FF Under Development

Kunzite · 10-09-2012, 12:01 AM

Originally posted by illdefined

again, considering K-Mount is natively FF, it would be much easier to design and produce than the 645D was. the "re-used APS-C components" would handle FF much better as well.

the 645D wasn't a major flop and made the company some money the way it was implemented using standard components. the K-5 and K-5IIs still use most of the same components as the K-7, why arent those considered "half-assed"? The sensor they need is commercially available, the rest Pentax has already made plenty of real cameras out of.

if there's anything Pentax has had, it's time to consider FF. their very first digital SLR prototype was FF. in 2001.

In theory, yes - but is it, really?
A new processor is pretty much needed, for both speed and features (focus peaking, H264 video, UHS cards and other such things).It can be co-developed for the next generation of high end APS-C cameras, though.

A new AF must be designed specifically for the "full frame" camera; they used the same SAFOX IX+ on the 645D, 11 points gathered in the middle, but only because the competition didn't even had that. The much more competitive "full frame" wouldn't allow that, I'm afraid the AF module can't be reused.

The SR must be adapted to the larger sensor (missing from the 645D)

And, last but not least, lenses. They would need much more than one 55mm f/2.8 lens, followed by one lens each year.

Sorry, but I don't see how it would be much easier.

illdefined · 10-09-2012, 12:16 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by Kunzite

In theory, yes - but is it, really?
A new processor is pretty much needed, for both speed and features (focus peaking, H264 video, UHS cards and other such things).It can be co-developed for the next generation of high end APS-C cameras, though.

...or you can do what others have done plenty of times and use two current processors...

Originally posted by Kunzite

A new AF must be designed specifically for the "full frame" camera; they used the same SAFOX IX+ on the 645D, 11 points gathered in the middle, but only because the competition didn't even had that. The much more competitive "full frame" wouldn't allow that, I'm afraid the AF module can't be reused.

gosh, are you actually admitting SAFOX isn't competitive? because Canon and Nikon both re-used their APS-C AF systems for their new FF models...

Originally posted by Kunzite

The SR must be adapted to the larger sensor (missing from the 645D)

if they even want to have SR at all. they could always go the OIS route as well like they did with the 645D. members here have already stated they'd part with SR if it meant a small FF body..

Originally posted by Kunzite

And, last but not least, lenses. They would need much more than one 55mm f/2.8 lens, followed by one lens each year.

Sorry, but I don't see how it would be much easier.

Pentax currently has 4 FA primes in production (I think the FA 50mm still gets made for Japan), and designs, molds and patents for dozens more. Pentax would not be starting from zero. far from it. throw some HD coating on some of their best FA designs and they're nearly there.

to launch with FF, all they'd need to do is reintroduce a couple FA zooms (like my FA 24-90), and they're already good to start with primes. That's a better launch lineup than the Fuji-X System. certainly WAY better than the Q or 645D launches..

nice try though.

Vylen · 10-09-2012, 12:37 AM

With respect to the image processors, you're making the assumption that its a simple task two stick two processors onto a logic board and make them work together efficiently.

illdefined · 10-09-2012, 12:47 AM

it's never just as simple as that no, but it's not a new technology in digital cameras by any means.

gazonk · 10-09-2012, 01:12 AM

Originally posted by frank

Hmm, another FF thread. How many more such threads are we gonna have before Pentax really releases a FF dSLR/EVIL camera?

One new every day? And then we'll get even more "How Pentax did FF wrong" threads

paulusje · 10-09-2012, 01:23 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by gazonk

One new every day? And then we'll get even more "How Pentax did FF wrong" threads

Sad but true

I really like this forum, but to be honest, the constant whining about practically every (good or bad) thing Pentax does is getting annoying.

Vylen · 10-09-2012, 01:44 AM

Originally posted by paulusje

Sad but true

I really like this forum, but to be honest, the constant whining about practically every (good or bad) thing Pentax does is getting annoying.

