[Fontan]

That was posted earlier in the other topic (K-01). It's obviously fake and based on the Rollei 2000/3003.

It took my breath away for a moment. Hew.

[Clavius]

It took my breath away for a moment. Hew.

Really? I think it would be extremely cool.

Back ontopic... I'm probably just dense or slow, can anybody explain to me why a CCD FF would be a bad idea? Are CCD's more expensive then CMOS?

[dlacouture]

About 100% coverage:
Well, it is possible - IIRC Sigma had that, calling it a "sports viewfinder" or something. A nice name for being lazy and reusing a film viewfinder, I guess.
But larger than 100% coverage means showing more than you'll capture. Probably you wanted a higher magnification viewfinder - still showing exactly (100% coverage) what you'll capture, but larger.

In fact, it seems the K5 already has more than 100% coverage... Some users have made detailed posts about this, showing with viefinder photos that they actually can see more than what is finally recorded...
The viewfinder maybe shows the possible coverage of the sensor, SR included... So you gain an extra 2mm all around the sensor's area...
An easy way to check this would be by measuring the actual focus screen area being exposed...

[falconeye]

An easy way to check this would be by measuring the actual focus screen area being exposed...

That's not an easy way. But you could shoot through the viewfinder and with the camera, SR off and on a tripod.

[eddie1960]

But those Kx and Kr user will mostly have DA glass and you ain't buying a FF camera and only use half of the sensor, that doesn't make sense.
I for example have only DA lenses, what will i gain with getting a Pentax FF?
I will need to get new lenses... i might as well stop waiting and get D700 or 5D mark II instead if i want FF.
I don't want FF but do you see the point?

Pentax has more or less comitted themself with APS-C because they only have DA lenses besides the macro and a few limited.

They might bring back some FA lenses when FF gets launched but for the now new Pentax user with DA lenses it just isn't that intersting becuase it's new system they need to buy in and so they just as well buy into another brand.

Then don't buy a FF, but you aren't the only person in the market and many do want a FF (BTW some of your DA lenses will work on FF at least they do on film)

Also I imagine any FF wil have a masking option like the nikon does allowing you to use your DA lenses on an apsc mak. if that mask is applied to a 36mp sensor you will effectively get the same pixel density and resolution as a K5, you then could build a FF lens collection while still using your existing lenses.

I don't get the absolute hatred some people have for the idea of a FF. Not every camera Pentax (or any other company for that matter) is going to be intended for all the customers, Pentax has 3 mounts right now Q,K,645 and I'm sure you don't have an issue with them offering them to the market segments that buy them. It's not as if anyone is saying Build a FF K mount oh and by the way can that pesky apsc stuff

[eddie1960]

Stefan,

Many Kx/Kr buyers are new to DSLR which means they will need time for some of them to progress to a level where they feel the need for something more than APS-C, the fact they have bought DA lenses is neither here nor there in that case since :
a) the forums are full of people selling their current lenses to buy something else (either within Pentax or moving on to another brand - and vice versa) and ..
b) because, as I have mentioned already, DA lenses could easily be made to used to work on a FF Pentax by virtue of a 'DX' mode which reduces the image circle and ergo megapixels at the same time.

Pentax do not only have DA lenses ! The FA 31, 43 and 77 and 35 macro are still in production and other much larger (and horrendously expensive) FA lenses can be bought via special order to Japan. It wouldn't be a major revamp to reintroduce top quality FA lenses whose designs already exist and may only need tweaking for the digital age.

The fact though that all legacy lenses and new FA and DA lenses (using a reduced image circle mode) would work on a Pentax FF, instantly offering hundreds of lens choices - even though most are used not new, blows that objection out of the water thereby negating the need to transition to a different brand.

You missed the FA 50, DFA 100 as well. And if I am not mistaken though they are termed DA the 200 and 300 are based directly on previous FF designs (and people have tested them on FF ie film with no issue
a 50 1.2 is also still in production in limited runs from japan (expensive but I wouldn't describe it as horrendously so )

With many Legacy designs to use as a starting point in a new DFA variant the cost of development of a new model is hardly starting from scratch. and for many of the designs that may come i imagine there are a number of apsc users who would like them as well. it may not all happen the day a FF is announced, just like there hasn't been 15 new 645 lenses since it came out. It will fill a market need though that can be grown with new lenses and accessories

[Zygonyx]

That was posted earlier in the other topic (K-01). It's obviously fake and based on the Rollei 2000/3003.

Thanks for the similar reference. Indeed, i find the concept quite interesting...

It would be an easy product to build/develop for Pentax, adressed to landscape and portrait shooters... with video ergonomic capabilities if the screen was rotative, and with adaptable "screen-hood" in waist shooting, and a specific vertical grip with shooting button as a video option.
We could have in addition :
- Sony's FF 24 Mpix sensor without AA filter
- K mount with a new compact zoom (close to the former FA24-90 3,5-4,5)
- sensor shake reduction
- enhanced contrast-detection AF sensors and algorythms, with AF-engine like in any Pentax body

Doesn't this answer this thread's question ?

---

Last edited by Zygonyx; 01-26-2012 at 07:32 AM.

[Aristophanes]

Many Kx/Kr buyers are new to DSLR which means they will need time for some of them to progress to a level where they feel the need for something more than APS-C,

And how many would that be?

Maybe 1% pixel peep enough to care.

