Pentax full frame rumour

Supernaut · 08-28-2012, 01:56 PM

Originally posted by Pål Jensen

How do you explain that when sensors are getting better and better and the need for larger sensors is actually decreasing from an image quality point of view? The main selling point is actually price and smaller sensors and lenses are going to stay cheaper overall.....
BTW Olympus have announced that they intend to make a pro 4/3 DSLR; they must think that some want smaller sensors. It might even cost more than some FF bodies but does those who want such an Olympus care?

I explain it with the fact that people always tend to want the best. Or at least buy into a system that offers a top of the line product.

Regarding Oly? Maybe they estimate that there is enough users of the higher end 4/3 glass out there to make a profit. Hardly an effort to make new customers buy into the pretty much dead 4/3 system.

JohnBee · 08-28-2012, 01:59 PM

Originally posted by Wired

Please don't follow those threats. I'll be a Pentaxian until I die. I don't have any reason to change, I work within the limitations of my gear. Besides.. Nikon and Canon require too much tinkering in PP To get the colors and contrast Pentax gives you. I had a D800 for a day, I liked it sure, but it made me cherish my K5 even more!

Tell me more!
I'm about to pull the trigger on a D800 kit.

TomTextura · 08-28-2012, 02:13 PM - **3 Likes**

Sometimes I like analogies, even when they're less than perfect.

Listening to people argue against Pentax coming out with a full frame camera is like listening to someone argue that Dodge should only make 2x4 pickups with V6 engines and leave the 4x4 V8 business to Ford and Chevy. The argument seems to go that a V6 engine (APS-C sensor) can handle a heavy enough load and a 2x4 drivetrain (APS-C lenses, etc.) does well enough on most terrain so nobody really needs the 2 extra cylinders of the V8 (FF sensor) or 4x4 drivetrain (FF lenses, etc.), never mind that they use the same chassis (mount). Well, some people like to drive (shoot) off road (fast wide angle) and haul (shoot) very heavy payloads (low light, high ISO). These same people might also like the higher torque (greater light collection) and stickier traction (narrower DOF) offered by the 4x4 V8 (FF system). I understand that implementing the bigger engine and four wheel drivetrain isn't entirely cakewalk; Dodge would have to design the differentials (shake reduction), transfer case (mirror/pentaprism), beefed up exhaust system (buffer/processor), and whatnot to make it all work, but I think those are entirely doable and certainly worthwhile for Dodge to be able to regain and maintain its serious truck maker image, performance, and appeal. I like my Dodge 2x4 V6 truck, as a matter of fact I like it a lot, but one day I hope to be able to park a 4x4 V8 next to it because I would really like to have the additional capability that it offers for whenever the time calls or just if I get the hankering. And since I've been driving around with those piss on Chevy and piss on Ford stickers, I'd feel awfully silly going and buying either one of those two pickups.

**Pål Jensen** · 08-28-2012, 02:37 PM

Originally posted by TomTextura

Sometimes I like analogies, even when they're less than perfect.

Listening to people argue against Pentax coming out with a full frame camera is like listening to someone argue that Dodge should only make 2x4 pickups with V6 engines and leave the 4x4 V8 business to Ford and Chevy. The argument seems to go that a V6 engine (APS-C sensor) can handle a heavy enough load and a 2x4 drivetrain (APS-C lenses, etc.) does well enough on most terrain so nobody really needs the 2 extra cylinders of the V8 (FF sensor) or 4x4 drivetrain (FF lenses, etc.), never mind that they use the same chassis (mount). .

The question is not whether they should make one but whether they can sell one considering their marketshare, market demographics and line-up (need four formats + associated lenses; can they pull that off?). Incidentally, Ford or GM cannot sell V8's in Europe and hardly any V6's for that matter. Nobody buy's them. In fact, they discontinued their large cars cause nobody bought them. Ford is now quite sucessful selling cars in the entry to mid market. If they had made huge saloons and SUV's in Europe they would have been bankrupt by now.
Pentax does indeed have products and buyers for products beyond Nikon and Canon high-end. The question is: how many FF camera and lenses can Pentax sell and would it be better to use the money spent on developing FF camera and lenses on strenghtening existing line-ups? Thats the question....

BTW Those who do sell V8's in Europe are increasingly replacing them with V6's, like Audi for instance. Better technology makes bigger engines and bigger sensors less relevant from a performance point of view....

Last edited by Pål Jensen; 08-28-2012 at 03:06 PM.

