Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
05-02-2013, 09:49 AM   #61
Banned




Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Millstone,NJ
Posts: 6,491
QuoteOriginally posted by Clavius Quote
People seem to ignore the simple fact that there are lots of different tools for lots of different jobs. Does every hammer have to be suitable for each and every job too? When I open my toolbox I have several shapes an sizes of hammers, so I'm guessing the answer is: "No". Is a demolition hammer suitable for carpenting: "No". Nevertheless, the market does need a demolition hammer. Is there a huge market for lead-hammers to hammer away at your wheel-trims? Again: "No!", but the market needs them regardless. Is a mirrorless FF with an EVF suitable for sports photography? Maybe not, but the market still needs one, because it has it's own advantages. None of the two are better then the other, both are best suitable for their own purposes.

And an OVF isn't suddenly going to make Pentax the best and most suitable tool for sports photography. (The most popular argument against MILC/EVF.) Sports photography is what Canon and Nikon DSLRs are best suitable for, with their blazing fast and highly accurate AF. You can do it with a Pentax, but with the slow AF it simply isn't the ideal tool. Pentax, with their backwards compatibility, would be smarter to cater to the needs of all those manual glass users that they have. An excellent EVF with peak focussing should be highly valued by their users. But even with AF & quick shift, peak focussing can do magic.


Now... FF MILC vs FF DSLR:

How many FF DSLRs are there to choose from currently? (Including discontinued on the used market.) 22! Of which 6 currently still available new:

Canon EOS 5D (2005)
Canon EOS 5D Mark II (2008)
Canon EOS 5D Mark III (2012)
Canon EOS 6D (17 September 2012)
Canon EOS-1D X (2012)
Canon EOS-1Ds (2002)
Canon EOS-1Ds Mark II (2004)
Canon EOS-1Ds Mark III (2007)
Contax N Digital (2002)
Kodak DCS Pro 14n (2003)
Kodak DCS Pro SLR/c (2004)
Kodak DCS Pro SLR/n (2004)
Nikon D3 (2007)
Nikon D3S (2009)
Nikon D3X (2008)
Nikon D4 (2012)
Nikon D600 (13 September 2012)
Nikon D700 (2008)
Nikon D800 (2012)
Sony a DSLR-A850 (2009)
Sony a DSLR-A900 (2008)
Sony a SLT-A99 (12 September 2012)
(Am I forgetting any?)

And how many FF MILCs are there for us to choose from? 0! None. Nothing. Nada.

[cynical]
Oh yes, Pentax please issue another (me-too) FF DSLR and pray to the heavens that it will make a dent a slight smudge in the existing fully established FF market. That sounds like a terrific plan! (Maybe Pentax should scream "BANZAAAAIII!!" when they launch it?) And forget about getting ahead, and being first at something agian. Who cares about the future anyway?
[/cynical]
(Am I forgetting any?)
Yes , the Sony NEX-VG900

05-02-2013, 09:53 AM   #62
Senior Member
1r0nh31d3's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Edmonton, AB
Posts: 136
Everyone seems to be very focused on competing with Nikon and Canon for the Full Frame market, but I think it is more an issue of retaining a consumer base of enthusiast moving into more complex gear.

A Pentax FF is something that would keep me loyal to Pentax and allow me to use my existing lenses on a different beast.

Yes there is still some competition in the equation but if I already have a decent collection of lenses that I like keeping them and moving to a full frame (even if it a carbon copy of Nikon or Canon Specs) is much more attractive than buying a Canon 5d ii and starting from scratch with a whole new len road map. And having to pay 4X the price for Canon lenses of the same quality as my Pentax Lenses.