It's not like as if anyone is particularly forcing you to read or participate in them though... There's a lot of FF threads going on here but I only post when I feel I have something constructive or informative to say in them.

I'm also sure there are plenty of other threads in the multitude of subforums that are being posted of which could use your attention.

Kunzite · 10-09-2012, 02:04 AM

Originally posted by illdefined

...or you can do what others have done plenty of times and use two current processors...

Which won't add focus peaking, H264 video encoding and other features unsupported by the PRIME II. The code will also have to be (partially) re-written to support multiprocessing.

Originally posted by illdefined

gosh, are you actually admitting SAFOX isn't competitive? because Canon and Nikon both re-used their APS-C AF systems for their new FF models...

Is it competitive? If people bash Pentax for their 11-point SAFOX, in a $1200 camera, what would happen if they'll use the same (yet worse, since AF points will be gathered in the center) in a $2100-3000 one?

Originally posted by illdefined

if they even want to have SR at all. they could always go the OIS route as well like they did with the 645D. members here have already stated they'd part with SR if it meant a small FF body..

With the medium format, having stabilization at all is a big deal - since nobody else does.
With the small format, everyone has some form of stabilization; IMHO Pentax should try to stick with the in-body SR, since it's so much more convenient for their users.
A small user sample from a certain forum is not really relevant, I'm afraid.

Originally posted by illdefined

Pentax currently has 4 FA primes in production (I think the FA 50mm still gets made for Japan), and designs, molds and patents for dozens more. Pentax would not be starting from zero. far from it. throw some HD coating on some of their best FA designs and they're nearly there.

to launch with FF, all they'd need to do is reintroduce a couple FA zooms (like my FA 24-90), and they're already good to start with primes. That's a better launch lineup than the Fuji-X System. certainly WAY better than the Q or 645D launches..

Why were the FA Limiteds missing from Photokina? I was told they're out of production (but this can means anything from no longer being necessary, to having scheduled improved, digital versions).
Anyway, I never claimed they would be starting from zero; they certainly wouldn't (and didn't for 645D, either). But there is a considerable effort, and by the way there is a big difference from having "designs, molds and patents" to having actual, well-performing products on the market.
They can do it, of course; but it won't be "much easier".

Originally posted by illdefined

nice try though.

Thank you; but I believe I did better than that

paulusje · 10-09-2012, 02:25 AM

Wouldn't it be great to have a filter for those non-constructive 'it's gonna suck anyway' comments?

FF is coming!

Alizarine · 10-09-2012, 02:42 AM

I don't see any reason for Pentax to stop production of the FA Limiteds; after all, they're one of their biggest USP's. I would believe it more if the DA*s are the ones out of production to be replaced soon (by Photokina perhaps) by updated models with re-designed SDM modules and HD coating.

or I'm dreaming too much, lol.

illdefined · 10-09-2012, 02:47 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by Kunzite

Which won't add focus peaking, H264 video encoding and other features unsupported by the PRIME II. The code will also have to be (partially) re-written to support multiprocessing.

Is it competitive? If people bash Pentax for their 11-point SAFOX, in a $1200 camera, what would happen if they'll use the same (yet worse, since AF points will be gathered in the center) in a $2100-3000 one?

With the medium format, having stabilization at all is a big deal - since nobody else does.
With the small format, everyone has some form of stabilization; IMHO Pentax should try to stick with the in-body SR, since it's so much more convenient for their users.
A small user sample from a certain forum is not really relevant, I'm afraid.

Why were the FA Limiteds missing from Photokina? I was told they're out of production (but this can means anything from no longer being necessary, to having scheduled improved, digital versions).
Anyway, I never claimed they would be starting from zero; they certainly wouldn't (and didn't for 645D, either). But there is a considerable effort, and by the way there is a big difference from having "designs, molds and patents" to having actual, well-performing products on the market.
They can do it, of course; but it won't be "much easier".

- The Prime M doesn't count as a current processor? one of each Prime maybe, for 14bit RAW processing and peaking...yes code would have to be written, imagine that. you said it yourself Pentax has to do this for their next camera anyway.

