[monochrome]

I personally think the only reason Pentax (Ricoh) would commit what are (despite statements about Ricoh's vast) scarce resources to a 24x36 sensor camera will be if PRI decides it wants a presence in the (as they defne it) professional market.

Professionals can lease cameras and lenses and system accessories, so final dollar price/value for the gear is of less importance than the residual value attached to the end of the lease. Professionals need 100%-available tools (meaning B&M access to loan/rental at least in major markets). Professionals need special-handling service (meaning in-house repair facilities or much better service level agreements than PRIAC has with C.R.I.S.).

Thinking that line of reasoning through, would PRI commit to a multi-year investment in:

• a "Pentax Different" line of FF camera bodies?
• a "Pentax Different" set of internal camera body technologies? (AF, imaging, SR, bus, video, WiFi, GPS, etc.)
• a "Pentax Different" line of fast, sharp, durable lenses?
• a "Pentax Different" set of regional services to support professional photography businesses?
• a "Pentax Different" brand imaging campaign to exploit the above identity in their lower-tier FF bodies, MILC and APSc lines?

Just throwing a 24Mp body out there won't do anything. We might buy it, but who else would?

[eddie1960]

NEWS FLASH!

In Tokyo today, poor internet journalism caused officials from the Pentax Ricoh Imaging Corporation to mistakenly believe that they were to be launching a new 24 MP full frame DSLR called the K-Ω. This new camera features 16-bit RAW files, an updated 71 point PDAF system, uncrippled K-mount, 1/500th of a second max sync speed, and a new innovative flash system that uses radio signals to transmit real-time TTL data, eliminating the need for a preflash.

Realizing the futility of trying to stop further internet rumors of this sort, PRIC officials decided instead to bring reality in line with the rumors and release the camera. The K-Ω will be available in stores worldwide on July 15 at a sticker price of $1299 US for the body only, or $1499 bundled as a kit with the FA 31 Ltd.

a recipe for success and bankruptcy all at the same time lol

how long till this shows up in rumours....any bets

[eddie1960]

I personally think the only reason Pentax (Ricoh) would commit what are (despite statements about Ricoh's vast) scarce resources to a 24x36 sensor camera will be if PRI decides it wants a presence in the (as they defne it) professional market.

Professionals can lease cameras and lenses and system accessories, so final dollar price/value for the gear is of less importance than the residual value attached to the end of the lease. Professionals need 100%-available tools (meaning B&M access to loan/rental at least in major markets). Professionals need special-handling service (meaning in-house repair facilities or much better service level agreements than PRIAC has with C.R.I.S.).

Thinking that line of reasoning through, would PRI commit to a multi-year investment in:

• a "Pentax Different" line of FF camera bodies?
• a "Pentax Different" set of internal camera body technologies? (AF, imaging, SR, bus, video, WiFi, GPS, etc.)
• a "Pentax Different" line of fast, sharp, durable lenses?
• a "Pentax Different" set of regional services to support professional photography businesses?
• a "Pentax Different" brand imaging campaign to exploit the above identity in their lower-tier FF bodies, MILC and APSc lines?

Just throwing a 24Mp body out there won't do anything. We might buy it, but who else would?

the last 2 points are almost the most important. even if they did the first 3 without the last 2 it would have little impact though it would sell to a lot of us that would be guaranteed in any case

[Aristophanes]

Pentax just needs to be competitive.

To some extent their line of compact primes is a differentiator, and odd # Ltds.

Total backwards compatibility is an asset.

AA batteries is one too, for the lower end.

WR is a market-happy feature. Why they have not done this more widely is a mystery.

This is an industry of small, incremental moves.

[Rondec]

I think the discussion of full frame versus APS-C has been beaten into the ground. The reality is that for most focal lengths, say between 30mm and 200mm, there is not that much difference. Sure, Jay, on your photo there maybe a little less depth of field with the full frame lens than you would get with an APS-C with similar angle of view. That said, I don't believe the difference would make a significant difference in the final photo. Throughout history, photographers have struggled to get more depth of field, more things in focus. Perhaps you have heard of the Group f64? To them, the goal was to get everything in focus.

I have seen a lot more poor photographs from too little depth of field, from people shooting with a 50mm f1.8 than photographers who have lousy photos because they have one stop too much depth of field.

Edit: I should say that there are certainly applications which can benefit from full frame look. The increased resolution on a camera like the D800 can make a difference. I might even want such a camera, given the right price and sensor. I just am realistic and realize that it isn't really going to dramatically change my photography skills or, resulting images.

