[eddie1960]

I see. Well, who shoots films these days anyway.

Very much agree on the AA filter issue. Pentax (surprisingly?) made the right call on that with 645D.

Yeah, 36mp FF sensor (no stains pls), mini 645D, $2,999 msrp.

I'll buy it.

LOL with more film cameras than digital I do (2 Rf, 2 med format and 3 35mm slr and a pile of trashy holga stuff people keep giving me)

but i'm with you at 2999 i'd buy a mini 645 (as long as the AF and shooting speed were better than the 645, FF after all is not a studio thing or landscape thing only)

the AA thing really appeals to me. every camera i've seen without AA just seems so much sharper (645 and Leica come to mind immediately - of course those lenses help as well)
Given Nikon is talking a no AA version i think it's a good move (and a differentiator from the pack)

[maxfield_photo]

Remote tethering is long overdue from Pentax. It's absence is a travesty of marketing.

Amen to this, but apparently tethering is possible on post-K20d models through third-party software (the name escapes me for the moment). Why Pentax doesn't support it naively, I could not even begin to tell you, but it doesn't add any size or weight to the camera. What I'd really like to see is an import module for Lightroom.

I keep mentioning "The 18 month Plan." I'm using that as shorthand for 'stay afloat tactical planning vs. longer term, strategic planning.' The obvious way to not make an immediate mistake is to implement a good, solid 18-month plan. But string enough of these tactic-rich, strategy-free plans together, and you can end up at: The financial arguments against Ricoh moving into FF are examples of 18-month plan thinking if Ricoh intends to solidify and keep K-mount as a revenue generator in the years to come, as I talked about in this post.. If they don't plan to invest in K-mount, FF DSLR doesn't make much sense. (Think about what that statement means to you, even if you intend to stay an aps-c DSLR shooter.)

It's so humiliating to be beaten out by Casio.

Here's a great summary of why the 18-month plan, attractive though it may be to the pedantic, limited-vision accountant types, can really hurt a company in the long run: The Innovator's Dilemma, solved. [snip] ...took Apple from three months away from bankruptcy, to one of the most valuable and influential companies in the world."

Bravo, sir.


::Edit:: Uh-oh, look out bitches, 100 posts. I'm a Senior Pain in the As... uh, member now.

[Chex]

It's so humiliating to be beaten out by Casio.

I agree with this 100%, but they know their market.. cheap generic P&S at cheap prices.

[northcoastgreg]

The history and current sales demonstrate that such cameras actually have not sold all that well relative to the competition. Features utterly trump marginal compactness.

If two FF cameras were released which were identical in every way except one was "marginally" smaller than the other, which would sell more?

I'm not sure history or even current sales tells us too much about what kind of bearing the issue of weight might have on the future FF market. These FF cameras, when paired off with the customary f2.8 zoom, weigh significantly more than the 35mm film cameras (and lenses) of the past. I wouldn't dismiss the idea altogether that a smaller FF system (both camera and lenses) might have an appeal, even to the point of some sacrifice in features. I know of nearly a dozen photographers who have downgraded from one of the large Nikon bodies to the D7000. At a certain point size (and particularly weight) does begin to matter, and current FF cameras and lenses probably have passed that point.

I'm inclined to think that Pentax won't attempt an FF camera any time soon. But if they ever get around to it, they are going to need something that gives their FF product a competitive advantage, a convincing reason for Nikon and Canon users to switch systems. Smaller size could be part of that, assuming that Pentax can pull it off. And nor does it have to merely involve a significantly smaller camera. Marginal reductions in size might be all that is needed if the lenses can be made smaller. Pentax does know how to make small lenses. They currently make an FF 100mm macro lens that weighs less than half the equivalent Nikkor. That might be a direction they could go.

