[Pål Jensen]

I'd say the FF dSLR will be exponentially more successful that what the recent poll suggests. The poll was not designed to gather absolute figures (that would be futile) but rather be representative enough to get useful relative figures. And it's pretty clear the next enthusiast camera on Pentaxians' minds is a FF dSLR. And Pentax will be delivering this soon.

What do you base this on? The rumors says that the next is a higher end APS camera. An FF Pentax will almost certainly be built upon a body sold in larger volumes (like the 645's).
My estimate is that Pentax can only hope to sell a few 10 000's of an FF body at the most. This provided that Pentax will have double the FF users percentages among their user base than Nikon or Canon. Thats why expect a quite expensive model ($2500 +).

[Kunzite]

If you are interested in buying a full frame, $2500 camera, more than likely you are not some newbie snapshooter. If you are willing to spend 2 months rent on a camera, you probably already have a DSLR, which means you already own a Sony, Canon, Pentax or Nikon. Even your sig reads "One does not simply change one's mount..." That being the case, this prospective full frame customer already has some gear. What would be the reason's for this prospective customer to switch from the others to Pentax? Cost - It would have to a good amount cheaper, with better specs to entice one to switch mounts. But in my opinion, that is not reasonable. I think it will be similar to the competition in price. Size - Same as above. Pentax may make a FF DSLR a good amount smaller than the competitors, think the difference between 7D and K-5. But if you are invested in a system, it will take more than size for someone to switch. Once you get into FF realm, there is large, and less large. System - Flash, accessories, 3rd party support. Pentax has a lot of catching up to do here.

Edit - Sorry for the font differences...i copied and pasted your sig which changed my settings, lol.

Which only shows the main target should be the Pentax user base (current or future).
Of course, this user base will have to grow, and having a FF option will contribute to that. Get the users, then get them ready for more expensive (higher margins) products, then give them those products (instead of letting them leave).

[cali92rs]

Which only shows the main target should be the Pentax user base (current or future).
Of course, this user base will have to grow, and having a FF option will contribute to that. Get the users, then get them ready for more expensive (higher margins) products, then give them those products (instead of letting them leave).

OK, I buy what you are saying, but there has to be something that expands the Pentax user base to take advantage of the carrot on the end of the stick which is a FF DSLR.
Interesting because Thom Hogan wrote an article about this very subject today:
Thom Hogan's Nikon Camera, DSLR, Lens, Flash, and Book site

"Nikon pushed a lot of boxes last year, no doubt. But with declining return. The question you have to ask is how are they going to push more boxes this year with an increasing return? A D4x isn't the answer. Coolpix that end up selling for US$150 or less at retail are not the answer. I'd argue that the answer has always been staring Nikon in the face, but they've just ignored it: DX. The D7000 and D300s are overdue for updates, the DX lens lineup is stale and out of balance, and Nikon simply isn't driving performance (other than perhaps sensor) in ways they should if they want to hold off high-end mirrorless."

It's ironic because he has actually praised Pentax for their support of APS-C. But there was no carrot at the end (ie full frame) for Pentax users.

[Uluru]

All right, when the entire CP+ 2013 interview will be available? My head is getting dizzy from a two dozen pages and 350 posts of pure speculation and nonsense milked out of 1 minute YouTube video. :-)

[jeffshaddix]

I'm no native speaker of Japanese, but I clearly heard him say the following at 0:16 in the video:

やらなきゃならないなっと思っております。

I would translate this as "I think we must do this".

To any doubting that they're serious about FF, this is definitely, semantically speaking, more firm than a waffling statement like "should" or "might".

Thanks for the extra interpretation!

[ElJamoquio]

Lol, my guess would be most of them. The whole FF thing on here is mentally unbalanced. I mean, if you want it that bad then it's not rocket science to go to one of the outfits which offers it, right now.

The ergonomics of 'other outfits' don't compare to Pentax.

So I can choose between image quality/viewfinder of a Nikon or the ergonomics of the Pentax. Most of the time I pick up the Pentax.

[PPPPPP42]

I have gotten the impression it was just a misunderstanding that it was actually confirming anything. The Japanese culture basically doesn't include the word no, just 50 shades of maybe like "we will consider that".

It is clear there are people in Pentax who would like a FF camera released, and others who do not think they are up to it at the moment for various reasons, the question is who is in charge.

