[andre-mz5]

I didn't know SR was impossible with FF?! Please elaborate...

I far as I recall the Sony Alpha 900 is an FF with in body SR.

[Clavius]

I'm looking at this from a marketing point of view and I'm ignoring the technical details. The current userbase of Pentax is obviously crying out for FF. Giving them something different instead is madness.

Have you ever given your kid some new clothes instead of the toy it was begging for?

[Jodokast96]

Canon has sold more APS-H 1D bodies than it has FF 1Ds bodies to professionals. Anyone who does not think APS-H is professional grade does not know what they are talking about.

But it wasn't for the sensor. If they were similarly spec'd (and the last FF 1D wasn't released 4 years ago), I'd be willing to bet the FF would have outsold the H.

[mattdm]

I'm looking at this from a marketing point of view and I'm ignoring the technical details. The current userbase of Pentax is obviously crying out for FF. Giving them something different instead is madness.

It's obvious from the perspective of some forum activity. It must not be obvious from the marketing research. What do we know that they don't? What do they know that we don't?

[TaoMaas]

I'm looking at this from a marketing point of view and I'm ignoring the technical details. The current userbase of Pentax is obviously crying out for FF.

SOME of the user base is crying out for it...I suspect not even a majority.

[Clavius]

SOME of the user base is crying out for it...I suspect not even a majority.

Didn't you follow the discussion? We were comparing FF demand to APS-H. There's a very high amount of FF-dream-topics... There are NO APS-H equivalents.

[eddie1960]

SOME of the user base is crying out for it...I suspect not even a majority.

Well it's not a majority of the base for any FF manufacturer. the Majority is always going to be the low margin entry level. only profitable on high volume. FF is the opposite a high margin product profitable on much lower volumes

[eddie1960]

As For APS-H if it can't be produced for a significantly lower price than FF then it has no place in the market. It originated because it was cheaper to produce with the biggest possible sensor without stitching AFAIK. FF tech has come a long way since then and cost of the sensor has dropped. Obviously it still has a place (Kodak'fs former Sensor Plant just announced a new ASP-H CCD when they were sold. No video on CCD of course so this is likely headed for Leica. But an APS-H with no Video has a market just with pro sport shooters who cannot use a camera that has video at some events due to licensing (ie NFL for instance). sooner or late these guys will need ned cameras and at this point canon hasn't announced a replacement for them (I imagine the APS-H canon will do quite good business over the next while with guys covering their butts with a back up)
Unfortunately pentax isn't in a position to take advantage of this market without some serious lens and AF developments so I am with everyone else who think APS-H is a non starter.
Leica will use it for a lower price model (M8.3 maybe) so they can maintain the price on the M9
Canon may well launch a FF non video version of the 1DX for that segment of their clientele that require it (hell at the price of these cameras they can just disable the Video function and charge the$500 less .

[Kunzite]

Have you ever given your kid some new clothes instead of the toy it was begging for?

Crying for toys but not having the money to buy them, hmm, interesting analogy

I would be happy with an APS-H camera, if the following conditions are satisfied:
- a significantly better image quality than APS-C (let's say at least the same at pixel-level but with higher resolution)
- a bigger, better viewfinder
- it won't miss features (SR, LV is a must, I don't care about video but many others will)
- the price won't be significantly higher than the K-5's launching price (being close to a FF is a big no-no).
Otherwise, I'd either stay with APS-C (a bug-free K-5 is an amazing camera, after all - I don't need more) or go to FF.
If Pentax were to say: "buy a higher IQ APS-H instead of the competition's 7D and D400", it could work. But those who want a FF would be angry

[maxfield_photo]

Kodak just announced and NEW APS-H sensor. I am pretty sure they developed it for a reason.

The one thing you never want to do with Kodak is assume they have a reason for developing anything. God love 'em, but that's part of the reason they are in their current state of health.

[eddie1960]

The one thing you never want to do with Kodak is assume they have a reason for developing anything. God love 'em, but that's part of the reason they are in their current state of health.

They did manage to sell the business at the same time so likely the development of the sensor was known to the purchasers (who seem pretty Savvy)
Like i said this is likely slated for leica where they can get away without Live View and Video (hell they can get away with marketing old tech at insane prices because "it's tradition" lol)

[maxfield_photo]

Most people who are [eagerly] awaiting a FF body from Pentax will still be asking for FF when Pentax throws a APS-H body at them. It's a slap in the face. Those loyal patiently waiting customers will not be patient forever. If Pentax serves them a APS-H, and another brand come with a FF + K-mount adapter, those customers will be gone.

As a former film shooter, and one of those who has been waiting for this since I first saw the Canon 1Ds in 2003, I can tell you that is correct. When the 645D was released, I took that as a slap in the face, since then I've changed my tune and I see the camera's place in the market, but at the time it was as if "This is the upgrade path that they want us to follow?" When the Q was released, that was a slap in the face too. Rather than give loyal fans what they had been asking for, they chose to develop a camera that no one as asking for along with a new mount, and five new lenses.

Well I've had it. Is nine years not long enough to wait for them to get back to a full size frame from what was then a stop-gap compromise between size and cost? I'm done buying APS-C, I like the K20d, but it's never what I was really after. My next camera will be a full frame, so I hope that Pentax has one out by the time I'm ready to buy. If not, if nine years isn't a long enough time to wait, then they deserve to lose my business, and any other loyal fan like me who has only ever wanted a full frame.

[Clavius]

I would be happy with an APS-H camera, if the following conditions are satisfied:
- a significantly better image quality than APS-C (let's say at least the same at pixel-level but with higher resolution)
- a bigger, better viewfinder
- it won't miss features (SR, LV is a must, I don't care about video but many others will)
- the price won't be significantly higher than the K-5's launching price (being close to a FF is a big no-no).
Otherwise, I'd either stay with APS-C (a bug-free K-5 is an amazing camera, after all - I don't need more) or go to FF.