- yes SAFOX is inadequate. Pentax has to fix this for their next camera anyway too because it's still inadequate for APS-C.

- as for SR, I'm afraid a 'small user sample from a certain forum' would be more relevant than just YHO. IMHO.

- those 'designs, molds and patents" produced thousands of real, working AF, FF lenses that made it to market. not theoretical.

so yes, making an FF DSLR would be "much easier" than you made it out to be.

I don't know why Pentax is exempt from having to make some 'considerable effort' to remain relevant in the marketplace like the rest of its competitors. I don't think there will be enough Pentax apologists here to keep Pentax alive by buying K-5VIIIs with SAFOX XXVIII through 2015.

123jippo · 10-09-2012, 03:36 AM

I love these FF threads

Cos Pentax must realize finally that it needs FF body also...something like K01 or that little Q? is minor thing comperad to FF. Those K01 and Qs can be buried forever and only focus 3 bodies like K30. K5 and FF

TomTextura · 10-09-2012, 03:43 AM

Originally posted by boriscleto

Not when there's not enough for those in line ahead of you.

Where are you getting this notion from? Again, what indication do you have that Sony doesn't have enough FF sensors? And what makes you think that if they don't currently have the supply they wouldn't remedy that situation so that they can make more money like any rational producer would? I can't imagine any reason that Sony wouldn't sell Pentax their FF sensors, if not immediately than in due time.

noVICE · 10-09-2012, 03:46 AM

What happens when the FF does come out.... will Pentaxians everywhere have the thousands of dollars needed to buy this body? How many are going to say "oh I already have an amazing APS-C I will stick with that", how many will say "yes! I will choose the Pentax FF system over CaNikon's offerings" and how many are just going to wait for the next Pentax FF until they iron out the bugs with the first one? If I were Pentoh I would be having a long hard think about this move as it could represent a massive financial risk for the company.

Caat · 10-09-2012, 03:47 AM

Originally posted by illdefined

- The Prime M doesn't count as a current processor? one of each Prime maybe, for 14bit RAW processing and peaking...yes code would have to be written, imagine that. you said it yourself Pentax has to do this for their next camera anyway.

- yes SAFOX is inadequate. Pentax has to fix this for their next camera anyway too because it's still inadequate for APS-C.

- as for SR, I'm afraid a 'small user sample from a certain forum' would be more relevant than just YHO. IMHO.

- those 'designs, molds and patents" produced thousands of real, working AF, FF lenses that made it to market. not theoretical.

so yes, making an FF DSLR would be "much easier" than you made it out to be.

I don't know why Pentax is exempt from having to make some 'considerable effort' to remain relevant in the marketplace like the rest of its competitors. I don't think there will be enough Pentax apologists here to keep Pentax alive by buying K-5VIIIs with SAFOX XXVIII through 2015.

- The Prime M clearly has some engineering issues around 14 bit RAW and possibly other areas otherwise it would have appeared in the K-5II/s. The fact that it didn't is indicative that it is more than a 'code' issue.

- We don't know if the performance of the new SAFOX is inadequate for APS-C but what we do know is that the focus point layout is inadequate for FF.

- The design molds etc haven't been used in over 10 years, and the optical designs are old. We don't even know that anything physical still exists. Pentax has limited lens production capabilities any production lines that get re-tooled for FF lenses aren't likely to be able to make APS-C lenses. It's not as simple as putting old designs back into production.

