[MrPetkus]

but I have no urge to use my iPhone instead. Wait, I don't have an iPhone

Right, so basically you're a minority and probably not the model consumer a technology company is looking to create products for. And not because you don't own an iPhone. Personally, I don't think Pentax should make a FF camera at all until they get their house in order with their core strength - APS-C. But you feel Pentax should just materialize with a FF camera along with all the trappings that would make it a truly great one.
Sony was foolish enough to heed their hardcore fans - make a FF camera, competitively priced, compatible with all the great lenses of Minolta lore - a true photographer's camera - no stinkin' video. And the a850/900 did so well.
If Pentax were stupid enough to come out with a FF now, with a shadow of the FF lenses offered by Canikon, and no flash, AF, and processor improvements then they're going to fail. I don't even think they should come out with FF mirrorless.

[jackseh]

Personally, I don't think Pentax should make a FF camera at all until they get their house in order with their core strength - APS-C.

Great points!
I think a good move is to provide viable upgrade path for current K-5 owners, much like Pentax built on K-x success with follow-up K-5.
Safe to say, digital medium format is out of question for current K-5 owner as future upgrade.

I agree that Pentax still has problems to solve, namely a better, more reliable preflash TTL system.
Until that is solved, I don't think pentax FF will sell as successfully as Canikons FF.

As a K-5 owner, I am not expecting to "upgrade" to another k-mount APS-C DSLR for the next 4-5 years, nor am I looking to upgrade to digital medium format.
Instead, I'm looking for a product, with similar excellent specs, that would work as complement for K-5.
Maybe something that works well with legacy lenses, like Sony NEX, with decent sized sensor. Sorry but Q is not going to sell well, as we can see -
Sensor size has to atleast come close to legacy lens spec'd in terms of aperture size.

Having that said, if Pentax come up with an k-mount FF with better contrast AF, I would snap it up in a heartbeat.

[stanleyk]

The growth of vinyl may have reached something like 0.1 percent of the music media market? Actually I don't know the real numbers, but I think, there is always a niche for anything. That alone does not make it an economically viable alternative. Making good optical components (i.e. the prisms inside the optical viewfinder) will be so much more expensive in the future, when the general cost of electronic components decreases further, that it will not be the technology of choice for any major manufacturer. So, despite I don't like they idea now, I expct, that optical viewfinders will be replaced by electronic screens in the future. Also, this opens up some degrees of freedom for camera and lens designers, which will lead to better performance of the whole system. Currently, we only witness the beginning of that development.

Ben

Thank you Ben and I think your analysis of the cost vs economic benefit of OVF's vs EVF's for camera manufacturers is exactly correct. I certainly wasn't arguing that cameras will no longer have OVF's, I just think that going forward the EVF will be the sort of standard in a few years. I would suspect higher end cameras (K5, D700, et al) will still have OVF's of some type of hybrid system like the Fuji X100. I think your Canon Rebels, ect will eventually be EVF's because that's what users will be used to. Old people like me are basically irrelevant to camera or any other type of company when it comes to these types of product development decisions. Personally I like a viewfinder but I don't have an issue with EVF's. In some cases I find them as good as OVF's. It really just depends on what you are doing photographically.

I just thought the LP metaphor was relevant for me because sadly I still have a turntable. I remember arguing with people in the 80's about how CD's would never sound as good as LP's. Now everyone uses MP3's. Wow I feel old right now....

[noser]

I think with the K-5 there is proof that Pentax has it's APS-C 'house in order', so they may as well move on.

And the only direction is a bigger sensor. It's no secret that smaller sensors basically suck. Sure, they do better than they did last year, and they'll do even better next year. But crop sized sensors will always be compared to FF, because we all know what FF looks like, and the bell can't be un-rung.

At lower focal lengths distortion and aperture become limits that APS-C can't address. A normal-ish lens, like the Sigma 30/1.4 I picked up this year, can't be used the same as a 50/1.4 on FF, even though the FoV is similar. The distortion is vastly different, and it's not flattering. And the DoF isn't quite there, either, although it's not that different visually. I really believe that it's no accident that 35mm/FF strikes a great balance between lens size and weight, negative/sensor size, and final image quality. I think we owe more to the artistic choices that the original craftsmen and designers made than we'd like to admit. Same goes for MF; a little more weight, a bit shallower DoF, and great image quality over FF (although I wish the 645D was a real MF, and not a crop, but whatever, Pentax really has crop on the brain...)

Should the K3 be a crop? As a testbed for all the improvements we want, sure, that makes some sense. But it could be FF, so why not?

Should the K1 look like the D3/1D? Again, why not. There is probably a reason those cameras are that big (I've never seen one 'naked'). I'm betting they aren't full of empty space or lead weights. So assuming the volume is needed, sure, it has to be that big. If the Pentax wizards can shrink everything down, that's great, and to be a game changer and offer what they other guys are doing in a more traditional size is interesting. But I think there is also some cachet for the bigger body - if there wasn't then the big boys would have already gone and shrunk them, because they have their own wizards. Same kinda deal with all the retro-rangefinder-y stuff. It looks cool, sells well, so what the heck, build what the market is buying.

