[Aristophanes]

I don't understand why people have the impression that if you strip out features that you suddenly lower the price of the camera. If you use a current generation sensor, you will have the ability to do video, whether or not you enable it in the camera. It seems silly not to make a camera that appeals to the broadest possible audience.

If Pentax makes a feature-poor camera for 200 or 300 dollars less than the competition and has minimal currently produced lens offerings it certainly could be disastrous.

Absolutely trues. Every feature you take away reduces your customer appeal.

The theory is that price will get them back.

Problem is, many people would simply then get the APS-C because the IQ is "good enough" certainly for a great many pros. And for even less $$$ than the 'budget" FF, they get all those features back.

So the budget FF with less features ends up in a marketing nether zone, like the Sony A850/900.

It's like luxury cars: once you get to a certain price point, it's all in or that model does not compare on the showroom floor.

[eddie1960]

Zooms outsell primes by about 6:1.

You need top-flight f/2.8 zooms to make any market APS-C or FF. Look at M43. They all came out with zooms before primes.

A system is enhanced by its primes, but is made but its zooms.

this is the one thing that needs addressing. As much as I am a prime only guy 90% of the time, and my main zoom a sigma 24-70 2.8 is FF Pentax needs to launch at least 24-70and 70-200 2.8 zooms to go FF. Of course they could do a DFA job on the excellent FA*24-70 2.8 for one of them, and the same on the FA*80-200 2.8. not a major amount of R&D or effort required for that. I don't know if they could deal with Tokina on the 16-28 2.8 to get a good FF wide out quickly, but a 12-24 even at a slower f4 with WR would be a better item in any case

Certainly they could go to market launching the first 2 (which many apsc users would like as well myself included) with a roadmap for the wide zoom and even longer zooms and missing primes (which could also be mined from upgraded older designs like the 250-600 and the nice prime glass that is no longer there (20,24,85,400 etc). Sony certainly did not have a complete assortment at launch, neither have any of the m4/3 brands or samsung etc why is it a requirement that Pentax alone must have a complete lens line before launching a new Camera body?

So though this part of your arguement is valid, it really isn't an insurmountable issue at all.
Ricoh has capital, and apparently some wish to go after this market and experience taking market from what will be the biggest competitor here as well.
they may never release FF and just choose to focus on apsc and milc but I highly doubt it. All the press releases sound like they are in it to grow not slowly fade away. FF may not currently be the biggest part of the market but it is a driver for all segments, and the cameras on a per unit basis are far more profitable than the volume models as a matter of course. higher end always equals higher margins to offset the lower sales volume and meet ROI goals

[the swede]

A Pentax FF will never be like a D700. Forget it. It will not be a me-too camera but it will have all the goodies and bells and whistles (and then some) of the other contenders, but in a smaller and more user friendly package. Like a... Pentax.

Well, i dont know what a "me to camera" is

Was just saying, i wouldnt mind it being the size of D700, but i would prefer it to be smaller, but i understand if they cant make it exactly as small as K-7.
In fact..... im so easy to please, that they can do whatever they want and i'll be happy. Not a pro not even a advanced amateur or anything, just my only hobby. So i'll be happy just as long as i can use my Ltd's on it's K-mount.

I take it you don't have a grip for your K-7.. even a cheap knock off works fine as long as your not looking for WR.. then you need to buck up for the Pentax one, I love mine! D700 is a nice size rig, but I think Pentax can pull it off in a bit smaller, WR and rugged chassis.

Yep, had a grip... it was a perfect size combination! sold it though because i never used it.

[unfocused]

"Techno-freakery", Kunzite... from "freak" meaning unnatural obsession.

"All I want from Pentax is an *istDS with a 14MP sensor" I said.
"No you don't. And even if you're a masochist and you really want such a thing, you are the only one," you say.
For the sake of intelligent discussion, please, let's not be told what we want or don't want by a self-described beginner.

"Using outdated components won't cut the cost that much - it will only make the camera fail," you say.
The *istDS has been going since 2004 and I hear no reports of failure. Mine's just fine.


You carry on with your techno-freakery, Kunzite. Some of us prefer getting out there and taking pictures. Which is what Pentax SLRs were all about... until recently.

[Kunzite]

I know the word. But... unnatural obsession? That's the best you can hit me with? Why not calling me for what I am - a realist and not a dreamer?
Yes, I believe you do not want an *istDS with a 14MP sensor. I believe you don't really understand (not that you're incapable, of course, but you can't bother to) what it would mean. You just do not want to think about how little you'll gain (price cut, if any) and how much they'll lose (customers) by using obsolete and underperforming components, by not making sure they're competitive. But... are you sure you wouldn't like an image to be saved in less than 10 seconds?

By the way, those "techno-freaks" are called "customers" by Pentax - and less so those who prefer getting out there and taking pictures with decades old equipment

[Jan67]

I hope that FF camera will loose all this luxury aura as soon as possible and become camera with just bigger sensor.
I hope that vendors start to think the same soon.

I wonder what were the Q's R&D costs compared to FF. Q started also from the scratch... And frankly to say, Q is much more luxury for me than FF would be.

[Emacs]

I hope that FF camera will loose all this luxury aura as soon as possible and become camera with just bigger sensor.
I hope that vendors start to think same soon.

I wonder what were the Q's R&D costs compared to FF. Q started also from the scratch... And frankly to say, Q is much more luxury for me that FF would be.

Right.

[TaoMaas]

...Q is much more luxury for me than FF would be.

That is very true for me, as well.

[Pål Jensen]

So though this part of your arguement is valid, it really isn't an insurmountable issue at all.

The issue is whether they can make money on it. A D-FA* 24-70/2.8 will cost at least $2000 if Pentax is going to make a profit. It will sell about 1/50th the volume of the Nikon counterpart and it need to be of xtraordinary quality to match 30+ mp sensors.
I believe that the FA* 80-200/2.8 costed around $1800 a decade ago when the dollar was worth something and when Pentax were loosing money....
Sophisticated optics that sell in low volumes will be expensive; the 25/4 for the 645D cost $5000......

[Pål Jensen]

I wonder what were the Q's R&D costs compared to FF. Q started also from the scratch... And frankly to say, Q is much more luxury for me that FF would be.

The Q will sell in magnitudes more than any FF camera out there, let alone a Pentax FF. Pentax sold 1 500 000 lenses for the Auto 110 and that one was regared as a flop.....

[RonHendriks1966]

Just looked at the test for the A77 at DPreview, and now I want a 16 megapixel Full frame camera and have zero interest in a 30+ megapixel sensor!

[markac]

And frankly to say, Q is much more luxury for me that FF would be.

You're right. FF should not be a luxury, it should just be another option.

[markac]

and now I want a 16 megapixel Full frame camera

If you want a low Megapixel FF camera, you're probably going to have to buy a run out Nikon D700.

[markac]

No SR would help wedge that FF sensor in the current K-5 size body!

What's wrong with having SR in a K20D sized body instead? It would still be the smallest FF camera unless Sony does a smaller SLT FF model.
I'd rather have a body that size than forsake shake reduction. Besides that, having to buy new FF lenses with shake reduction would make them even more expensive.

[markac]

I'm all for leavin' out the frivolous crap like Wifi, and GPS

You could actually fit all that stuff in a battery grip. Perhaps an FF camera could have 2 battery grips available. One with the added thrills and one that's just plain.

I'd just go for the plain one myself!