10-09-2012, 12:16 AM - 1 Like	#77
illdefined Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: NYC Posts: 929	Originally posted by Kunzite In theory, yes - but is it, really? A new processor is pretty much needed, for both speed and features (focus peaking, H264 video, UHS cards and other such things).It can be co-developed for the next generation of high end APS-C cameras, though. ...or you can do what others have done plenty of times and use two current processors... Originally posted by Kunzite A new AF must be designed specifically for the "full frame" camera; they used the same SAFOX IX+ on the 645D, 11 points gathered in the middle, but only because the competition didn't even had that. The much more competitive "full frame" wouldn't allow that, I'm afraid the AF module can't be reused. gosh, are you actually admitting SAFOX isn't competitive? because Canon and Nikon both re-used their APS-C AF systems for their new FF models... Originally posted by Kunzite The SR must be adapted to the larger sensor (missing from the 645D) if they even want to have SR at all. they could always go the OIS route as well like they did with the 645D. members here have already stated they'd part with SR if it meant a small FF body.. Originally posted by Kunzite And, last but not least, lenses. They would need much more than one 55mm f/2.8 lens, followed by one lens each year. Sorry, but I don't see how it would be much easier. Pentax currently has 4 FA primes in production (I think the FA 50mm still gets made for Japan), and designs, molds and patents for dozens more. Pentax would not be starting from zero. far from it. throw some HD coating on some of their best FA designs and they're nearly there. to launch with FF, all they'd need to do is reintroduce a couple FA zooms (like my FA 24-90), and they're already good to start with primes. That's a better launch lineup than the Fuji-X System. certainly WAY better than the Q or 645D launches.. nice try though. Last edited by illdefined; 10-09-2012 at 12:27 AM.

10-09-2012, 02:47 AM - 1 Like	#86
illdefined Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: NYC Posts: 929	Originally posted by Kunzite Which won't add focus peaking, H264 video encoding and other features unsupported by the PRIME II. The code will also have to be (partially) re-written to support multiprocessing. Is it competitive? If people bash Pentax for their 11-point SAFOX, in a $1200 camera, what would happen if they'll use the same (yet worse, since AF points will be gathered in the center) in a $2100-3000 one? With the medium format, having stabilization at all is a big deal - since nobody else does. With the small format, everyone has some form of stabilization; IMHO Pentax should try to stick with the in-body SR, since it's so much more convenient for their users. A small user sample from a certain forum is not really relevant, I'm afraid. Why were the FA Limiteds missing from Photokina? I was told they're out of production (but this can means anything from no longer being necessary, to having scheduled improved, digital versions). Anyway, I never claimed they would be starting from zero; they certainly wouldn't (and didn't for 645D, either). But there is a considerable effort, and by the way there is a big difference from having "designs, molds and patents" to having actual, well-performing products on the market. They can do it, of course; but it won't be "much easier". - The Prime M doesn't count as a current processor? one of each Prime maybe, for 14bit RAW processing and peaking...yes code would have to be written, imagine that. you said it yourself Pentax has to do this for their next camera anyway. - yes SAFOX is inadequate. Pentax has to fix this for their next camera anyway too because it's still inadequate for APS-C. - as for SR, I'm afraid a 'small user sample from a certain forum' would be more relevant than just YHO. IMHO. - those 'designs, molds and patents" produced thousands of real, working AF, FF lenses that made it to market. not theoretical. so yes, making an FF DSLR would be "much easier" than you made it out to be. I don't know why Pentax is exempt from having to make some 'considerable effort' to remain relevant in the marketplace like the rest of its competitors. I don't think there will be enough Pentax apologists here to keep Pentax alive by buying K-5VIIIs with SAFOX XXVIII through 2015. Last edited by illdefined; 10-09-2012 at 02:58 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
ready to go! first development coming soon	dj_saunter	Film Processing, Scanning, and Darkroom	17	05-15-2011 09:14 PM
Development: Rwanda style.	ihasa	General Talk	16	04-07-2011 11:37 PM
two bath development	icywarm	Film Processing, Scanning, and Darkroom	22	01-08-2011 12:27 AM
UN Human Development Report	mikemike	General Talk	5	11-05-2010 05:55 AM
Any Arrested Development (TV) fans here?	RolloR	General Talk	8	10-21-2010 08:25 PM

