[ElJamoquio]

FF cameras have not really shrunk since they were introduced... let's say ten years ago (really 7 with the Canon 5D).

Circuitry has shrunk... but camera size stays the same and features and performance are improved. I don't think that Canon would shrink the size of the 5D even if the 'circuitry' size halved overnight.

[gazonk]

Even if you say all those components would be smaller, they would still add to the camera.

Yes, but consider that the NEX-7 sensor-to-back distance (as far as I can tell) is 17 mm, while on the K-5 it's 28 mm... of course the NEX-7 doesn't have in-body SR, but it shows what's possible today!

[Asahiflex]

Yes, but consider that the NEX-7 sensor-to-back distance (as far as I can tell) is 17 mm, while on the K-5 it's 28 mm... of course the NEX-7 doesn't have in-body SR, but it shows what's possible today!

Let's move that LCD display on the back) to the (hybrid) viewfinder and see how small the cameras can be made... Please Pentax, more Out Of The Box thinking

[Medium FormatPro]

Really wishing that I could in fact show engineering level sketches and framework of what a Pentax full-frame could look like. Minus the registration distance it could in fact be smaller than a Pentax K-5 and (yes) even a Canon 5d - and naturally even with better water sealing; except it might give up some of that sealing in adding a "tripod mounted" additional battery.

I'll work on seeing if I could posibly add a link; but it might also require additional downloaded freeware to view.

At the very least any version of an eventual Pentax full frame will at least be significantly smaller than anything in the flagship Canon or Nikon models - such as the Nikon D4 as an example

[Na Horuk]

Well here is my concept for a full frame that is.. different.
So the area behind the sensor is as thin as possible and all the bulk is above the lens and mirror box, but can be moved behind it for a more classical form. They just need to add a clever OVF and hotshoe. But at least its a traditional Pentax yellow brick design.
Yes, I am just messing about.

[Kunzite]

Really wishing that I could in fact show engineering level sketches and framework of what a Pentax full-frame could look like. Minus the registration distance it could in fact be smaller than a Pentax K-5 and (yes) even a Canon 5d

Uhh... the 5D is much larger than the K-5... but I doubt you don't know this.
I'd like to see those sketches, as long as you factor in all the required components Anyway, IMO the K-5's size (with a bigger pentaprism, though, and if possible slightly thinner) would more than be ideal for a compact "full frame". Or any other camera

[markku55]

(Yes: 5kg CRT high definition display, a cluster of Z80 processors and a diesel generator to power it )

A thinner LCD could be made, but still it will add to camera's thickness.

Have anyone thought about a possibility to have only optical pentaprism viewfinder?

The SR platform - not sure how much can be saved there.

There are two equal places for film cassette which are not anymore needed.

The AF, unless migrating to the sensor, would need dedicated optics and sensors. The AF motor, bigger battery, shutter with automatic rewind... there are too many things missing.

Ok, the AF motor must be some where, in the lens or in the body, in the body it will be needed only one time.
Bigger battery, yes, but that can be hidden to the handgrip which was missing from the older film bodies.
Shutter with automatic rewind, could that be located in the place of film cassette?

Even if you say all those components would be smaller, they would still add to the camera. I don't think having a very compact manual camera is a reasonable target.

I would'nt be so sure that Pentax FF body should be made for fast sport actions, means no need for really big capacity battery and effective motors, it could actually be quite manual, many photographers love FF Leica because of really taking and making photographs not only pointing and shooting.

[markku55]

Anyway, IMO the K-5's size (with a bigger pentaprism, though, and if possible slightly thinner) would more than be ideal for a compact "full frame". Or any other camera

Now we talk same language, I think there is no need to make a FF body smaller than a good APS-C body of today, the hands will not be smaller even the technology could do it possible to make the camera body in what ever size.

[Kunzite]

I would'nt be so sure that Pentax FF body should be made for fast sport actions, means no need for really big capacity battery and effective motors, it could actually be quite manual, many photographers love FF Leica because of really taking and making photographs not only pointing and shooting.

A manual only camera would be low volume, thus expensive. I believe there is room for only one Leica, and the position is already taken

If we're talking about handgrip then we agree it's impossible to put everything in that "classic" body (which is my point)
The SR must be in a specific place, so it can't be moved where the film spools were

[monochrome]

the hands will not be smaller even the technology could do it possible to make the camera body in what ever size.

Lather, Rinse, Repeat.

My hands are my hands. The K-5 and K-01 are borderline too small and I can't even begin to use a compact MILC.

[unfocused]

The *istDS includes a pentaprism and was, I'm told, designed for full-frame. It's the ideal size and weight for my (not especially large) hands. I don't want smaller thanks. Or bigger. The trend towards bulkier and heavier SLRs is a nonsense. I could do without my K7's extra weight and 'overkill' spec.

The K-01 is a Ford Edsel and belongs in the how-not-to box. Is anyone buying it?

[Kunzite]

The *istD mirror box was designed for full-frame, but the pentaprism/viewfinder was for APS-C. So in theory, they could make a feature-crippled (e.g. no SR, low fps, small LCD) entry level FF camera which would be like an *istD with a bigger pentaprism on top. Maybe they could even keep the same size, if completely compromising the viewfinder.
Those "overkill" specs helps selling the camera, unfortunately (?).

[Jean Poitiers]

... My hands are my hands. The K-5 and K-01 are borderline too small and I can't even begin to use a compact MILC.

Bonjour,

Agreed in that my K-5 is borderline small ... even thinking about a grip now. My largish hands make the use of small products a pain in the ... thumb. Forget about texting easily on my small cell key pad.

Salut et A+, John le Frog

[Brangdon]

It can be made smaller, probably. But the question is where. The mirrorbox will be the same size because of the registration distance. The prism house will be the same size (or bigger if full coverage and 1x is desired)

A full-frame K-mount mirrorless could be made smaller and lighter, with no mirror and no pentaprism. There's a limit to how small given the registration distance, but I think K-mount would be a better fit for a FF mirrorless than the APS-C mirrorless we already have. We don't want it too small because we have large hands and need the surface area for lots of large physical buttons and a large rear monitor. Losing the mirror would eliminate mirror slap, and the alignment issues caused by having multiple light paths.

Admittedly one of the major benefits of full frame is the large and bright optical viewfinder, and mirrorless throws that away, but I think it'd be more practical to put a good, hence expensive, EVF in a high-end full-frame body than in a cheap entry-level body. If it has high enough resolution, and has enough processor power not to be laggy, EFV features like focus peeking, zoom and exposure preview, could make up for the loss of the optical.

Perhaps. It's something I'd be considering carefully if I was Pentax.

[mattdm]

And a 100%-frame viewfinder is correspondingly bigger.

Is that a problem? My MX is still smaller than my K-5.

Yes, but your MX doesn't have a 100% finder. It's better than most (97%, right?) but still. Many of the the compact film SLRs people compare to have 92% finder or so.