Glass is a bit of buzzkill; they need a refresh to sell FF, and they need it now, even before the body announcement.

As for who is going to buy it, I'll give you a hint: They are in school right now. They are are saving for a new camera. They are the new photographers - and there are a LOT of them. We started a photo group here with 20 or so like-minded, business oriented photographers. A year later there are almost 200 members - half are new photographers with entry dSLR's and no investment in glass, but are seriously interested in upgrades - even switching systems if they get value for money, and a believable upgrade path. So they may not buy the big bad camera first, but if they don't see it in the catalog they don't take the brand seriously, so they don't invest in glass, and what do you get?

Pentax - stuck in APS-C consumerland - it's a cycle of death they have to break, and they can't do it with gimmicks.

[markac]

T
I just thought the LP metaphor was relevant for me because sadly I still have a turntable. I remember arguing with people in the 80's about how CD's would never sound as good as LP's. Now everyone uses MP3's. Wow I feel old right now....

MP3s certainly don't sound as good as CDs let alone LPs. They are just convenience like a modern day cassette for portable use, or in the car. Play them through a good Hi Fi and you'll soon get up and do something else.

[gazonk]

A normal-ish lens, like the Sigma 30/1.4 I picked up this year, can't be used the same as a 50/1.4 on FF, even though the FoV is similar. The distortion is vastly different, and it's not flattering. And the DoF isn't quite there, either, although it's not that different visually. I really believe that it's no accident that 35mm/FF strikes a great balance between lens size and weight, negative/sensor size, and final image quality. I think we owe more to the artistic choices that the original craftsmen and designers made than we'd like to admit. Same goes for MF; a little more weight, a bit shallower DoF, and great image quality over FF (although I wish the 645D was a real MF, and not a crop, but whatever, Pentax really has crop on the brain...)

Agree with you re. normal lenses - to have the real equivalent of a 50mm 1.4, you'd need a 33mm 1.0. But except for the wide apertures, I don't think that my 35 ltd gives me images that are inferior to those that I got from the 50/1.7 on film...

I think you're unfair with the 645d - it was a matter of price/performance, and they're clearly thinking of later FF models - the new 25mm covers 645 film (anyone seen film samples from it?)

[Clavius]

I think with the K-5 there is proof that Pentax has it's APS-C 'house in order', so they may as well move on.

And the only direction is a bigger sensor. It's no secret that smaller sensors basically suck. Sure, they do better than they did last year, and they'll do even better next year. But crop sized sensors will always be compared to FF, because we all know what FF looks like, and the bell can't be un-rung.

At lower focal lengths distortion and aperture become limits that APS-C can't address. A normal-ish lens, like the Sigma 30/1.4 I picked up this year, can't be used the same as a 50/1.4 on FF, even though the FoV is similar. The distortion is vastly different, and it's not flattering. And the DoF isn't quite there, either, although it's not that different visually. I really believe that it's no accident that 35mm/FF strikes a great balance between lens size and weight, negative/sensor size, and final image quality. I think we owe more to the artistic choices that the original craftsmen and designers made than we'd like to admit. Same goes for MF; a little more weight, a bit shallower DoF, and great image quality over FF (although I wish the 645D was a real MF, and not a crop, but whatever, Pentax really has crop on the brain...)

Should the K3 be a crop? As a testbed for all the improvements we want, sure, that makes some sense. But it could be FF, so why not?

Should the K1 look like the D3/1D? Again, why not. There is probably a reason those cameras are that big (I've never seen one 'naked'). I'm betting they aren't full of empty space or lead weights. So assuming the volume is needed, sure, it has to be that big. If the Pentax wizards can shrink everything down, that's great, and to be a game changer and offer what they other guys are doing in a more traditional size is interesting. But I think there is also some cachet for the bigger body - if there wasn't then the big boys would have already gone and shrunk them, because they have their own wizards. Same kinda deal with all the retro-rangefinder-y stuff. It looks cool, sells well, so what the heck, build what the market is buying.

Glass is a bit of buzzkill; they need a refresh to sell FF, and they need it now, even before the body announcement.

As for who is going to buy it, I'll give you a hint: They are in school right now. They are are saving for a new camera. They are the new photographers - and there are a LOT of them. We started a photo group here with 20 or so like-minded, business oriented photographers. A year later there are almost 200 members - half are new photographers with entry dSLR's and no investment in glass, but are seriously interested in upgrades - even switching systems if they get value for money, and a believable upgrade path. So they may not buy the big bad camera first, but if they don't see it in the catalog they don't take the brand seriously, so they don't invest in glass, and what do you get?

