[Raffwal]

That said it is still being rather disrespectful to the thread starter.

That I admit and apologize for. However, the contents of the named letter and news revealed in this thread were an absolute anti-climax considering the thread name. We still have ZERO information on the FF question and only the vague marketing promise to relay the requests further up the command line.

[TaoMaas]

Why buy a K mount mirrorless when it's the same size/price as an entry level K-r?

Good question! What ARE the advantages of mirrorless that makes it more appealing than an OVF?

A lot of people talk about leaving Pentax if K mount goes but likewise a lot of people like myself will leave Pentax for more compact systems.

Good luck to you! The choice is whether or not to leave the K-mount system. It doesn't matter if it's to move to Canikon for a FF system or to Sony for a smaller sensor system. People leave for their own reasons.

...K mount isn't doing it correctly. That's aimed only at keeping current customers that will complain about not having an OVF anyway and will prefer DSLR bodies.

Keeping current customers is the ONLY reason Ricoh would have bought Pentax instead of marketing a completely new systems under the Ricoh name.

[abacus07]

Keeping current customers is the ONLY reason Ricoh would have bought Pentax instead of marketing a completely new systems under the Ricoh name.

Everyone complains that Pentax is small and doesn't have much name recognition. But Ricoh has zero name recognition and reputation while Pentax has a very good reputation.

You don't know why Ricoh bought Pentax. Ricoh gets to milk the current cash cow while not having start at zero building name recognition. They also get manufacturing facilities and an experienced engineering staff in addition to a vault of valuable development.

[Leespearyphoto]

Well when the Pentax FF happens I can tell you where all my tax money is going.

[Sperdynamite]

I don't want to get to deep into the FF convo again. After the thread I started got out of control I realized that people here seem to just want a sounding board for how it HAS to be, what Pentax HAS to do... Whatever, if they do it they'll figure it out.

I just wanted to say that I put my 31mm FA Limited on my MZ-S today just to have a look-see of what I'm missing and I have to say I REALLY hope they go through with it. It's just so easy on the eye, and has such a wonderful look to it.

[Junah]

What lens should I be buying in anticipation of this new FF camera? got the FA's, anything else going to work on it?

[Asahiflex]

What lens should I be buying in anticipation of this new FF camera? got the FA's, anything else going to work on it?

It probably won't come, but you can start with the FA* 28-70mm f/2.8 and the FA* 80-200 f/2.8

[unfocused]

Think mirrorless. Think full-frame. And think K-mount. But, frankly, I wouldn't touch a mirrorless unless it had a built-in eye-level optical viewfinder.

To meet the challenge I'd suggest Pentax goes about this in two stages...

(1) An APSC mirrrorless with a feature set similar to the Canon G12 and a non-interchangeable shortish zoom to keep it compact. Plus a K-mount interchageable lens version.

(2) A full-frame mirrorless with a feature set similar to the gorgeous Fuji X-100, again with the choice of a fixed lens version or an interchangeable K-mount version.

For APSC and full-frame there's a whole host of pancake or near-pancake primes waiting.

I have a G12 simply because Pentax has never even tried to provide a travel-light/go-anywhere solution.

[Raffwal]

What lens should I be buying in anticipation of this new FF camera? got the FA's, anything else going to work on it?

Junah, any lens will work on an imaginary camera!

But in reality, in addition to the FA lenses, DFA lenses are also suitable. And Falconeye has started a fine thread about which Pentax DA lenses cover the FF area:

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-slr-lens-discussion/31629-da-lens-...ts-thread.html

[stanleyk]

Is there some reason they couldn't make it the size of an MX? I guess not with all the electronics. I used to have one of those. I loved that camera. I almost bought one on Ebay recently, but I don't have a darkroom anymore. The school where I work has a good one, but I just don't have the time at my age like I did when I was younger. I sat in a B/W photo class the other night. It made me kind of jealous.

So I stand corrected. I would pay a lot (for me that is say $3000) for a Full Frame the size of an MX. The size of the 5D or that huge new Canon, no. But no plastic, it has to be metal or at least a metal frame.

[unfocused]

Stanleyk, why not buy your MX and shoot colour slides?

An MX was my front-line camera for over 20 years (and a couple of Spotties before that and an S3 before that). Used every day and it never let me down and was never serviced. I went digital 6 years ago but still pick up the MX occasionally and shoot a roll of film. The simplicity and fast handling is a true extension of the eye and a sheer joy. By comparison my K-7 is a hefty 'lump'. Gawd knows what some of the Canons and Nikon feel like in the hand.