It's so nice to see that people can differ so much. Personally I would love a FF or APS-H camera without liveview, SR or video. Just a little screen to preview if the pic is OK or if it should be redone. That way a CCD can be used, giving higher IQ. Such a camera could be a lot cheaper then the competition. Pulling in customers that want a FF or APS-H, but just can't afford one.

So, I can imagine it's very hard for a company to create a system that satifies most of their customers whishes.

I fully agree with you that the K5 is marvelous piece of technology. Really love it.

[RonHendriks1966]

Wow this thread goes fast. So just bringing back my idea to attention (since there must be peolpe who still wonder where APS-H is coming from).

Well that new camera will be bigger than K-5 is, that I do believe. Partly why (next to the convenience of having some crop and thus not so large lenses needed) APS_H is appealing to me. It will drain battery's faster then K-5 does, so maybe instead of current D-Li90 a new battery, but just carrie a spare and you get along. AF is an important issue, since it does need a new approach to make AF-C workable. Maybe I'm sattisfied with single PRIME III that is just twice the speed that PRIME II delivers (that should be possible with new technoligy, since PRIME II design is from 2008/9).

So here's my crazy idea: MAKE TWO NEW CAMERA'S

So you design that new camerabody, with the big OVF, that new AF-module (also for al the other platforms APS-C and 645D), that new electronic design (faster processing and also for APS-C and 645D) and the new shutter (stil quiet please).

My preference is APS-H, but the idea is still the same for a Full Frame format sensor.

The base for this is an APS-H sensor of about 28-21mm with a surface of 588^2 mm and pixelsize of 7 microns or 4,75 microns.

1. New Hi-iso performance (sports/action orientated) camera with big pixels and a resolution of 12 megapixel.
2. New Hi-resolution performance (for those big prints) camera with pixels the size of current K-5 and a resolution of 26 megapixel.

Produce this camera in batches or like in car-industrie just as they come along in the productionfase. The only real difference between them fysical would be the sensormodule (and an extension on the name) that needs to be designed based on the same electronic lay-out and fysical size and connections.

They would run on different Firmware that makes one acting as a fast camera and the other slower (but that is also implied by the data read-out from the sensor, that is ofcourse slower with the sensor that carries more pixels.

The sports/action camera with up to 8 fps and the portrait camera maybe only up to 4 or 5 fps. This keeps the amount of datatstream to handle in the camera within reach of the possiblity's of a PRIME III processor.

How does that sound?

So in this way Pentax could make two different camera's, adressing two different types of photographers. As long as the sensor-module is designed to be placed in the same connections and space this can work. There is even a possabillity to make on camera with a CMOS sensor (with liveview and moviemode) and the second one with a CCD sensor that is basicly just a photographerscamera. Or the choice to make a camera for those hi-pixelcounting demands to get large prints and another one for hi-iso performance for sports or low light photography (large pixels and thus lower number of megapixels).

Crying for toys but not having the money to buy them, hmm, interesting analogy

I would be happy with an APS-H camera, if the following conditions are satisfied:
- a significantly better image quality than APS-C (let's say at least the same at pixel-level but with higher resolution)
- a bigger, better viewfinder
- it won't miss features (SR, LV is a must, I don't care about video but many others will)
- the price won't be significantly higher than the K-5's launching price (being close to a FF is a big no-no).
Otherwise, I'd either stay with APS-C (a bug-free K-5 is an amazing camera, after all - I don't need more) or go to FF.
If Pentax were to say: "buy a higher IQ APS-H instead of the competition's 7D and D400", it could work. But those who want a FF would be angry

Making a camera (FF or APS-H) for Pentax that sells for a pro-price instead of keep hanging in consumermarket (as is today) is one of the hard challenges. If you only want to pay pro-consumerprices then you get an upgraded K-5 (new AF en image-engine) or that 24 megapixel APS-C sensor.

Making the jump into a pro-market or where there are serious photographers that want to pay more for an advanced camera to go with K-mount (lenses they have or platform they like) is balancing between futures in that camera and expected price that customers are willing to pay (keeping sales numbers hi enough).

To me there is no market at the time for Pentax at a pricesetting that is the same as Canon 1D Mark IV or Nikon D3s. There may be in future if the Pentax marketshare grows. For the time if Pentax wants to address those serious advanced amateurs or professionally photographers there must be a camera designed that sells for an intermediate pricetag between K-5 and the before mentioned camera's. So that is where also 5D Mark II and D700 are in. Only big difference is that they sell at much hi-er volume that is not to be expected for a Pentax offering.

Making a good priced camera, with futures where photographers can work with and at a price that is acceptable is the challenge. A small cameraform (I mentioned before the K-5 body with integrated grip to give space for all those electronics is one way) with an exceptionally performing sensor could do the trick. The APS-H sensor is a good way to design that camera around and bring that pro-camera to the market.

[Kunzite]

Clavius: What's wrong with Live View, SR and the video? And what makes you think the IQ will be increased without those? IMHO:
- LV can dramatically improve the IQ in some cases, by allowing critical focus (think of macro work with the camera on a tripod)
- SR can dramatically improve the IQ in some cases and it's the only stabilization method available from Pentax.
- video can decrease the cost per unit, because of a (much) higher sales volume

Ron, I'm afraid an APS-C entry level, an APS-C advanced (K-5 level), an APS-H and a FF would be too much. Adding video/no video options or high resolution/high speed would only decrease the units sold (per model), thus increasing the R&D and production costs.
IMHO Pentax shouldn't even try to go for the machine-gun sports pro market; they would fail. A D800 (?) level FF would be more than enough.