TomTextura · 08-28-2012, 02:50 PM

Originally posted by Pål Jensen

how many FF camera and lenses can Pentax sell

I can't answer that question in any definite manner, obviously, but my guess is that they will be able to sell enough to make the risk/investment worthwhile. If it can compete alongside the D800 IQ-wise then the positive press alone will be worth a fortune for the Pentax brand, even if it is only sold in small numbers.

Originally posted by Pål Jensen

would it be better to use the money spent on developing FF camera and lenses on strenghtening existing line-ups?

These questions, on the other hand, are quite easy to answer. FF lenses would strengthen the Pentax lens lineup. A FF camera would strengthen the Pentax user base. Plain. And. Simple.

**Pål Jensen** · 08-28-2012, 03:24 PM

Originally posted by TomTextura

These questions, on the other hand, are quite easy to answer. FF lenses would strengthen the Pentax lens lineup. A FF camera would strengthen the Pentax user base. Plain. And. Simple.

I cannot see how they could pull that off. How could they excel in both the "Q Format", APS, FF and 645? Not to mention getting enough lenses in the market to make all the users of these system happy. Isn't there a danger that they end up being spread too thinly being me too in all areas?
I would like to see an FF Pentax but I doubt Pentax have the volume and the users population to make it viable. Not even Nikon and Canon have four interchangeable lens formats to support and they have 80%+ of the DSLR market....

TomTextura · 08-28-2012, 03:39 PM

Originally posted by Pål Jensen

How could they excel in both the "Q Format", APS, FF and 645?

I'm actually only considering the K-mount. I don't have any investment in the other formats, nor do I plan to. If the problem is a matter of being stretched too thin, then if it were up to me, the Q would be the first to go. Maybe I'm being a snob, but it's hard to take lenses seriously when they don't have focal lengths and two out of five of their names consist of the word "toy".

ElJamoquio · 08-28-2012, 04:04 PM

Originally posted by Pål Jensen

The main selling point is actually price and smaller sensors and lenses are going to stay cheaper overall

You keep saying that, and I keep waiting for my M 4/3 25mm f/0.7. Actually, come to think of it, I'd prefer a 9mm f/0.25 Q lens, it should be much cheaper than the $300 FA 50mm.

**Pål Jensen** · 08-28-2012, 04:15 PM

Pertinent for the discussion:

On Camera Gear: Assumptions Can Get You in Trouble! | oopoomoo

mecrox · 08-28-2012, 04:15 PM

Originally posted by Pål Jensen

The question is not whether they should make one but whether they can sell one considering their marketshare, market demographics and line-up (need four formats + associated lenses; can they pull that off?). Incidentally, Ford or GM cannot sell V8's in Europe and hardly any V6's for that matter. Nobody buy's them. In fact, they discontinued their large cars cause nobody bought them. Ford is now quite sucessful selling cars in the entry to mid market. If they had made huge saloons and SUV's in Europe they would have been bankrupt by now.
Pentax does indeed have products and buyers for products beyond Nikon and Canon high-end. The question is: how many FF camera and lenses can Pentax sell and would it be better to use the money spent on developing FF camera and lenses on strenghtening existing line-ups? Thats the question....

BTW Those who do sell V8's in Europe are increasingly replacing them with V6's, like Audi for instance. Better technology makes bigger engines and bigger sensors less relevant from a performance point of view....

Yes, folks forget that in Europe high gas prices mean you have to be very wealthy to afford a ride with a big engine just as high taxes and product prices mean you have to be pretty darn wealthy to afford high-end camera equipment. I can just about afford a ride with a big engine but that's 'cos it's only got two wheels.

What I'll throw into the mix is the development of the K-01 idea, i.e. APS-C mirrorless. I am having great success with my copy and the limited lenses, and so if Pentax bring out a subsequent version with, perhaps, better AF performance and mods like a tilt screen, I would be in the market. Since this may well represent the future of the solid middle of cameras for those who do not want a full-on DSLR it would be crazy (imho) of Pentax not to keep their toe in the water and their R&D primed up. Given the 500 ton gorillas in the FF space, they could easily do better with one of these than with an FF costing 3-5 times the price and only a relatively tiny number of buyers.

ElJamoquio · 08-28-2012, 04:26 PM

Originally posted by Pål Jensen

Pertinent for the discussion:

On Camera Gear: Assumptions Can Get You in Trouble! | oopoomoo

Pro guy owns 1DS Mk III, takes some pics with large DOF with less expensive cameras.

Got it.

Listen, I love some of my P&S pics, taken in good light, where infinite DOF was appropriate, too. Doesn't mean I'm not going to pony up $2-3k when a camera that can use less expensive lenses and does better at high ISO comes out.