It shouldn't cost a whole hell of a lot to produce a FF camera since you are essentially changing nothing but the sensor size and making the body bigger to accomodate. Other than some math differences in the programming due to sensor size and a few larger parts (like the critical 100% FF view finder) all the little components are the same buttons and whatnot. The main cost of a FF camera is the cost of the FF sensor, everything else is pretty much identical in cost to the APSC cameras. That's why the prices keep falling, thanks to the big names the cost of producing FF sensors keeps dropping.

[Pål Jensen]

It shouldn't cost a whole hell of a lot to produce a FF camera since you are essentially changing nothing but the sensor size and making the body bigger to accomodate. .

But it cost a lot to develop a fleet of FF lenses. As product life of lenses is measured in decades (at least one) the lenses must be good enough for senors released a decade from now...

[DanWeso]

I'd say the FF dSLR will be exponentially more successful that what the recent poll suggests. The poll was not designed to gather absolute figures (that would be futile) but rather be representative enough to get useful relative figures. And it's pretty clear the next enthusiast camera on Pentaxians' minds is a FF dSLR. And Pentax will be delivering this soon.

I’m not sure what that poll really tells us. I guess its in how you interpret the data. The way I see it, out of 50,000 registered PF users, only 280 of them voted. These 280 votes is a very small sample of the 50,000 PF users and the 50,000 PF users is a very small sample of Pentax users world wide. Seeing how they had to drastically reduce the K-01 and Q (and probably will happen to the MX-1 too) prices just to clear overstock, it makes me wonder how they collect marketing data for their camera design choices. Surely not from this site.

[pxpaulx]

It is clear there are people in Pentax who would like a FF camera released, and others who do not think they are up to it at the moment for various reasons, the question is who is in charge.

As in the youthful optimist on the left and mr frowning money-bags on the right in that video!

[Alizarine]

Noob question:

Is it really far from possible to re-issue film-era designs into digital? e.g. FA*250-600, FA*28-70, SuperTakumar 85 1.8, etc? How much will the optical design be affected, in order to be "fit for digital"? Or is there even such a thing? (As I see it, my FA77 is doing mighty fine on the K-5 IIs...)

[monochrome]

I have gotten the impression it was just a misunderstanding that it was actually confirming anything. The Japanese culture basically doesn't include the word no, just 50 shades of maybe like "we will consider that".

It is clear there are people in Pentax who would like a FF camera released, and others who do not think they are up to it at the moment for various reasons, the question is who is in charge.

It shouldn't cost a whole hell of a lot to produce a FF camera since you are essentially changing nothing but the sensor size and making the body bigger to accomodate. Other than some math differences in the programming due to sensor size and a few larger parts (like the critical 100% FF view finder) all the little components are the same buttons and whatnot. The main cost of a FF camera is the cost of the FF sensor, everything else is pretty much identical in cost to the APSC cameras. That's why the prices keep falling, thanks to the big names the cost of producing FF sensors keeps dropping.

If this supposition was true there wouldn't be APSc cameras at all now and there would be 7 brands of FF cameras. but there aren't.

The massive data stream from a FF sensor changes every single algorithm and every single component downstream from the sensor - bus, buffer, heat sinks, etc. Then you need high-end appurtenances such as a large prism viewfinder, bigger shutter assembly, bigger mirror, bigger IBSR assembly, all the plugs and card slots and other outputs to match a premium camera - and everything must be faster to justify the higher price.

Since a company like Pentax will outsource major components and sub-assemblies at lower volumes than their competition their per-unit cost will be higher than, say, Nikon, so they'll have a lower margin. They'll need to offer some value proposition - lower price for more features to get attention so they'll have an even lower margin. They have little if any established brand reputation, so they will need a large, repetitive and extended period of brand establishment across multiple media globally. They'll need significant investment in marketing people calling on outlet buyers and demonstrating product - globally. People are tremendously expensive - as much as 70% of the manufacturing and distribution cost of an item. Ricoh is laying peole off, not hiring them!. All this to be effected at lower profit margin than competition. Not only is it unlikely Pentax can earn money doing this, it is highly likely they will lose money for many years doing this.

In order to make this work Ricoh must first decide to greatly expand Pentax market share, which is a risk to their expected earnings stream. The FF camera brand building costs will need to be spread across multiple bodies and multiple camera lines with a common brand identity - something Pentax doesn't really own right now.

