[Brangdon]

The 645D has done very well with very few lenses even marketed for it yet

Indeed. The Q-mount was launched with only 5 lenses, and 3 of those "toy".

Although Pentax wouldn't make money from eBay sales of old FF lenses, the existence of that market would help a new FF body launch.

[cali92rs]

The 645D has done very well with very few lenses even marketed for it yet

Very well? Has it made any sort of dent in D3 sales? Or been a game changer?
It has won numerous awards and I am not discounting the fact that it is a great camera, but I consider it a niche product with very small application.

[Ubuntu_user]

the company plans on expanding its Advanced Amateur and Professional product lines.


I don't see anything about FF in this statement. It sounds to me like they are planning to continue expanding within existing product lines, no more than that. There's an awful lot of wishful thinking going on in this thread.

awful ???

I think he meant "awe-ful"!!

[Chex]

Exactly - even if some FA* lenses are good enough it's tough to market a 10 - 15 year old lens. They need a brand new 'HD' lens line.

Given this should they be wedded to the K-mount? There are advantages in looking to overhaul the entire system.

Releasing new "HD" lens line in K-mount would be their best potential path, given the potential pre-made market of existing K-mount users, some whom would be happy with a K-5/7/r/x or next gen APS-C etc and a HD lens, while many others like myself would opt to step up to FF to take full advantage of the new lenses and get the maximum potential from their current & discontinued lens lineups. If the new lenses they would make for a FF option were truly superior to their previous lenses, people want that level of IQ would purchase them PERIOD. IMO it would be like having a Takumar Bayonet 135 f2.8 and upgrading to an FA-135 f2.8, it's not about making a whole new lens, it's about better glass refinement/QC and optical glass coatings. Another bonus on revamping their lineup is the ability to ditch SDM from their lineup and goto DC or a revamp/amalgamation of both.

I do not see the "benefit" of ditching the K-mount. Changing mounts would only force people to say "Well that Nikon D800 (or D3x/successor) or Canon D1X etc looks pretty good and has a much broader lens lineup with an established mount." I know people looking to move to FF are already forced with a mount change and loosing their lenses already. Making people choose a new mount for FF would only add to loosing more perspective FF body purchasers.

[RuiC]

Can one not also interpret this as "Advanced Amateur" is the current APS-C line, and the "Professional product" is the 645d. In other words, we will continue in the same tracks.

Agreed!!

[bobmaxja]

The big question is how much peoples will be ready to pay. Also how many ? This is a good survey
Many were complaining about the K-5 at $1500. An FF will probably be in the $3000-4000 with all the gadget peoples want in it becaus ethey want the best

[RuiC]

The big question is how much peoples will be ready to pay. Also how many ? This is a good survey
Many were complaining about the K-5 at $1500. An FF will probably be in the $3000-4000 with all the gadget peoples want in it becaus ethey want the best

No matter how Hot , or Funny these discussions about the unknown are one thing is for sure: I will not buy a FF Pentax until Mr. Pentax-Ricoh San places the damned girafe on that photo!!!

[maxfield_photo]

An FF will probably be in the $3000-4000 with all the gadget peoples want in it becaus ethey want the best

Yeah, I'm figuring about $3500 for what I want. I've already made out the check, see?

[TOUGEFC]

I really dont care about about all these added features.
Just make it with the same features as the K-5 and Ill be happy.

[Mike Cash]

This is great news. I mean, it's not like they explicitly answered the question, but they are making it clear that they listen, are not dismissive of their consumers, and are looking to make a real splash.

It strikes me as a lot of hopeful hubbub over, "Thank you for your letter; I am passing it along."

We're like ugly high school girls all dressed up and sitting at home by the phone on prom night, hoping we'll get a date.

[Chex]

I really dont care about about all these added features.
Just make it with the same features as the K-5 and Ill be happy.

I agree the k-5 is a very capable camera, 7FPS upto 21+ frames, high ISO, expanded between 80-51200 (not that I would shoot over 3200 ever). All the of the PP/cross processing/bracketing/In camera HDR etc options and it's fantastic weather sealing, I don't need more options, just a FF sensor would suffice.. sure some AF work and tuning would be nice, but never helps my MF lenses anyways!

[ironlionzion]

We're like ugly high school girls all dressed up and sitting at home by the phone on prom night, hoping we'll get a date.

I don't know about you guys, but I already got a date. I'm just looking for a better looking one

[extravagrant]

Maybe someone can help me with my confusion about the appeal of full frame. My assumption is that the future of digital photograph is to smaller sensors that can do everything today's full frame sensors can do, with corresponding reductions in the size and weight of good glass. As it is now I come back from birding with sore shoulders as a result of carrying my K5 and DA*300. Shouldn't I expect that in the next few years I'll be able to purchase a prosumer package from Pentax or someone that is smaller, lighter, and as good or better than what I'm using now? If the answer is yes, doesn't that mean that the appeal of full frame should be short-lived?

One reason why I plan to switch to full-frame (and I think the last time I was active on this forum, I actually didn't care whether or not Pentax created a full-frame camera) is because I'm shooting sports now with the K-5 and the 50-135, and I'd like to have a narrower depth of field to blur the background more and make the foreground pop better. Shooting with the 50-135 wide open is like shooting a 70-200 at f/4 on a full-frame.

[NaClH2O]

Indeed. The Q-mount was launched with only 5 lenses, and 3 of those "toy".

Although Pentax wouldn't make money from eBay sales of old FF lenses, the existence of that market would help a new FF body launch.

An $800 Q is a completely different beast than a $2500 + FF. Can you imagine that anyone who would put out that kind of money for that kind of camera would even remotely consider a "toy" lens?! No they will want the FF equivalent of the DA* 16-50 and the DA* 50-135. At the very least. Granted they might be able to dust off the FA* 28-70 F/2.8 but they would have to weather seal it and outfit it with SDM or some sort of in lens focus motor. That wouldn't be inconsiderable R&D costs. And there is no older equivalent to the DA* 50-135. So you are going to try to sell a $2500 or more camera with one professional zoom lens to start?

NaCl(I don't think that will go over too well)H2O

[audiobomber]

the company plans on expanding its Advanced Amateur and Professional product lines.

I don't see anything about FF in this statement. It sounds to me like they are planning to continue expanding within existing product lines, no more than that. There's an awful lot of wishful thinking going on in this thread.

awful ???

aw·ful    [aw-fuhl] adverb
Informal. very; extremely: He did an awful good job of painting the barn. It's awful hot in here.

There's an awful lot of wishful thinking going on in this thread