live view). Existing AF Zeiss are paid for at a serious premium for a feature that actually detracts from how I'd use it.

Canon 5D mkII has almost equal MP to A900, decent noise performance and yes... movie mode if you care about that. For me that means perhaps missing shots while shooting movies, leading to a new harddrive array and more software. Good lens selection in the manual primes catagory though.

Nikon has the D700 which has the best selection of glass in my field of interest next to Pentax, best ISO - which goes some ways to making up for no inbody SR, but at a penalty. IQ directly compared to K20 wants to be tested. It would be nice to have smaller files for a change though. Currently my secret fantasy.

Ideally, I'd love a K20 with a full sensor. Change nothing except the sensor and I'd pay the full price of admission to the full frame catagory, 3k.

roentarre · 01-27-2009, 12:19 AM

Kelly, that is a very interesting take on FF from you. Very interesting in deed.

Well, we just have to dream on

thibs · 01-27-2009, 03:27 AM

Originally posted by nostatic

wtf? I never said any of those things. Who are you responding to?

Not you personnaly but this is the general consensus on this forum it seems.
I never said I was directing at you personaly. I was responding to your comments, nothing more.

So in the end, there are 3 brands with one or more 'FF' bodies: Canon, Nikon, and Sony and five brands : Panasonic, Leica, Fuji, Pentax and Olympus which do not have any. Period.

Some have chosen alternatives (being bigger or smaller than FF) and so has Pentax. Pentax is exactly in the same situation as others four brands as far as 'should we go FF or not?'.

*isteve · 01-27-2009, 03:37 AM

Originally posted by thePiRaTE!!

I personally burst at the seams at the idea. I'll be able to use my 125 as I use my 85 currently, my 85 as I use the Nokton (58) and the Nokton will become a more interesting normal. I'll capture all the swirly goodness the Biotar offers and capture the strong edges my money bought with the 25mm (without it 'becoming' a 37.5) Distagon.

Due to being able to stand closer to my subjects, given the extra image captured, I'll be able to work in a shallower depth of field if I choose and thus increase - bokeh. Its a magic word to me. One small change to a sensor makes a lot of interesting changes to everything I shoot.

On the other hand, the K20 is the only DSLR that offers the selection of manual lenses, at the price it does, with the SR in the body and live view to take full advantage. Very sweet.

Sony A900 has the SR, the MP, and a top notch view finder (so I've read), but no chance of any of the newer manual Zeiss and Voigts to take advantage of the inbody SR (and no live view). Existing AF Zeiss are paid for at a serious premium for a feature that actually detracts from how I'd use it.

Canon 5D mkII has almost equal MP to A900, decent noise performance and yes... movie mode if you care about that. For me that means perhaps missing shots while shooting movies, leading to a new harddrive array and more software. Good lens selection in the manual primes catagory though.

Nikon has the D700 which has the best selection of glass in my field of interest next to Pentax, best ISO - which goes some ways to making up for no inbody SR, but at a penalty. IQ directly compared to K20 wants to be tested. It would be nice to have smaller files for a change though. Currently my secret fantasy.

Ideally, I'd love a K20 with a full sensor. Change nothing except the sensor and I'd pay the full price of admission to the full frame catagory, 3k.

You have some very specific lens choices which really dont apply to many people. I get as much "bokeh" from an APS camera because I can access faster tele lenses for the same money.

A 50 F1.4 is a lot cheaper than an 85 F1.4 last I checked, and has almost the same DOF as a 77 F1.8 would on an FF camera....for much less money.

The 50-135 F2.8 on a K20D provides the same DOF options as a Canon 70-200mm F4 on a 5Dmk2, which is about the same price (in IS mode). The Nikon 70-200 F2.8 gives a stop more DOF but is vastly bigger and more expensive (as is the Canon version). The Sigma 70-200 F2.8 is also much heavier and more expensive than the Pentax.

My FA* 200 F2.8 has the same DOF as a DA* 300 F4 would on an FF camera.

Again, same size and weight. So yes you can get shallower DOF on a FF camera, but only by buying faster long glass which is more expensive and heavier than the APS equivalent.

OK, for wide angle lenses, then its harder to find fast glass. However I use wideangle more for landscape work. In this case, I usually work stopped down and the greater DOF of APS allows me to use apertures which are slightly wider and faster (closer to MTF max) than what I would need on FF. This means sharper, especially in combination with SR.