**Pål Jensen** · 08-28-2012, 04:39 PM

Originally posted by ElJamoquio

Pro guy owns 1DS Mk III, takes some pics with large DOF with less expensive cameras.

Got it.
.

You didn't. The article has nothing to do with DOF....

ElJamoquio · 08-28-2012, 05:06 PM

Originally posted by Pål Jensen

You didn't. The article has nothing to do with DOF....

Don't worry, you just missed the pics at the bottom of the article.

Wonder why that guy doesn't sell his depreciating 1DS III and pocket the cash.

TomTextura · 08-28-2012, 05:26 PM

Originally posted by Pål Jensen

Pertinent for the discussion: On Camera Gear: Assumptions Can Get You in Trouble! | oopoomoo

I agree with the assertion that you can't judge a photographer's skills by their gear. However, this article doesn't make a very strong case as the icy beach/mountain scape pic stood out clear as day as having higher IQ than the other example pics. It was the only one from a DSLR and not a P&S.

KungPOW · 08-28-2012, 05:26 PM

Originally posted by Wired

Please don't follow those threats. I'll be a Pentaxian until I die. I don't have any reason to change, I work within the limitations of my gear. Besides.. Nikon and Canon require too much tinkering in PP To get the colors and contrast Pentax gives you. I had a D800 for a day, I liked it sure, but it made me cherish my K5 even more!

Nikon images, especially RAW images tend to be flat, low contrast, and not very saturated.

I deal with this in Lightroom by using camera profiles on import. It does not take any time. It is easy. I can make my Nikon images look exactly like my Pentax images.

I would expect anyone who is shooting a D800 will be using a profile that either they made, or they downloaded from Nikon.

08-28-2012, 02:13 PM - 3 Likes	#903
TomTextura Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2012 Location: Denver Photos: Albums Posts: 570	Sometimes I like analogies, even when they're less than perfect. Listening to people argue against Pentax coming out with a full frame camera is like listening to someone argue that Dodge should only make 2x4 pickups with V6 engines and leave the 4x4 V8 business to Ford and Chevy. The argument seems to go that a V6 engine (APS-C sensor) can handle a heavy enough load and a 2x4 drivetrain (APS-C lenses, etc.) does well enough on most terrain so nobody really needs the 2 extra cylinders of the V8 (FF sensor) or 4x4 drivetrain (FF lenses, etc.), never mind that they use the same chassis (mount). Well, some people like to drive (shoot) off road (fast wide angle) and haul (shoot) very heavy payloads (low light, high ISO). These same people might also like the higher torque (greater light collection) and stickier traction (narrower DOF) offered by the 4x4 V8 (FF system). I understand that implementing the bigger engine and four wheel drivetrain isn't entirely cakewalk; Dodge would have to design the differentials (shake reduction), transfer case (mirror/pentaprism), beefed up exhaust system (buffer/processor), and whatnot to make it all work, but I think those are entirely doable and certainly worthwhile for Dodge to be able to regain and maintain its serious truck maker image, performance, and appeal. I like my Dodge 2x4 V6 truck, as a matter of fact I like it a lot, but one day I hope to be able to park a 4x4 V8 next to it because I would really like to have the additional capability that it offers for whenever the time calls or just if I get the hankering. And since I've been driving around with those piss on Chevy and piss on Ford stickers, I'd feel awfully silly going and buying either one of those two pickups. Last edited by TomTextura; 08-28-2012 at 02:27 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
The full frame Pentax?	slackercruster	Pentax DSLR Discussion	18	02-13-2012 10:09 AM
The full frame Pentax that never was	dj_saunter	Pentax DSLR Discussion	23	05-06-2011 04:06 AM
Pentax and Full Frame	oppositz	Pentax DSLR Discussion	58	03-18-2011 09:39 AM
Pentax and Full Frame...	Shutter-bug	Photographic Technique	60	11-03-2010 10:03 AM
Pentax A 50/1.2 on Full Frame	aegisphan	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	23	10-28-2010 04:16 PM

08-28-2012, 01:56 PM	#901
Supernaut Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: West Coast , Sweden Posts: 467	Originally posted by Pål Jensen How do you explain that when sensors are getting better and better and the need for larger sensors is actually decreasing from an image quality point of view? The main selling point is actually price and smaller sensors and lenses are going to stay cheaper overall..... BTW Olympus have announced that they intend to make a pro 4/3 DSLR; they must think that some want smaller sensors. It might even cost more than some FF bodies but does those who want such an Olympus care? I explain it with the fact that people always tend to want the best. Or at least buy into a system that offers a top of the line product. Regarding Oly? Maybe they estimate that there is enough users of the higher end 4/3 glass out there to make a profit. Hardly an effort to make new customers buy into the pretty much dead 4/3 system.

