[Anvh]

I like how this has been completely ignored so far. It's clearly not a Nikon D3:

Stupid google, i searched for Nikon and got a Canon....

[the swede]

I like how this has been completely ignored so far. It's clearly not a Nikon D3:

pfewww.... thought i was the only one for a moment... Thats why i wrote "Canon D3?"

[Pentaxergy]

Pentax should step up and take responsibility for it's legacy and reach into it's photographic being and pull out a full-frame camera - enough said! - Cheers, Pentaxergy

[maxfield_photo]

Pentax should step up and take responsibility for it's legacy and reach into it's photographic being and pull out a full-frame camera - enough said! - Cheers, Pentaxergy

I thought so 10 years ago, I still think so. Enough of this temporary APS-C solution, and let's get back to some real photography.

[selar]

If Pentax-Ricoh were going to make a full frame they would have announced it by now. The problem is that they want to, but are not sure at this stage if the company in its current state can support a full frame. So it all depends on how the Q, K-01 and K30 sell and how much cash flow they get out of it to support a FF dslr. They would also need to build up a better support network for the Pros that would use the FF dSLR. Based on these, I cannot see a FF dSLR in Pentax lineup till 2014.

I have also realized that my main desire to go FF is to go wide, it took me a while, but I now have the lens to scratch that itch on APS-C - the Sigma 8-16mm. I dont really care all that much about DOF. So I am now resigned to the fact that there is no FF in the near future and content with my APS-C lot. The K5 is going to be a hard act to follow, and should serve me well for the next 3-4 years, by that time there should be a clear path for cameras. It may well be that the dSLR itself is dead by then, the way things are going, who knows!

[eddie1960]

If Pentax-Ricoh were going to make a full frame they would have announced it by now. The problem is that they want to, but are not sure at this stage if the company in its current state can support a full frame. So it all depends on how the Q, K-01 and K30 sell and how much cash flow they get out of it to support a FF dslr. They would also need to build up a better support network for the Pros that would use the FF dSLR. Based on these, I cannot see a FF dSLR in Pentax lineup till 2014.

I have also realized that my main desire to go FF is to go wide, it took me a while, but I now have the lens to scratch that itch on APS-C - the Sigma 8-16mm. I dont really care all that much about DOF. So I am now resigned to the fact that there is no FF in the near future and content with my APS-C lot. The K5 is going to be a hard act to follow, and should serve me well for the next 3-4 years, by that time there should be a clear path for cameras. It may well be that the dSLR itself is dead by then, the way things are going, who knows!

Actually since Hoya probably did not fund a FF in the skunkworks, Ricoh would be starting pretty much from scratch since existing designs they had are very old. Taking that into account there is no chance they would have announced by now. the earliest feasible announcement is Photokina in September, and even at that point i imagine it would be a prototype preview with a projected launch of spring 2013 - probably along with 2-3 new zooms to support it. (24-70,70-200,maybe a uwa ie 16-35) Reality is the first 2 zooms they need in 2.8 and f4 as a lower price alternative

[mikeossur]

If you want full frame from Pentax, buy the Pentax 645D. This is the Pentax Pro camera meant to compete with Canon and the like. The problem with full frame (which is not really a problem) is there is no real estate to expand.
If Canon wants to make a bigger sensor they will have to abandon the 35mm format. Which means you would have to reinvest in all new lenses. But, I am sure for those who have a bottomless budget, it is not a problem.

[Raffwal]

If you want full frame from Pentax, buy the Pentax 645D.

Sorry, but in addition to being one of the most common, it is also one of the silliest answers to people wishing a FF Pentax. How exactly is the 645D an upgrade option to people using an APS-C Pentax with lenses that may cover the FF image circle? It is as good an option as buying into any other brand meaning that you should sell everything (excluding something minimal such as the K-5 battery and perhaps a flash) and start from scratch.

[mikeossur]

Maybe there is a reason it is a common response. I never said it was going to be a upgrade option for you - you are probably just SOL. You should take your complaint to Pentax, Not me.

[tjk911]

Maybe there is a reason it is a common response. I never said it was going to be a upgrade option for you - you are probably just SOL. You should take your complaint to Pentax, Not me.

You're missing the point of the thread very badly here and just coming off as a very rude person looking to pick a fight.

Yes, the 645D is a fantastic Medium Format camera. Yes, the Medium Format has its advantages over Full Frame.

But we're discussing the benefits of Full Frame and talking about "How to push the FF idea more" and not "What's better than the FF?"

Your statement "If you want FF, buy 645D" implies a few things:

1. Buying 645D would encourage Pentax to develop and release an FF camera, which is unlikely.
2. FF is irrelevant and MF is the way to go, which is much like saying APS-C or M4/3 is irrelevant, which is untrue. They have their advantages and disadvantages, and none of those markets have yet to die - which says something.

The 645D wasn't Pentax's answer to Canon or Nikon. They don't compete on the Medium Format arena. And saying that there's no estate to expand, unless you've good information to back that, I'm skeptical to say the least.

Your argument about bigger sensors are the same as APS-C vs MF vs FF vs M4/3.