So sorry but I dont buy this DOF argument at all.

Asahiflex · 01-27-2009, 05:56 AM

Steve, I have a lot of M42 primes I want to use on the format they were intended for. And I also want a bigger, brighter viewfinder for better manual focusing.

Two simple reasons why I want FF.

You do know that APS-C is just an intermediate step to FF? APS-C does exist only because it is cheaper than FF, but for me APS-C is more and more uninteresting when the cheapest FF cameras have reached the price level of the first APS-C cameras.

Boris · 01-27-2009, 06:42 AM

Originally posted by thibs

Some have chosen alternatives (being bigger or smaller than FF) and so has Pentax. Pentax is exactly in the same situation as others four brands as far as 'should we go FF or not?'.

Most recently I was shown an interesting option for people with cold nerves, strong heart and flexible fingers. One can replace mounts on K-mount lenses (I was shown an example with FA 31 ltd here (Russian)) and use them with sensible limitations on Canon bodies. Further, I asked this person few questions and they indicated that the operation was completely reversible.

Frankly, gentlemen, I don't understand this argument - stay with APC-S because FF will not give you anything to your photography. Sounds like a rather lame excuse Pentax' lack of ability or lack of decision to produce FF bodies.

whatever7 · 01-27-2009, 07:17 AM

Originally posted by thibs

And Pentax is stuck to APS-C; what is the difference?
Leica does not have FF, neither, do they have better? Well let's in 2 years time if there are still around with new sensor format.

Leica is not doing FF because they have no access to a FF sensor that can beat Nikon and Canon, all they can buy is the noisy Sony sensor.

They are probably a couple years away from being brought out by a big corperation again.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Rumours	MJB DIGITAL	Pentax News and Rumors	5	05-03-2008 01:28 PM
Any rumours for next generation camera yet?	spe	Pentax News and Rumors	20	03-26-2008 02:55 AM
any new 645D rumours?	torge	Pentax News and Rumors	1	01-22-2008 10:38 PM
K20d rumours - Infrared	ruemiser	Pentax DSLR Discussion	15	12-25-2007 03:51 PM
K1D rumours?	Harald	Pentax DSLR Discussion	3	02-02-2007 03:03 AM

01-26-2009, 02:46 PM	#31
nostatic Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: socal Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,575	Originally posted by thibs And Pentax is stuck to APS-C; what is the difference? Leica does not have FF, neither, do they have better? Well let's in 2 years time if there are still around with new sensor format. Leica S2 is 30x45mm, 37.5mp (ie about 60% larger than FF). The prototype is out and shooting already: LEICA Camera AG - Aktuell They appear to have abandoned 4/3, as the Digilux3 isn't really a "current" camera and the u4/3 lenses that Panasonic came out with were not Leica design or co-branding. Though maybe they have something in the pipeline. They just updated the M8 (roughly APC rangefinder) so that will likely remain stable for awhile. Their small sensor cams are all Panasonic builds with Leica tweaks.

01-26-2009, 02:49 PM	#32
thibs Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Belgium Photos: Albums Posts: 7,001	Originally posted by nostatic Leica S2 is 30x45mm, 37.5mp (ie about 60% larger than FF). The prototype is out and shooting already: LEICA Camera AG - Aktuell Because it is bigger it makes more sense? So what about moaners who say 645 is a bad idea and Pentax shoud go FF? This is non sense, as usual. One can't chose to consider arguments only if it fits one's idea.

01-26-2009, 02:56 PM	#33
nostatic Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: socal Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,575	Originally posted by thibs Because it is bigger it makes more sense? So what about moaners who say 645 is a bad idea and Pentax shoud go FF? This is non sense, as usual. One can't chose to consider arguments only if it fits one's idea. what in the world are you talking about? You seemed to be asking a question about Leica and FF. The S2 is the answer. Does it make sense for Pentax? Doubtful...but I wasn't suggesting it was. I think that Pentax should go dMF. They are still making MF cameras - that would make the most sense to me and fufill a niche. It will not necessarily convince the sheeple who buy Canikon but neither will a Pentax FF.