08-28-2012, 01:59 PM	#902
JohnBee Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Newrfoundland Photos: Albums Posts: 4,667	Originally posted by Wired Please don't follow those threats. I'll be a Pentaxian until I die. I don't have any reason to change, I work within the limitations of my gear. Besides.. Nikon and Canon require too much tinkering in PP To get the colors and contrast Pentax gives you. I had a D800 for a day, I liked it sure, but it made me cherish my K5 even more! Tell me more! I'm about to pull the trigger on a D800 kit.

08-28-2012, 02:37 PM	#904
Pål Jensen Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Norway Photos: Albums Posts: 4,371	Originally posted by TomTextura Sometimes I like analogies, even when they're less than perfect. Listening to people argue against Pentax coming out with a full frame camera is like listening to someone argue that Dodge should only make 2x4 pickups with V6 engines and leave the 4x4 V8 business to Ford and Chevy. The argument seems to go that a V6 engine (APS-C sensor) can handle a heavy enough load and a 2x4 drivetrain (APS-C lenses, etc.) does well enough on most terrain so nobody really needs the 2 extra cylinders of the V8 (FF sensor) or 4x4 drivetrain (FF lenses, etc.), never mind that they use the same chassis (mount). . The question is not whether they should make one but whether they can sell one considering their marketshare, market demographics and line-up (need four formats + associated lenses; can they pull that off?). Incidentally, Ford or GM cannot sell V8's in Europe and hardly any V6's for that matter. Nobody buy's them. In fact, they discontinued their large cars cause nobody bought them. Ford is now quite sucessful selling cars in the entry to mid market. If they had made huge saloons and SUV's in Europe they would have been bankrupt by now. Pentax does indeed have products and buyers for products beyond Nikon and Canon high-end. The question is: how many FF camera and lenses can Pentax sell and would it be better to use the money spent on developing FF camera and lenses on strenghtening existing line-ups? Thats the question.... BTW Those who do sell V8's in Europe are increasingly replacing them with V6's, like Audi for instance. Better technology makes bigger engines and bigger sensors less relevant from a performance point of view.... Last edited by Pål Jensen; 08-28-2012 at 03:06 PM.

08-28-2012, 02:50 PM	#905
TomTextura Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2012 Location: Denver Photos: Albums Posts: 570	Originally posted by Pål Jensen how many FF camera and lenses can Pentax sell I can't answer that question in any definite manner, obviously, but my guess is that they will be able to sell enough to make the risk/investment worthwhile. If it can compete alongside the D800 IQ-wise then the positive press alone will be worth a fortune for the Pentax brand, even if it is only sold in small numbers. Originally posted by Pål Jensen would it be better to use the money spent on developing FF camera and lenses on strenghtening existing line-ups? These questions, on the other hand, are quite easy to answer. FF lenses would strengthen the Pentax lens lineup. A FF camera would strengthen the Pentax user base. Plain. And. Simple.

08-28-2012, 03:24 PM	#906
Pål Jensen Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Norway Photos: Albums Posts: 4,371	Originally posted by TomTextura These questions, on the other hand, are quite easy to answer. FF lenses would strengthen the Pentax lens lineup. A FF camera would strengthen the Pentax user base. Plain. And. Simple. I cannot see how they could pull that off. How could they excel in both the "Q Format", APS, FF and 645? Not to mention getting enough lenses in the market to make all the users of these system happy. Isn't there a danger that they end up being spread too thinly being me too in all areas? I would like to see an FF Pentax but I doubt Pentax have the volume and the users population to make it viable. Not even Nikon and Canon have four interchangeable lens formats to support and they have 80%+ of the DSLR market....

08-28-2012, 03:39 PM	#907
TomTextura Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2012 Location: Denver Photos: Albums Posts: 570	Originally posted by Pål Jensen How could they excel in both the "Q Format", APS, FF and 645? I'm actually only considering the K-mount. I don't have any investment in the other formats, nor do I plan to. If the problem is a matter of being stretched too thin, then if it were up to me, the Q would be the first to go. Maybe I'm being a snob, but it's hard to take lenses seriously when they don't have focal lengths and two out of five of their names consist of the word "toy".

08-28-2012, 04:04 PM	#908
ElJamoquio Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 4,873	Originally posted by Pål Jensen The main selling point is actually price and smaller sensors and lenses are going to stay cheaper overall You keep saying that, and I keep waiting for my M 4/3 25mm f/0.7. Actually, come to think of it, I'd prefer a 9mm f/0.25 Q lens, it should be much cheaper than the $300 FA 50mm.