SO the big question is if the value of retaining this prosumer client base + the marginal amount of new pentax user a FF would attract is equal or greater than the cost of development and distribution of a Pentax FF. I hope it is because I want a FF pentax camera body but I wouldn't even know where to begin to collect data that would give me insight into this question.
05-02-2013, 10:30 AM   #63
Pentaxian
konraDarnok's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2007
Photos: Albums
Posts: 960
QuoteOriginally posted by Clavius Quote
redacted

Didn't you used to be anti-mirrorless?
05-02-2013, 10:49 AM   #64
Lens Buying Addict
monochrome's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Kirkwood (St. Louis) MO
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 19,435
QuoteOriginally posted by philbaum Quote
Therefore, Pentax, if you're going to build another mirrorless, FF or not, don't cripple the dang thing.
Hear!! Hear!! You are the first poster I have read anywhere who has correctly identified the true weaknesses of the K-01 (and Q and K-30). I want the full set of K-5 Menus, features and technology in a K-mount AND Q-mount body, whether the sensor is Compact, 1", APSc, 24x36 or some emulation of 4x5 is irrelevant to me. I am insulted that features available on my 2006 K10D (which I still use) are disabled
on my K-01.

I bought the K-01 anyway because I have vision issues and LiveView helps - and the Prime-M imaging engine is I think better than Prime-II or -III.

05-02-2013, 10:50 AM   #65
Pentaxian
Clavius's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: De Klundert
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 4,115
QuoteOriginally posted by Kunzite Quote
What I'm saying is, stop being such a masochist and buy a camera you would like
I have several from all kinds of brands. And I love them all. Different tools for different jobs.

Now I'd like to buy a Pentax FF MILC, with an EVF, WR and SR please.



QuoteOriginally posted by Kunzite Quote
And how are the oldest cameras from your list relevant, except as a history lesson?
To show there's enough FF DSLRs around, that they have been around for a while, and that there's probably still lots to come from those brands.


QuoteOriginally posted by Kunzite Quote
You forced the presence of every DSLR you could remember, just to artificially get a higher number.
How is that even possible when I indicated the exact number of currently available model myself already? (6)



QuoteOriginally posted by Kunzite Quote
I never called them "mirrorless"; but they are not SLRs either.
SLT's have a mirror, this discussion is about mirrorless. Done.



QuoteOriginally posted by Kunzite Quote
That's a made-up illustration, and not a real measurement.
[Cynical]
Kunzite, you are a much higher authority on this subject then Photozone. So If you say that Photozone is making up stuff, then we will believe you without asking you for any further proof or arguments. BTW, should we call the newspaper and out PZ's fraude?
[/cynical]

QuoteOriginally posted by Kunzite Quote
While mirror and shutter slap (the later completely ignored by Photozone's drawing) can potentially (and many times practically) degrade image quality, what's important is the real life impact.
Shutter slap is the latter two red humps in the PZ's drawing. How could you have missed that?!? That same way you missed the real life impact of mirrorslap?

You can test it yourself easily. Go shoot in low light. Take a K5 and a NEX5n. Use them with exactly the same lens. You'll be able to use much lower shutterspeeds on the NEX then the K5 due to the absense of mirror slap. Imagine what a camera like the NEX5n would be like with a FF sensor and SR.

Mirror slap is also very evident when doing ultra-macro. Or Ultra-tele. Movements get so much enlarged in those shooting styles.


QuoteOriginally posted by Kunzite Quote
I wouldn't call it "the major advantage of mirrorless cameras", though; many MILCs have inferior sensors,
Ah, you agree that it's time for a MILC with a superior sensor then?


QuoteOriginally posted by Kunzite Quote
Said the man who's trying to convince DSLRs users and the company known for inventing the Japanese SLR that MILCs are better.
Asahi Pentax did not invent the SLR. The SLR is not a Japanese invention. All they did, is take the idea, and make it approachable for the common man.

Something they could repeat... Making FF more approachable for the common man by surpassing the expensive mirror, mirror mechanism, prism, viewfinder optics and all the manual labour that goes into calibrating each and every camera that gets produced.


QuoteOriginally posted by Kunzite Quote
but that's not my point. You are ignoring everything but the idea that no FF MILC exists. Current vs. old technologies, market segmentation, relative market sizes are all parts of the reality you are ignoring.
It's normal for new technologies to be outsold by the techs they're replacing. Film cameras outsold Digital cameras at the beginning too. No reason to but the brakes on progress.
05-02-2013, 11:45 AM   #66
Veteran Member




Join Date: Oct 2007
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 418
QuoteOriginally posted by Kunzite Quote
Yeah, but should they do it, now? I'm talking about Canon, Nikon, Pentax; it's sacrificing the larger, more profitable market for the smaller, cost sensitive one.
Let the MILC makers do their best at making MILCs, and DSLR camera makers, at making DSLRs.
Why is it either/or and thus having to sacrifice one for the other? Oh yeah, if Pentax upsets the orthodoxy all the 'faithful' switch brands. Cameras aren't picture making tools, they're holy artifacts.