If a person has a M4/3 lens he'd have to reinvest on entirely new set of lenses for APS-C as well. And so on so forth. Saying that an MF lens, because it has a larger image circle and can theoretically be mounted on smaller sensors, is the absolute be-all-end-all is just preposterous.

[donaldchalfy]

To TJK911, Your comments are well said.

A point to ponder: How many people on this thread realize the quantum leap in price increase the consumer will incur for all the R&D, complete redesign of the camera itself, building lenses to accommodate that sort of sensor? Because if one thinks that the great Pentax legacy glass from the film days will work on a new FF sensor and give great results, one is sorely mistaken. Now, take into account the new experimentation regarding having or excluding a low pass filter, it takes it to a new level of design issues.

Here is the question: Is one able and willing to pay a substantial increase in price (prices on par with Canon's 5D MK III, Nikon's D800, and the appropriate glass to make it work to its fullest potential) for such a leap in technology in Pentax's line up of cameras, and is it fiscally sound for Pentax to take such a leap of faith in the hopes that it will be a hit for the Pentax market?

I look forward to what people have to say.

[Ash]

Is one able and willing to pay a substantial increase in price (prices on par with Canon's 5D MK III, Nikon's D800, and the appropriate glass to make it work to its fullest potential) for such a leap in technology in Pentax's line up of cameras, and is it fiscally sound for Pentax to take such a leap of faith in the hopes that it will be a hit for the Pentax market?

Yes on all counts.
Pentax do have a significant following as well as much to gain for consumer confidence with a FF product. The camera alone will bost lens sales as well. I see it as more of a hit than releasing another MILC or entry level APS-C. But as we've seen in previous interviews with Pentax officials, they're acutely aware of the FF argument and demand, but they're not yet ready to release one.

[Blue]

Yes on all counts.
Pentax do have a significant following as well as much to gain for consumer confidence with a FF product. The camera alone will bost lens sales as well. I see it as more of a hit than releasing another MILC or entry level APS-C. But as we've seen in previous interviews with Pentax officials, they're acutely aware of the FF argument and demand, but they're not yet ready to release one.

I look at a dSLR manufacturer not having a full frame dSLR as an auto maker that doesn't have a professional race team out there. It is about credibility as well as visibility. It doesn't mean everyone drives a race car or wants one. It is also a laboratory for technology and performance development by the engineers of the makers.

[mikeossur]

@tjk911

Picking a fight? Come on... Maybe you are just being a little sensitive about what you believe. This is not a religion. I understand how all you feel about FF but I doubt it will happen anytime soon. Pentax has not
treated 35mm as a pro level camera sense they introduced the 645. It is possible that they may never go FF because that might cut into their 645D and pre-existing lens sales. Something I can understand.

Your argument you present

A: makes little sense.
B: You seem to be reading way more into my statement then what I said.

If Pentax were to go FF, it would make all their current lenses irrelevant. If FF was their intended path then all their new lenses would be FF to start with.

With digital sensors film formats are a bit irrelevant. The only restriction is the existing lens inventory that Pentax,Canon and Nikon already posses.
Pentax has a large medium format following with lots of preexisting lenses in the market. This has been their traditional PRO market NOT 35mm. Cannon and Nikon's PRO market
has always been 35mm. As the demand for more sensor power grows with the desire for higher sensor ISO, a larger sensor maybe required. The 35mm FF may be limiting at
some point. If Pentax believes this to be true as I do, it would be doubly a waist of their time to go the 35mm FF route.

The APS-C or M4/3 already out preforms 35mm film. Has truer color then 35mm film and allows camera makers to build all kinds of small cool cameras. Small 35mm cameras are something Pentax and Olympus both pride them selves in.

I hear statements that Pentax is not credible because they don''t have FF? Come on.. Look at the 645D reviews on this site.

[ElJamoquio]

To TJK911, Your comments are well said.

A point to ponder: How many people on this thread realize the quantum leap in price increase the consumer will incur for all the R&D, complete redesign of the camera itself, building lenses to accommodate that sort of sensor? Because if one thinks that the great Pentax legacy glass from the film days will work on a new FF sensor and give great results, one is sorely mistaken. Now, take into account the new experimentation regarding having or excluding a low pass filter, it takes it to a new level of design issues.

Here is the question: Is one able and willing to pay a substantial increase in price (prices on par with Canon's 5D MK III, Nikon's D800, and the appropriate glass to make it work to its fullest potential) for such a leap in technology in Pentax's line up of cameras, and is it fiscally sound for Pentax to take such a leap of faith in the hopes that it will be a hit for the Pentax market?

I look forward to what people have to say.

I'm not sure how Pentax can afford to NOT be in the FF segment.

1) Sensor and associated-chip costs will continue to decrease.
2) According to Amazon, about 7 flavors of FF are better sellers than the best selling Pentax camera

Of course there's a lot of pent up FF demand that's being satisfied right now, but how can Pentax afford to NOT be a player in a market that's bigger than Pentax and right now only has two legitimate competitors?

If the rumors for the D600 are anywhere in the neighborhood of being true, high-end APS-C cameras are about to take a BIG hit, especially the ones that are predicated on IQ rather than AF (i.e. Pentax K-5 vs. Canon 7D).