[Priyantha Bleeker]

They may indeed have, but Pentax managed to get the sensor to actually work. In fact, Contax asked Pentax for "help" but Pentax declined. The "K-1", which I think is the prototype name - it was to be called MD-S, was so close to production before it was axed that the tooling for it had begun. They "wasted" $20.000.000 on the project!

Yes...and I don't thing the low ISO pictures from the Contax were bad in comparison with the competition in that time.

http://www.lonestardigital.com/n_digital.htm

---

Last edited by Priyantha Bleeker; 04-29-2009 at 03:50 PM. Reason: nice example photo's from the 'bad' contax...

[dopeytree]

They "wasted" $20.000.000 on the project!

Where did you get that figure from? from what I can understand they were still tweaking things and had a lot of software improvements to do

[jeffkrol]

Maybe Pentax made the right choice with not releasing thát K1 yes.
But not the right choice with, not doing anything with it.
They could have done anything with it, with another sensor maybe...the body is ergonomic not bad...it has the only right mount. It has TTL....AND 35mm

But the most important part of it, they showed it with a FILM 50mm F1.4 lens
And wasn't it the case that the film lenses weren't good enough ?

At 6MP...........
Contax N Digital, 6mp Digital SLR: Digital Photography Review

[cousinsane]

I am not saying all Pentax lenses will perform badly on FF. I am only talking about the old Takumars. My brick wall test of the SMC takumar 28/3.5 on a K10D showed pretty soft corner. Too bad that I deleted all the test images(raw file) when my laptop hard drive was running out of space. I can only prove that I am not making this up by pointing to the following lens review written a year ago, where I mentioned the soft corner issue.

Pentax Lens Review Database - 28mm F3.5

Seriously though I thought the debate was whether or not the main reason for Pentax choosing not to go FF was that 24x36 Pentax lenses were not "good enough" for FF... and I just don't think it is a valid argument but please, do link to the lens tests you were refering to, I'd love to see how bad these Ol' Takies fared on FF....

And to finish by something more constructive, don't hesitate to drop by the Pentax lens forum on this very site and check out the Takumar club thread: nothing really useful (no formal tests) but some pretty good pictures using those crummy lenses on digital (you can even spot some that were taken on FF...)

[Priyantha Bleeker]

Yes at 6MP yes
That was a good startingpoint
Than they had enough time to develop more 35mm lenses to cope with the 'higher' resolution sensors in their later models :P

[Yohan Pamudji]

They may indeed have, but Pentax managed to get the sensor to actually work. In fact, Contax asked Pentax for "help" but Pentax declined. The "K-1", which I think is the prototype name - it was to be called MD-S, was so close to production before it was axed that the tooling for it had begun. They "wasted" $20.000.000 on the project!

Wow $20Mil, eh? Just imagine how much more they would have lost if it went into production and bombed like the Contax.

[Priyantha Bleeker]

Wow $20Mil, eh? Just imagine how much more they would have lost if it went into production and bombed like the Contax.

And just imagine that Pentax should get the software right...and used the right RAW software....and market it right.
Than was Pentax the first if the big-four manufactors who did Full-Frame and they could be now no.1/2...
But if if is nothing

[Wheatfield]

I am not saying all Pentax lenses will perform badly on FF. I am only talking about the old Takumars. My brick wall test of the SMC takumar 28/3.5 on a K10D showed pretty soft corner. Too bad that I deleted all the test images(raw file) when my laptop hard drive was running out of space. I can only prove that I am not making this up by pointing to the following lens review written a year ago, where I mentioned the soft corner issue.

Pentax Lens Review Database - 28mm F3.5

The fact is, some lenses will do better than others, and some of those old Taks are very good lenses.
However, like all lens lines, they have some good, some not so good.
Corner performance generally does get better when stopped down, so a lens that is iffy in the corners wide open may well be just fine a couple of stops off full aperture, and there are a lot of applications where a little corner softness just isn't important anyway, so it really is a bit of a specious argument.

