[Clavius]

Agree, it's over.

[Ash]

Not really. But we just have to wait a little longer.

[Medium FormatPro]

Find the "right person" to talk to off the record at the event in Germany and you'll get as close to proof (of an eventual full frame from Pentax) as it gets

[Smolk]

It better make the news soon, even if the wait takes a while longer. This week saw some surprising announcements (Sony's compact FF, Rollei's 6x6 cameras), but not from Pentax.

[maxfield_photo]

Not really. But we just have to wait a little longer.

Realistically I'd have to say bare minimum of a year at this point, but probably more like a year and a half before we get a new flagship, and it's anyone's guess whether it will be a FF flagship at that point or not. I just can't wait that long; very sad.

[Kunzite]

Shall we bet?
For all the disappointed Petnaxians: now it's not the moment to despair; have patience just a little more, and don't forget: Pentax has a plan.

[Professor]

Hi,
First time on this site and I have a question re FF or not.
First let me say I'm fortunate enough to have been able to buy a Kr and K5 plus quite a few lenses and I love shooting with them and they've been a worthwhile investment.
My question is this,
What would the company gain by releasing a FF camera now?
After all, it's a business not a charity.
Pentax currently have a small market share compared to the big companies.
I believe they should first try to increase this before going FF.
They are trying to by releasing the reasonably priced K30. If enough consumers buy into the brand, then and only then would it make sense to release a FF, when they have enough consumers willing to lay out much more money for a FF.
Also, would having FF really improve our photography so much? I know the reasons about smaller DOF, better quality, blah, blah, blah, but how many of us really need it.
Someone once told me to invest in lenses, not bodies, as they become outdated quickly and that good glass on an older body still can produce better photographs than a new body with bad glass.
Hope I haven't overstepped the mark being a newbie on this site!

[maxfield_photo]

It's been almost 10 years since Pentax has produced a full frame camera, and 12 years since the dawn of the digital age. Maybe if we wait long enough the tooth fairy will ride in on a unicorn and deliver a Pentax Full Frame to us, but at this point it seems unlikely. I'm not trying to encourage others to leave the brand, in fact, I hope it continues on strong for many years to come, but my patients has reached it's limits, and my skills and my ambition demand more. We'll always have Pari-- err film.

[Clavius]

My question is this,
What would the company gain by releasing a FF camera now?

There is quite a few Pentaxians that will insta-buy a FF Pentax.

Pentax currently have a small market share compared to the big companies.
I believe they should first try to increase this before going FF.

That's the problem. Their marketshare is ever decreasing because of the lack of the upgradepath. I can't count the number of "farewell Pentax" posts that I've encountered here.

They are trying to by releasing the reasonably priced K30. If enough consumers buy into the brand, then and only then would it make sense to release a FF,

Then why would they? They're getting enough profit from their APSC machines then.

Also, would having FF really improve our photography so much?

Don't know, don't care. My customers, real-estate agents, demand FF format pictures from me. I'm not going to sell them a NO! I'm not Pentax.

[Pepe Guitarra]

Once thing I will not do is get rid of my K5 to buy a K5-II or IIs. The K5 is a wonderful thing for what I use it: macro and birding. For everything else, I am using Canon FF. The only reason I still will keep the K5 is becasue Canon lenses are very expensive (if they are the best, that is what it is!).

[Pepe Guitarra]

Hi,
...What would the company gain by releasing a FF camera now?

CEOs and Board of Directors set the strategy for the company to grow. I do not know how Pentax operates, but I suspect that not too well. Pentax has been bought and sold several times in the last few years. That is not good. I remember that Canon made the strategic decision several years ago to focus on the PROFESSIONAL photographer. Their reasoning was: If we are good enough for the professionals, the afficionados will follow. So, they concentrated on their professional (FF and crop sensor) cameras, and more specifically on the quality of their lenses. What happens now? Canon has a strong market in the professional niche, and a large market in the rest. Contrary to what it seems, The 5D Mark III is not considered a PROFESSIONAL camera by Canon. Go figure.
My K5 is at the level (if you take away poor quality control and the FF difference) of the 5D Mark III. The K5 II and IIs sounds more like a marketing strategy 101 taught at business school. Somehting like what happens to the TOOTH PASTE. All the tooth paste are basically the same (main ingredient), but teh companies stay in business by coming out with new products every day. New products that are the same old, but they change the container, the color, add one more thing, take one, etc. Anything to charge more.

[Anvh]

It's been almost 10 years since Pentax has produced a full frame camera, and 12 years since the dawn of the digital age. Maybe if we wait long enough the tooth fairy will ride in on a unicorn and deliver a Pentax Full Frame to us, but at this point it seems unlikely. I'm not trying to encourage others to leave the brand, in fact, I hope it continues on strong for many years to come, but my patients has reached it's limits, and my skills and my ambition demand more. We'll always have Pari-- err film.

The more the digital sensor advance the less need there is to increase the sensor size.

Current APS-C cameras can beat last generation FF cameras when it comes to image quality.

The question is when enough is enough?

[maxfield_photo]

The more the digital sensor advance the less need there is to increase the sensor size. Current APS-C cameras can beat last generation FF cameras when it comes to image quality. The question is when enough is enough?

Golly, I love when people tell me I'm wrong for wanting a full frame, it makes me chuckle. The image quality is fine right now on both APS-C and FF, it was fine a generation ago. IQ is not my concern, if it was, I'd have the K5 instead of the K20d.

[Anvh]

I can understand that FF has a certain feel though when combined with fast glass but these needs are very specific.

If someone wants FF then they should go for it, it's just a tool but "needing" it is another story.
The 645D is also fantastic, i don't need the camera but i still want it.

[Clavius]

I can understand that FF has a certain feel though when combined with fast glass but these needs are very specific.

If someone wants FF then they should go for it, it's just a tool but "needing" it is another story.
The 645D is also fantastic, i don't need the camera but i still want it.

Personally, I didn't care about FF in the slightest bit. I could hardly see the difference. And in the sparse times that I did want that effect, I would simply stitch multiple apsc sized images together.

But my clients (real-estate agents, marketing bureau's, and such) started to demand FF. For those I picked up a used Canon 5D. So yes, in increasingly more cases pro's do need FF. They can't sell "NO!" no to their clients. (They're not Pentax.)

And in hindsight: Yes, it is loads of fun to use Pentax glass on an FF camera. The quality difference is more then noticeable. The vf is superb, the extra control of composition very helpfull and the superwide angles are so very impressive. A camera that is big enough to be usable without adding a battery-grip is also a nice bonus. So, in my honest opinion, all the people in all those FF threads that are demanding a Pentax FF are simply correct. No matter if they just want it or actually need it. The only disputable point being the question why they bought into an APSC-only brand in the first place.