[Chex]

With the Nikkor 50 1,4 G lens it had almost the same weight as my K-7 + 31 Ltd. The grip on the D700 has a perfect height IMO with a nice rest for the pinky finger. The only thing that actually sticks out in terms of size on the D700 is the viewfinder housing, wich is really big compared to K-7.

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.

[Oog]

Pentax Ricoh doesn't have to make a digital FF a professional camera - the film MX wasn't touted as a professional camera. It's angle was the M for miniature. I think an enthusiast-oriented FF digital, with the motivation of miniaturization like the MX, if profitable, would complete their current camera line up:
mirrorless compact IL: Q
beginner APS-C: K-r (K-x discontinued)
enthusiast APS-C: K-5 (K-7 discontinued)
enthusiast FF: K-?
MF: 645D

Of course, we would need a full line-up of lenses recreated to attract the more serious starting from scratch. For example (brackets are lenses available new):
DFA 17, DFA 21, DFA 24, (DFA 31 ltd), (FA 35 AL), (DFA 43 ltd), (FA 50), DFA 50 macro, (DFA 77 ltd), DFA 100, DFA 200, DFA 300
DFA 17-35, DFA 24-70, DFA 28-70, DFA 70-210, DFA 70-300

Wishing Pentax Ricoh will go digital FF like when Pentax was in it's heyday film days.

And wishing for that larger viewfinder - used to think the K1000 viewfinder was dim compared to MX and KX. Now thinking how huge and wonderful to see the depth of field in such a large viewfinder compared to my K-r....

[stanleyk]

I would be very unlikely to buy a full frame Pentax dSLR. I have had the opportunity to use a D3 since they first came out and have yet to take advantage of that opportunity (wife did once though). I shoot film more often than digital (more digital images perhaps) and understand shallower depth of field when using MF or 4X5 and especially 5X7.

To me it is important that Pentax continues to be profitable and substainable as a company making photographic gear. If making a full frame camera makes it a better company go for it, however if it drags down the ability to produce products in a more profitable section and slows down and impeeds its competitiveness in the current format as well as the new ones than I would hope they decline to go that route.

What matters the least to me is Pentax's market share, as long as they are profitable and produce a very competitive camera (and lenses) why should I care that more people buy Canons or Nikons or even Sony? I do see others shooting Pentax dSLRs but no where near as common as the others but I use a Pentax as my lenses fit it and I like the combination of size and value. I would not select a dog based on what is the most popular breed, my car based on which is the best seller and certainly not my burger by who sold the most billions of them. If the camera market collapsed the way the film market did unfortunately, then there would be more concern but as it is still what seems a healthy and changing market then as long as they do the right things to keep the company going and making good products I will be happy. For products that they do not make I will look elsewhere as I do not expect any company to be a total supplier of what I want.

I agree with others who commented on the good part about Richoh listening and responding.

You and I are in 100% agreement on this (and I have three rescue dogs too!).

I own various brands of cameras. I love Pentax and have been very happy with the K5 and the Pentax lenses I have. If I wanted a Full Frame camera I would have no issue buying a Canon. I used a Nikon (the last one I had was a N90S) when I shot film and I think I prefer Canon. I did just buy a Nikkormat FT3 from a woman I work with for the lenses. It was her fathers and it had been sitting in her garage for a while. I think they will work well on a Sony Nex. Anyway, if making a Full Frame camera is good for the Pentax then I really hope they do it. I think it's probably more complicated from a business perspective than most of the people (myself included) realize. The Full Frame market is a very small segment so I just am not sure how Pentax competes for that less than 10% of the market, but then again maybe they can. I remain unconvinced that there is a huge untapped market of photographers out there demanding a Full Frame camera. But I never thought mirrorless cameras would be that popular even though I own a couple. I just know if a Full Frame camera was what I really wanted and had to have I would go with what's available not what I wish I could get, especially if I was relying on Pentax which is not a market leader or a deep pocket company like Sony.

I hope Pentax manages to stay a viable brand because I've liked what they have done in the past. But I haven't hesitated to buy into a different brand when Pentax doesn't make what I have been looking for. Most people I know now who really like photography do that and own camera equipment by several manufacturers.

