[illdefined]

@illdefined:
The 645D was launched while under Hoya, in 2010; what are you talking about?

Of course I dismissed the Q as irrelevant; I hope you don't think you can compare its sales volume with that of a "full frame" DSLR and draw any pertinent conclusions? The K-01, are you trying to use a product that failed on the market as a proof of "full frame's" viability?
And FYI, making a "full frame" product line is "slightly" more difficult than that of a Q (point&shoot technology) or a K-01 (APS-C technology, one lens which isn't really a new design). Don't be so fixated on a single parameter, as if all other things are equal.

I see you're switching the context towards some sort of a "Pentax is diverting precious resources instead of making what we want" meme. Are you trying to make me dizzy?

Not trying to switch anything. you've been praising Pentax's last moves as 'not short-term' or 'cost cutting' and that they were "planned for growth", but those projects you mentioned have been the opposite. Even the K-30 and K-5II are nothing but stripped down and upgraded K-5s respectively, safe, cost-saving maneuvers for the current APS-C market or some very limited, low volume secondary market.

Meanwhile, the actual long term and expensive project (brand new mount, SR, lenses) aiming at growing the market, the Q, hasn't made a dent in the global market.

You may have only been praising Pentax's moves since the Ricoh acquisition, but the general consumer really doesn't care who owned what when, and frankly it's way too early to say that Ricoh has been successful with Pentax.

---

Last edited by illdefined; 09-28-2012 at 03:56 PM.

[illdefined]

I do not understand the single minded obsession with "when will Pentax introduce a FF..."

Pentax already has a camera with a sensor that creates images superior to any FF digital... The 645.

Concentrate on the 645 as a professional digital camera.

When I travel around town or long distance, I prefer a smaller, compact system with high quality. The optics available for APS sensors are superb. Native or legacy, there is more available than I can rent, use, own.

Give me a body that I can carry with it's optics, one that allows me fast, precise, accurate exposure and focus and I will be happy.

Quite simply, because FF was what the K-Mount, the current size of K-Mount cameras, and thousands of legacy lenses were originally meant for.

FF is K-mount at its full potential, with over twice the sensor area in similar size camera, taking full advantage of the legacy lenses we have and the space inside the cameras we're already carrying.

The future is in smaller sensors. For a hobbyist or family, APS will become the new large format. Fix the issues with current Pentax APS cameras. Get an EVF into the update for the K-01. Find a way to incorporate phase detection AF into the K series. Consider using a fixed mirror like Sony/Minolta. An APS sensor camera configured like the Olympus OMD would be sensational. Use the K mount because it is the bridge for current owners to the future. Don't abandon the legacy lens owner like Olympus did to OM users.

Redesign the K-01 so it is less bulky. The K mount flange distance is an issue, but it does not need to be a box. Consider an extension from a slim body as an extended lens barrel. They are easy to hold and provides a great hand hold to balance the camera.

The built in EVF is critical.

Couldn't agree with you more (FF is the new Medium Format), but sadly mirrorless isn't a very welcome topic here. People here cry out that they'll have to take their OVFs from their cold dead hands (but in the same breath dismiss the massive advantage of an FF OVF....).

I thought the general K-01 concept was a very sound one, just executed horribly. The concept of a mirrorless camera with legacy lenses was brilliant, and essentially in use now by Sony with their SLTs, and I think very soon Olympus for their original 4/3 mount.

But it seems Pentax feared the idea was too good, and intentionally left the EVF out and made the K-01 decidedly "un-serious". Many of us really wanted GXR-K, with actual camera ergonomics and an EVF, and I think Pentax now has no choice but to give us one soon (whether fixed mount or not). If the K-Mount must stay APS-C, make its smaller size an advantage instead of a compromise.

The 1" sensor used by sony in the RX100 and Nikon in the V1 show that phase detection AF and high quality can be combined in a compact package. The image quality in these cameras is the best argument I know of that FF is not needed.

Smaller cameras like the Q with matched lenes (digital correction) image with great quality. Improve the ergonomics so the camera can be used by photographers at eye level and who would want full frame.

Yes, the 1" sensor in the RX100 is so good, I feel it obviates the Q completely. an interchangeable 1" sensor camera is already having its trials on the market as the Nikon 1, with little size advantage over m4/3s.

Use the GXR as a bridge between Ricoh and Pentax to be the camera for the technical photographer. One system for shooting most legacy glass (with adapters), Rangefinder lenses, and with KAF and Q modules all current and legacy lenses. A KAF module should not look very different in profile than a Ricoh M mount module with a K to Leica M adapter attached. It may not be very small in depth, but it would be very easy to hand hold.

The GXR can become the camera to experiment with market acceptance of FF. A Leica M FF module would have a great built in market. A KAF with FF sensor could become the test of FF without having to develop an entirely new camera. See if FF without sensor based shake reduction succeeds. It may. Think of all of the Pentax, Nikon, Canon, Minolta, Konica, Olympus 35mm SLRs sold and used that did not have shake reduction and created generations of great photographs.

Eye level viewing with a fast shutter speed eliminates much of the need for shake reduction. Holding the camera at arms length is the problem. I would love to see the KAF FF GXR module followed by the Pentax FF digital spotmatic.

Product wise, the GXR (and the GRD to a lesser extent) is definitely the most exciting thing Ricoh brings to Pentax. I can't wait until these two technologies (GXR, K-Mount) bear us photographic fruit.

[Kunzite]

Sorry, I can't understand your point - (edited). If you do, please state it clearly.

FTR, I'm not "praising" anything; knowing that Pentax is planning for growth does not equal praising. I see this claim of yours, that I've been "praising", only an attempt to dismiss what I say. Stop that.

You mentioned products, not I. (edited)
And you even tried to use the 645D, a product launched during Hoya's reign, as a proof that Ricoh is doing cost cutting.
However, you don't understand what cost cutting means, thinking it's about reusing components/technologies - (edited). Sharing components between APS-C and the 645D is a smart move, nothing to do with cost cutting; it allowed Pentax to enter the DMF market and have a significant advantage over their competition. Making the K-30, the best specified camera in it's class - it's a smart move (hope it'll play well).
OTOH, reducing (R&D) personnel, downsizing, closing offices - that's cost cutting, and Hoya did that. Do you know Ricoh is hiring back engineers? That's not cost cutting, that's planning for growth.

You claim the "expensive" Q project is aimed at growing the market - oh, really? What makes you think so?

I never said Ricoh was successful, did I? It's 1-1.5 years too early for that, and I can't read the future.

[illdefined]

I never said Ricoh was successful, did I? It's 1-1.5 years too early for that, and I can't read the future.

yes, you've praised what Ricoh has 'already done', but that last sentence was my point. let's leave it there.

---

Last edited by illdefined; 09-28-2012 at 04:28 PM.

[bwDraco]

I don't want to say that the timely launch of a full-frame camera is critical for Pentax to survive, because it isn't. As I've said, the new full-frame cameras don't compete in the same price class as the K-5 II / K-5 IIs, and Ricoh is a very large company with the resources to survive the competition and ultimately make Pentax a foremost camera manufacturer.

I've said this several times: Just wait it out. Don't worry about Pentax collapsing in the meantime. Ricoh knows what we want and will not let Pentax fall.

--DragonLord

[jpette]

@illdefined: 100% Okay with you
...sure sounds like short-term profit and cost-cutting to me. the inverse of 'planning for growth'."
Again agree!

"...See the very first thread/sticky in this forum. WE the Pentax users wanting FF. "
For adds again at your idea
And NOT forget all user Wants FF not Subscribe for this tread who waiting one FF (Me for example et some Friend), never subcribe, why ?
Easy, we think's all that pentax built this FF in 2012.

Some friends are already switched to Cannon , other to Nikon with his nice d800/E.
Me it's same case, stop wait, no time, go in other way, easy

"Ricoh knows what we want and will not let Pentax fall."
God hear you !

[Kunzite]

yes, you've praised what Ricoh has 'already done', but that last sentence was my point. let's leave it there.

You were already wrong about many things I supposedly said/did; praising is one of them, also, you were making an obvious point with which I don't disagree (unless you're trying to use it to silence any potential good thought about Pentax).

jpette, please read my previous post for a hint about what is and what isn't cost cutting. Thank you.

[Blue]

The size of the FF market would easily eclipse that of the 645D market, which Pentax remains committed to.

I agree. I think it would be by a large margin.

[illdefined]

You were already wrong about many things I supposedly said/did; praising is one of them, also, you were making an obvious point with which I don't disagree (unless you're trying to use it to silence any potential good thought about Pentax).

jpette, please read my previous post for a hint about what is and what isn't cost cutting. Thank you.

Kunzite, I now get what you originally meant by 'cost-cutting', Ricoh is making Pentax bigger, not smaller like Hoya did. You're right, this is all theoretically very good and definitely moving in the right direction....

...however, while very encouraging, its still way too early to call anything a success yet, even (or especially) in light of Photokina 2012.

[GXRUser]

I thought the general K-01 concept was a very sound one, just executed horribly. The concept of a mirrorless camera with legacy lenses was brilliant, and essentially in use now by Sony with their SLTs, and I think very soon Olympus for their original 4/3 mount.

But it seems Pentax feared the idea was too good, and intentionally left the EVF out and made the K-01 decidedly "un-serious". Many of us really wanted GXR-K, with actual camera ergonomics and an EVF, and I think Pentax now has no choice but to give us one soon (whether fixed mount or not). If the K-Mount must stay APS-C, make its smaller size an advantage instead of a compromise.

I totally agree with you.

The k-01 is crippled with no EVF. It needs an eye level viewfinder so it would operate like a classic ME or Spotmatic. I also think the shape of the K-01 body is too boxy. A cylindrical extension from a slimmer body work look better, and have a better handling. While Olympus is about the update the original 4/3 body, it really is a just a new "Pro" version with better weather proofing, mirrorless or not. You can mount 4/3 optics on a micro 4/3 body with two different adapters one of them is weatherproofed. The OMD with the adaptor is a mirrorless 4/3.

One issue Olympus has had to deal with is that the original 4/3 dSLRs were fast focus cameras with phase detection autofocus. The Pens and OMD are contrast detection autofocus cameras and they do not focus as well. This is the advantage of the mirror. Sony has a new sensor with phase detection sensors. Sony used a fixed mirror with EVF in the SLT to allow phase detect autofocus. Sony also has a phase detect adapter for the NEX.

I posted the following in the Pentax Q area of this forum:

"In the last several years I have been drawn to greater depth of field in my images. One advantage of small sensors in digital cameras is the inherent greater depth of field. With a sharp lens, this becomes a pleasure. For the camera designer, it allows for incredible margin of error with auto focus systems.

When I have thought about this I have concluded that the greater depth of focus allows the image to appear more like the world does to my vision. With the natural onset of presbiopia, the loss of close vision and accommodation yields a world with less depth of field.

Limited depth of field is an artifact we use to enhance sitting portraits. This is the area of excellence for large format sensors and very wide aperture lenses. I see the cameras that excel at this (FF Nikon, Canon, Sony/Minolta) and I note the size of these cameras are like a classic Pentax 6x7.

I think I use a camera more like photojournalist or documentarian. I want small, fast, lightweight where the images capture a moment. Small sensors are ideal since I can shoot with available light and still have depth of field. The Q, Nikon V1, and APS cameras like the Sony Nex and Ricoh GXR with M Mount are ideal for this.

Different cameras for different uses."

So...

I agree with the call for a FF Pentax K mount. It needs a viewfinder. I would suggest a GXR module with AF but without sensor based vibration reduction and a K-5 update (K-3?) with a pentaprism and sensor based shake reduction.

This would be two very different cameras with different uses and would be complementary in the product line up.

I would also want a KAF APS GXR module since I value and would want to use the "Limited" DA and FA Prime lenses since they fit my shooting style. I want a very compact camera with a good EVF and AF lenses to augment and eventually replace my manual focus lenses.

[Greyser]

Nicely put.

[illdefined]

I don't want to say that the timely launch of a full-frame camera is critical for Pentax to survive, because it isn't. As I've said, the new full-frame cameras don't compete in the same price class as the K-5 II / K-5 IIs, and Ricoh is a very large company with the resources to survive the competition and ultimately make Pentax a foremost camera manufacturer.

5DmkIIs are selling new for $1899 from Amazon. Pentax cannot become a "foremost" camera manufacturer again by sticking only to APS-C DSLRs. it's only a slice of the whole camera market. Yes, still a big slice as of last year, but from 2012 on, watch it only get smaller.

I've said this several times: Just wait it out. Don't worry about Pentax collapsing in the meantime. Ricoh knows what we want and will not let Pentax fall.

Yes, that's been the Pentax motto. Nevermind what the rest of the world is actually doing, "just wait"

[Medium FormatPro]

5DmkIIs are selling new for $1899 from Amazon. Pentax cannot become a "foremost" camera manufacturer again by sticking only to APS-C DSLRs. it's only a slice of the whole camera market. Yes, still a big slice as of last year, but from 2012 on, watch it only get smaller

Add to that... Models such as the F/F ones from Sony and also a Nikon FF that costs about 2100. So now we are basically talking a FF that costs about five hundred more than the best that Pentax can offer. Now they (Pentax) really have to be questioning their motivations for missing out on the FF market.

[fuent104]

I wish was an engineering team. I swear I would create a digital back for my K1000. I would buy such a product, as would many, if the price was right, say $500-$600. I know some people find it hard to believe, but there are some of us in the world who do not need auto focus, shake reduction, or automatic exposure modes. I just want a freakin' ff sensor I can put behind my lenses without breaking the bank. I still take out my K1000 or SF10 every once in a while, simply because I enjoy the experience of shooting with them.

In the filmmaking arena, we have upstarts like the Digital Bolex team coming up with great, low-cost solutions to problems. I wish there was someone with the wherewithal to solve this one.

[fuent104]

To clarify my statement above, I do not consider $1899 for the 5D Mark II to be "breaking the bank." I think there's a ton of value in the 5D MkII for that price.