10-09-2012, 12:01 AM	#76
Kunzite Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Romania Posts: 15,132	Originally posted by illdefined again, considering K-Mount is natively FF, it would be much easier to design and produce than the 645D was. the "re-used APS-C components" would handle FF much better as well. the 645D wasn't a major flop and made the company some money the way it was implemented using standard components. the K-5 and K-5IIs still use most of the same components as the K-7, why arent those considered "half-assed"? The sensor they need is commercially available, the rest Pentax has already made plenty of real cameras out of. if there's anything Pentax has had, it's time to consider FF. their very first digital SLR prototype was FF. in 2001. In theory, yes - but is it, really? A new processor is pretty much needed, for both speed and features (focus peaking, H264 video, UHS cards and other such things).It can be co-developed for the next generation of high end APS-C cameras, though. A new AF must be designed specifically for the "full frame" camera; they used the same SAFOX IX+ on the 645D, 11 points gathered in the middle, but only because the competition didn't even had that. The much more competitive "full frame" wouldn't allow that, I'm afraid the AF module can't be reused. The SR must be adapted to the larger sensor (missing from the 645D) And, last but not least, lenses. They would need much more than one 55mm f/2.8 lens, followed by one lens each year. Sorry, but I don't see how it would be much easier.

10-09-2012, 12:37 AM	#78
Vylen Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Sydney, Australia Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,262	With respect to the image processors, you're making the assumption that its a simple task two stick two processors onto a logic board and make them work together efficiently.

10-09-2012, 12:47 AM	#79
illdefined Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: NYC Posts: 929	it's never just as simple as that no, but it's not a new technology in digital cameras by any means.

10-09-2012, 01:12 AM	#80
gazonk Pentaxian Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Oslo area, Norway Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,746	Originally posted by frank Hmm, another FF thread. How many more such threads are we gonna have before Pentax really releases a FF dSLR/EVIL camera? One new every day? And then we'll get even more "How Pentax did FF wrong" threads

10-09-2012, 01:23 AM - 1 Like	#81
paulusje Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2012 Posts: 134	Originally posted by gazonk One new every day? And then we'll get even more "How Pentax did FF wrong" threads Sad but true I really like this forum, but to be honest, the constant whining about practically every (good or bad) thing Pentax does is getting annoying.

10-09-2012, 01:44 AM	#82
Vylen Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Sydney, Australia Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,262	Originally posted by paulusje Sad but true I really like this forum, but to be honest, the constant whining about practically every (good or bad) thing Pentax does is getting annoying. It's not like as if anyone is particularly forcing you to read or participate in them though... There's a lot of FF threads going on here but I only post when I feel I have something constructive or informative to say in them. I'm also sure there are plenty of other threads in the multitude of subforums that are being posted of which could use your attention.

10-09-2012, 02:04 AM	#83
Kunzite Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Romania Posts: 15,132	Originally posted by illdefined ...or you can do what others have done plenty of times and use two current processors... Which won't add focus peaking, H264 video encoding and other features unsupported by the PRIME II. The code will also have to be (partially) re-written to support multiprocessing. Originally posted by illdefined gosh, are you actually admitting SAFOX isn't competitive? because Canon and Nikon both re-used their APS-C AF systems for their new FF models... Is it competitive? If people bash Pentax for their 11-point SAFOX, in a $1200 camera, what would happen if they'll use the same (yet worse, since AF points will be gathered in the center) in a $2100-3000 one? Originally posted by illdefined if they even want to have SR at all. they could always go the OIS route as well like they did with the 645D. members here have already stated they'd part with SR if it meant a small FF body.. With the medium format, having stabilization at all is a big deal - since nobody else does. With the small format, everyone has some form of stabilization; IMHO Pentax should try to stick with the in-body SR, since it's so much more convenient for their users. A small user sample from a certain forum is not really relevant, I'm afraid. Originally posted by illdefined Pentax currently has 4 FA primes in production (I think the FA 50mm still gets made for Japan), and designs, molds and patents for dozens more. Pentax would not be starting from zero. far from it. throw some HD coating on some of their best FA designs and they're nearly there. to launch with FF, all they'd need to do is reintroduce a couple FA zooms (like my FA 24-90), and they're already good to start with primes. That's a better launch lineup than the Fuji-X System. certainly WAY better than the Q or 645D launches.. Why were the FA Limiteds missing from Photokina? I was told they're out of production (but this can means anything from no longer being necessary, to having scheduled improved, digital versions). Anyway, I never claimed they would be starting from zero; they certainly wouldn't (and didn't for 645D, either). But there is a considerable effort, and by the way there is a big difference from having "designs, molds and patents" to having actual, well-performing products on the market. They can do it, of course; but it won't be "much easier". Originally posted by illdefined nice try though. Thank you; but I believe I did better than that

