[jcdoss]

I want to know a little bit more data about for whom will be pentax full frame.

I'll buy one for sure... If it had an uncrippled K-mount. Otherwise, the a7 is looking real good.

---

Last edited by jcdoss; 01-20-2014 at 04:01 PM.

[beebs]

Yes...I'd love to have a "K-1000ii"....

[pinholecam]

I bought the A7 to use my Pentax lenses.
0 Sony lenses.

But I'd buy the Pentax within a year of launch.
Bottom line.
The Sony makes a good electronic part, but they don't seem to have the fine consideration in feature/interface/handling of a Pentax

[TomE]

I would if it was compteively priced with Nikon and Canon FF!

[Parry]

I would if it was compteively priced with Nikon and Canon FF!

I used to say that, but then started looking at Nikkor glass.

See this is where Ricoh are going to really start to lose their existing customers. Once you realise there's more than just good 'ol K-mount lenses . . . . Once your mind is conditioned to understand this is all expensive regardless . . . .

[OldNoob]

I think i would indeed buy one, if it retained the K-mount and was at least as good as the sony a7 in image qualitty. Optical viewfinder would be nice but not necessary. And a fold up LCD would also be nice.

Although.......
Why not make the body on the 645D smaller and more affordable? It would beat any FF on the market.

[Chris Mak]

I would prefer a Pentax FF, but a Sony A7(r) is starting to look the most likely option, with the continuous stalling by Ricoh/Pentax where their supposed FF camera is concerned. It may well be that they won't ever be able to decide on a launch, forever sticking to developing prototypes that never make it to market. I can imagine this is a hard routine to break, if you've been in it for over a decade.
Luckily Sony offers an option, perhaps slightly flawed, but it díd make it to market...

[Parry]

I would prefer a Pentax FF, but a Sony A7(r) is starting to look the most likely option, with the continuous stalling by Ricoh/Pentax where their supposed FF camera is concerned. It may well be that they won't ever be able to decide on a launch, forever sticking to developing prototypes that never make it to market. I can imagine this is a hard routine to break, if you've been in it for over a decade.
Luckily Sony offers an option, perhaps slightly flawed, but it díd make it to market...

I've looked and looked at this alternative. But at the end of the day what you end up with is an adapted rangefinder really and that's not a lot of good for all round capability. Although some of the lenses adapt okay I've read numerous accounts of ones that don't. So it's not all cut 'n dry really. Okay as an arty camera but for other stuff, like stuff that moves a lot . . . nah.

If you want to go full frame, and I've been researching the hell out of this for a while, go with the D610, D800/e or a 5DMkIII and only get the lenses you would actually use on a regular basis. For many people this might just be the Nikkor 24-70/2.8 and perhaps a fast portrait prime like the 85/1.4G.

I just can't see that Pentax is going to release a K-3 like full frame, which is of course what we all really want.

[mecrox]

I've looked and looked at this alternative. But at the end of the day what you end up with is an adapted rangefinder really and that's not a lot of good for all round capability. Although some of the lenses adapt okay I've read numerous accounts of ones that don't. So it's not all cut 'n dry really. Okay as an arty camera but for other stuff, like stuff that moves a lot . . . nah.

If you want to go full frame, and I've been researching the hell out of this for a while, go with the D610, D800/e or a 5DMkIII and only get the lenses you would actually use on a regular basis. For many people this might just be the Nikkor 24-70/2.8 and perhaps a fast portrait prime like the 85/1.4G.

... [snip] ...

Interesting - that's pretty well the conclusion I've reached too, though more around a 6D. I'm waiting to see what a dealer offers by way of P/X.

I think Ricoh are very no-nonsense and demand high standards being aware that their rep is on the line with every product they issue. So I have little doubt what when/if they produce an FF camera, it really will be their best effort, well made and likely pretty darn good. However, it will still be a while before they are able to build an ecosystem of lenses and accessories around it, and usually (not always) it pays to wait for the mark 2 version of any product with the kinks worked out. It all just means so much more time and I don't really want to wait for a couple more years.

I'm mulling over another alternative, which is P/Xing against a Sony RX10 and just sitting it out for a while. By the end of this year and a couple of major imaging fairs, it may be a little clearer whether high-end APS-C has a viable future. I've seen some wonderful images from the RX10 and for web-only and good 10 x 8" print stuff, it must be as much as anyone needs (though wants are different )

[Clavius]

Nope, not any more!

After I added the 5DMKII and later the A7r to my equipment, I've kept most of my Pentax gear. Because APS-C does have its own advantages and the resale value is abysmal. Pentax can jump high and low with the worlds most compact FF DSLR, but I have no intention of ever buying one of those. Even if it's the exact same size of the K-3 it's still to big to always carry with me. And that is quite important to me. (And should be very important to manufacturers too, if they want to compete against cellphones.)

The A7r is perfect for my wide angle to normal FF needs. And with the 35mm Zeiss I can carry it in my jacket pocket everywhere I go. And the Pentax kit is now perfect for my (very) sporadic tele shots. But because of its size, and as it always did, it only gets out when I really actually plan on doing some shooting, which is much more sporadic.

Mind you, the A7r kit would be even more fantastic if I could attach Pentax-like pancakes to it; even if they are slow. The small Pentax lenses are one of those paradoxes that I find so intruiging about Pentax. They find miniaturisation in their lenses so ultimately important that they are even prepared to sacrifice several stops. (Sacrificing valueble low light performance, versatility and even sharpness.) But then again, they don't find miniaturisation important enough to sacrifice a mirrorbox and mechanism in their cameras. A much smaller sacrifice that doesn't even influence the quality of the images, but only the view through the viewfinder.