[shaken007]

As a recent Amateur to Professional I am falling directly into this bracket.
Also as an out of work Product Designer I also toyed with the idea of developing a concept myself, so I could send into Pentax in Japan. To Show that as a 20 year Pentax user it would be great to see such a camera in the range.....Finally!
It would also be a tragedy for me to do exactly what you mentioned, and have to sell off all my old (and new) equipment to invest in Full-frame "Professional" equipment. Whatever it maybe. (Canon/Nikon)

Please let me know how it goes.
Any help needed I will spare what time I have!

Shaken.

[Kunzite]

Kunzite, what exactly do you use your camera for?

Hmm... I don't know, probably I'm "cuddling" and "taking it to the bed"?

In my world, if it produces excellent 20x16 prints it's a "performance tool". If it can do so under a whole variety of conditions and for all sorts of subject matter it's a high-performance photographic tool for what I wish to achieve.

There are several meanings of the word "performance", but the *istDS is unable to fit any of them. Back on it's time it wasn't the fastest in it's class, nor the highest resolution. Now, well...
By the way, I had one and I enjoyed using it very much.

I know you mean well but I couldn 't really care less about these things. What's already there is good enough for my purpose. When you use an MX for 23 years you're not constantly looking for upgrades. The only thing you worry about is film quality. While using the MX I had other cameras as second strings - a Ricoh XR7 and an ME-F. The picture-taking experience was different, perhaps less deliberate, but the end-results were much the same. Your list of goodies is meaningless unless you have a huge disposable income to go chasing after every technical "advance" that comes along. Are they must-haves for you? If so, why? How will they help you get better pics?

You're talking to someone who upgraded from a MZ-6 (ZX-L) to a ME Super. Yes, upgraded. But that was with film.
What I tried to put in that list are the basics. I'd like a good viewfinder because I want to see. I'd like a responsive camera (because, unlike my ME Super with digital there are lots of things that are in your way - or so I feel); if it's quiet that's a bonus (I don't care about crazy frames per second). I wouldn't say no if the camera would feel great in my hands. What I'm chasing after are not "every technical advances" but a camera that would get those basics right and would be most trouble free. I'm not such a good photographer, but I still want to enjoy photography
I've made a mistake, though: it should be "reliable, precise AF in any conditions" instead of "much faster" - for me, unfortunately, is either that or a BIG viewfinder.

The *istDS and K-7 both have excellent pentaprism finders. Why the need to go to FF? Admittedly the FF viewfinder is larger but not by so much that it's an issue. Like everything in photography there's a trade-off. If you want more of one thing it usually comes at the expense of something else.

Because of my eyes, I have troubles with the small, low eyepoint APS-C viewfinders so I would pay extra for a real viewfinder.

New can be interesting but unless it's necessary to my photography I don't feel the urge to invest in it (like your list above).

And I truly appreciate "old" stuff.

Sorry, Kunzite, I'm not here to make Pentax rich by buying stuff I don't need. I'll leave that to the millions of feature-crazy pixel-peepers who can't do without.

I'm not saying you should; but probably you'd pay less by accepting "stuff you don't need".

It's so humiliating to be beaten out by Casio.

Should Pentax give up on the 645D and replace it with tons of cheap P&S junk, sold for a penny? They would surely beat Casio this way

[RonHendriks1966]

Wel when K-5 is a perfect camera for the serious amature and the 645D is the camera for the professional (studio and landscape photographer) then there must be find a new place for the camera in between.

I think that it should be the camera for perfect image quality at hi-iso-settings (where 645D don't come and K-5 falls short after iso1600) at a nice fast workingway (wich 645D is not) and for moderate printsizes (where 645D are for larg prints). If we do want an as small as possible camera then maybe the Full Frame is on the big size.

So for me I would love to have a fast camera (even when it doesn't come to the speed of 1Dx) that give at least up to 8 fps and can produce clean images up to iso 6400 that can be printed at a medium big size (wich is A2 to A1).

I stated earlier that I do prefer a smaller size then FF (aldo I would buy it if that was the choice). Coming to APS-H and it may be for me a 4:3 size. When I look at the pixels that are on the Canon 1Dx that are almost 7 microns then there can be made a 12 megapixel 4:3 sensor with 28x21mm size (588^2mm) that is capable of bringing the same performance that Canikon can bring, only at a smaller sized system and less pixels so not the biggest thread.

