[eddie1960]

Pentax has already too many different camera series running, which cannibalize the limited resources. Add a rangefinder add a FF, add whatever - that won't be sustainable at all.

It is not about camera bodies, the problem lies within the many different lens series required. If a Q-System shall survive,m you need Q"-lenses, not fourty years old K lenses with an adaptor. Manufacturers make their money selling lenses, no camera bodies. And if Pentax wants to sell lenses, they need to develop and produce them in mass market numbers.

I think, Pentax caters already for too many niche users - add more and they'll go down the drain.

Ben

FF would mesh with apsc since the lenses are usable on both. Ben. I agree on the RF idea it's already a tiny niche market, add in the fact that it was never a Pentax market and it would just be a complete drain on resources. I think Q, apsc/ff (ie K mount), 645 on the other hand is a manageable diversification that covers about 90% of the market

The one thing that is changing in the modern era is companies are making money on bodies because people upgrade them far more frequently. The Axiom that they need to sell lenses to make the profit is only partially true now. Pre digital I lived with my last 2 Pentax Film bodies for over 10 years. In the 8 years since I bought my first digital I have bought 3 bodies that all cost more than either of the film bodies of the time. I'm not alone in this. I tend to be upgrading every second or third generation, Some people are upgrading every generation, this was never the case in film days. once you had a good enough body the improvements came from lens investments. Now they come from the body as well (just compare a K5 output to a K20 or K10 - or the K10 to the ds....)
If they develop FF it will add another layer to the upgrade options

[Wired]

FF would mesh with apsc since the lenses are usable on both. Ben. I agree on the RF idea it's already a tiny niche market, add in the fact that it was never a Pentax market and it would just be a complete drain on resources. I think Q, apsc/ff (ie K mount), 645 on the other hand is a manageable diversification that covers about 90% of the market

The one thing that is changing in the modern era is companies are making money on bodies because people upgrade them far more frequently. The Axiom that they need to sell lenses to make the profit is only partially true now. Pre digital I lived with my last 2 Pentax Film bodies for over 10 years. In the 8 years since I bought my first digital I have bought 3 bodies that all cost more than either of the film bodies of the time. I'm not alone in this. I tend to be upgrading every second or third generation, Some people are upgrading every generation, this was never the case in film days. once you had a good enough body the improvements came from lens investments. Now they come from the body as well (just compare a K5 output to a K20 or K10 - or the K10 to the ds....)
If they develop FF it will add another layer to the upgrade options

Agreed. I shot with an MX for about 8 years before I bought my K100D. Since then I've upgraded every other gen (K20D, K5). I would probably skip the next "K5" and wait for the next camera, unless it was Full Frame.

[Alizarine]

Funny right how many conclusions are drawn by looking at just 1 lens.... if we do that for SDM as well and look at the DA*55 people would say different things about it but sadly everyone is looking at the DA*16-50 and DA*50-135 when talking about SDM. Form the survey you see that all the primes and recent SDM lenses have far and i mean far less problems to almost none.

I would also agree on lighter and smaller stuff inside the 18-135 compared to the DA*s. So is the SDM problem resulting from QC, or bad motor design?

Talking about DC motors now... what if, since the DA 18-135 has it, is it possible to put it in all new incoming lenses save DAL/budget lenses? Would it be a ++ for Pentax to have quick-shift and DC at the same time (though the 18-135 has a continuously turning focus ring already)?

[Anvh]

the ultrasonic motor is a proven concept, it could be that the specific motor they used could be faulty but if that was the case that would be easily replaceable right? So i'm more likely to conclude the ambitious dual AF system in the KAF2 lenses is part of the reason. I don't think it's quality control issue per sebecause the lenses stop working after use and aren't dead on arrival.
Does this all make sense, i'm no expert after al?

Does the focus ring turn with the DA18-135 during AF, didn't notice?
well looking at the position of that focus ring i don't see much benefit, with the DA* lenses the focus ring is quite big so impractical when it turns. The ring doesnt turn with the DFA macro's neither so it can surely be done with DC but if it would be a benefit for lenses with a small focus ring?
I'm more intrigued by the idea of focus by wire discuss in another thread.

[RonHendriks1966]

I would also agree on lighter and smaller stuff inside the 18-135 compared to the DA*s. So is the SDM problem resulting from QC, or bad motor design?

Talking about DC motors now... what if, since the DA 18-135 has it, is it possible to put it in all new incoming lenses save DAL/budget lenses? Would it be a ++ for Pentax to have quick-shift and DC at the same time (though the 18-135 has a continuously turning focus ring already)?

Well one guess from my side is that the more weight the lenselements have the more work there is to do for the SDM motor. Maybe that is why some lenses have more SDM-issues (zooming the elements like 16-50) and the lightest of them (DA*55) almost none.

[unfocused]

Pre digital I lived with my last 2 Pentax Film bodies for over 10 years. In the 8 years since I bought my first digital I have bought 3 bodies that all cost more than either of the film bodies of the time. I'm not alone in this. I tend to be upgrading every second or third generation, Some people are upgrading every generation, this was never the case in film days. once you had a good enough body the improvements came from lens investments.

