[boriscleto]

1 stop? I can very consistently get perfectly sharp shots (checked at 100%) at 200mm 1/50s, which is 2.6 stops going by the 1/f rule for a 300mm equivalent AOV, and I would hardly consider my hands to be rock steady.

I've gone as low as 1/40s at 300mm.

[goubejp]

Pentax has recently had major issues with build quaity in a number of their items. The "original" K-5 had significant issues with sensor burn. There are a number of the higher end Pentax branded lens (some wel above 1k in price) that also have significant issues with both items such as; sdm failure, zoom lock, even complete focus lock - including manual.

But that's not the worst part... The worst is; that Pentax has not adequately addressed most of these issues

Man, I had the "sensor stain" issue (what you call sensor burn) on 2 K5s
1 There was no trace at all on the sensor when the K5 body was new; it took several weeks to develop, using live view or video; even in case on systematic quality control on every product, I don"t see any manufacturor keep and test every product during several weeks before delivery; and even if it would be, end users would complain that they are delivered with second hand body...
2 For a such complex issue, impossible to detect at production stage, it was fixed in less than 3 month
3 Body or sensor replacement was made under warranty without any issue
4 I own 3 SDM lenses; none of them had SDM failure; as far as I known, only the 16-50 suffered from sdm issues; it is not a more than 1K priced lens; have a look on the serial databases :
DA*200
SMC Pentax-DA* 200mm F2.8 ED [IF] SDM Serial Numbers - Pentax Serial Number Database - PentaxForums.com
DA*300
SMC Pentax-DA* 300mm F4 ED [IF] SDM Serial Numbers - Pentax Serial Number Database - PentaxForums.com
before making such assumptions, in order to have an idea of the number of issues reported on theses lenses

[thibs]

It is entertaining.

Is it ?

[monochrome]

Is it ?

It must be. Why else would the same couple dozen members keep having the same discussion making the same points over and over again when the answer to the question is fairly obvious.

Clearly, Pentax isn't ready to offer a FF camera yet. Whether the holdup is engineering, marketing or finance is irrelevant (though I believe it is finance and the root of the problem began in the mid-80's) - and we won't know whether or why or when until we do.

[the swede]

What happened in the 80's that could have such an impact? I though Hoya was the main reason Pentax didnt develop FF earlier

[boriscleto]

What happened in the 80's that could have such an impact? I though Hoya was the main reason Pentax didnt develop FF earlier

Pentax did develop a FF earlier. The MZ-D, long before Hoya took over. Pentax didn't build it for financial and technical reasons. Contax did go ahead with a camera that used the same chip. Pentax is still around, Contax isn't...

[monochrome]

What happened in the 80's that could have such an impact? I though Hoya was the main reason Pentax didnt develop FF earlier

In the late 80's (at least in the USA) Pentax began restricting dealer access to its products by raising annual minimum purchase terms, raising minimum individual order amounts, refusing to extend dealer credit, reducing sales rep coverage (increasing the size of territories) and surrendering professional support networks to Canon and Nikon (IOW, not keeping up).

Over time (late 80's through early 2000's) these actions eroded their dealer network to the point that today it is hard to find a camera store stocking Pentax in most cities.

To their credit Pentax avoided the fates of Canon and Nikon as individual stores, small chains and eventually Ritz Camera / Fox Photo entered bankruptcy. This kind of macro economic "category-killer" retail category consolidation happened in many industries from 1980 - today. Walmart is the most commonly recognized aggressor in this business strategy, but it has happened in virtually every fragmented retail category. Frankly, the very thing happened to my father.

The cumulative result of these Pentax decisions, correct as they might have seemed at the times and when taken individually, has been to allow Pentax's camera sales volume to drop to a level insufficient to support modern marketing techniques, brand differentiation, product segmentation, shelf-space monopolization and media management. Pentax is, in fact, a victim of the very things that Nikon and Canon have done so well to compete so effectively. As such, it isn't likely they have the cash flow to successfully support a FF camera profitably. That doesn't mean they won't make one - just that it might not make money. They might need to earn a business return from a FF camera peripherally.

This whole sad story could be a graduate business school Brand Management Case Study.

The truly frustrating thing for Pentax advocates is that throughout this entire period they've by-and-large made wonderful individual products that by all rights should otherwise have kept the brand a category leader - which is what would make this such an interesting teaching exercise.

---

Last edited by monochrome; 02-09-2013 at 11:46 AM.

[Aristophanes]

As I've stated earlier, the reason why in the last 5 years there has been no Pentax FF is the combination of sensor cost and unit volumes.

Yes, market share mistakes decades ago laid this table, but not only Pentax have been affected. Canikon have flourished but Minolta got bought out by Sony. Even with Sony internally able to supply itself with FF chips, the cost to sales ratio was uneconomic and Sony pulled the plug for 18 months on FF. Olympus had to ally with Panasonic and stick their knife into a smaller format just to stay viable (and not really fiscally healthy).

Frankly, Pentax has done OK. There's just been too little volume at the prices FF requires, until the last year. Even as we watch FF sensor supply increase and prices drop (only a little) we still don't see the volume. 2013 for a sampler, but full production is 2014 is when we'll see something, and the real kicker won't be a single FF Pentax body, but when we see a lens array that is worthy of the whole package investment. 2015-16.

And in the middle of it all, Pentax has to figure out what to do with its excellent APS-C lenses and bodies. Bread and butter.