[Winder]

So for me I would love to have a fast camera (even when it doesn't come to the speed of 1Dx) that give at least up to 8 fps and can produce clean images up to iso 6400 that can be printed at a medium big size (wich is A2 to A1).

I stated earlier that I do prefer a smaller size then FF (aldo I would buy it if that was the choice). Coming to APS-H and it may be for me a 4:3 size. When I look at the pixels that are on the Canon 1Dx that are almost 7 microns then there can be made a 12 megapixel 4:3 sensor with 28x21mm size (588^2mm) that is capable of bringing the same performance that Canikon can bring, only at a smaller sized system and less pixels so not the biggest thread.

8fps x 12MP x 14-bit = who can do the math? That is probably doable without going to a second image processor, but you need a really good AF to really take advantage. I'm not sure the current AF is really capable of keeping up with 7FPS. That said the SR is slower than the focus. The SR needs a serious speed bump.

I am all for a 12MP 4/3 sensor with 588mm^2 surface area in a K-5 styled body. I do want 2 SD card slots and a bigger OVF with higher magnification.

[Pål Jensen]

As a recent Amateur to Professional I am falling directly into this bracket.
Also as an out of work Product Designer I also toyed with the idea of developing a concept myself, so I could send into Pentax in Japan. To Show that as a 20 year Pentax user it would be great to see such a camera in the range.....Finally!
It would also be a tragedy for me to do exactly what you mentioned, and have to sell off all my old (and new) equipment to invest in Full-frame "Professional" equipment. Whatever it maybe. (Canon/Nikon)

Please let me know how it goes.
Any help needed I will spare what time I have!

Shaken.

FF has nothing to do with professional or not. The vast majority of pros out there use APS DSLR's. What matters is the final image quality and APS is already there with quality good enough for large fine art prints. A friend of mine, who is a pro and selling fine art prints, sold (for $5000)! a 3meter wide print from a Canon 7D. He also have a Canon FF but he says theres hardly any point of using it from an image quality point of view; the files just take up space on the harddrives. I for one was not able to tell which of the hundreds of prints were shot with FF.

[RonHendriks1966]

8fps x 12MP x 14-bit = who can do the math? That is probably doable without going to a second image processor, but you need a really good AF to really take advantage. I'm not sure the current AF is really capable of keeping up with 7FPS. That said the SR is slower than the focus. The SR needs a serious speed bump.

I am all for a 12MP 4/3 sensor with 588mm^2 surface area in a K-5 styled body. I do want 2 SD card slots and a bigger OVF with higher magnification.

Well the PRIME II is to slow to keep up. I think that image processing and storing should be af least so fast that it takes al the speed that the current UHS-I cards deliver wich is up to 45 MB/s and that is just over twice the speed that the K-5 delivers. So either a dual PRIME II or a new PRIME III that gives that speed is okay. The next generation of SanDisk UHS-I cards is coming next year and delivers up to 90 MB/s writespeed.

So with 12 MP the RAW size would be up to 25 MB for hi-iso images and maybe 16-18 MB for low iso's. When the image engine is fast enough up to 5 fps can be maintaint after the buffer is full. K-5 only handles 1 fps.

The current AF isn't up to speed. I think it is not good enough, maybe for slow moving things, but even then it only manages to get about 3 fps in AF-C. So speeding it up and adding some kind of tracking-AF would be a must. Didn't do any messurements, but my feeling is that image processing is slowing down when photographing in AF-C mode at the same time.

A new bodydesign is a must and a big OVF is on my list too.