This decision isn't whether to build a camera. This decision is a multi-year, full-organizational business decision. We're not talking about $1,000,000 or $500,000 of product development. This is a multi-tens of millions of dollars decision to be spent over many, many years, with no turning back once started.

They're just not ready yet. Shame, but a fact.

[Class A]

The users that really actually put their money where their mouth is are currently already carrying 5DMKx's, D/6/7/800's, or even older models that are currently pretty cheap on fleabay.

It is wrong to conclude from someone not having jumped ship yet, that they are not "putting their money where their mouth is".
I, for example, wouldn't want to buy into Canon because they are falling behind with respect to sensors. Nikon looks like a viable path, but I prefer Pentax ergonomics. I also have a stack of FF-capable K-mount lenses that would cost a fortune to replace with Nikkor lenses.

I want a Pentax FF to make the best use of my lenses, get better IQ, and for Pentax to be able to survive. None of these reasons are fit for buying a Canikon right now.

A Pentax FF DSLR is not going to attract any users from the other brands.

Whether or not Pentax can have success with a new model -- and success is all they need, not a record in attracting users from other brands -- depends on how much value it offers for the money. You have the same problem with an APS-C camera. You could argue that a K10D or K-5 (II) were/are not fit for attracting new customers. Both models have attracted users from other brands, though.

OMG, I just realised that this Pentax FF DSLR could be their Contax N Digital!

What seems more likely is that their hesitation in doing the inevitable is going to become a reprise of their failure to adapt to changing market conditions when they missed the digital boat and went from a reputed force to an "also run" player.

That's the major disadvantage (danger) of marketing a me-too camera like an FF DSLR. If they want to avoid that, they should market something unorthodox.

I think we should stop burdening a Pentax FF camera to become the saviour of the Pentax brand by asking it to make Pentax more successful than Canon overnight.

It primarily should just stop Pentaxians with money to spend on equipment to leave the brand. Of course it should be aimed at doing more than that, but not to the point where they don't do it at all because they cannot offer the Canikon killer for $2000.

If I had anything to say at Pentax, I'd make the next APS-C flagship have a body and electronics that would allow to offer a twin model that only differs in being FF. This should create savings for design and tooling, part ordering, etc. Switching to a bigger sensor and SR mechanims, plus a bigger prism, should then not cost the world, but allow Pentax to finally address a glaring hole in their product range.

Yes, that would mean the next APS-C flagship could not be as small as it could be if it were custom designed for APS-C only, but it should just convince on specs and finally give Pentax the platform to launch the FF they sorely need.

So, IMHO the single best bet by Pentax is to release a K-mount mirrorless FF camera...

I wish Pentax could offer that and a classic FF DSLR with an OVF. And then see which has more success.
I personally don't like the Pentax that dabbles with K-01 style markets. I don't like EVFs and I don't like the ergonomics of existing mirrorless cameras. If they could offer a mirorrless camera that handles like a convential DSLR (i.e., proper grip, big LCD displays, tons of controls) and a hybrid viewfinder (optical, or electronic, or both) than I'd be very interested.

No wonder those Pentax staffers look unwell whenever the subject arises.

I think Pentax staffers look unwell whenever the subject arises because they know that the FF elephant has been standing in their company quarters for way too long already and that the fact that they are still not there is a painful reminder of how small Pentax now is compared to the might it once has been.

Your bigger question implies there are two mutually exclusive directions, which IMHO is untrue.
It is both possible and desirable to satisfy the Pentax user base (as in: keeping us happy and spending) and growing it.

+1

Just to avoid any misunderstanding: I am a big Pentax fan and have faith in Pentax engineering. I hope that Ricoh's money spending decision makers will not just look at where the next big market opportunity or untoched market niche is, but will also cater to conventional photographers like many current Pentaxians appear to be. One of Pentax's current problems is that there are no Pentax Pros to speak of anymore and hence are not available as opinion formers at the base level. If Pentax loses all current Pentaxians by exclusively trying to jump on the next big wave then I don't see a rosy for the future of the K-mount at all.

[ogl]

I'm afraid that Ricoh could sell Pentax again in several years.

[ogl]

Thanks for the extra interpretation!
I think we must do this

It seems to me it's WRONG translation.

They say about innovation and no MUST word here.