08-28-2012, 04:15 PM	#909
Pål Jensen Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Norway Photos: Albums Posts: 4,371	Pertinent for the discussion: On Camera Gear: Assumptions Can Get You in Trouble! \| oopoomoo

08-28-2012, 04:15 PM	#910
mecrox Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Oxford, UK Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,375	Originally posted by Pål Jensen The question is not whether they should make one but whether they can sell one considering their marketshare, market demographics and line-up (need four formats + associated lenses; can they pull that off?). Incidentally, Ford or GM cannot sell V8's in Europe and hardly any V6's for that matter. Nobody buy's them. In fact, they discontinued their large cars cause nobody bought them. Ford is now quite sucessful selling cars in the entry to mid market. If they had made huge saloons and SUV's in Europe they would have been bankrupt by now. Pentax does indeed have products and buyers for products beyond Nikon and Canon high-end. The question is: how many FF camera and lenses can Pentax sell and would it be better to use the money spent on developing FF camera and lenses on strenghtening existing line-ups? Thats the question.... BTW Those who do sell V8's in Europe are increasingly replacing them with V6's, like Audi for instance. Better technology makes bigger engines and bigger sensors less relevant from a performance point of view.... Yes, folks forget that in Europe high gas prices mean you have to be very wealthy to afford a ride with a big engine just as high taxes and product prices mean you have to be pretty darn wealthy to afford high-end camera equipment. I can just about afford a ride with a big engine but that's 'cos it's only got two wheels. What I'll throw into the mix is the development of the K-01 idea, i.e. APS-C mirrorless. I am having great success with my copy and the limited lenses, and so if Pentax bring out a subsequent version with, perhaps, better AF performance and mods like a tilt screen, I would be in the market. Since this may well represent the future of the solid middle of cameras for those who do not want a full-on DSLR it would be crazy (imho) of Pentax not to keep their toe in the water and their R&D primed up. Given the 500 ton gorillas in the FF space, they could easily do better with one of these than with an FF costing 3-5 times the price and only a relatively tiny number of buyers.

08-28-2012, 04:26 PM	#911
ElJamoquio Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 4,873	Originally posted by Pål Jensen Pertinent for the discussion: On Camera Gear: Assumptions Can Get You in Trouble! \| oopoomoo Pro guy owns 1DS Mk III, takes some pics with large DOF with less expensive cameras. Got it. Listen, I love some of my P&S pics, taken in good light, where infinite DOF was appropriate, too. Doesn't mean I'm not going to pony up $2-3k when a camera that can use less expensive lenses and does better at high ISO comes out.

08-28-2012, 04:39 PM	#912
Pål Jensen Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Norway Photos: Albums Posts: 4,371	Originally posted by ElJamoquio Pro guy owns 1DS Mk III, takes some pics with large DOF with less expensive cameras. Got it. . You didn't. The article has nothing to do with DOF....

08-28-2012, 05:06 PM	#913
ElJamoquio Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 4,873	Originally posted by Pål Jensen You didn't. The article has nothing to do with DOF.... Don't worry, you just missed the pics at the bottom of the article. Wonder why that guy doesn't sell his depreciating 1DS III and pocket the cash.

08-28-2012, 05:26 PM	#914
TomTextura Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2012 Location: Denver Photos: Albums Posts: 570	Originally posted by Pål Jensen Pertinent for the discussion: On Camera Gear: Assumptions Can Get You in Trouble! \| oopoomoo I agree with the assertion that you can't judge a photographer's skills by their gear. However, this article doesn't make a very strong case as the icy beach/mountain scape pic stood out clear as day as having higher IQ than the other example pics. It was the only one from a DSLR and not a P&S.

08-28-2012, 05:26 PM	#915
KungPOW Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Vancouver, Canada Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,699	Originally posted by Wired Please don't follow those threats. I'll be a Pentaxian until I die. I don't have any reason to change, I work within the limitations of my gear. Besides.. Nikon and Canon require too much tinkering in PP To get the colors and contrast Pentax gives you. I had a D800 for a day, I liked it sure, but it made me cherish my K5 even more! Nikon images, especially RAW images tend to be flat, low contrast, and not very saturated. I deal with this in Lightroom by using camera profiles on import. It does not take any time. It is easy. I can make my Nikon images look exactly like my Pentax images. I would expect anyone who is shooting a D800 will be using a profile that either they made, or they downloaded from Nikon.