Pentax - stuck in APS-C consumerland - it's a cycle of death they have to break, and they can't do it with gimmicks.

Fully agree. Especially about the last part. It's a cycle they have to break free of. And now, with their new owner with the deep pockets and who understands the need for new products, the moment is perfect.

[RonHendriks1966]

Should the K3 be a crop? As a testbed for all the improvements we want, sure, that makes some sense. But it could be FF, so why not?

Should the K1 look like the D3/1D? Again, why not. There is probably a reason those cameras are that big (I've never seen one 'naked'). I'm betting they aren't full of empty space or lead weights. So assuming the volume is needed, sure, it has to be that big. If the Pentax wizards can shrink everything down, that's great, and to be a game changer and offer what they other guys are doing in a more traditional size is interesting. But I think there is also some cachet for the bigger body - if there wasn't then the big boys would have already gone and shrunk them, because they have their own wizards. Same kinda deal with all the retro-rangefinder-y stuff. It looks cool, sells well, so what the heck, build what the market is buying.

Pentax - stuck in APS-C consumerland - it's a cycle of death they have to break, and they can't do it with gimmicks.

So true to all of this!

Again once plugging for APS-H to make a full functional camera as small as possilble. And for all those winig people about Full Frame: Well make this APS-H camera as shabby as Canon's 1D Mark IV and I don't think anyone will complain.

At the moment with the cashback here you can buy a K-5 for 669 euro, that is unbelievable and that is what I call Pentax - stuck in APS-C consumerland. Yoo have to get out of there to the next level to be a brand that has more to offer.

So I do see a market for a good camera (not competing in every way with 1Dx or D4, but offering a lot for a reasonable price!

[thibs]

APS-H is a very bad idea no matter how you look at it.
Pentax won't go that route, unless Ricoh got them completely dumb.

[Emacs]

Personally, I'm waiting for the last Pentax DSLR: full frame one, just the gift for Pentax supporters. It helps me to sell the Distagon
The DSLR itself and its lenses size kills the fun of taking photos, I hate carrying kgs of glasses and bulky (yes, the K-5 is bulky) body.

[gazonk]

Again once plugging for APS-H to make a full functional camera as small as possilble.

I don't understand why you keep repeating this:

First: Who's going to make that sensor now that Canon killed APS-H?
Second: The difference is so small! APS-C represents a 1.18 crop of APS-H!

Given the small interest in manufacturing such a sensor and the small size difference, it's reasonable to think that such a sensor would be (1) not better than the K-5 sensor, perhaps worse, and (2) extremely expensive.

[Clavius]

Personally, I'm waiting for the last Pentax DSLR: full frame one, just the gift for Pentax supporters. It helps me to sell the Distagon
The DSLR itself and its lenses size kills the fun of taking photos, I hate carrying kgs of glasses and bulky (yes, the K-5 is bulky) body.

If you think the K5 is bulky, then the Iphone is THE camera for you, my friend. And if your fun of taking photo's is killed *THAT* easily, then I think you're just not very interested in photography. I don't think anything can take the fun out of photography for me, I love it.

I don't care about camera size. My K5 could be twice the size and weight, and I would still carry it around everywhere I go. Moreover, if I could afford a 645D I would carry that behemoth around all the time.

[Emacs]

if I could afford a 645D I would carry that behemoth around all the time.

Dude, I canceled buying 645D after I purchased the Distagon 21. I've realized I don't want to be a porter, and I don't want to carry huge camera, and the NEX-5n + CZ Biogon 21 ZM gives me about the equal IQ to K-5 + much better MF capabilities being twice lighter and much smaller.
Simple. I'm a hobbyist, and hobby must bring a joy. It was about that when I was using the DA15Ltd as a kit. But now I get used too deep into better lenses (I mean FA Ltds and CZ), and 15Ltd won't satisfy me anymore with its cheap rendering.

[gazonk]

If you think the K5 is bulky, then the Iphone is THE camera for you, my friend. And if your fun of taking photo's is killed *THAT* easily, then I think you're just not very interested in photography. I don't think anything can take the fun out of photography for me, I love it.

Not everyone has the same needs.... Suppose you're interested in street photography with a traditional 35mm equivalent moderate wide angle, and can afford the NEX-7 with the Carl Zeiss 24mm. Is the K-5 really a better alternative then? You wouldn't even have a fast 24 to choose from! The CZ 24mm is pretty big on the NEX, but before you complain about that: The NEX-7+24 combo doesn't weigh much more than half the weight of the K-5+DA21 combo.

(I still have K-5 on my wish list though)

[Kunzite]

Not everyone has the same needs....

That's true, but why should Pentax forget about us (current and future K-mount users) and dedicate themselves into fulfilling Emacs wishes?
By the way, he already have a NEX - I doubt he'll run to buy a Pentax MILC, if they'll make such a thing.