[pinholecam]

I've looked and looked at this alternative. But at the end of the day what you end up with is an adapted rangefinder really and that's not a lot of good for all round capability. Although some of the lenses adapt okay I've read numerous accounts of ones that don't. So it's not all cut 'n dry really. Okay as an arty camera but for other stuff, like stuff that moves a lot . . . nah.

If you want to go full frame, and I've been researching the hell out of this for a while, go with the D610, D800/e or a 5DMkIII and only get the lenses you would actually use on a regular basis. For many people this might just be the Nikkor 24-70/2.8 and perhaps a fast portrait prime like the 85/1.4G.

I just can't see that Pentax is going to release a K-3 like full frame, which is of course what we all really want.

Interesting - that's pretty well the conclusion I've reached too, though more around a 6D. I'm waiting to see what a dealer offers by way of P/X.

I think Ricoh are very no-nonsense and demand high standards being aware that their rep is on the line with every product they issue. So I have little doubt what when/if they produce an FF camera, it really will be their best effort, well made and likely pretty darn good. However, it will still be a while before they are able to build an ecosystem of lenses and accessories around it, and usually (not always) it pays to wait for the mark 2 version of any product with the kinks worked out. It all just means so much more time and I don't really want to wait for a couple more years.

I'm mulling over another alternative, which is P/Xing against a Sony RX10 and just sitting it out for a while. By the end of this year and a couple of major imaging fairs, it may be a little clearer whether high-end APS-C has a viable future. I've seen some wonderful images from the RX10 and for web-only and good 10 x 8" print stuff, it must be as much as anyone needs (though wants are different )

Well, its sort of like that... (ie. a digital RF )
Though I'd like to think that its the closest thing to a digital ME super (or OM) since digital slrs.
To be fair, the A7 is liberating compared to all other FF DSLR options because of its small size/weight.
Its got its own problems of course.

So far, I am in the option that the slr lenses work fine and the Pentax ones are wonderfully small to take advantage of the small camera size of the A7 (not so for Canikon lenses)
I have a running thread where I attempt to dispel that myth that the lenses 'don't cut it' for FF.


If one can live with (or like) MF, have many MF lenses and perhaps less AF ones (or have other brand lenses as well), I think the A7 is the best way forward.
Its rather 'cheap' and catered for MF.
Its about the price of a new aps-c flagship like the K3 at launch, topped up with $200-300.
So its like I skipped one Pentax aps-c flagship to get a temporary FF solution, which can last years given current camera performance.
When Pentax releases its own FF, which my AF lenses can be used (even this year),I can buy that camera within a year of saving up.


I use '0' Sony lenses on the A7 and I do think it suits my generalist needs in most situations.

My few cents on the situation and on staying with Pentax (because they still make better cameras and lenses, to me)

[normhead]

A much smaller sacrifice that doesn't even influence the quality of the images, but only the view through the viewfinder.

And it's that mindset that means you probably shouldn't be a Pentax owner. If you don't value what the camera does, and there's another feature set you like more, why are you keeping your Pentax gear?

My DP2 Merrill compare quite nicely to your A7r and Zeiss 35 at a fraction the size and cost. We each pick our set of compromises. And most of us choose not to have expensive equipment sitting unused on our shelf. Time to admit you don't like what Pentax has to offer and move on. Oh wait, you already admitted you don't like what Pentax has to offer, now all you have to do is move on.

[Clavius]

How does your reaction relate to the topic at all? Heck, I'll bite anyway.

And it's that mindset that means you probably shouldn't be a Pentax owner. If you don't value what the camera does, and there's another feature set you like more, why are you keeping your Pentax gear?

Correct. Pentax was still known as an innovator back when I bought into the system. Surely not as conservative as they now suddenly are. Were I to do it all again right now I wouldn't buy into Pentax. Chances are though, they'll change direction a few more times in the next years.

Nevertheless, I now own a very capable Pentax APS-C kit that does an above excellent job. And when I do shoot with it, I enjoy it a lot. And for all the stuff that it doesn't do well, I've got other systems to fill the holes. You should understand, being a user of multiple systems as well.

My DP2 Merrill compare quite nicely to your A7r and Zeiss 35 at a fraction the size and cost. We each pick our set of compromises.

Correct again. I didn't want to compromise on the exchangeable lenses.

And most of us choose not to have expensive equipment sitting unused on our shelf.

First of all, it's not your call to judge if I use my gear enough to keep it or sell it.

Secondly, I never said it was sitting useless on a shelf. You're making up stuff again. It's being used equally as much as when I didn't have the A7r: When I actually plan shooting in advance. The A7r has the advantage of just always being there with me.

[ElJamoquio]

The A7r has the advantage of just always being there with me.

How do you carry it? I never considered it but if it's actually pocketable then maybe I should.

[jcdoss]

...The small Pentax lenses are one of those paradoxes that I find so intruiging about Pentax. They find miniaturisation in their lenses so ultimately important that they are even prepared to even several stops. (Sacrificing valueble low light performance, versatility and even sharpness.) But then again, they don't find miniaturisation important enough to sacrifice a mirrorbox and mechanism in their cameras. A much smaller sacrifice that doesn't even influence the quality of the images, but only the view through the viewfinder.

A fascinating observation. Thanks!