The thing is, the market doesn't divide up profits evenly. Therefore DSLRs are a huge market; of which Pentax has a sliver.

Compare this with Oly, which has basically dumped SLRs, and by competing in a more open market, with less entrenched opposition, they've more than tripled market share over the last few years. And it's a lot easier for me to find Oly/m43 products in stores than Pentax.

Per Thom Hogan, predicting that MILCs will peak lower than DSLRs, however:
QuoteQuote:
Of course, 50% market growth is >50% larger than the current "growth" in compact camera sales, which is highly negative now. And it's still better than the low double-digit growth in DSLRs. That's why everyone wants to play in the mirrorless market: it's the best way to showanysignificant sales growth in any of the camera markets (outside of smartphones, which is beyond the reach of most camera companies, and even outside the camera group in the few that do play there). Play your cards right and you can actually take a bit of overall market share from the leading three players (Canon, Sony, and Nikon).
Emphasis mine. You want to get lenses, and third party support, and store shelf space? You need to build market share.

A forward looking company would be trying to jump to the end of the story, and get out a well developed MILC/hybrid rather than continue to fight in the other guy's house. Of course, a forward looking company would have started on it 5 years ago.

Maybe Pentax should make it's next camera from wood and call it the 'Luddite-D'.
05-02-2013, 12:13 PM   #67
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Romania
Posts: 8,406
QuoteOriginally posted by Clavius Quote
Now I'd like to buy a Pentax FF MILC, with an EVF, WR and SR please.
Why on Earth does it have to be Pentax?

QuoteOriginally posted by Clavius Quote
To show there's enough FF DSLRs around, that they have been around for a while, and that there's probably still lots to come from those brands.
So what? There were way more APS-C DSLRs being made, for example - it doesn't mean there isn't room for more.

QuoteOriginally posted by Clavius Quote
How is that even possible when I indicated the exact number of currently available model myself already? (6)
24 lines explaining how many DSLRs there are, and one admitting that only 6 of them are current models. OK...

QuoteOriginally posted by Clavius Quote
SLT's have a mirror, this discussion is about mirrorless. Done.
Proving you have no clue about what a single lens reflex camera is. An SLT is not a SLR, no matter how much you're fooling yourself.

QuoteOriginally posted by Clavius Quote
[Cynical]
Kunzite, you are a much higher authority on this subject then Photozone. So If you say that Photozone is making up stuff, then we will believe you without asking you for any further proof or arguments. BTW, should we call the newspaper and out PZ's fraude?
[/cynical]
FAIL.
Photozone never claimed it's a real world representation of the mirror slap. No measurement was made, there's nothing about shutter movement in that article. The red "impulse" and gray "vibration" lines are even independent (instead of impulse generating the vibrations). It's good enough for explaining that mirror slap might be an issue, but that's about it.

QuoteOriginally posted by Clavius Quote
Shutter slap is the latter two red humps in the PZ's drawing. How could you have missed that?!? That same way you missed the real life impact of mirrorslap?
There is no representation of the shutter slap in that drawing. Those two shutter "impulse" lines only serve to mark the start and the end of the exposure.

QuoteOriginally posted by Clavius Quote
Mirror slap is also very evident when doing ultra-macro. Or Ultra-tele. Movements get so much enlarged in those shooting styles.
Mirror slap can be avoided, by certain techniques. For example, "ultra-macro" would require a tripod (which can be used in combination with MLU).

QuoteOriginally posted by Clavius Quote
You can test it yourself easily. Go shoot in low light. Take a K5 and a NEX5n. Use them with exactly the same lens. You'll be able to use much lower shutterspeeds on the NEX then the K5 due to the absense of mirror slap. Imagine what a camera like the NEX5n would be like with a FF sensor and SR.
Maybe I will. I would shoot with the NEX5n at the end of my stretched arms, composing using Live View, and with the K-5 in the most stable position I can manage.