It's kind of a moot point though, since there isn't a snowballs chance in hell that Pentax could release a full frame camera without releasing a set of lenses to go with it almost concurrently, and as almost six years into APS-C digital they still don't have a full lens line released, I'm just not seeing much chance of a full frame camera.
The only reason why Pentax didn't fall flat on it's face with the *istD was because they had enough glass out there that would work. They've been very slow about fleshing out their lens line for APS-C digital.
My guess is that with the 60-250 in production (I saw an incredible shot from it today), they will soon start ramping up for 645 digital lens production so that when that camera is released they will have a lens set ready for it.
It's imperitave that they have lenses in place and ready to buy with that camera. This is pro territory, and they won't buy if they think the support is half assed.
This presumes that it hits world wide release. If it's a home market only camera, then it's hard to guage what they will do.

[Wheatfield]

Wow $20Mil, eh? Just imagine how much more they would have lost if it went into production and bombed like the Contax.

I suspect if the K1 had gone into production, we'd all be on some Canon forum discussing the best way to convert our lens mounts about now.

[deejjjaaaa]

This is pro territory

not any more - Adorama sells Canon 5D (not MkII, but new body - not used one) for USD $2K and kit with 24-105/4 L IS for USD $2550 (that makes body even cheaper than USD $2K)... this is affordable for somebody who just wants it...

[vinzer]

Maybe Pentax made the right choice with not releasing thát K1 yes.
But not the right choice with, not doing anything with it.
They could have done anything with it, with another sensor maybe...the body is ergonomic not bad...it has the only right mount. It has TTL....AND 35mm

But the most important part of it, they showed it with a FILM 50mm F1.4 lens
And wasn't it the case that the film lenses weren't good enough ?

Well, I think Phillips removed themselves from sensor production after the Contax fiasco. I think only Canon and Kodak did FF sensors when Phillips flamed-out, and of course, Canon would never sell their sensors. Probably Pentax approached Kodak with an intent to buy their sensors, but thought Kodak's price for them was too high.

Those Kodak sensors, if I recall correctly, weren't anywhere good over ISO 400, anyway, and Kodak's pro DSLRs didn't seem to get much traction (of course, as a result of other issues aside from the sensor).

I could be mistaken with what I remember, though, so please feel free to correct me.

[vinzer]

This is pro territory, and they won't buy if they think the support is half assed.

I agree. But even if the lenses are there, I still doubt that many pros would've gone Pentax. As mentioned in another recent thread, it's not just the availability of a wide variety of lenses that is the problem with Pentax being a pro brand. It's also the pro support programs that Canon and Nikon have that encourages pros to go with their brands. Loaner cameras, lens rentals, and speedy, professional service are things pros care about, and with good reason, too.

[KungPOW]

I agree. But even if the lenses are there, I still doubt that many pros would've gone Pentax. As mentioned in another recent thread, it's not just the availability of a wide variety of lenses that is the problem with Pentax being a pro brand. It's also the pro support programs that Canon and Nikon have that encourages pros to go with their brands. Loaner cameras, lens rentals, and speedy, professional service are things pros care about, and with good reason, too.

And that matches the announcement that the 645D will be restricted to the Japanese market only. A limited distribution requires less capital to set up the pro-level programs that are needed to support the camera.

This begs the question: If a pro buys his gear from walmart does that make walmart a pro-level retailor? It's not the store, it how the photographer uses the store?

[Pål Jensen]

And that matches the announcement that the 645D will be restricted to the Japanese market only. A limited distribution requires less capital to set up the pro-level programs that are needed to support the camera.

This begs the question: If a pro buys his gear from walmart does that make walmart a pro-level retailor? It's not the store, it how the photographer uses the store?

The japanese only rumor was a false one. It will be sold world-wide...

[mattdm]

The japanese only rumor was a false one. It will be sold world-wide...

Do you have a source for that?

It wasn't exactly a rumor — it was a statement from John Carlson, a "product marketing and support manager" at Pentax USA. He never said Japan-only, though — just that it was not going to be sold in the US and that Europe was unclear.