I've been using a Ricoh camera the last few months and I feel pretty sure that Ricoh understands cameras from a photographers perspective. I am very curious what they will do. That said, if you look at their product line it's fairly unconventional in a good way.

[007]

Since DSLR came out I've been dreaming of a Digital back (ala Hasselblad) for my MX. If they could really give us a simple FF to fulfill that wish I'd be a happy Pentaxian (ok, so mirror lock-up for video becomes an important thing, and system for colour balance but all those auto modes - yuck!)

[MoldyJohn]

Adam's letter was well-meaning, but the response he received dodged response on every detail. It was a slightly more than canned thank-you for asking. They don't have the lead time. They don't have the distribution. They don't have the lenses. They don't have the existing market base. They don't have the money to burn for half a decade. And they don't have the sensors.

Michael Dell, was asked at a technology conference what might be done to fix Apple, then deeply troubled financially.
"What would I do?" Mr. Dell said to an audience of several thousand information technology managers. "I'd shut it down and give the money back to the shareholders."

[Aristophanes]

If the $1100 K-5 is making a profit now

The $1,100 K-5 only makes a profit now if it sold for $1,500 for the better part of a year previous.

Seen any major price drops on Canikon or Sony FF?

Seen one on the 645D?

See a pattern here?

Why isn't Pentax dropping the price bottom on the 645D to really let MF take on the D3 and new Canon?

Why couldn't a Pentax full frame camera appeal to an existing Nikon, or Canon APS-C OR flull frame shooter? As you are quick to point out, these two companies have huge user bases, many times the size of Pentax's. You think all of them are happy? Many photographers who I know would leave those brands in a heartbeat for a smaller, weather sealed camera with less expensive glass, and in-body SR.

The dream of "smaller" is just that. A dream. To get a DSLR smaller with equivalent features to the competition you need to lose core features that justify the high starting price which caused by the limited sensor supply. SR takes up space. More space than on an APS-C model. So the very feature people say will appeal to Canikon's reduces the smaller form factor concept.

These design concepts are mostly baked in, which is why the market shift to pellicle and mirorless.

Pentax glass is no less expensive than other brands. Are you willing to stay with all f/4 zooms as opposed to f/2.8 zooms from Canikon on a body the same size as a D700 and the same price body?

No.

You'll buy into the system with all the options if possible. That is exactly how Canikon get and keep customers.

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.

This is by far the biggest myth flying around here. Pentax small SLR's were a relic of the 1970's when Olympus redesigned the SLR system with Pentax copying them. Canon, Nikon and Minolta did not (but they all had RF's) and still took the top 3 spots in sales by a country mile. Small form factor kept smaller players relevant in niches, but it in no way swung the market.

By the AF era and the later 1990's, except for pro cameras, all brands were pretty much putting out similar sized cameras. I own 3 Pentaxes from the 1970's, one from the 1980's, 1 from the 1990's and 1 from 2001 (MZ-S). I've owned Canon and Nikon SLR's then and still have some Minolta items, including a Maxxum 9 and a Maxxum 5.

Most of them (and an older Nikon F100) were pretty much the same size and weight. The more plastic they got to keep weight down, the more volume they required to maintain structural integrity with the increasing popularity of long zooms (a major reason why you may need a larger form factor for a FF DSLR; FF = big glass).

Size made pretty much zero difference to sales back then. The most popular Pentax of all time was the K1000 which is actually a fairly large beast. The Canon AE-1 came out the same year and was smaller by about 20%. The Pentax did well not because it was a Pentax and was "smaller" but because it was very inexpensive. Both sold gangbusters.

This whole "Pentax makes small cameras" is nonsense when you really look at the sales and models. Some of the P series are monsters, easily dwarfing my Maxxums and consumer F's of the same era.

These days, as back in the 1990's to the end of the film era, by the time you start throwing in all the features and you still need a system fitting the average human hand, you wind up with an FF DSLR about the size of a D700. Some speculation in Nikon-land is FF may be able to fit into a D300 size body. Maybe. There's lens balance issues there for the 14-24, 24-70, and 70-200 glass, the mainstays of the FF fleet. Without that glass at 2.8, you likely will not have a viable FF market for your brand (maybe a 16-28). So the form factor starts to integrate design with expensive glass.

