[Clavius]

There 's some information out there this has become cheaper, but some that says FF sensor prices are high because neither Sony or Canon want to get into a price war and cannibalize their very lucrative APS-C business where the sensor price is as low as $80 per unit compared to the FF's $500-800 per unit.

---

I cannot see a Pentax FF in the near future. The price is a huge barrier.

Unless Pentax is able to de cheap FF with a neat trick. Like a body with 4 aps-c sensors (still cheaper) and that does instant inbody stitching.

[TaoMaas]

If you're Pentax, and you have 40% of Sony's installed base (from Minolta Maxxum/Dynax days) the cost problem is even more acute because you have a smaller base to draw upon...

I've been agreeing with almost everything you've been saying, except what I quoted. I believe it's true that Minolta's autofocus base was much larger than Pentax's, but I also believe that Pentax may have a larger overall base because it combines manual and autofocus users.

[eddie1960]

I've been agreeing with almost everything you've been saying, except what I quoted. I believe it's true that Minolta's autofocus base was much larger than Pentax's, but I also believe that Pentax may have a larger overall base because it combines manual and autofocus users.

that's a good point

there is also the fact that a digital SLR for Minolta users was even slower to market than Pentax so there was a portion of the base gone right off the bat. they didn't release their first proper DSLR until 2 years after Pentax. Sony primarily bought a mount not a brand (which may have been a mistake initially as they had to build from scratch - but probably lost a lot of Minolta clients who weren't even aware of the mount compatability)

[Aristophanes]

I've been agreeing with almost everything you've been saying, except what I quoted. I believe it's true that Minolta's autofocus base was much larger than Pentax's, but I also believe that Pentax may have a larger overall base because it combines manual and autofocus users.

I'll agree on this point and with Minolta's DSLR market hiccup and Sony's brand botching. I'd call it even. As a longtime Minolta user I've been on dyxum.com and would say the activity on PF and there is about the same.

That said. Sony has been 3rd in DSLR sales over Pentax for the last few years.

When it comes to Pentax FF development and market size, I fail to see how a guy with $400 of eBay-priced K, M, or A-series, 1970's glass is going to throw $3,000 down on a FF digital system, plus another $1,100 on a 24-70/2.8 zoom, and think that the legacy glass is the make or break point for such an investment.

That's when you splash your face with cold water. Both the buyer and the guy in Pentax marketing. A lot of that old manual focus glass will perform sub-par with a 24MP FF sensor. Even more modern 1990's to early 2000's F/FA glass will struggle, with the Limited and *'s excepted...maybe.

[maxfield_photo]

Perhaps Ricoh should get into the sensor game. Rather than depend on Sony or Kodak to sell them sensors, what if they made their own and in turn sold it to Leica, Olympus, even Nikon? (Does Panasonic make their own sensors?) Canon won't buy 'cuz it's Ricoh.

As sad as it is to say, it looks like Kodak is about to go belly up, so there will be one less player on that field, and at the same time the 645D and the S2 are still going to need sensors. A CCD in a Pentax full frame would not hurt my feelings at all, but I know some folks would complain about the lack of live view and video, so instead, what if the 645D mkII featured a Ricoh-made CMOS? 'But,' you say, 'the greens fees to play a round of CMOS are staggering,' well what about a partnership between Ricoh and Samsung to co-develop these large sensors similar to the one between Sony and Nikon?

Sorry, I'm just brainstorming here, I know that none of these ideas are "as simple as that", but it might be an alternative to waiting for the price war, and as I understand it, Ricoh is looking to diversify at the moment anyway.

[eddie1960]

there is still a market for CCD sensors as well so if Kodak folds that division will live on under another owner IMO. Ricoh could be that owner, but I think there will be stiff competition to get that division so no bargain basement prices like the Pentax deal

Heat is an even bigger issue with CCD so no small FF DSLR is coming of that (yeah i know the leica is smaller but not by a lot and RF has always been smaller than SLR compare an M7 to an LX)

CCD OTOH is frequently better at low iso performance, but current cmos have really improved in that area.

[TaoMaas]

When it comes to Pentax FF development and market size, I fail to see how a guy with $400 of eBay-priced K, M, or A-series, 1970's glass is going to throw $3,000 down on a FF digital system, plus another $1,100 on a 24-70/2.8 zoom, and think that the legacy glass is the make or break point for such an investment.

That's when you splash your face with cold water. Both the buyer and the guy in Pentax marketing. A lot of that old manual focus glass will perform sub-par with a 24MP FF sensor. Even more modern 1990's to early 2000's F/FA glass will struggle, with the Limited and *'s excepted...maybe.

Well, if that's true, then it would also be true of Minolta legacy glass, right? I, for one, am doing exactly what you think folks won't do because I think you're wrong about how some of these older lenses will perform. Sure...they all may not make the cut, but I'm thinkin' a lot of what I have will far out-resolve any display media I'm likely to use. Also...if I buy a FF camera, I won't be shopping for a 24-70/2.8 zoom, so you can stop padding your guess. lol

---

Last edited by TaoMaas; 11-02-2011 at 08:32 AM.

[eddie1960]

I'm with TaoMass, most of my lenses are legacy class, some perform quite well but not up to an fa limited or * series. I also won't be buying a FF 24-70 2.8 I already have one a sigma
I would buy a 70-200 2.8 at some point though Pentax if they have it sigma or tamron if they don't. I'm already thinking about the Sigma 12-24 which is FF and the new model has some weather sealing, but am in no rush so i would look at a pentax offering as well.
and over time if I went to a FF (or even if i don't) I'll likely look at the limited FA's as manual focus is getting harder with each passing year, but for the time being i can still manage

[builttospill]

At these prices, if Pentax gets into FF, it's going to be a me-too, Nikon D700/800 clone.