By far the vast majority of DSLR purchaser have little desire to "progress". It's not a photographic hobby for them, they take snapshots.

[rjcassara]

I don't get the absolute hatred some people have for the idea of a FF.

It seems to me that the "hatred" is not for FF itself, but what the production of said camera would do to Pentax's bottom line. Almost everyone is here because we like our Pentax products and we want the company to be successful.

Of course everyone is speculating one way or another, but on the anti-FF side, I think the basic idea is that there is no way for Pentax to insert itself into the established Canon/Nikon duopoly. If they try to price themselves lower than the 5dMkII, Pentax will either be losing money on every body sold or sacrificing quality. They could possibly make a premium FF that competes with the 1D / D3-4 models at a lower price point (say $3500-ish), but I don't know if there's much of a market there.

I tend to agree with fontan, that if Pentax goes FF, it will be mirrorless. By creating a new category, they could potentially gain customers from the pool of photographers who want FF IQ, but do not want the weight of a FF DSLR. This also fits the overall trend at Pentax of making cameras smaller and lighter so that you can always have them with you.

[rvannatta]

With the release of a fullframe, Pentax will have to release professional grade lenses like the two you are asking for and then some.

the optics for this stuff fis hardly a secret.

[gazonk]

I tend to agree with fontan, that if Pentax goes FF, it will be mirrorless. By creating a new category, they could potentially gain customers from the pool of photographers who want FF IQ, but do not want the weight of a FF DSLR. This also fits the overall trend at Pentax of making cameras smaller and lighter so that you can always have them with you.

The more I consider that idea, the more I dislike it. It makes much more sense to make the world's smallest FF DSLR with a beautiful OVF and the smooth silent operation of the K-5. A camera that makes the 5d look like a toy, and the D700 like a monster.

[Asahiflex]

Of course everyone is speculating one way or another, but on the anti-FF side, I think the basic idea is that there is no way for Pentax to insert itself into the established Canon/Nikon duopoly. If they try to price themselves lower than the 5dMkII, Pentax will either be losing money on every body sold or sacrificing quality. They could possibly make a premium FF that competes with the 1D / D3-4 models at a lower price point (say $3500-ish), but I don't know if there's much of a market there.

For once and for all... If Pentax enters the FF arena then it will be with a product which does not need to insert itself into the established duopoly. There are lots of other opportunities for a Pentax fullframe camera. Please think outside the box and far away from the ugly Canons and Nikons

[eddie1960]

It seems to me that the "hatred" is not for FF itself, but what the production of said camera would do to Pentax's bottom line. Almost everyone is here because we like our Pentax products and we want the company to be successful.

Of course everyone is speculating one way or another, but on the anti-FF side, I think the basic idea is that there is no way for Pentax to insert itself into the established Canon/Nikon duopoly. If they try to price themselves lower than the 5dMkII, Pentax will either be losing money on every body sold or sacrificing quality. They could possibly make a premium FF that competes with the 1D / D3-4 models at a lower price point (say $3500-ish), but I don't know if there's much of a market there.

I tend to agree with fontan, that if Pentax goes FF, it will be mirrorless. By creating a new category, they could potentially gain customers from the pool of photographers who want FF IQ, but do not want the weight of a FF DSLR. This also fits the overall trend at Pentax of making cameras smaller and lighter so that you can always have them with you.

And in the Hoya regime where there was never an intent to do more than make the company attractive for resale this may have been an issue. Ricoh OTOH is a far bigger company with the capital to invest and a desire to grow the brand and apparently focus on the enthusiast and pro market to some degree (from statements they have made )
So if the intent is to stick with current production capacity and structure i would agree FF is a slim hope, but growing the company implies the need to grow manufacturing capacity as well.

As for a mirrorless FF I can see them doing it possibly (and it does fill a market hole like has been hinted at) But I would imagine then we'd see 2 not one with a DSLR in the mix I think a Mirrorless FF would have to sell below 2 grand and am not sure costing structure is there yet

The more I consider that idea, the more I dislike it. It makes much more sense to make the world's smallest FF DSLR with a beautiful OVF and the smooth silent operation of the K-5. A camera that makes the 5d look like a toy, and the D700 like a monster.

Like this idea perhaps
Which is much the camera Falk described that could sell at $2250 or so and be a fantastic value in the market, but not so low that it causes the market to be totally disrupted and have canikon get hyper agressive

[eddie1960]

For once and for all... If Pentax enters the FF arena then it will be with a product which does not need to insert itself into the established duopoly. There are lots of other opportunities for a Pentax fullframe camera. Please think outside the box and far away from the ugly Canons and Nikons

exactly. apparently FF can only be huge and expensive. Falk's outlined camera is neither while building on the Pentax style and echoing there past. (and really I doubt the company that made the SLR a success 60 years ago would ignore the OVF design in their flagship K mount, though i could see a High end mirrorless come down the pike as a second offering hedging bets and spreading costs across 2 categories

[rjcassara]

exactly. apparently FF can only be huge and expensive. Falk's outlined camera is neither while building on the Pentax style and echoing there past.

Look, I would love for Falk's camera to become a reality. I would buy one in a heartbeat.

I just don't believe it is economically possible to meet that price point with all of those features.

It's my natural state to be pessimistic about the things I want to happen. That way, I can only be delighted when I'm wrong instead of being let down by unrealistic expectations.