[ihasa]

Pentax just needs to be competitive.

To some extent their line of compact primes is a differentiator, and odd # Ltds.

Total backwards compatibility is an asset.

AA batteries is one too, for the lower end.

WR is a market-happy feature. Why they have not done this more widely is a mystery.

This is an industry of small, incremental moves.

I think you're right; Pentax don't need to go straight into that competitive 'pro' FF market, just need to cater for the enthusiast and semi-pro's desire for a desirable, comparitively small, high quality FF imaging device. I guess without the need to support service networks for professionals, they can bring us, the enthusiasts, a slightly better value product.

[mecrox]

I personally think the only reason Pentax (Ricoh) would commit what are (despite statements about Ricoh's vast) scarce resources to a 24x36 sensor camera will be if PRI decides it wants a presence in the (as they defne it) professional market.

Professionals can lease cameras and lenses and system accessories, so final dollar price/value for the gear is of less importance than the residual value attached to the end of the lease. Professionals need 100%-available tools (meaning B&M access to loan/rental at least in major markets). Professionals need special-handling service (meaning in-house repair facilities or much better service level agreements than PRIAC has with C.R.I.S.).

Thinking that line of reasoning through, would PRI commit to a multi-year investment in:

• a "Pentax Different" line of FF camera bodies?
• a "Pentax Different" set of internal camera body technologies? (AF, imaging, SR, bus, video, WiFi, GPS, etc.)
• a "Pentax Different" line of fast, sharp, durable lenses?
• a "Pentax Different" set of regional services to support professional photography businesses?
• a "Pentax Different" brand imaging campaign to exploit the above identity in their lower-tier FF bodies, MILC and APSc lines?

Just throwing a 24Mp body out there won't do anything. We might buy it, but who else would?

Pentax have a much more informed idea of where the industry is likely to go over the next few years than anyone on this board and of how that shakes down in terms of company finances and technology available from third parties (primarily sensors), So Pentax won't necessarily have to do any of the things you list. For example, if FF sensors start to become commodities in the way APS-C ones now are - if - then there won't be anything remarkable or big deal about producing an FF camera. Everyone will be doing it. Pentax will likely do so too and, if soon, then again likely they might use small body size, good ergonomics, compact high-quality primes and unusually thorough WR as their selling points just as they do for their current APS-C cameras. No need for a drama. It's just a step-change, perhaps inevitable, perhaps not, in the development of the market.

On the other hand, for all we know, Pentax might decide that the market where they can do best and really return the numbers is lower down the scale, sub 1000 bucks, sub FF. For one reason or another the high-end DSLR stuff is not for them and the others are welcome to it. Or they might make a big play for video, or ...

We simply do not know. I'm not worried either way and just cannot get this FF obsession at all. I'll say though that the idea of taking on Nikon and Canon at the very high end with a professional service network, rental system and all the rest sounds absolutely crazy. There are already two really entrenched players in this market who have built their positions over decades. It's hard to see there's room or in fact any need for a third player.

Pentax are Pentax. They produce high-quality cameras for enthusiasts but it's not 100% top tier and nor are the prices. Quality products which offer value for individuals and a dollop of something a little different has been the formula. They aren't and are never going to be Nikon or Canon. Pentax may grow considerably in the next few years - or not, we don't know - but even if they do they still won't be Nikon or Canon and nor will they be producing cameras which are identikit versions of the big two. You either like this or you don't. I guess the fly in the ointment is whether Ricoh just don't get the formula and tinker with it with disastrous results. We'll see,

---

Last edited by mecrox; 06-27-2012 at 11:34 AM.

[jsherman999]

I think the discussion of full frame versus APS-C has been beaten into the ground. The reality is that for most focal lengths, say between 30mm and 200mm, there is not that much difference. Sure, Jay, on your photo there maybe a little less depth of field with the full frame lens than you would get with an APS-C with similar angle of view. That said, I don't believe the difference would make a significant difference in the final photo. Throughout history, photographers have struggled to get more depth of field, more things in focus. Perhaps you have heard of the Group f64? To them, the goal was to get everything in focus.

I have seen a lot more poor photographs from too little depth of field, from people shooting with a 50mm f1.8 than photographers who have lousy photos because they have one stop too much depth of field.

