[Eigengrau]

Also - does anybody have any idea what full-frame did for Sony market-share-wise? Last I checked they aren't doing all that fantastic in the DSLR front, and the A900 was pretty underwhelming. I think producing good cameras is ultimately what matters - a bad or average full frame doesn't help any, while a good APS-C can help a lot.

[filorp]

FF is not going to make any significant growth

When i was buying first dslr - i new its going to be Pentax - my college said: look how many professional photographers use canikons, where is pentax? There was couple of us willing to buy dslr - i bought Pentax the other two took d40 and d80 somebody else bought canon becase somebady told him what equipment is been used in the professional studio.... What makes marketing? Adverts? No, the moste important role in marketing plays the users, if they are professionals they become an experts and authority - its all works on a simple logic: what kind of cameras uses photographers during the olimpic? Nikon! so im gonna buy a nikon.... Look haw many good, and impossible to overestimate marketing job made benjamin kanarek? Simple really simple logic....

[Pål Jensen]

The concept that there is no hope for the K-mount without FF is ridiculous. The future of K-mount depend on cameras that sells in high volumes and that means smaller sensors...

That doesn't mean that FF is not a good idea but the question remains how many FF cameras Pentax can sell....

[Pål Jensen]

Also - does anybody have any idea what full-frame did for Sony market-share-wise? Last I checked they aren't doing all that fantastic in the DSLR front, and the A900 was pretty underwhelming. I think producing good cameras is ultimately what matters - a bad or average full frame doesn't help any, while a good APS-C can help a lot.

It made Pentax surpassing them with double marketshare....

[24X36NOW]

I remember a thread a while back when somebody asked "could an APS-C ever be good enough that you wouldn't need full frame?"

It seems to me that if you don't answer "yes" to that question, then you aren't thinking rationally. The reason I hollered for a full-frame Pentax for quite a while was the fact that I wanted D700-esque low-light performance, and I thought that the only way to achieve it was full frame. Well, now the K-5 is competitive with any camera out there in terms of sensitivity, and I have to say that I don't really give a damn about full frame any more, because it isn't offering any compelling benefit (for me).

Most of us don't need higher resolution. Most of us don't need thinner DoF. What else is full frame offering, other than bragging rights? And, is it really worth Pentax expending the resources to enter the full-frame arms race when 90% of users will be better satisfied by a high-performance APS-C?

I understand that there is a niche market that needs that full frame thing, but I think the obsession borders on religious for some, and that if we are objective it doesn't offer anything critical in most scenarios. I certainly wouldn't complain if Pentax brought one out, and if they do the same thing with full frame that they did with the K-5 I would be thrilled and a potential customer, but honestly I don't know if there's a good business case, or an entirely rational justification for full frame. What is it actually offering at this point?

I am thinking perfectly rationally. As to your question as to what it offers, among other things, it offers a viewfinder that doesn't suck. This advantage will never be overcome by any APS-C camera, because an APS-C camera is saddled with a viewfinder based on a sensor less than half the size. Making a viewfinder equal to the size of a FF viewfinder would require a cost comparable to a FF camera, which would discard the only actual advantage APS-C cameras ever offered - price. As for the K5 being competitive with a D700 in terms of high ISO performance, if you're impressed with detail-smearing noise reduction, good for you. In no way is the K5 the D700's equal, and that's despite the D700 being years older. If you have "all that you need," as you suggested, with what Pentax already made, then what do you have against them making something better for those who actually want more? What makes you want Pentax's aspirations to be so limited?

[Pål Jensen]

I am thinking perfectly rationally. As to your question as to what it offers, among other things, it offers a viewfinder that doesn't suck. This advantage will never be overcome by any APS-C camera, because an APS-C camera is saddled with a viewfinder based on a sensor less than half the size. Making a viewfinder equal to the size of a FF viewfinder would require a cost comparable to a FF camera, which would discard the only actual advantage APS-C cameras ever offered - price. As for the K5 being competitive with a D700 in terms of high ISO performance, if you're impressed with detail-smearing noise reduction, good for you. In no way is the K5 the D700's equal, and that's despite the D700 being years older. If you have "all that you need," as you suggested, with what Pentax already made, then what do you have against them making something better for those who actually want more? What makes you want Pentax's aspirations to be so limited?