An MX was my everyday camera for 22 years although I used a second body (Ricoh XR-7) for B&W. Towards the end of the film era when the MX finally needed a service I retired it and bought a Contax Aria (which I regarded as the ultimate film tool for my purpose) and just 2 lenses for everyday. Like most other Pentax users I had gradually expanded my K-mount lenses over the years, but real IQ improvements were down to the film manufacturers. So there was no need to upgrade the camera until it fell to bits.

Before K-mount I'd been shooting with Spotties, an S3 and an Edixamat D-L. I well remember the pain when I had to ditch expensive and perfectly good M42 lenses (Super-Taks, Schneiders and Schachts) and reinvest in K. I don't want to go through that again unnecessarily and I suspect others here would agree.

Nowadays I shoot with a K-7 but all I really want is a new sensor for my istDS which I otherwise much prefer. The sensor is the new film. It would be nice to be able to slot a better one in. Some would go for a sensor specially tuned for landscape, others would want one designed specifically for sport or wildlife. Why should we settle for a non-interchangeable "one sensor suits all" approach?

[ihasa]

Nowadays I shoot with a K-7 but all I really want is a new sensor for my istDS which I otherwise much prefer. The sensor is the new film. It would be nice to be able to slot a better one in. Some would go for a sensor specially tuned for landscape, others would want one designed specifically for sport or wildlife. Why should we settle for a non-interchangeable "one sensor suits all" approach?

I guess because we might want to shoot sports as well as landscape, and it's not economically feasible design an interchangeable sensor system for the subtle differences you'd get. The sensor is quite an expensive part of the camera. And I don't know how you'd design an interchangeable sensor system that worked with in-body SR, unless you include the SR mechanism with the sensor 'module' - in which case, even more expense.

Some people's solution is to have a different camera for different purposes, but that's normally to do with other things than just the sensor (e.g. blazing fast AF vs high image quality) - that's probably a more feasible approach but I'm sure most of us would prefer one camera that 'did it all' as well as possible.

[Clavius]

The sensor is the new film. It would be nice to be able to slot a better one in. Some would go for a sensor specially tuned for landscape, others would want one designed specifically for sport or wildlife. Why should we settle for a non-interchangeable "one sensor suits all" approach?

I've often wondered about that myself. Especially because it also benefits the manufacturers themselves. It would instantly create a whole line of new interchangeable accessories. A monochrome sensor without AA. A sensor without IR, a full spectrum sensor for the astrographers, sensors capable of ultra high ISO, but also ultra low, etc.

People with LBA will be susceptible to Sensor Buying Addiction too. So, it's proven that this concept generates extra cashflow.

And the other way round would be beneficial too. What if I'm very happy with my K5's sensor? But I do like the features of that upcomming body. It would be nice to be able a body only, without the sensor, and place my sensor in it.

Who knows, maybe there will be a LX-D that will enable such features?

[Smolk]

Nowadays I shoot with a K-7 but all I really want is a new sensor for my istDS which I otherwise much prefer. The sensor is the new film. It would be nice to be able to slot a better one in. Some would go for a sensor specially tuned for landscape, others would want one designed specifically for sport or wildlife. Why should we settle for a non-interchangeable "one sensor suits all" approach?

There is such a system: The Ricoh GXR. Although it couples the lens to the sensor which has obvious drawbacks.

[mopteek]

Pentax's France Community Manager said it's rumor is wrong on Twitter
Link here https://twitter.com/PentaxRicoh/status/217185450383769600

[Kunzite]

They're denying, so it must be true!

[filorp]

once some guy said - i am leaving this ship - the representative answer was - i don't know... bla bla bla - thay want us to stick with them forever - deluding us with imaginary great future of professional FF.... Thay know very well that many of us is still with Pentax just because of imaginary FF - however that people doesn't buy lenses anymore thay will not buy another apsc flagship either.... so what's the point in deluding...
Look at the roadmap of fuji - thay plan to deliver lenses as equivalents of classic 35f1.4 and 85f1.4 and some stuff else.... thay really manage to plug the hole very fast - next year it'll be complete system.... what Pentax do...? it lives on great past of FA*85 and FA*80-200 from 10 years nothing else....

[Jean Poitiers]

Pentax's France Community Manager said it's rumor is wrong on Twitter
Link here https://twitter.com/PentaxRicoh/status/217185450383769600

Bonjour,

IMHO this is a weird tweet exchange ... maybe I should translate. Anyone interested ...?

Salut, John le Frog

[eddie1960]

Bonjour,

IMHO this is a weird tweet exchange ... maybe I should translate. Anyone interested ...?

Salut, John le Frog

I am, my french is bad enough that i would butcher it

[parsons]

Bonjour,

IMHO this is a weird tweet exchange ... maybe I should translate. Anyone interested ...?

Salut, John le Frog

Yes please