The MZ-D was huge and featured an integrated grip. If that had been released we could not have this "Pentax"—"smaller" discussion and keep a straight face. The 645D needs a horse to carry it around.

[Aristophanes]

Let's be careful about the phrase 'lose money'. Pentax could put the D3x sensor in a K-5 modified with a slightly larger mirror box and viewfinder housing, sell it for $1700 and still probably make a small profit per body (source: Thom Hogan's sensor cost information.) That sensor is fantastic, but older-gen, and probably much more expensive at introduction than the newer fabs at this point. There are other reasons why you wouldn't want to do that particular config, but my point is that if the per-unit numbers work at $1700, they work even better at $2000, especially with the newer sensors. And frankly we'd probably expect a Pentax FF body to debut a bit higher than $2K, because it will probably include an updated AF module also. (in the following years, a very profitable sub-$2K FF body is a real possibility though.)

Have you ever been to a fab? I've been to an Intel one in Oregon on an investment thing.

If sensors are like other semis, production is ramped to create inventory, then the systems re-tooled for the next generation.

In other words: older sensors are not capable of being made. Most are made in only one fab for set runs. Those clean rooms and litho systems are incredibly capital intensive and costly to run. They do not warehouse older production units.

I would bet that 3 months prior to a new sensor being released the old apparatus has already been re-tasked and that sensor can never be fabricated again. If you're talking about a last gen sensor to keep costs down, that's not going to happen.

What you want is a 2008 sensor in a 2012 Pentax body. To get that sensor now you'd have needed to place your order about the same time Hoya bought Pentax.

Somehow I cannot see Pentax marketing loving sending their camera into DPReview like that, head-to-head in a sales category against the Nikon D800 using a new sensor. If you've got $1,700 to spend you'll spend another $500 to buy a new Nikon sensor and get all the advantages of Nikon's Nikkor and flash systems to boot.

[jsherman999]

The $1,100 K-5 only makes a profit now if it sold for $1,500 for the better part of a year previous.

The cost to manufacture a K-5 (or D7000) is much less than $1100. The per-unit profit is maximized during the early-adopter period (normal strategy, for everything,) and then the price is dropped as either competition enters the space, demand is seen ebbing slightly or both. It's never going to sell at a per-unit loss for Pentax because before demand for that product drops off a cliff, they just stop manufacture and distribution and let the retailers drastically discount and take the loss when clearing inventory. Not sure what you were getting at there, unless you were saying you thought that all K-5 related R&D had reached the end of it's ROI schedule, which is not pertinent to the point I was making about real FF sensor/body costs.

Seen any major price drops on Canikon or Sony FF?

No, demand is very high for those bodies - why would there be any discounting going on?

See a pattern here?

No, I guess I don't.

Why isn't Pentax dropping the price bottom on the 645D to really let MF take on the D3 and new Canon?

Because the overlap between folks who want MFD and the folks who want FF because they consider those formats interchangible for their purposes is probably pretty small. MFD is for folks who can live with one or two very expensive lenses with no real requirement for much lens expansion, need or want to print very, very large, or want the highest possible resolution for some specialty purpose.

The MFD bodies don't perform well at many of the things FF shooters want, and the FF bodies still don't have that resolution. Why drop the price of a body (645D) that's selling well so that it can enter a tier (FF DSLR) it wasn't even designed to compete in?


.

[jsherman999]

Have you ever been to a fab? I've been to an Intel one in Oregon on an investment thing.

Did you get a hat? Sometimes they give out hats on those tours.

If sensors are like other semis, production is ramped to create inventory, then the systems re-tooled for the next generation.

In other words: older sensors are not capable of being made. Most are made in only one fab for set runs. Those clean rooms and litho systems are incredibly capital intensive and costly to run. They do not warehouse older production units.

I would bet that 3 months prior to a new sensor being released the old apparatus has already been re-tasked and that sensor can never be fabricated again. If you're talking about a last gen sensor to keep costs down, that's not going to happen.