[Aristophanes]

This is an argument I never quite fully understand. Pentax won't be positioned to win in terms of absolute smallest equipment (disregarding the Q), sure. But if you believe there's an appreciable difference between m4/3 and APS-C, and between APS-C and FF, then there is inherent value in being smallest in class to differentiate yourself from your immediate competitors. Someone may not be willing to sacrifice sensor format for a smaller package (i.e. picking m4/3 over an APS-C dslr), but a smaller package within the same format is DEFINITELY a selling point.

To some degree and within limited market scope, sure. Some people lie smaller cameras. Some like bigger. Adam has stated a preference for a built-in grip like the MZ-D or the Nikon D3. Pentax is a small enough manufacture that they get one FF model. Tough choices.

I concur there are IQ advantages to FF. Bring it on. When it's affordable. If people are willing to scale their IQ demands to sensor size. Obviously Pentax wit the Q and Nikon with its V/J's are seeing just that trend. They are far more willing to put capital into creating and supporting multiple mounts more than they are willing to drop the price (in Nikon's case) of FF into APS-C territory.

But this Holy Grail of nonsense that Pentax has some magical engineering lock on compact bodies is not even borne out by historical facts. Really, only in the 1970's when Pentax copied Olympus ruthlessly was this the case. In the 1980's and 1990's for all but the most robust (Nikon F5) bodies most 135 cameras were pretty much all of the same form factor. The smallest I believe was the Minolta Dynax 5, and it was dwarfed by its kit lens. And there's little evidence that compact bodies at equivalent IQ create a significant market advantage. If the difference was so amazing, the Pentax K-x/K-r's would outsell the Canon T2i and T3i hands-down because those 2 feel like plastic junk in the hand and are more expensive to boor.

Sturdier mirror, bigger mirror mechanism and motor capable of faster FPS. Bigger shutter, capable of faster re-arming.

Absolutely.

This 'compactness' is something that will really only manifest it's advantage fully if Ricoh can get the bodies back in the specialty stores, at point-of-sale places where they can be handled.

Standing at a counter and comparing the feel of D7000 to the K-5, for example, favors Pentax. That same 'feel' advantage could translate to a D800 vs K-1 comparison, especially if the feel includes a 'compactness' attribute without sacrificing a solidity. As we have demonstrated to us all the time, and especially lately, sexiness sells cameras just as effectively as it sells phones, mp3 players, and tablet computers.

The K-5 and Nikon D7000 are side-by-side each other at my 2 local Henry's outlets and compactness makes minimal difference. Price, features, lens availability, warranty (big Nikon advantage), and other factors completely trump the compactness argument, relegating it to a 10% (guess) of the average consumer's choice in the overall decision-making process. It's a minor selling point. It maybe major to a select few (small hands), but also a lousy feature to others (big hands).

There is no quantum leap in DSLR design that will get the size of Pentax DSLR down to a point where everyone goes "Wow!". As long as you need a mirror, mechanical shutter, prism, k-mount, AF, and prosumer tactile controls, you've already dialled in 90% of the form factor and reached the universal constraint.

Well, earlier you implied up there that no, they don't (or haven't, up to this point) because what they perceive as marketing reasons, not design reasons. Which is it?

It's Nikon offering up the massive D3, then the D300, then FF D700 in a D300 body at $2,000 less than their FF flagship. They can probably go a bit smaller, but not by much, and much smaller will do zero to increase sales. See above.

Thom Hogan's statement about digital FF fitting into the same size body as a film camera is, frankly, nonsense. By that standard we should also be able to get FF into a compact P&S like my Fujii Natura. Until the industry moves away from electro-mechanical shutters, AF, SR, mirrors, and silicon/copper/aluminum circuits and systems, and tactile "pro" controls, the SLR is a bit of a design dead-end. You'll need single chip, ultra-low power processing with self-contained, internal liquid inert cooling all-electronic shutter, hyper-pellicle mirror, carbon fibre bodies, and OLED thin touch screens to get there, and almost certainly a new, smaller mount with less flange than the k-mount.

The market is moving to other tech to get smaller because the cost:benefit is so expensive to get there would require a $50,000 camera. Then it would sell less than a digital Hasselblad.