01-26-2009, 03:00 PM	#34
thibs Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Belgium Photos: Albums Posts: 7,001	No, the S2 is not a good idea, the S2 MAY be a good idea. They might have done better (we'll see in 2 years) if what they chose was beter. But saying Leica can't go FF because they go MF isn't an argument. Try the same with Pentax. If Pentax announces they do not go FF because they go ahead with 645, 3/4 of the forum will shed in tears because they od not have their little baby Pentax FF. On a stricly technical point of view, of course: better sensor = better. Reality is different. Look at discussions here. Clear enough IMO.

01-26-2009, 03:06 PM	#35
nostatic Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: socal Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,575	Originally posted by thibs No, the S2 is not a good idea, the S2 MAY be a good idea. They might have done better (we'll see in 2 years) if what they chose was beter. But saying Leica can't go FF because they go MF isn't an argument. . wtf? I never said any of those things. Who are you responding to?

01-26-2009, 07:43 PM	#36
Damn Brit Guest	Originally posted by huqedato Take a look here and stay back! And your point? The images are a little soft and there is no side by side comparison. Gee that really makes me want to go out and buy a FF camera.

01-26-2009, 08:00 PM	#37
cousinsane Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: madison Posts: 239	I think he was probably being sarcastic, hence the Originally posted by Damn Brit And your point? The images are a little soft and there is no side by side comparison. Gee that really makes me want to go out and buy a FF camera.

01-26-2009, 09:08 PM	#38
Damn Brit Guest	Originally posted by cousinsane I think he was probably being sarcastic, hence the You're probably right but a few words and an emoticon don't always convey intent.

01-26-2009, 10:37 PM	#39
thePiRaTE!! Inactive Account Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Calgary, AB Photos: Gallery Posts: 942	I personally burst at the seams at the idea. I'll be able to use my 125 as I use my 85 currently, my 85 as I use the Nokton (58) and the Nokton will become a more interesting normal. I'll capture all the swirly goodness the Biotar offers and capture the strong edges my money bought with the 25mm (without it 'becoming' a 37.5) Distagon. Due to being able to stand closer to my subjects, given the extra image captured, I'll be able to work in a shallower depth of field if I choose and thus increase - bokeh. Its a magic word to me. One small change to a sensor makes a lot of interesting changes to everything I shoot. On the other hand, the K20 is the only DSLR that offers the selection of manual lenses, at the price it does, with the SR in the body and live view to take full advantage. Very sweet. Sony A900 has the SR, the MP, and a top notch view finder (so I've read), but no chance of any of the newer manual Zeiss and Voigts to take advantage of the inbody SR (and no live view). Existing AF Zeiss are paid for at a serious premium for a feature that actually detracts from how I'd use it. Canon 5D mkII has almost equal MP to A900, decent noise performance and yes... movie mode if you care about that. For me that means perhaps missing shots while shooting movies, leading to a new harddrive array and more software. Good lens selection in the manual primes catagory though. Nikon has the D700 which has the best selection of glass in my field of interest next to Pentax, best ISO - which goes some ways to making up for no inbody SR, but at a penalty. IQ directly compared to K20 wants to be tested. It would be nice to have smaller files for a change though. Currently my secret fantasy. Ideally, I'd love a K20 with a full sensor. Change nothing except the sensor and I'd pay the full price of admission to the full frame catagory, 3k.

01-27-2009, 12:19 AM	#40
roentarre Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Melbourne, Australia Posts: 11,783	Kelly, that is a very interesting take on FF from you. Very interesting in deed. Well, we just have to dream on

01-27-2009, 03:27 AM	#41
thibs Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Belgium Photos: Albums Posts: 7,001	Originally posted by nostatic wtf? I never said any of those things. Who are you responding to? Not you personnaly but this is the general consensus on this forum it seems. I never said I was directing at you personaly. I was responding to your comments, nothing more. So in the end, there are 3 brands with one or more 'FF' bodies: Canon, Nikon, and Sony and five brands : Panasonic, Leica, Fuji, Pentax and Olympus which do not have any. Period. Some have chosen alternatives (being bigger or smaller than FF) and so has Pentax. Pentax is exactly in the same situation as others four brands as far as 'should we go FF or not?'.