Edit: I should say that there are certainly applications which can benefit from full frame look. The increased resolution on a camera like the D800 can make a difference. I might even want such a camera, given the right price and sensor. I just am realistic and realize that it isn't really going to dramatically change my photography skills or, resulting images.

As I said, it's about #3 on the 'why FF matters' list for me. It just gets discussed more than any other thing because it continues to be the least-understood thing, for whatever reason.

And yes, I know all about 'Group f64'. A good P&S can get you to that look now, if the photographer can pull off that little 'art' part of it

[Aristophanes]

Group f64 = crappy bokeh

[Aristophanes]

On the other hand, for all we know, Pentax might decide that the market where they can do best and really return the numbers is lower down the scale, sub 1000 bucks, sub FF. For one reason or another the high-end DSLR stuff is not for them and the others are welcome to it. Or they might make a big play for video, or ..

It's rarely one or the other.

Most companies bracket the market.

Casio does not, nor HP, nor did Kodak. But the main Japanese optical companies like Canon, Nikon, and Pentax, they do. Leica and Hasselblad go in the opposite direction.

[ElJamoquio]

I think the discussion of full frame versus APS-C has been beaten into the ground. The reality is that for most focal lengths, say between 30mm and 200mm, there is not that much difference. Sure, Jay, on your photo there maybe a little less depth of field with the full frame lens than you would get with an APS-C with similar angle of view. That said, I don't believe the difference would make a significant difference in the final photo. Throughout history, photographers have struggled to get more depth of field, more things in focus. Perhaps you have heard of the Group f64? To them, the goal was to get everything in focus.

I have seen a lot more poor photographs from too little depth of field, from people shooting with a 50mm f1.8 than photographers who have lousy photos because they have one stop too much depth of field.

Edit: I should say that there are certainly applications which can benefit from full frame look. The increased resolution on a camera like the D800 can make a difference. I might even want such a camera, given the right price and sensor. I just am realistic and realize that it isn't really going to dramatically change my photography skills or, resulting images.

'The full frame look'.

If, for instance, you went to Photozone, and compared lens tests on two cameras with similar pixel density (like the D3X and the D200), you'd see that the resolution on the FF camera absolutely kills the APS-C camera. If you compare the same angle of view and DOF (say, on the 24-70 with FF at 40mm and f/4, APS-C at 24mm and f/2.8), the FF camera has roughly 1.5x the linear resolution, as expected.

Whether you need that or not is up to you, I love some of my stitched landscapes at 100MB medium-ish format size, the details are noticeably clearer even in small prints. Moreover I can accomplish better resolution with much cheaper lenses on FF; more or less, any lens on FF will outresolve any lens on APS-C, and I no longer need the fastest possible lenses. SNR is the same between FF and APS-C (at least it was on the D800/D7000) at equivalent DOF, but of course you can still get an 'effective' iso of ~50 (APS-C) on the FF lens with associated benefits if you want/tolerate smaller DOF.

Bokeh is another matter, of course, and must be paid for.

[Pål Jensen]

Yes, we get the same control over DOF with aps-c but in a tighter composition. Let's say I have an 85mm f/1.4 on my aps-c camera and I want a portrait covering from head to toe in horizontal composition, and I want the background to be really blurred out, but I have to move backwards to get the conposition. Yeah I can get the background blurred with it but not enough.

You must be joking. At F:1.4 you get so thin DOF on an APS camera with an 85mm lens that you can hardly get the whole face in focus.
I know professional protrait photographers. Their fastest lens is F:2.8....

[Pål Jensen]

Maybe so, in theory, but of course in practise you do get less DOF control, because the cropped FOV means you either have to move away from the subject or use a wider lens, which reduces DOF. And no, DOF isn't my over-riding concern when taking pictures; but it is nice to have that subject isolation, and like many things, it's something that you miss when you don't have it!

You make it sounds like you don't have thin DOF with APS. This is not true. Images that display thinner DOF than whats possible with APS hardly exist; at least not sucessful ones. I cannot remember ever seeing one in print. However, the extra DOF for a certain angle of view/perspective is everywhere in print. In fact, many LF photographers use that format to get that endless DOF look. The control over DOF is the same for APS and FF but in most cases the APS range is more useful...

[Pål Jensen]

The data from DxO on the D800 and the D7000 shows that equivalency is quite true.

You can't make formats equal without making them the same size.

[ElJamoquio]

Since you have the equipment at hand, it should be easy for you to take two pictures, one FF, 40mm, f/4, and one APS-C, 24mm, f/2.8, and show how un-equal they are.