[pentaz]

really...is it a good bussines for Pentax a FULL FRAME Camera?

actually almost all their lens at the market are not FULL FRAME, so they would have to put a good number of lens in the market, too
it is mean a very high inversion.

the clients of Pentax are few than for Canon or Nikon, and if a big number of these dont decide to pass to the FF Camera, finally (because the price will be high, or to avoid to change all their apsc lens and camera) the operation could be dangerous for Pentax

what do you think?

[Parallax]

I think this has nothing to do with accessories so it's being moved to the FF forum to join the other speculative threads.

[timreeves]

But most of their lenses ARE FF, it's only the DA range that are purely crop, if you look at LTD's and DA* test shots on film you will see that nearly all of them perform with minimal vignetteing. Not to mention all their old FA/M/K/A glass!
Considering pentax have said that if they DO make a FF it's going to be something like we haven't seen before then there's plenty of options to keep pentaxians interested, let's not forget the manual to autofocus TC they came out with or the possibility of an integrated speedbooster with integrated TC that would make all DA glass compatible as well. FF canikon offerings also just pop the camera into crop mode when you pop on crop designated glass.

A D600 clone probably would be bad business, but I really don't think pentax are going to do this.

[Clavius]

But most of their lenses ARE FF, it's only the DA range that are purely crop, if you look at LTD's and DA* test shots on film you will see that nearly all of them perform with minimal vignetteing. Not to mention all their old FA/M/K/A glass!

Which Pentax lenses - currently still in production - are FF compatible?

[JinDesu]

Which Pentax lenses - currently still in production - are FF compatible?

I'm going by Pentax Imaging's page for what lenses they are producing (qualifier: In stock, and price is shown), so:

DA* 300 F4
DA* 55 F1.4
DA* 200 F2.8
DA 560 F5.6
DA 50 F1.8
DA 35 F2.4
DA 40 F2.8 XS
DA 40 F2.8 Ltd
DA 70 F2.8 Ltd (well barely)

All the DFAs

FA 31, 43, 77, and 50 1.4

I think that's a pretty good batch... no zooms, so if they introduce a FF they'd need to bring out a few zooms.

For the OP: I think it's worth going into FF. I only got my k-x 2 years ago and will be upgrading to a k-5IIs this year. In another 2 years, I will be more mature and have more funds available to upgrade. From there I would start looking into FF. To keep in mind, I currently own the Sigma 50 F1.4 (FF) and Tamron 70-200 F2.8 (FF) as my main lenses.

[jogiba]

really...is it a good bussines for Pentax a FULL FRAME Camera?

actually almost all their lens at the market are not FULL FRAME, so they would have to put a good number of lens in the market, too
it is mean a very high inversion.

the clients of Pentax are few than for Canon or Nikon, and if a big number of these dont decide to pass to the FF Camera, finally (because the price will be high, or to avoid to change all their apsc lens and camera) the operation could be dangerous for Pentax

what do you think?

I bet most of the 25 million + K mount lenses on the planet are full frame lenses. I have a bunch of FF K-mount lenses that I use on my full frame Sony NEX-VG900 and I bet most of the people here wanting a FF Pentax DSLR already have FF PK mount lenses. If Pentax came out with a FF DSLR today it would also come out with new FF lenses to go with it along with Sigma, Tamron, Tokina, Samyang etc.

[Aristophanes]

I bet most of the 25 million + K mount lenses on the planet are full frame lenses.

Those have almost zero bearing on whether Pentax will release FF DSLR.

Camera bodies make such low margins and ROI that in order for Pentax to make FF they need to sell a huge array of new FF glass. Competing against legacy glass is a significant barrier to this and is likely one of the major reasons why the company hesitates to jump into this very high-end market.

Getting consumers to buy new glass will make or break a Pentax FF effort.

[Pål Jensen]

If it had been good business it would have been here already.....

[Parallax]

Okay, this may be a bit off topic, but not entirely:
[rant on] This is just a pet peve. FF? Is that a full 8"x10", or a full 4"x5", or a full 6x7, or a full 120, or a full 110, or a full 220? Just askin'. (or full APS-C) [/rant]

(Oh c'mon, lighten up! )

[MichaelBilson]

I think that's a pretty good batch... no zooms, so if they introduce a FF they'd need to bring out a few zooms.

Forget the zoom lenses. I need a FA 24mm Limited as my 15mm replacement if the bring a FF camera.

[RobA_Oz]

Aristophanes' point about the ROI on a camera body is the key one to answering the OP's question. The issues around producing new compatible lenses are real ones, but they may not be as great as some might think, even though there would still have to be a considerable effort put in to it. Rather than entirely new designs, at least some of the DA lenses that have marginal issues with vignetting may be able to be modified to improve their performance on the larger format. Older compatible lenses may be similarly able to be modified to accommodate IBIS and materials changes. Regardless, new lenses would be required at some point, but the business plan could accommodate such development. If the body is compelling enough, it will sell, in spite of any lacking in the lens lineup at launch, provided early buyers can get the lenses they want – think of the way that fixed lens enthusiast cameras are selling now, when they're confined to one lens on the body, and no prospect of adding another in future. So, the lens lineup may not be that important at launch, because existing and past lenses will ensure a body of early adopters. It's which lenses come after launch and when that is the key to longevity and success of the body line.

[jogiba]

Okay, this may be a bit off topic, but not entirely:
[rant on] This is just a pet peve. FF? Is that a full 8"x10", or a full 4"x5", or a full 6x7, or a full 120, or a full 110, or a full 220? Just askin'. (or full APS-C) [/rant]

(Oh c'mon, lighten up! )

A full-frame digital SLR is a digital single-lens reflex camera (DSLR) fitted with an image sensor that is the same size as a 35 mm (36×24 mm) film frame.

[Parallax]

So if 24x36 is "Full Frame", what are the sizes larger than that
? FF+, Super full frame, Super Duper Full Frame, Gigantor Frame?

[Ash]

Yeah, Jim. It's a misnomer and a nuisance, but it's nomenclature that's stuck with the 24x36 format - perhaps we can suggest a change to the name, like digital 35 or 135.
Historically, in 35 mm (135 film) cameras, the terms full-frame and half-frame were used to distinguish the 24 × 36 mm and 18 × 24 mm film formats, according to Frances E. Schultz and Roger Hicks (2003). Rangefinder: Equipment, History, Techniques.

The half-frame 35 mm film format is also known as single-frame in movie film, and as a result, full-frame film cameras were sometimes known as double-frame as per Leslie D. Stroebel and Richard D. Zakia (1996). Focal Encyclopedia of Photography.

Go figure.
We may as well call it APS-F for want of consistency and clarity.

[RonHendriks1966]

Well Pentax could also bring a smaller FF version, also known as APS-H, but instead calling it APS-RH after the only user that asks for it for some time.