[Anvh]

- More glass (fiddle with the aperture on the 50 f/1.2, and you'd be surprised at the difference in aperture diameter between 1.4 and 1.2, let alone 1.0)
- Harder to correct for aberrations means more R&D required
- Low production/sales volume dictates higher prices
- They charge more because they can

I think it's very telling that no mainstream manufacturer produces lenses faster than 1.2, only Leica, Voigtlander and SLR Magic (all manual focus, manual aperture). Canon had a 50 f/1.0 before, but they scrapped it because the IQ was crap and the cost was so high. Sales were dismal. All the other manufacturers haven't even tried. They know that betting on people willing to blow several thousand dollars on half a stop difference on an otherwise plain old 50 is just bad business, unless you have fanatical followers with too much money (i.e. Leica).

voigtlander has 2 f/0,95 lenses for around $1.200 so several thousands might be a bit exaggerating.

[Kunzite]

Some people should read this: Occam's razor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The easiest way to (directly) compete against FF cameras is to do it with a FF camera, period; and if Pentax would not launch a FF camera it means they do not want to compete in that market.
Going out of your way to do things differently and in a much less effective manner, while risking to lose your customer base is not an option and shouldn't even be discussed, for so many posts.

[eddie1960]

3047 posts and not a hint of reality to be seen

wonder how many posts it will be by photokina and if any of the guesses here are close to reality (I'm putting my money on a Digital LX being previewed updated for the modern age with features of the lx )

[Kunzite]

The reality is too bland for most here Pentax will just keep making Pentax-like cameras, improving over what they already have. I'm afraid even the Digital LX would be too radical.

[eddie1960]

The reality is too bland for most here Pentax will just keep making Pentax-like cameras, improving over what they already have. I'm afraid even the Digital LX would be too radical.

Well a FF built like the K5 for sub $2000 would already be unique in the market even with the pending D600 (which won't be as well built) So would a more enthusiast k-0 series for enthusiasts with tilt screen and EVF
there are a few routes to go (a GXR mountor would be there as well - just make a pentax variant that is supports the ricoh modules, and therefore vice versa.

[Anvh]

Some people should read this: Occam's razor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The easiest way to (directly) compete against FF cameras is to do it with a FF camera, period; and if Pentax would not launch a FF camera it means they do not want to compete in that market.
Going out of your way to do things differently and in a much less effective manner, while risking to lose your customer base is not an option and shouldn't even be discussed, for so many posts.

You're changing the assumption making it irrelevant to what i discuss.
Beside wasnt you who said that 645D is competing against FF so aren't you now not arguing against yourself, that's interesting

[Anvh]

3047 posts and not a hint of reality to be seen

wonder how many posts it will be by photokina and if any of the guesses here are close to reality (I'm putting my money on a Digital LX being previewed updated for the modern age with features of the lx )

They are keeping all the good stuff for photokina i hope.

My money goes on no FF this year or next year, i hope they focus their resources on the products that they have now and make that successful first.
There is a lot that needs to be done with the 645D system for example and for the Q.

[RonHendriks1966]

Could that FF be a modified K-01 with EVF, a high end moveable touch screen and WR.
Movies and AF like in the Panasonic G-H2 and the price level under 1800USD.

Well, loose the EVF, touch screen and WR. Make it a Full Frame mirrorless K-11 for 1199USD!

[Kunzite]

You're changing the assumption making it irrelevant to what i discuss.
Beside wasnt you who said that 645D is competing against FF so aren't you now not arguing against yourself, that's interesting

Nope, I'm not. And I never said the 645D is competing directly against FF, don't make things up. What I claimed is that medium format is their pro solution (or at least as pro as it gets) - and that's a fact.

Your main argument seems to be that Pentax should stick to K mount because they would not produce a mirrorless with decent phase detect autofocus and a fully function K mount adapter.
[...]
How do you feel about the K-01? And, if the K-01 was half as thick and came with a K-mount adapter that made it work exactly as the current K-01, would it be better or worse?

As for the K-mount, how long should that be used? 5 years? 10 years? 20 years? At what point does it cease to be a perceived advantage and becomes a burden instead?

No, my main argument is that Pentax should stick to K-mount, making it their top priority because they must keep their customer base and even grow it. I believe they can compete using the K-mount, if they would strengthen it asap. I believe DSLRs are nowhere near dying, so it's safe not to abandon everything (market share included) and desperately go MILC.
I strongly believe this is exactly what Pentax Ricoh intends to do, and that it will be confirmed beyond reasonable doubt next year.

The K-01 is their alternative to changing the mount, by the way. We should wait and see how they'll play this card... but here's your answer: it would be worse, because Pentax would have to make a new lens line and this means postponing/cancelling lenses from the K-mount roadmap.

[ElJamoquio]

voigtlander has 2 f/0,95 lenses for around $1.200 so several thousands might be a bit exaggerating.

Those lenses on a FF camera would be about 1.8. The front element is about the same size as one that's 1.8.

You should use the canon 0.95 or Leica 0.95 (don't remember the exact numbers) and start from there. You're talking serious cash, several thousand is about right.

[ElJamoquio]

if they would strengthen it asap.

What do you mean by "strengthen"? With more lenses/cameras/sensor sizes?

Personally I don't see any advantage to the Nikon mount. At a minimum the Pentax is able to have slightly wider lens elements. Is that mount holding back the D3200? The D7000? The D800?

Did everyone else here note the $1-2k hit in used camera values of the 645D when the D800, with it's mount (inferior to the K) was introduced?

[Kunzite]

With more lenses and cameras, at least as a first step; they can't stay with 2 DSLRs and less than 30 lenses. They published a roadmap, the K-30 is a nice first step... everything goes as planned
Adding "sensor sizes", well, I don't know about that... could be. It would also strengthen the system.

Well, the F-mount has an even longer registration distance than the K-mount, so it should be shortened asap. Nikon, what are you waiting for?

They should prepare an answer for the high resolution small format cameras, too. That would be interesting.

[ElJamoquio]

With more lenses and cameras, at least as a first step; they can't stay with 2 DSLRs and less than 30 lenses. They published a roadmap, the K-30 is a nice first step... everything goes as planned
Adding "sensor sizes", well, I don't know about that... could be. It would also strengthen the system.

Wanted to make sure you didn't mean 'change the mount'. I would've chosen the words 'strengthen the system' (as you did, in this post) rather than 'strengthen the mount'.

[Cannikin]

voigtlander has 2 f/0,95 lenses for around $1.200 so several thousands might be a bit exaggerating.

Those lenses are manual focus, manual aperture. I'm fairly certain adding AF and auto aperture would at least double the price.

If I'm not mistaken, the Canon 50 f/1.0 (the only sub-1.2 lens with AF and auto aperture that I know of) had an MSRP of over $4000, and late-life street prices (even with very low demand) over $2000, not including inflation.

[NickLarsson]

Neophyte question : is a lens as thin as the DA40 XS would be possible on other mounts ?