QuoteOriginally posted by Clavius Quote
Ah, you agree that it's time for a MILC with a superior sensor then?
Is twisting my words a hobby of yours? I was clear enough, so you're doing intentional; but I'll restate my point: many MILCs have inferior sensors, so DSLRs would still have a superior image quality.

QuoteOriginally posted by Clavius Quote
Asahi Pentax did not invent the SLR. The SLR is not a Japanese invention. All they did, is take the idea, and make it approachable for the common man.
That's what I said "inventing the Japanese SLR".

QuoteOriginally posted by Clavius Quote
Something they could repeat... Making FF more approachable for the common man by surpassing the expensive mirror, mirror mechanism, prism, viewfinder optics and all the manual labour that goes into calibrating each and every camera that gets produced.
Sony RX1 is $2800, more expensive than a D600 + 35mm f/2.

QuoteOriginally posted by Clavius Quote
It's normal for new technologies to be outsold by the techs they're replacing. Film cameras outsold Digital cameras at the beginning too. No reason to but the brakes on progress.
Unlike the explosive expansion of the digital, MILC progress (as market share) slowed down to a crawl. Well, that's another "detail" you ignored...
05-02-2013, 12:28 PM   #68
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Romania
Posts: 8,406
QuoteOriginally posted by junyo Quote
Why is it either/or and thus having to sacrifice one for the other? Oh yeah, if Pentax upsets the orthodoxy all the 'faithful' switch brands. Cameras aren't picture making tools, they're holy artifacts.
It's always the MILC fans who are seeing this as a religious issue. Don't push your own views on me.

QuoteOriginally posted by junyo Quote
WThe thing is, the market doesn't divide up profits evenly. Therefore DSLRs are a huge market; of which Pentax has a sliver.
Which is better than nothing (breaking news - a not yet launched system has zero market share).

QuoteOriginally posted by junyo Quote
Compare this with Oly, which has basically dumped SLRs, and by competing in a more open market, with less entrenched opposition, they've more than tripled market share over the last few years. And it's a lot easier for me to find Oly/m43 products in stores than Pentax.
An amazing feat; they must be healthy and profitable, right?
Olympus Drops After Net Forecast Cut on Camera Loss: Tokyo Mover - Bloomberg
"Olympus said it expects to lose about 16 billion yen this fiscal year at its camera business, double the 8 billion yen target set in November."
In other words, you're asking Pentax to enter a market where even the leaders can't make a profit.

QuoteOriginally posted by junyo Quote
Emphasis mine. You want to get lenses, and third party support, and store shelf space? You need to build market share.
Agree. But it can be done with the K-mount.

QuoteOriginally posted by junyo Quote
Maybe Pentax should make it's next camera from wood and call it the 'Luddite-D'.
That's an insult to those designing amazing and complex tools such as the Pentax DSLRs.

05-02-2013, 01:19 PM   #69
Pentaxian
Pål Jensen's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Norway
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,064
QuoteOriginally posted by junyo Quote
Compare this with Oly, which has basically dumped SLRs, and by competing in a more open market, with less entrenched opposition, they've more than tripled market share over the last few years. And it's a lot easier for me to find Oly/m43 products in stores than Pentax.
.
Lies, damned lies and statistics. The statistics shown are meaningless and they show no sign of Nikon and Canon loosing grip on the market. The data groups totally different camera segments into one, but selectively so (which is cheating) in spite of all data and research showing that they are bought by different groups of people; mirrorless is not eroding into DSLR sales but P&S sales (Pentax said virtually the same thing last fall; DSLR are bought primarily by enthusiast whereas mirrorless is bought primarily by causual shooters). You could just as well include cell phone cameras into the data above "proving" even better than Nikon and Canon are loosing grip....

Last edited by Pål Jensen; 05-02-2013 at 01:26 PM.
05-02-2013, 01:34 PM   #70
Pentaxian
Clavius's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: De Klundert
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 4,115
QuoteOriginally posted by Kunzite Quote
Why on Earth does it have to be Pentax?
Because we're Pentaxians and we would like to see them prosper?


QuoteOriginally posted by Kunzite Quote
Proving you have no clue about what a single lens reflex camera is. An SLT is not a SLR, no matter how much you're fooling yourself.
That's also not what I'm saying. Mirror = mirror no matter if it's bouncing or static. Which makes an SLT not a mirrorless camera, period.


QuoteOriginally posted by Kunzite Quote
FAIL.
Photozone never claimed it's a real world representation of the mirror slap.
But where did they deny it?


QuoteOriginally posted by Kunzite Quote
No measurement was made, there's nothing about shutter movement in that article.
That's OK, the shutters can stay. It's the mirror that needs to go. YOU made it about shutters.



QuoteOriginally posted by Kunzite Quote
Mirror slap can be avoided, by certain techniques. For example, "ultra-macro" would require a tripod (which can be used in combination with MLU).
Yes, laying flat on your belly on the bottom of a boggy forrest, taking a picture of a tiny critter in it's natural environment. Lets then use a tripod and MLU. LOL! You should go out shooting more and get some more real world experience.


QuoteOriginally posted by Kunzite Quote
Maybe I will. I would shoot with the NEX5n at the end of my stretched arms, composing using Live View, and with the K-5 in the most stable position I can manage.
That's why I advocate the introduction of a Pentax MILC with EVF.



QuoteOriginally posted by Kunzite Quote
Is twisting my words a hobby of yours? I was clear enough, so you're doing intentional; but I'll restate my point: many MILCs have inferior sensors, so DSLRs would still have a superior image quality.
I still don't get it. This thread is about the first FF MILC. Then you come around claiming that it's not feasable because MILCs tend to have inferior sensors. Is that Romanian logic?



QuoteOriginally posted by Kunzite Quote
Unlike the explosive expansion of the digital, MILC progress (as market share) slowed down to a crawl. Well, that's another "detail" you ignored...
Explosive? It has been over two decades and there's still people shooting film right now! It think the transition from mirrored to MILC is going faster then film to digital.
05-02-2013, 01:41 PM   #71
Senior Member




Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Sydney
Photos: Albums
Posts: 232
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Kunzite Quote
I see it as a relatively low R&D cost project, where it was imperative to reuse as many DSLR components as possible (let's not forget it was developed while being prepared to be sold). IMO the concept is quite interesting, and maybe they could try again (by putting more effort into it).
This is not an uncommon practice for camera companies. I have lost count of how many times Canon has recycled its 18 Mpx cropped sensor in a body. Maybe the latest sensor is an updated version.
Pentax has recycled the 16Mpx Sony sensor in a few bodies as well.

QuoteOriginally posted by philbaum Quote
One can see how the FF models are suppressing APSc dslr prices. the K5 came out at $1495, or was it higher. the k5ii was only $1295. not sure exactly and too lazy to look it up. but the trend is clear. some kind of FF is needed.
If you can imagine Pentax releases a 'professional APS c' for US$1500 while the Canon 6D (FF) is now $1600. Try to beat that!
05-02-2013, 01:55 PM   #72
Senior Member




Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Sydney
Photos: Albums
Posts: 232
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by 1r0nh31d3 Quote
SO the big question is if the value of retaining this prosumer client base + the marginal amount of new pentax user a FF would attract is equal or greater than the cost of development and distribution of a Pentax FF. I hope it is because I want a FF pentax camera body but I wouldn't even know where to begin to collect data that would give me insight into this question.
I run a business. IMHO, any company that has an income based solely on old client base without the ability to attract new clients (Pentax, Black....., No... included) is slowly heading to its end.

Just 'imagine' Pentax made an alternative hypothetical announcement several years ago - 'Pentax has no plan in entering FF market!'
That will be difficult to attract new comers to buy its DSLR. Anyone who has been on this forum long enough would have noticed a lot of great photographers leaving Pentax for an alternate system with FF.