The viewfinder is actually the best rational argument for FF. When it comes to image quality APS is more than good enough. You may see difference when pixelpeeping but when printing my bet is that no one is going to tell whats shot with the K-5 or the EOS5 in large fine art prints...
I know I can't. I was complementing the qualities of Canons 21mp sensor in large print until the photographer pointed out that it was shot with a 20D

[filorp]

refusal to make a FF dSLR will mean that the K-mount will continue to whither away and die

it need to be not only FF but really brain stormy FF like d3 d700 was for nikon camp.....

[Byrd-2020]

Pentax doesn't have an "advanced APS-C camera niche." Nikon and Canon both have APS-C cameras more "advanced" than the K5, and there's nothing that makes the K5 all that "special" that makes it a "niche" product. The whole "niche" mantra is nothing more than excuse-making for Pentax being a shrinking also-ran in the market place, and it's been the "bottom feeding" strategy that Pentax has pursued for years now that have moved it from being the camera maker that sold more SLRs than any other to the one that is but a memory in today's market. The bone-headed "APS-C only" strategy is more of the same bottom feeding, and has already lost Pentax a lot of customers. It certainly isn't going to gain Pentax any "growth" which is what Ricoh is talking about.

Pentax market share is shrinking. Pentax is losing third party lens support. Pentax is dying a slow and painful death, essentially, and your brilliant "solution" to this is essentially more of the same. Get a grip. The "glory days" of Pentax were in the manual focus era. If you want to hold on to any of what is left of that customer base (which is much bigger than the "I never owned a Pentax before the digital age" crowd), APS-C dSLRs (with their puny little viewfinders that suck) don't cut it. If you want to convince any new customers that are serious about photography (who are the ones that will actually buy the nice glass you seem to think Pentax does need to make) that Pentax is a good system to choose, it needs a FF offering. Why buy into such a limited (and becoming ever more so, with the loss of third party lens support) system? The third party lens makers see the writing on the wall, and have made the intelligent business decision based on their assessment of Pentax's future. If that "writing on the wall" is going to be changed, it will require a FF dSLR, because that is where Pentax has a chance to stop the bleeding. APS-C dSLRs are a dime a dozen; there's a much better chance that Pentax can provide something "unique" (like a FF dSLR with a superior viewfinder to maximize the backward compatibility factor) in the FF realm, where there are only a handful of competing cameras, than there is any chance of winning converts (or keeping more K-mount customers from becoming Nikon or Canon converts) with more "preaching to the choir" APS-C cameras. Especially when the "choir," vocal as it may be, is shrinking.

As I see it, this analysis is spot on.

I hope Ricoh is listening.

[pz1fan]

Also - does anybody have any idea what full-frame did for Sony market-share-wise? Last I checked they aren't doing all that fantastic in the DSLR front, and the A900 was pretty underwhelming. I think producing good cameras is ultimately what matters - a bad or average full frame doesn't help any, while a good APS-C can help a lot.

Actually Sony is making another full frame camera as we speak. That argument for Pentax not making FF is no longer valid.

[24X36NOW]

Also - does anybody have any idea what full-frame did for Sony market-share-wise? Last I checked they aren't doing all that fantastic in the DSLR front, and the A900 was pretty underwhelming. I think producing good cameras is ultimately what matters - a bad or average full frame doesn't help any, while a good APS-C can help a lot.

Actually Sony is making another full frame camera as we speak. That argument for Pentax not making FF is no longer valid.

Indeed, Sony is about to release another FF dSLR. Of course, if they stick with that pellicle mirror crap, they'll be handicapping things in favor of Nikon and Canon, but anyone arguing why Pentax shouldn't make FF dSLRs will instead see it as some kind of evidence that Pentax couldn't sell one.

The A900/A850 didn't do well because Sony didn't get very good performance from its FF sensor, opting at the time to chase pixels instead of image quality. They also are in a more challenging position in terms of selling FF than Pentax, because, like Canon, predecessor Minolta switched to an entirely new lens mount for autofocus, but, unlike Canon, didn't get away with it. Many old-time Minolta customers stayed with their manual focus gear and never bought Minolta autofocus gear. When those old manual focus Minolta customers switched to autofocus and/or digital, many went Canon or Nikon, rather than buy all new gear from what by then was a second-tier player. The Minolta autofocus offerings were more consumer-oriented (lots of plasticky, slow, variable aperture zooms), and not exactly the type of gear that everybody was itching to try out on a 24.5 megapixel camera that didn't perform so well. As for Sony, their lens line up was small, and overpriced, so even though the camera body was relatively cheap, you had to spend big $$ to put together a decent set of lenses.