...I cannot see a Pentax FF in the near future. The price is a huge barrier.

While I have hope Pentax would create something more unique if they launched a FF, maybe this wouldn't be too bad for many either. The reason being one difference, K-mount. Even if it is a clone, it will mount with FA Limiteds, FA*s and many DA* and Limiteds, plus many other FF lenses. If the other brands are selling and their customers are happy with the like of a D700, why wouldn't a Pentax version sell? No seriously, look at the sales of the K-5 and the Nikon identical. Now look at all the FA Limited users here on the forum. I still think an affordable, feature-rich FF Pentax would generate some buzz and do all right.

[Asahiflex]

IA lot of that old manual focus glass will perform sub-par with a 24MP FF sensor. Even more modern 1990's to early 2000's F/FA glass will struggle, with the Limited and *'s excepted...maybe.

You obviously don't know what you're talking about. Please show me proof that a LOT of the old manual K/M/A focus glass will struggle on FF. I've put emphasis on the word " LOT" as I don't accept a single example from the M85/2 to prove your point, or shots from $5 no-name lenses off eBay.

I guess you are thinking about the cheap, old kit zooms but those were never regarded highly, not even in the film days.

Eagerly awaiting your bad samples...

[jsherman999]

You obviously don't know what you're talking about. Please show me proof that a LOT of the old manual K/M/A focus glass will struggle on FF. I've put emphasis on the word " LOT" as I don't accept a single example from the M85/2 to prove your point, or shots from $5 no-name lenses off eBay.

I guess you are thinking about the cheap, old kit zooms but those were never regarded highly, not even in the film days.

Eagerly awaiting your bad samples...

"A lot" is incorrect. There will be some lenses that will not do well, not the majority. Nikon's AI (and older) lines show how good old glass can do on a modern FF sensor. The older zooms, though - probably write them off, the lack of modern coatings on all those elements present the light path with a treacherous gauntlet on the way to that sensor.

As I said before, Pentax-Ricoh would welcome with open arms any 'old lens' shooters who wanted to buy a FF body for that purpose. It gets them in the FF door, keeps them from jumping to another mount, and makes it likely that they WILL ask for one of those new FF lenses for an upcoming Father's Day or Christmas

[Rondec]

Perhaps Ricoh should get into the sensor game. Rather than depend on Sony or Kodak to sell them sensors, what if they made their own and in turn sold it to Leica, Olympus, even Nikon? (Does Panasonic make their own sensors?) Canon won't buy 'cuz it's Ricoh.

As sad as it is to say, it looks like Kodak is about to go belly up, so there will be one less player on that field, and at the same time the 645D and the S2 are still going to need sensors. A CCD in a Pentax full frame would not hurt my feelings at all, but I know some folks would complain about the lack of live view and video, so instead, what if the 645D mkII featured a Ricoh-made CMOS? 'But,' you say, 'the greens fees to play a round of CMOS are staggering,' well what about a partnership between Ricoh and Samsung to co-develop these large sensors similar to the one between Sony and Nikon?

Sorry, I'm just brainstorming here, I know that none of these ideas are "as simple as that", but it might be an alternative to waiting for the price war, and as I understand it, Ricoh is looking to diversify at the moment anyway.

Well, I think Kodak's sensor division will end up being purchased by another company, even if the company doesn't make it as a whole. I don't see Ricoh having the funds or the desire to jump into sensor making. That is a bite that is bigger than they could easily chew.

Relationship with Samsung has gone really cold at present and while I would think that they could certainly purchase sensors from Samsung, it seems like Sony is ahead of everyone else with regard to making high quality sensors. We'll see what the 20 megapixel newest sensor from Samsung tests at, but it doesn't look like a Sony killer to me.

[Winder]

You obviously don't know what you're talking about. Please show me proof that a LOT of the old manual K/M/A focus glass will struggle on FF. I've put emphasis on the word " LOT" as I don't accept a single example from the M85/2 to prove your point, or shots from $5 no-name lenses off eBay.

I guess you are thinking about the cheap, old kit zooms but those were never regarded highly, not even in the film days.

Eagerly awaiting your bad samples...

For people who use center AF and crop for composition in post the performance of the older glass will be just as good as it is on APS-C. Look at the fall off in resolution of current lenses on APS-C around the edges. Lens Tips, SLRGEAR, or Photozone all show a significant drop in resolution even on an APS-C. Now if I compose by the rule of 3rds I am moving my subject away from center and placing then in an area of lower resolution.

Anyone who focuses and recomposes, using negative or positive space, uses the rule of thirds or Golden Ratio should be concerned about edge performance. How big of an area is "center"? One tester uses the rule of thirds grid and the "center" block is what he considers center performance which is 1/9 of the image area.

[Asahiflex]

Resolution is just one of the many variables of a lens. And I consider resolution the least important of them all. It may be important for some, but I care more for an esthetically pleasing image. People should stop with pixel peeping IMHO.

[Aristophanes]

Perhaps Ricoh should get into the sensor game.

Got a spare $300 million? Fabs are not cheap.

There is substantial Nikon rumour about that company doing the same. After all, Nikon does make lithographic equipment. I think the volume is just not there.