It is always easier to say ' we are in R&D phase' and continue to be so for years. This Pentax FF part of the forum remains a rumour site until the day Pentax releases a FF.
05-02-2013, 01:56 PM   #73
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Romania
Posts: 8,406
QuoteOriginally posted by Clavius Quote
Because we're Pentaxians and we would like to see them prosper?
You don't want them to prosper, you just want them to make a FF MILC (I'm not sure you would buy it, though)

QuoteOriginally posted by Clavius Quote
That's also not what I'm saying. Mirror = mirror no matter if it's bouncing or static. Which makes an SLT not a mirrorless camera, period.
What you're saying is a strawman; again, the point was that a SLT is not a SLR, so you shouldn't count it as such. I never asked you to put it in the MILC list...

QuoteOriginally posted by Clavius Quote
But where did they deny it?
That chart is not an elephant either, yet they don't deny it... sometimes, the obvious really is obvious.

QuoteOriginally posted by Clavius Quote
Yes, laying flat on your belly on the bottom of a boggy forrest, taking a picture of a tiny critter in it's natural environment. Lets then use a tripod and MLU. LOL! You should go out shooting more and get some more real world experience.
Actually I can use whatever tools a DSLR would offer me; even things like right angle finders or Live View.
And... a MILC would have the same restrictions. Never thought of that, did you?

QuoteOriginally posted by Clavius Quote
That's OK, the shutters can stay. It's the mirror that needs to go. YOU made it about shutters.
I haven't made it about anything; there are several factors contributing to the camera shake. Concentrating on one of them while pretending others don't exist is ridiculous.

QuoteOriginally posted by Clavius Quote
That's why I advocate the introduction of a Pentax MILC with EVF.
Again, why Pentax?

QuoteOriginally posted by Clavius Quote
I still don't get it. This thread is about the first FF MILC. Then you come around claiming that it's not feasable because MILCs tend to have inferior sensors. Is that Romanian logic?
No, it's just another one of your strawmans. That claim you totally made up, don't even try to blame me for it.
And it's not my fault if you don't want to accept that Pentax making a FF MILC is extremely unlikely.

QuoteOriginally posted by Clavius Quote
Explosive? It has been over two decades and there's still people shooting film right now! It think the transition from mirrored to MILC is going faster then film to digital.
After a slow-ish start, there was a definite, accelerated transition towards digital. There was no turning back, and film is now a small niche (as expected, because photography couldn't completely kill painting, digital media the vinyl records, cars the horses&carriages etc).
MILCs had a good start, but now they're pretty much stagnating.
05-02-2013, 02:02 PM   #74
Senior Member




Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Sydney
Photos: Albums
Posts: 232
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by junyo Quote
Compare this with Oly, which has basically dumped SLRs, and by competing in a more open market, with less entrenched opposition, they've more than tripled market share over the last few years. And it's a lot easier for me to find Oly/m43 products in stores than Pentax.
Very interesting indeed. It is a big step (gamble) for Olympus and possibly a good one as Sony has taken an interest in Olympus, though only in medical division on paper.
OMD is still a popular camera to pros and non pros. It is not just the camera consumers buy into but the system (lenses, accessories etc).
05-02-2013, 05:51 PM   #75
Site Supporter
Aristophanes's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Dartmouth, Nova Scotia
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,790
QuoteOriginally posted by monochrome Quote
Given that larger camera companies are presently producing more dSLR's than customers are buying, the day will come that Ricoh's conservative product and marketing strategies will be a benefit to the company rather than a hindrance. When a mirrorless camera can do EVERYTHING that a reflex camera can do, faster, cheaper and better (they can't yet due to Eye-level EVF latency) then and only then will MILC's replace dSLR's.
Outside of cameraphones the whole digicam industry is in overproduction right now, not just DSLR's.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
full-frame, mirrorless, pentax, pentax mirrorless
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Pentax's mirrorless strategy asw66 Pentax Mirrorless Cameras 155 12-30-2012 08:45 AM
A Pentax FF idea, a unique take on the FF market... theperception2008 Pentax DSLR Discussion 20 10-03-2012 01:07 PM
Re-cycling another Pentax FF rumour/FF rumor from A German photography magazine rawr Pentax Full Frame 73 09-19-2012 01:12 PM
Rumoured 3rd Pentax Mirrorless Tonto Pentax News and Rumors 4 04-14-2012 01:18 AM
Canon FF Mirrorless concept Clarkey Non-Pentax Cameras: Canon, Nikon, etc. 9 03-27-2012 03:05 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:23 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top