Pentax vs. Sony is apples and oranges - there are millions of lenses in K-mount that will produce great results on a FF dSLR, and Pentax wouldn't be so stupid as to think that image quality on their FF dSLR should take a back seat to spec sheet puffery of any variety, as did Sony. The only use for the old Minolta manual focus glass these days is to stick it on some crappy mirrorless camera with adapters (probably with stop down metering), or as paper weights.

[24X36NOW]

The viewfinder is actually the best rational argument for FF.

It's also the very essence of why Pentax has been losing its "enthusiast" customers to Nikon and Canon. As I mentioned elsewhere in this thread, the "glory days" of Pentax were in the manual focus era. I know I found it impossible to focus manually with pitiful APS-C viewfinders, unless it was "infinity" (or close to it) type focusing in brightly lit conditions. Anything else, particularly with short focal lengths, was endless frustration. Cat's Eye screens didn't help either - I think they actually made it worse for me as opposed to better (I was never a fan of split-image focusing "aids," just give me a nice matte screen with at most a small microprism, ala the K1000, and I'm happy).

So, the choices become...

1. Endure the small keyhole in a thick door viewfinders - not even remotely acceptable IMO (I actually like to enjoy photography, which is tough if your equipment annoys you!)

2. Replace all manual focus lenses with autofocus - in which case, why limit your choices by sticking with Pentax? If you have to buy everything "new," there's little reason not to switch to Nikon or Canon, and enjoy the benefits of "every lens made for dSLRs by every third party lens maker is made in your mount, PLUS what your camera maker has in its own line-up" that Pentax users used to enjoy back in manual focus days.

3. Switch to Nikon or Canon, if (2) hadn't already taken you there.

This is exactly how Pentax has seen its user base shrivel, and is exactly why 3rd party lens support is drying up for the K-mount. No FF = continuation of decline, since the best selection of glass in K-mount is STILL manual focus glass, which isn't much fun to use on cameras with crappy viewfinders. Pentax has been "bottom feeding" in the camera market ever since then, and that's why they have been losing market share, and why they are still losing it.

Repeating the same behavior and expecting the result to be different is one definition of insanity!

[pz1fan]

The viewfinder is actually the best rational argument for FF. When it comes to image quality APS is more than good enough. You may see difference when pixelpeeping but when printing my bet is that no one is going to tell whats shot with the K-5 or the EOS5 in large fine art prints...

m43 is also "good enough". If there's no advantage for a larger sensor, the 645D is pointless. You can't have it both ways.

It's not all about printing either. My bet is with the upcoming 4kHD monitors, people will notice the difference especially with 36M pixels. Plug in your memory card to your 4kHD picture frame (or TV) on the wall, and there may be a difference with the larger sensor.

[24X36NOW]

FF is not going to make any significant growth. ~5% of Nikon and Canon sales are FF; for Pentax it will certainly be no more. Hence, growth must come elsewehere....

Any statements about FF market share are related to one thing - price. That is the only thing that has prevented a large expansion of FF market share, and now it's actually going to see expansion even without price reductions. There's plenty of people still shooting APS-C that haven't upgraded in a few generations that are talking about upgrading (e.g., from the D300) to the Nikon D800, which provides enough pixels (36.3) to include a "free" APS-C camera (15.3 megapixels in "crop" mode is all you need for APS-C). APS-C is reaching its limits of development in terms of resolution and low light performance, as in there isn't much incremental image quality to squeeze out of it, and between that and the introduction of FF cameras with enough pixel density to cover anything that an APS-C camera can do, FF is now becoming the "upgrade" path for both APS-C and existing FF shooters.

In other words, as they say in the world of finance, "past performance is not an indicator of future results." Pentax can join the party, or continue to have dirt dumped on its face as it continues to get buried in the dSLR market.

[24X36NOW]

Wouldn't be better to create an official petition page and get everyone to sign it?

This way, people wouldn't need a facebook account to participate and and you could send the links to every Pentax corp.

Agree 100% - I hate Facebook, and have no intention of subjecting myself to it to participate in this "poll."

[RonHendriks1966]

My bet is with the upcoming 4kHD monitors, people will notice the difference especially with 36M pixels. Plug in your memory card to your 4kHD picture frame (or TV) on the wall, and there may be a difference with the larger sensor.

Well I have a Fujitsu P27T-6 screen that is 27 inch and has 2560x1440 pixels. On that screen you already need good images.

Well Pentax has to figure out how to make an excellent body that servces a lot of different customerneeds and can be produced batch wise on say 2000-2500 items a month. When they can do that and make it profatable, then there is no reason not to bring it to the market.