01-27-2009, 03:37 AM	#42
*isteve Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: London, England Posts: 1,187	Originally posted by thePiRaTE!! I personally burst at the seams at the idea. I'll be able to use my 125 as I use my 85 currently, my 85 as I use the Nokton (58) and the Nokton will become a more interesting normal. I'll capture all the swirly goodness the Biotar offers and capture the strong edges my money bought with the 25mm (without it 'becoming' a 37.5) Distagon. Due to being able to stand closer to my subjects, given the extra image captured, I'll be able to work in a shallower depth of field if I choose and thus increase - bokeh. Its a magic word to me. One small change to a sensor makes a lot of interesting changes to everything I shoot. On the other hand, the K20 is the only DSLR that offers the selection of manual lenses, at the price it does, with the SR in the body and live view to take full advantage. Very sweet. Sony A900 has the SR, the MP, and a top notch view finder (so I've read), but no chance of any of the newer manual Zeiss and Voigts to take advantage of the inbody SR (and no live view). Existing AF Zeiss are paid for at a serious premium for a feature that actually detracts from how I'd use it. Canon 5D mkII has almost equal MP to A900, decent noise performance and yes... movie mode if you care about that. For me that means perhaps missing shots while shooting movies, leading to a new harddrive array and more software. Good lens selection in the manual primes catagory though. Nikon has the D700 which has the best selection of glass in my field of interest next to Pentax, best ISO - which goes some ways to making up for no inbody SR, but at a penalty. IQ directly compared to K20 wants to be tested. It would be nice to have smaller files for a change though. Currently my secret fantasy. Ideally, I'd love a K20 with a full sensor. Change nothing except the sensor and I'd pay the full price of admission to the full frame catagory, 3k. You have some very specific lens choices which really dont apply to many people. I get as much "bokeh" from an APS camera because I can access faster tele lenses for the same money. A 50 F1.4 is a lot cheaper than an 85 F1.4 last I checked, and has almost the same DOF as a 77 F1.8 would on an FF camera....for much less money. The 50-135 F2.8 on a K20D provides the same DOF options as a Canon 70-200mm F4 on a 5Dmk2, which is about the same price (in IS mode). The Nikon 70-200 F2.8 gives a stop more DOF but is vastly bigger and more expensive (as is the Canon version). The Sigma 70-200 F2.8 is also much heavier and more expensive than the Pentax. My FA* 200 F2.8 has the same DOF as a DA* 300 F4 would on an FF camera. Again, same size and weight. So yes you can get shallower DOF on a FF camera, but only by buying faster long glass which is more expensive and heavier than the APS equivalent. OK, for wide angle lenses, then its harder to find fast glass. However I use wideangle more for landscape work. In this case, I usually work stopped down and the greater DOF of APS allows me to use apertures which are slightly wider and faster (closer to MTF max) than what I would need on FF. This means sharper, especially in combination with SR. So sorry but I dont buy this DOF argument at all.

01-27-2009, 05:56 AM	#43
Asahiflex Pentaxian Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Netherlands Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,795	Steve, I have a lot of M42 primes I want to use on the format they were intended for. And I also want a bigger, brighter viewfinder for better manual focusing. Two simple reasons why I want FF. You do know that APS-C is just an intermediate step to FF? APS-C does exist only because it is cheaper than FF, but for me APS-C is more and more uninteresting when the cheapest FF cameras have reached the price level of the first APS-C cameras.

01-27-2009, 06:42 AM	#44
Boris Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Israel Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 932	Originally posted by thibs Some have chosen alternatives (being bigger or smaller than FF) and so has Pentax. Pentax is exactly in the same situation as others four brands as far as 'should we go FF or not?'. Most recently I was shown an interesting option for people with cold nerves, strong heart and flexible fingers. One can replace mounts on K-mount lenses (I was shown an example with FA 31 ltd here (Russian)) and use them with sensible limitations on Canon bodies. Further, I asked this person few questions and they indicated that the operation was completely reversible. Frankly, gentlemen, I don't understand this argument - stay with APC-S because FF will not give you anything to your photography. Sounds like a rather lame excuse Pentax' lack of ability or lack of decision to produce FF bodies.

01-27-2009, 07:17 AM	#45
whatever7 Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Posts: 278	Originally posted by thibs And Pentax is stuck to APS-C; what is the difference? Leica does not have FF, neither, do they have better? Well let's in 2 years time if there are still around with new sensor format. Leica is not doing FF because they have no access to a FF sensor that can beat Nikon and Canon, all they can buy is the noisy Sony sensor. They are probably a couple years away from being brought out by a big corperation again.