[monochrome]

Yes, Aristophanes, these are the conundrums confronting Pentax's managers. While we complain, we should actually laud Pentax for surviving and staying vibrant enough to bring us K-5 and the II and IIs and K-30 - and even the K-01 and Q. Good grief, the fact that they can even go to CP+ with an MX-1 and a Q10 and 645 and 3 K bodies and 3 WG's and new lenses after the financial crisis, Tsunami, Thailand and fierce competition (not to mention smart phones) is actually quite remarkable.

[jpyykonen]

Yes, Aristophanes, these are the conundrums confronting Pentax's managers. While we complain, we should actually laud Pentax for surviving and staying vibrant enough to bring us K-5 and the II and IIs and K-30 - and even the K-01 and Q. Good grief, the fact that they can even go to CP+ with an MX-1 and a Q10 and 645 and 3 K bodies and 3 WG's and new lenses after the financial crisis, Tsunami, Thailand and fierce competition (not to mention smart phones) is actually quite remarkable.

This.

[redrockcoulee]

Sorry if I mislead you, Clavius. I didn't speculate whether a Pentax FF would have better IQ than my D800, just that I suspect it would be more than good enough for my needs.

Your original post was not misleading as I certainly read it the way you reposted. Having both a D200 soon to exchanged for a D300 and a K-r I know which size of camera I prefer for the day and the day I borrowed a D3 and 300 2.8 I thought "nice but not for me". Even if the Pentax was 6.2875154962% lower IQ the size difference should make a difference to many users.

[ak_kiwi]

Clearly, Pentax isn't ready to offer a FF camera yet. Whether the holdup is engineering, marketing or finance is irrelevant (though I believe it is finance and the root of the problem began in the mid-80's) - and we won't know whether or why or when until we do.

Well said - and thanks for the "In business you can't separate products from practices."

Roll on Photokina....

[Ash]

Therein we have the one reality and different perspectives of attitude towards this reality.

Pentax is alive and actively making gear.
1: "isn't it great Pentax is doing well and making some great products? We have the Q10, a novel little camera improving on the Q not long after it came out, the K-01, love it, the K-5 II, awesome dSLR with great AF and sensor, and the 645D, a brilliant feat of engineering."
2: "Yeah, sure. The Q10 is an irrelevant camera with a uselessly small sensor, the K-01 looks terrible and performs just as bad, the K-5 II is no advance on the K-5 and is still slow and inaccurate, and the 645D is a waste of resources being out of touch with the regular photographer's budget. Plus, Pentax always lags behind the others and never fixes its problems. Pentax is a doomed company destined to flop."
1: "Well I seem to have gotten great results from all these cameras and haven't had to look any further. "
2: "That's because you don't know what else there is available"
1: "I've come back from using other branded systems because of size, weight and WR"
2: "Those things are not that big a deal. You can always cover your camera with a plastic bag. "

Pentax make smaller lenses with great IQ.
1: "the Limited lens range is simply awesome. Great build quality and wonderful colours and contrast. The DA* lenses are just as great, even though they're bigger and heavier - they're still significantly lighter and smaller than competitors' equivalents. "
2: " the Limited lenses are too slow. The DA*s have crappy SDM focusing that is slow and fails."
1: "I've barely had to shoot anything that needed more speed than what my Pentax lenses offer; I'd rather the smaller size than an extra half stop of speed, and the SDM issues have been resolved. "
2: "if you don't need faster than f/1.4 then you won't be getting pro results - as for SDM issues being resolved... there's nothing from Pentax to say they have. "

Pentax suggests the building of an FF dSLR.
1: "it'll be great to have a FF offering from Pentax. "
2: "too little. too late. "
1: "it'll bring out the best of all my lenses"
2: "there is only one DFA lens now. There's no way they're coming out with a FF camera at this point. "
1: "it'll have everything Pentaxians have been after in a camera, just with a FF sensor. "
2: "it's not coming out. Keep dreaming. "
1: "Pentax haven't officially announced it, but many Pentax officials can confirm they're working on its development as we speak. "
2: "that doesn't mean anything. That could just be that they're toying with the idea of making a FF camera. "
1: "well, they said they were developing it and I'm sure it'll pass through the marketing stage and be released. "
2: "no it won't. "

One reality, two attitudes.

[Zygonyx]

... (1) As such, it isn't likely they have the cash flow to successfully support a FF camera profitably. (2) That doesn't mean they won't make one - just that it might not make money. (3) They might need to earn a business return from a FF camera peripherally.

I fully agree to these observations.
But i shall maybe seek more developments re. my following remarks :
(1) i understand the cashflow issue as a general marketing power "weakness" of the brand (be able to propose interesting conditions for resellers ; finance strong advert campaigns for example) rather than any limitation in R&D
(2) hopefully they will product one, with sufficient interesting features in the technical sheet to appeal for a large consumer basis, together with reasonable selling price tag. The difficult thig in this respect is to differentiate enough from the D600 / 6D's features in respect with their "dumping tarifs" wich i guess Pentax cannot afford
(3) i am convinced any good FF product will definitely boost the brand, for many reasons early exposed in our PF common letter. And nobody let the financial community, can yet measure this important synergising "lever effect"

...
One reality, two attitudes.

And probably too much affection / hate

[fearview]

It must be. Why else would the same couple dozen members keep having the same discussion making the same points over and over again when the answer to the question is fairly obvious.

Clearly, Pentax isn't ready to offer a FF camera yet. Whether the holdup is engineering, marketing or finance is irrelevant (though I believe it is finance and the root of the problem began in the mid-80's) - and we won't know whether or why or when until we do.

after years of waiting now i believe that the reason why they do not make a FF is merely a legal problem.
its only a legal and lawyer problem can hold a product being release for so much time.



.