We're not the only ones having this discussion:

Is it possible a FX camera is made smaller? - Photo.net Casual Photo Conversations Forum

[Aristophanes]

If two FF cameras were released which were identical in every way except one was "marginally" smaller than the other, which would sell more?

The one that says "Nikon" or "Canon".

[Aristophanes]

8fps x 12MP x 14-bit = who can do the math? That is probably doable without going to a second image processor, but you need a really good AF to really take advantage. I'm not sure the current AF is really capable of keeping up with 7FPS. That said the SR is slower than the focus. The SR needs a serious speed bump.

I am all for a 12MP 4/3 sensor with 588mm^2 surface area in a K-5 styled body. I do want 2 SD card slots and a bigger OVF with higher magnification.

And if I am not mistaken, that's one reason why the D700 is bigger than the D300...the second processor. That and the AF array being larger to cover more area and track 3D. It explains why the D700 needs the grip to hit 8FPS.

Well the PRIME II is to slow to keep up. I think that image processing and storing should be af least so fast that it takes al the speed that the current UHS-I cards deliver wich is up to 45 MB/s and that is just over twice the speed that the K-5 delivers. So either a dual PRIME II or a new PRIME III that gives that speed is okay. The next generation of SanDisk UHS-I cards is coming next year and delivers up to 90 MB/s writespeed.

So with 12 MP the RAW size would be up to 25 MB for hi-iso images and maybe 16-18 MB for low iso's. When the image engine is fast enough up to 5 fps can be maintaint after the buffer is full. K-5 only handles 1 fps.

The current AF isn't up to speed. I think it is not good enough, maybe for slow moving things, but even then it only manages to get about 3 fps in AF-C. So speeding it up and adding some kind of tracking-AF would be a must. Didn't do any messurements, but my feeling is that image processing is slowing down when photographing in AF-C mode at the same time.

A new bodydesign is a must and a big OVF is on my list too.

And we run into power issues as battery efficiency is developmentally not keeping up with power demand. More power means a larger battery. And you need a faster, better tracking AF, so you need more sensors, and that adds volume to the form factor as well. The moment we start talking about "dual" Prime II we are making a bigger, not smaller,camera body.

If you're going to put out a $3,000 FF DSLR you need these improvements or it will not sell. There are design trade-offs and physical limits. There are financial limits. Make choices. Quit trying to make Pentax into Apple. If photographic cameras were made by Apple (and they tried; I know, I had a QuickTake) then they'd have no tactile controls, you'd ask Siri to focus, and there would be a single touchscreen to control everything.

[jsherman999]

... Quit trying to make Pentax into Apple. If photographic cameras were made by Apple (and they tried; I know, I had a QuickTake) then they'd have no tactile controls, you'd ask Siri to focus, and there would be a single touchscreen to control everything.

.

That ^^ wouldn't be a product of the photographic equivalent of Apple-Jobs. Perhaps it would be the product of the photographic equivalent of Apple-Sculley, where stripped down, innovative, functional and beautiful was replaced by a clumsy, missed attempt at that, an attempt that really masked a beancounter's profit-first motive. (Hey: QuickTake appeared in the Sculley era! Go figure.)



I think the first Apple-Jobs equivalent camera would appear as something like the Fuji X100, but with perfect firmware and execution. And it would look and behave like a photographer's tool, not a menu-driven P&S, because photo-Jobs would realize intuitively that that's what the product needed to be.

And I suspect that if Steve Jobs was resurrected from the grave by Ricoh necromancers and forced to take the reigns at Pentax, he would realize K-mount is the asset and let the engineers build their smallest-in-class FF DSLR body to keep K-mount viable and profitable for a while as he made his plans for the next century of photography. Because when you're undead, you can make long plans.


.

[Fl_Gulfer]

My Photography Teacher says the largest size sensor camera he uses is a 6mg and he prints super large landscape prints that hang in Hotels and Other places.
He says everything is done in post processing.
But he is only been shooting professionaly for 30 years.