What you want is a 2008 sensor in a 2012 Pentax body. To get that sensor now you'd have needed to place your order about the same time Hoya bought Pentax.

Somehow I cannot see Pentax marketing loving sending their camera into DPReview like that, head-to-head in a sales category against the Nikon D800 using a new sensor. If you've got $1,700 to spend you'll spend another $500 to buy a new Nikon sensor and get all the advantages of Nikon's Nikkor and flash systems to boot.

Of course I'm not advocating putting that older sensor in a modified K-5 and trying to sell that combo against the D800 (I said that several times up there, may want to re-read if that's not clear.) I was trying to show how the "$2000 FF bodies sell at a loss" statement doesn't hold up to scrutiny, especially when the delta between the D3X and D7000 sensors is probably greater than the delta between, say, the brand new Sony 24MP aps-c and 24MP FF sensors.


.

[Chex]

(a major reason why you may need a larger form factor for a FF DSLR; FF = big glass).

So I guess the FAFA50, the FA Ltd trio.. the old 50 f1.2, even the 85 1.4's are BIG glass?? besides.. when the glass outweighs the lens, most of those BIG lenses have a tripod mount on them for a reason.. so the mount only has to be able to support the camera's weight, not the "big glass"

I really don't see many chunks of BIG glass here or here that couldn't be redone with the current DC motor and new glass coatings.. Sure updates of faster glass would be preferred which would up the size and weight, especially in the zooms, but zoom users are well aware of the trade off.

IF Pentax is going to pursue a full frame body, I'm sure they will be doing their R&D, in which they find people want the tech in as small as a form factor as they can manage at a cost effect price point... that's where the juggling of price/size comes in.. now days other than the SR system/FF sensor size and more physical ports.. there is little reason to increase the size of the body.. as I've pointed out on a previous post of yours. Back in the 70's/80's it's my understanding that (from older photographers I've talked to) that there was never much of a push on camera size, most just wanted one that had the best abilities at the best price and/or "felt good in your hands"... which still stands today.. with the some additions.

There is give and take for sensor size to camera body size.. the 645D for what it is.. is not large comparatively to some of its competitors.

[maxfield_photo]

The dream of "smaller" is just that. A dream. To get a DSLR smaller with equivalent features to the competition you need to lose core features that justify the high starting price which caused by the limited sensor supply. SR takes up space. More space than on an APS-C model. So the very feature people say will appeal to Canikon's reduces the smaller form factor concept. These design concepts are mostly baked in, which is why the market shift to pellicle and mirorless. Pentax glass is no less expensive than other brands. Are you willing to stay with all f/4 zooms as opposed to f/2.8 zooms from Canikon on a body the same size as a D700 and the same price body? No. You'll buy into the system with all the options if possible. That is exactly how Canikon get and keep customers.

You're preachin' to the choir, I argued that same point earlier in this thread. But I didn't say "small", merely "smaller" - smaller than the 1Ds and the D3s. The 5DmkII is not a huge camera, but it's still larger than the K20d which is in turn larger than the K-5. If they can fit an APS-C sensor in the K-5 (which is 11mm narrower than the K20d) with SR, then they can fit a full frame sensor (which is only 9mm wider than an APS-C) into a K20d body and still retain SR. I'm all for leavin' out the frivolous crap like Wifi, and GPS, and if only there were some way of removing video... I want a no-nonsense, precision photographic instrument. I can even live with only one SD slot, though the option to have a second in the battery grip would be nice, I love my BG.

If the trend is towards smaller cameras these days, and I must admit it seems to be, then it stands to reason that offering the smallest FF DSLR on the market will attract some new users, and it may even pull a few away from the big two if folks value compact size and ergonomics. Personally, I don't care if it's the size of the Leica S2 w/ grip, just gimmie.

::Edit::
After looking into it, I guess the S2 is almost the exact same size as the 1Ds and the D3s, just goes to show that Canon and Nikon could make more efficient use of space.

[Byrd-2020]

Since DSLR came out I've been dreaming of a Digital back (ala Hasselblad) for my MX. If they could really give us a simple FF to fulfill that wish I'd be a happy Pentaxian (ok, so mirror lock-up for video becomes an important thing, and system for colour balance but all those auto modes - yuck!)