What turned me on to SLRs in the first place was a dealer handing me his own precious S1a (there weren't many about in those days) and saying, "Go to the door and look down the street through that." Which I did, and couldn't put it down. The ads used to say "Just hold a Pentax". If you did, you were hooked. I also have a Contax Aria which provides the same fast-handling excellence in a different way. But with the advent of the dSLR the manufacturers have 'lost it'. I suspect it's because the design team aren't photographers only image-makers.

[stanleyk]

I'm really mulling it over. I just took a job back in Higher Ed after a two year stint with Parks and Wildlife. The darkroom is A+ and the faculty told me I could use it on weekends. I just never seem to have the time I used to have. My parents are in poor health, my Mom has Alzheimer's. Between them and my three rescue dogs, I just don't know if I would have the time to use it. I really do miss shooting film and I have a few Pentax lenses I could still use on a film camera.

[hcarvalhoalves]

Good question! What ARE the advantages of mirrorless that makes it more appealing than an OVF?

From a pure product design point of view, mirrorless is the way forward:

1. Less movable parts means overall better reliability (and less money lost to warranty)
2. Less energy spent moving the mirror means longer battery life
3. Less components in the way to affect image quality
4. Reduction in production costs as the necessary electronics are produced en masse
5. Allows even more compact and ergonomic bodies (a good camera is a camera you can carry with you everywhere)
6. Taking out the mirror leaves more room for AF motors or SR systems while keeping (or possibly increasing) the sensor size

The only downside is the EVF. Current display technology suck compared to the plain physics of mirroring light to an OVF. Which isn't saying much, as the viewfinder on current DSLRs are so small and dark they are not far from EVF either.

A MX-sized mirrorless PENTAX with alloy body and weather-sealing, featuring a K-mount (or adapter for it) and big & bright viewfinder would be the ultimate go everywhere camera. I think there's space in the market for a comeback to compact, sturdy old-school cameras (like demonstrated by the Fuji X100), and mirror-less is the technology that might make it possible without having to make it a rangefinder with fixed lens like the Fuji.

[Aristophanes]

However what your calculations ignore, from the point of profitability, is that camera makers gain a lot more from the sales of lenses than they do from DSLR camera profit margins.

Right.

And half the chorus here says they will buy an FF body to use legacy glass, thereby undermining at least half those sales. The "I want a new camera body with old lenses" is a sales killer. Or, if you do release the body, forget a budget, bare bones model (a la Sony A850). You need to score some serious margins, like Nikon does to justify the cost. Nikon is able to sell the D700 at $2,500/body precisely because they can sell a D3x at $6,500/body. That's just microecon, B-school cost-shifting.

Either that or you ramp lens prices up. And there's where Pentax has a major problem. Their old F/FA lens line-up does not compete with Canikon or Sony FF digital zooms. With zooms making up the vast majority of sales, that has to be nailed down. Development cycles that long are measured in years, not months. You're looking a 3-4 years of development time. If you want an FF body by 2013, the chip orders to Sony would have had to go in pre-Ricoh, and the big zooms that make or break a system would have required development under Hoya. Instead, Hoya steadfastly nixed FF, and Adam received a polite letter in return to his detailed query that addressed not one of his specifics.

The larger issue is the schisms in the market with aggregate sales moving towards volume APS-C for gross revenues, and mirrorless playing the disruptor, stealing market share with a piebald sensor offering, adding Samsung and Panasonic to the mix.

FF's market share is actually getting smaller, not larger, and the big boys (and Sony) love that because it keeps profits from pros and prosumers high. No one wants to rock that boat by turning FF sensors into commodities like APS-C. Sony withdrew the A850 to keep margins high. Nikon has been sitting on the D800 for how long? They limit supply (Canon and Sony) of FF sensors to keep prices and profits up there. There is zero evidence in the sensor market of that changing, not when gross revenues are being lost to cellphones at the P&S end. No one is going to sell Pentax a FF sensor to put in a low-end body to undercut Sony and Canikon profit margins. Until a price war begins between Canon and Nikon in FF bodies, that's not going to change.

[rawr]

The ads used to say "Just hold a Pentax". If you did, you were hooked.

That's a great marketing slogan. If Pentax revive that slogan, I hope they keep their sense of humour. Pic related: