[illdefined]

What? Do you have a de Lorean time machine as well?

You did mean the FA* 24/2, right?

Yes sorry FA*....

[Kunzite]

See the very first thread/sticky in this forum. WE the Pentax users wanting FF. You're either blind or in complete denial if you insist there aren't a ton of Pentax users here and elsewhere who wouldn't love a Pentax FF camera. Just ask Adam. I'd bet many more users would PAY for the Pentax FF then the 560mm astro-lens you applaud them so much for.

Yes, sure Nikon saw what Pentax did and copied the K-7 concept. Wow, you're really carrying the Pentax flag pretty hard huh? I guess the D800e must've copied the K-5IIs by removing its AA filter, but still managed to come out before....*%&$ Nikon spies!

A ton, you say? At an average weight of 80kg, that would make only 12.5 people
I saw you were unable to answer my question, as expected. You have a thread (which is not a list of people wanting to buy a Pentax "full frame" with "smaller body, SR, weathersealing, green button, the whole bit". You have a Facebook page which managed to gather only 4091 likes (but how many potential buyers?). Sorry, it's not enough to make Pentax forget about everything else and rush out a "full frame" because people would buy it anyway; it must be a deliberate, calculated move. IMHO launching one and failing is worse than taking some time to do it right, at the proper moment.

Yes, obviously, more people would pay for a product costing half, and not being as specialized.
And don't put words in my mouth, trying to ridicule me; it's rude. It's your right to believe it's only a coincidence or a natural evolution or whatever, however...

[illdefined]

A ton, you say? At an average weight of 80kg, that would make only 12.5 people
I saw you were unable to answer my question, as expected. You have a thread (which is not a list of people wanting to buy a Pentax "full frame" with "smaller body, SR, weathersealing, green button, the whole bit". You have a Facebook page which managed to gather only 4091 likes (but how many potential buyers?). Sorry, it's not enough to make Pentax forget about everything else and rush out a "full frame" because people would buy it anyway; it must be a deliberate, calculated move. IMHO launching one and failing is worse than taking some time to do it right, at the proper moment.

Yes, obviously, more people would pay for a product costing half, and not being as specialized.
And don't put words in my mouth, trying to ridicule me; it's rude. It's your right to believe it's only a coincidence or a natural evolution or whatever, however...

12.5 people? i see the problem we're having, your calculator is broken. how many people posted on the "560mm, Q10 and K-01" facebook pages I wonder...

you still aren't convinced there are Pentax users out there who want an FF body? really? everybody's happy using their FF Pentax glass with a crop? ok well, nevermind us and the rest of the surviving DSLR industry. what else can i say...

at this point, there's NO way Pentax could say their FF camera was 'rushed', their first digital SLR was supposed to be FF! they had a full line of FF glass.....no, they've taken their sweet time already, letting their competitors charge ahead and leave them behind.

[Kunzite]

12.5 people averaging 80kg each would make a ton. I'm quite good at math, don't you think?

Sorry, but your post has all the elements of a strawman - since I never said there aren't "Pentax users out there who want a FF body". And I don't have to refute a strawman. I'd recommend you to read more carefully my posts, as I'm not against a Pentax "full frame".

Interesting interpretation for "rushing out" a product... yet the criteria are different than having some old, abandoned prototype years ago.

[illdefined]

Who are "we"? How many "we" are there, who would actually be ready to pay for a Pentax "full frame"? The real price, not some incredibly low price people are imagining (see the $1500 D600 rumors). I would also like to see a Pentax "full frame", but I'm not that certain I would also buy it, so count me out.

Aren't you denying here that a real market for Pentax FF exists?

[Kunzite]

No, I just have doubts about the size of that market.

[Ash]

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

[illdefined]

and not the size of the Q, 645D, K-01 or 560mm market? you like talking about priorities but come on.

[Kunzite]

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

Indeed. Still, the 645D market is one on which it's easier to compete (for Pentax); the margins are much higher, technologies aren't so demanding (e.g. they were able to reuse the Prime II-based electronics and SAFOX IX+). That's why they were able to launch it.
The 560mm is another low volume, high margin item. It's not apples to apples (but you can see it as Pentax Ricoh being more willing to take risks with low volume products).
Q, though... could be higher volume. It's not relevant, though.

[illdefined]

Indeed. Still, the 645D market is one on which it's easier to compete (for Pentax); the margins are much higher, technologies aren't so demanding (e.g. they were able to reuse the Prime II-based electronics and SAFOX IX+). That's why they were able to launch it.
The 560mm is another low volume, high margin item. It's not apples to apples (but you can see it as Pentax Ricoh being more willing to take risks with low volume products).
Q, though... could be higher volume. It's not relevant, though.

sure sounds like short-term profit and cost-cutting to me. the inverse of 'planning for growth'.

...Trying means finally launching the long lens previously removed by Hoya from the roadmap; planning for growth; not caring only about short term margins and cost cutting.

[Kunzite]

What exactly sounds like "short-term profit and cost cutting", and why?

[illdefined]

This.

you literally state how they made high-margin, low-volume products (short term profit), the cheapest possible way (cost-cutting). admitting it wasn't intended to significantly increase their marketshare (growth).

Indeed. Still, the 645D market is one on which it's easier to compete (for Pentax); the margins are much higher, technologies aren't so demanding (e.g. they were able to reuse the Prime II-based electronics and SAFOX IX+). That's why they were able to launch it.
The 560mm is another low volume, high margin item.

i also noticed how you casually dismissed the Q as 'irrelevant', and ignored the K-01 altogether. did designing and making the Q (and its lens roadmap) and the K-01 not take from Pentax's limited resources? ironically, these two projects were actually intended for growing marketshare...

[GXRUser]

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.

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.

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.

Concentrate on Limited quality lenses.

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.

[Kunzite]

@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?

[rawr]

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

You must be new here.

Some very good points in your post. There are lots of ways for Pentax to innovate and thrive in the current marketplace that don't involve FF. FF isn't the magic bullet that so many seem to believe. If Pentax released a FF, it would hardly mean the end of all the challenges Pentax faces in the marketplace.

Having said that, I wish they would release a D600 level FF, just to remove the issue from discussion and keep those people who want one happy as Pentax users. All the engineering knowledge is there, good sensors are available now etc, so there seems little technical risk in putting one together today - unlike 5 or 10 years ago. It may end up being twice as expensive (or more) as a K-5, but they should just do it, IMHO.