I too would be a happy Pentaxian, Paul.

I'm not sure how many folks think like us, though.

[KungPOW]

The $1,100 K-5 only makes a profit now if it sold for $1,500 for the better part of a year previous.

Seen any major price drops on Canikon or Sony FF?
Seen one on the 645D?

See a pattern here?

Why isn't Pentax dropping the price bottom on the 645D to really let MF take on the D3 and new Canon?



The dream of "smaller" is just that. A dream. To get a DSLR smaller with equivalent features to the competition you need to lose core features that justify the high starting price which caused by the limited sensor supply. SR takes up space. More space than on an APS-C model. So the very feature people say will appeal to Canikon's reduces the smaller form factor concept.

These design concepts are mostly baked in, which is why the market shift to pellicle and mirorless.

Pentax glass is no less expensive than other brands. Are you willing to stay with all f/4 zooms as opposed to f/2.8 zooms from Canikon on a body the same size as a D700 and the same price body?

No.

You'll buy into the system with all the options if possible. That is exactly how Canikon get and keep customers.



This is by far the biggest myth flying around here. Pentax small SLR's were a relic of the 1970's when Olympus redesigned the SLR system with Pentax copying them. Canon, Nikon and Minolta did not (but they all had RF's) and still took the top 3 spots in sales by a country mile. Small form factor kept smaller players relevant in niches, but it in no way swung the market.

By the AF era and the later 1990's, except for pro cameras, all brands were pretty much putting out similar sized cameras. I own 3 Pentaxes from the 1970's, one from the 1980's, 1 from the 1990's and 1 from 2001 (MZ-S). I've owned Canon and Nikon SLR's then and still have some Minolta items, including a Maxxum 9 and a Maxxum 5.

Most of them (and an older Nikon F100) were pretty much the same size and weight. The more plastic they got to keep weight down, the more volume they required to maintain structural integrity with the increasing popularity of long zooms (a major reason why you may need a larger form factor for a FF DSLR; FF = big glass).

Size made pretty much zero difference to sales back then. The most popular Pentax of all time was the K1000 which is actually a fairly large beast. The Canon AE-1 came out the same year and was smaller by about 20%. The Pentax did well not because it was a Pentax and was "smaller" but because it was very inexpensive. Both sold gangbusters.

This whole "Pentax makes small cameras" is nonsense when you really look at the sales and models. Some of the P series are monsters, easily dwarfing my Maxxums and consumer F's of the same era.

These days, as back in the 1990's to the end of the film era, by the time you start throwing in all the features and you still need a system fitting the average human hand, you wind up with an FF DSLR about the size of a D700. Some speculation in Nikon-land is FF may be able to fit into a D300 size body. Maybe. There's lens balance issues there for the 14-24, 24-70, and 70-200 glass, the mainstays of the FF fleet. Without that glass at 2.8, you likely will not have a viable FF market for your brand (maybe a 16-28). So the form factor starts to integrate design with expensive glass.

The MZ-D was huge and featured an integrated grip. If that had been released we could not have this "Pentax"—"smaller" discussion and keep a straight face. The 645D needs a horse to carry it around.

Canon 5D MKII is at 1999.99 now. Does that count?

[Kunzite]

$2499 at bhphotovideo: Canon EOS 5D Mark II Digital Camera (Body Only) 2764B003 B&H

Byrd-2020, there's a huge problem with the "cut all the non-essential parts": people can't agree about what are those non-essential parts Most people would rather have features they don't need and not use them, than missing something they deem useful.
Besides, the camera would get poor scores in reviews.

[Emacs]

$2499 at bhphotovideo: Canon EOS 5D Mark II Digital Camera (Body Only) 2764B003 B&H

Byrd-2020, there's a huge problem with the "cut all the non-essential parts": people can't agree about what are those non-essential parts Most people would rather have features they don't need and not use them, than missing something they deem useful.
Besides, the camera would get poor scores in reviews.

I've just found one in Moscow for about $2000. And I bought my K-5 for these $2000 (in November 2010).