10-09-2012, 02:25 AM	#84
paulusje Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2012 Posts: 134	Wouldn't it be great to have a filter for those non-constructive 'it's gonna suck anyway' comments? FF is coming!

10-09-2012, 02:42 AM	#85
Alizarine Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2010 Location: Manila Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,185	I don't see any reason for Pentax to stop production of the FA Limiteds; after all, they're one of their biggest USP's. I would believe it more if the DA*s are the ones out of production to be replaced soon (by Photokina perhaps) by updated models with re-designed SDM modules and HD coating. or I'm dreaming too much, lol.

10-09-2012, 03:36 AM	#87
123jippo Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2012 Photos: Gallery Posts: 165	I love these FF threads Cos Pentax must realize finally that it needs FF body also...something like K01 or that little Q? is minor thing comperad to FF. Those K01 and Qs can be buried forever and only focus 3 bodies like K30. K5 and FF

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-09-2012, 03:43 AM	#88
TomTextura Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2012 Location: Denver Photos: Albums Posts: 570	Originally posted by boriscleto Not when there's not enough for those in line ahead of you. Where are you getting this notion from? Again, what indication do you have that Sony doesn't have enough FF sensors? And what makes you think that if they don't currently have the supply they wouldn't remedy that situation so that they can make more money like any rational producer would? I can't imagine any reason that Sony wouldn't sell Pentax their FF sensors, if not immediately than in due time.

10-09-2012, 03:46 AM	#89
noVICE Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: Brisbane Photos: Gallery Posts: 164	What happens when the FF does come out.... will Pentaxians everywhere have the thousands of dollars needed to buy this body? How many are going to say "oh I already have an amazing APS-C I will stick with that", how many will say "yes! I will choose the Pentax FF system over CaNikon's offerings" and how many are just going to wait for the next Pentax FF until they iron out the bugs with the first one? If I were Pentoh I would be having a long hard think about this move as it could represent a massive financial risk for the company.

10-09-2012, 03:47 AM	#90
Caat Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: United Kingdom Photos: Albums Posts: 927	Originally posted by illdefined - The Prime M doesn't count as a current processor? one of each Prime maybe, for 14bit RAW processing and peaking...yes code would have to be written, imagine that. you said it yourself Pentax has to do this for their next camera anyway. - yes SAFOX is inadequate. Pentax has to fix this for their next camera anyway too because it's still inadequate for APS-C. - as for SR, I'm afraid a 'small user sample from a certain forum' would be more relevant than just YHO. IMHO. - those 'designs, molds and patents" produced thousands of real, working AF, FF lenses that made it to market. not theoretical. so yes, making an FF DSLR would be "much easier" than you made it out to be. I don't know why Pentax is exempt from having to make some 'considerable effort' to remain relevant in the marketplace like the rest of its competitors. I don't think there will be enough Pentax apologists here to keep Pentax alive by buying K-5VIIIs with SAFOX XXVIII through 2015. - The Prime M clearly has some engineering issues around 14 bit RAW and possibly other areas otherwise it would have appeared in the K-5II/s. The fact that it didn't is indicative that it is more than a 'code' issue. - We don't know if the performance of the new SAFOX is inadequate for APS-C but what we do know is that the focus point layout is inadequate for FF. - The design molds etc haven't been used in over 10 years, and the optical designs are old. We don't even know that anything physical still exists. Pentax has limited lens production capabilities any production lines that get re-tooled for FF lenses aren't likely to be able to make APS-C lenses. It's not as simple as putting old designs back into production.