[Clavius]

Those are empty suppositions, based on absolutely nothing - no study, not even asking around. Even worse, you're blaming the existing Pentax userbase, you're characterizing us - making silly claims about some Takumars. OTOH, we have some polls here which shows that people are interested in it; you're conveniently ignoring those.
But those suppositions, empty as they are, supports your point of view - thus you're claiming them boldly.

Yes... The number of FF interested users from those polls is - how do I say it nicely - "underwhelming" at best. Those low numbers are actually solid proof that it's not really viable.

[Kunzite]

You're actually confirming what I've stated. If everybody is so sure the lenses you list will perform OK on FF, then why would anybody upgrade to the new lenses that Pentax would/should develop?

A. Because only some of the Pentax customers have old lenses; we're not all Jim King
B. Because they would want better, modern lenses. OK is not the same as great.
C. Because they would want something different than they already have (e.g. a 24-70 zoom)

Yes... The number of FF interested users from those polls is - how do I say it nicely - "underwhelming" at best. Those low numbers are actually solid proof that it's not really viable.

Yeah, sure. A poll where 77.95% from those who participated saying "yes" to "Would you buy a Pentax FF DSLR", and another where 58.33% claims "I have money and will buy FF", and the necessity of having a separate "Pentax Full Frame" section definitely shows a complete lack of interest for this kind of products.
Again, you're failing to make an argument. You are completely ignoring the fact that we have a limited active members pool.

[Clavius]

A. Because only some of the Pentax customers have old lenses; we're not all Jim King
B. Because they would want better, modern lenses. OK is not the same as great.
C. Because they would want something different than they already have (e.g. a 24-70 zoom)


Yeah, sure. A poll where 77.95% from those who participating saying "yes" to "Would you buy a Pentax FF DSLR", and another where 58.33% claims "I have money and will buy FF", and the necessity of having a separate "Pentax Full Frame" section definitely shows a complete lack of interest for this kind of products.
Again, you're failing to make an argument. You are completely ignoring the fact that we have a limited active members pool.

1. Pentaxforums is the largest and best international Pentax community. If we have a limited number of active members, that sorta means that we have a limited number of Pentaxians. I know you like to extrapolate those figures and assume that 77.95% of the worlds population will instantly buy a FF Pentax DSLR, but it simply doesn't work that way.

2. Many filled in the poll, yes... And then they entered the often unrealistic conditions in the upfollowing reactions.

[Kunzite]

Making up the silliest things and blaming me for them, how typical.
Obviously, I would not like to extrapolate and I never did it. I meant exactly what I wrote: 77.95% from those who participated said "yes". I know how statistics works, and a poll is not statistics.

It doesn't matter if Pentaxforums is the largest "and best" international Pentax community. Only ~2750 members have over 100 posts, part of them being actually inactive. And it's not as if every active member would check those polls.

[jsherman999]

You're actually confirming what I've stated. If everybody is so sure the lenses you list will perform OK on FF, then why would anybody upgrade to the new lenses that Pentax would/should develop?

No, read more carefuly, I was refuting your claim that most of the older lenses would not perform well on FF. In fact, they'll probably perform better on FF than aps-c, pixel count being roughly equivalent.

The LBA Urge I mentioned happens almost independently of how folks feel about their current lenses - a shiny new, updated lens can just be an object of desire, even if it's not really needed... especially if that lens might have AF and the older lens it's replacing is manual focus.


.

[jsherman999]

Yes... The number of FF interested users from those polls is - how do I say it nicely - "underwhelming" at best. Those low numbers are actually solid proof that it's not really viable.

No, it mainly speaks to how many folks are tuned in to this forum, and that particular thread.

Don't make the common mistake of assuming we idling fora folk necessarily represent the rest of world.

.

[monochrome]

JCO (also a member here) on eBay I think accumulated a mountain of M42 lenses and sold them off for years, eight lenses a week. He's not showing much for sale now and hasn't for several months - and at these prices, if he had any inventory of lenses I can't believe he'd be holding on to it.

I'll wager right here, right now - If Pentax announces a FF camera body there will instantly be a mountain of legacy manual focus lenses available For Sale on eBay and prices of same will decline to a clearing level significantly below current market. I mean, Good Grief! - $2599 for an A*135/1.8 at KEH is outlandish. If you have MF Pentax lenses it had better be because you really enjoy manually manipulating a focus ring and/or you enjoy using pre-1990 film cameras. Every time I look at my gear list my stomach flops.

How many photographers today are actually old enough to have ever used a manual focus lens? And of those, how many actually even want to?

[Pål Jensen]

J I mean, Good Grief! - $2599 for an A*135/1.8 at KEH is outlandish. If you have MF Pentax lenses it had better be because you really enjoy manually manipulating a focus ring and/or you enjoy using pre-1990 film cameras. Every time I look at my gear list my stomach flops.

I sold mine for $1400.
I bought it for $250 (I think) so I can't complain! Used Pentax lenses were cheap in the 90's.

[Aristophanes]

I'd love to shoot a S-M-C Takumar 50 f/1.4 on FF. Many FF Canon shooters snap those babies up to shoot on their Canon FF bodies with an elementless adapter.

Don't confuse tinkering hobbyists with a market this size. Common mistake in these discussions. I bet that hardly makes a dent in the spreadsheet analysis of a mainline camera manufacturer.

Same goes for the "crippled" K-mount, why did you think they removed the aperture coupler and why do you think they never placed it back? Not even under the countless requests and demands from their loyal customers? Not even whilst the costs to implement it in current cameras is so extremely low.

I suspect it's not low when coupled with various electronics like SDM or DC. Hence the green button. I bet incorporating and assembling this feature is quite costly in relative terms. The blunt reality is it is a cost that has no benefit to future glass because no future glass will utilize aperture rings, not with WR being a new benchmark.

I think Pentax did what they could (and Nikon as well) in a cost effective and durable manner. There are probably 50 people who would never use that feature for every 1 who would, so why should 49 pay extra? That's how you stall sales and rob value in the long run.

[Aristophanes]

How many photographers today are actually old enough to have ever used a manual focus lens? And of those, how many actually even want to?

And how many people will spend $2,000 on a state-of-the-art autofocus and metering system complete with modern lens distortion and CA correction built-in to run a $30 Fleabay manual focus lens?

I've said it once I'll say it again, the problem for Pentax is not the FF body; it's getting people to invest (quite heavily) in new FF Pentax glass. As with APS-C the Ff mark splits into those who want a super-camera with all the pro features (and video) in a D600 size package, that can do long glass, wide glass, fast glass, WR glass, and compact prime glass all in one.

And there's the evolving market of more practical shooters like those who buy the Sony RX-1, who invest carefully in glass first, value portability and networking, shoot mostly urban and family with the occasional landscape, and who are on a budget.

It's almost impossible to get a single FF DSLR to play into both those markets, and Pentax needs all those potential purchasers to buy in to make it work. What will make it easier is if the price point for FF drops thanks to Canikon warring it out with Sony.

What is brutally brutally hard to sell against is a D700 with only 5,500 clicks on it, going for US$1,300 on Craigslist. Wait until the rock bottom D600's start to sell used next year at US$1,300 with 5,500 actuations and the kit lens. That's the market keeping Pentax awake at night wondering how many new lenses they'd need immediately at FF launch to get those customers away from the vast Canikon array both new and used.

Used Pentax legacy lenses are a barrier to future sales as are used Canikon bodies. What really makes a Pentax FF feasible is the simple fact that not everyone is enamoured of Canikon. Consumers like choice...and Sony generally sucks and is not really seen as a camera company.

[monochrome]

I think Pentax did what they could (and Nikon as well) in a cost effective and durable manner. There are probably 50 people who would never use that feature for every 1 who would, so why should 49 pay extra? That's how you stall sales and rob value in the long run.

Still, it sure would be cool to have a FF digital camera specifically designed for manual focus manual aperture lenses. Even as a pricey one-off speciialty item, maybe we few geeky geekers would buy them.

Shoot, they only planned 10,000 645's and look what happened. 10,000 FF's with an aperture lever added in somehow? Just might work.

Don't bother. Its Friday. Let me dream.

[jsherman999]

Don't confuse tinkering hobbyists with a market this size. Common mistake in these discussions. I bet that hardly makes a dent in the spreadsheet analysis of a mainline camera manufacturer.

I wasn't talking about the S-M-C Tak 50 in the context of it's impact on Ricoh's lens strategy, I was refuting Claviaus's implication that all 'older' lenses will disappoint on FF, when in fact they're more likely to disappoint on aps-c.

.

[monochrome]

Used Pentax legacy lenses are a barrier to future sales as are used Canikon bodies. What really makes a Pentax FF feasible is the simple fact that not everyone is enamoured of Canikon. Consumers like choice...and Sony generally sucks and is not really seen as a camera company.

You want to hear something really true? It isn't the $30 M50/2's that are the problem. Its the $249 FA50/1.4's that are the problem.

Though I have a considerable list of FF lenses, most of which were attached to cameras that I bought over a decade ago and have since sold, if Pentax releases a FF body I'll actually buy new lenses for it. I only have two AF FF primes, no FF AF zooms and actually, focusing is a chore. I do it when I want to do it for fun. But most of the time I'm documenting my life (even if I do work hard to get a good landscape exposure or a good portrait of my wife) and I just want to get the exposure right and move on.

I would have many more modern DA lenses if I didn't have this weakness for buying cameras and hoarding things (True Story - my mother sold ALL my personal possessions when I was away at college and 40 years later I still haven't recovered).

For all your assumptions about how consumers will behave, I think you are worng based on my own expectations of my own behavior.

[Pål Jensen]

What is brutally brutally hard to sell against is a D700 with only 5,500 clicks on it, going for US$1,300 on Craigslist. Wait until the rock bottom D600's start to sell used next year at US$1,300 with 5,500 actuations and the kit lens. That's the market keeping Pentax awake at night wondering how many new lenses they'd need immediately at FF launch to get those customers away from the vast Canikon array both new and used..

Not only the number of lenses available at launch but also a competitive upgrade path for FF. Can you imagine something more destructive than a Pentax FF camera that flops with no upgrade cycle comparable to at least one of Nikon or Canons FF bodies? The only ones embracing such a camera will be those few with an arsenal of old Pentax glass, but they too would whine over the fact that the latest 46mp FF sensors seem to take forever if ever to find a place in a Pentax body...

[RonHendriks1966]

And how many people will spend $2,000 on a state-of-the-art autofocus and metering system complete with modern lens distortion and CA correction built-in to run a $30 Fleabay manual focus lens?

I've said it once I'll say it again, the problem for Pentax is not the FF body; it's getting people to invest (quite heavily) in new FF Pentax glass. As with APS-C the Ff mark splits into those who want a super-camera with all the pro features (and video) in a D600 size package, that can do long glass, wide glass, fast glass, WR glass, and compact prime glass all in one.

And there's the evolving market of more practical shooters like those who buy the Sony RX-1, who invest carefully in glass first, value portability and networking, shoot mostly urban and family with the occasional landscape, and who are on a budget.

It's almost impossible to get a single FF DSLR to play into both those markets, and Pentax needs all those potential purchasers to buy in to make it work. What will make it easier is if the price point for FF drops thanks to Canikon warring it out with Sony.

What is brutally brutally hard to sell against is a D700 with only 5,500 clicks on it, going for US$1,300 on Craigslist. Wait until the rock bottom D600's start to sell used next year at US$1,300 with 5,500 actuations and the kit lens. That's the market keeping Pentax awake at night wondering how many new lenses they'd need immediately at FF launch to get those customers away from the vast Canikon array both new and used.

Used Pentax legacy lenses are a barrier to future sales as are used Canikon bodies. What really makes a Pentax FF feasible is the simple fact that not everyone is enamoured of Canikon. Consumers like choice...and Sony generally sucks and is not really seen as a camera company.

Can Pentax do the K-500/K-50 trick on a Full Frame? Making one the budget choice without making it to difficult on the production line?