[gazonk]

The Sony A7 will make the same impact on FF DSLR's as their APS mirrorless bodies made on APS DSLR; ZERO.

I wouldn't be so sure about that. My daughter recently switched from Pentax to NEX when her K100D was stolen - simply because she wanted a smaller camera without compromising on image quality. I'm sure she isn't the only one which weighs pros and cons and in the end decides that size and weight are too important to choose the DSLR. After all, the best camera is the one you're carrying...

I would also ike to see a HD FA 22/2.8 Limited to round up the FA Limited trilogy.

Yes, that would be nice indeed.

[jon404]

@noser -- you don't use that strap with the bright red 'Pentax'? Say it ain't so! The height of style, cruelly rejected. Guess who we won't be seeing at the next New York Fashion Week!

Seriously though, as a technology gets to the point where there really isn't anything revolutionary new or exciting, about all you have left IS fashion. Like Apple's 5c smartphones in those chic colors. Or Apple products in general, where the exterior design gets equal if not more attention in the planning process than the interior, like on the new iPad Air.

Cameras? Pentax was an early outlier, with Mark Newson and my K-01. Now we're seeing his take on the Leica M. But curiously in the camera world, 'advanced style' seems to always return to the past... evoking those golden days when film was film and camera frames were made out of hand-hammered lead. So I guess there is a huge style disconnect between all the old guys who purchase these DSLRs, and the younger people with their flashy smartphones.

Design challenge -- style an FF DSLR so that it looks like a smartphone -- or, getting ahead of the curve, a new smartwatch! As you pointed out, if it took Edison 1,000 tries before he hit on tungsten for a lightbulb filament, solving this design challenge should be possible... right?

[Blue]

Looking at the PR for the new Sony, the first thing that jumps out is the lens costs. Insane. Tell me -- if you were running Pentax, would you actually risk a lot of money making a camera that only a few people would buy? Does anybody actually want 24MP, let alone 36MP? Whatever for? There are very few professionals left... and, of those, VERY few who would ditch their existing Canikon gear collections. Forget that one.

What's left? Retiring baby boomers, who finally have time for photography hobby, share their images on the internet, and never print larger than 11 x 14. That's 16MP territory with cropping room to spare. But -- this group is price sensitive, and is NOT going to drop $1,000 on a lens. Not very often, anyway... the very rich 1% of this group is probably off in Leica-land anyway.

No. The K-3 is the perfect high-end camera for this demographic... and with the 16MP price range going down to the K-500, it's a complete lineup. All that's needed is to SELL it. Next time I get an AARP magazine, AAA's Westways, or National Geographic, I want to see a full page Pentax ad inside that front cover!

There are already some lenses out there for a "high end" camera. And guess what, there are many of the lenses for the K-3 that are well north of $1K.

[lytrytyr]

Pentax did something innovative early on with IBIS, have they done anything innovative since then?

"Not only does the K-3 feature significant changes inside and out, it also includes an industry first: on-demand low-pass filtering which lets you choose whether ultimate resolution or resistance to moiré are more important for any given shot. The attention-grabbing, mechanical alternative to an optical low-pass filter is clearly going to get all the headlines, and deservedly so"

From Pentax K-3 Review: Hands-On Preview

[johnha]

Full frame now would have been a mistake, Pentax needs to build the user base before that and the K-3 is the best option. Ground breaking innovation in a solid body with a decent line-up of excellent glass and all at an 'affordable' price. FF would probably have been twice as expensive (unaffordable to most) and requires a lot more FF lens availability. The K-3 maximises the current Pentax range and only needs R&D for the body & grip to do it. The selectable AA allows us to only have to decide on/buy/carry one body and importantly, means Pentax only have to build one body.

[kenafein]

Full frame now would have been a mistake, Pentax needs to build the user base before that and the K-3 is the best option. Ground breaking innovation in a solid body with a decent line-up of excellent glass and all at an 'affordable' price. FF would probably have been twice as expensive (unaffordable to most) and requires a lot more FF lens availability. The K-3 maximises the current Pentax range and only needs R&D for the body & grip to do it. The selectable AA allows us to only have to decide on/buy/carry one body and importantly, means Pentax only have to build one body.

As RonHendricks advocates, I think APS-H would be a sweet spot for Pentax. If they could have kept most of the stats the same, and used an APS-H sensor, I think they could have had a lot of converts. I think a lot of shooters are still waiting for their 7Dii and D400s because they are invested in glass and the K-3 just isn't quite enough to make them switch. APS-H might have been the right push. Most DA Limited lenses would work on an APS-H sensor, without cropping. Of course Pentax needs someone to sell them an APS-H sensor, and it might have been too cost prohibitive to make a special run, just for them. If this is the same sensor as the D3200, the A77 and the NEX7; it should be very cheap.

[Watson]

Looking at the PR for the new Sony, the first thing that jumps out is the lens costs. Insane. Tell me -- if you were running Pentax, would you actually risk a lot of money making a camera that only a few people would buy? Does anybody actually want 24MP, let alone 36MP? Whatever for? There are very few professionals left... and, of those, VERY few who would ditch their existing Canikon gear collections. Forget that one.

What's left? Retiring baby boomers, who finally have time for photography hobby, share their images on the internet, and never print larger than 11 x 14. That's 16MP territory with cropping room to spare. But -- this group is price sensitive, and is NOT going to drop $1,000 on a lens. Not very often, anyway... the very rich 1% of this group is probably off in Leica-land anyway.

No. The K-3 is the perfect high-end camera for this demographic... and with the 16MP price range going down to the K-500, it's a complete lineup. All that's needed is to SELL it. Next time I get an AARP magazine, AAA's Westways, or National Geographic, I want to see a full page Pentax ad inside that front cover!

I think the K3 was a huge mistake. It will only appeal to existing Pentax users wishing to upgrade and will not attract many new customers. I say this because a 24 mp camera with an APSC sensor completely misses the current trends. Like it or not the perception in the buying public's mind is that crop sensor cameras are "entry level" only and that "serious photography" requires full frame. While this may be nonsense, the point is that this is exactly what the buying public believes. It therefore doesn't matter that the K3 may be a fine camera, superior in many ways to the full frame offerings of other brands, Pentax will not be able to educate the camera buying public enough to correct the current thinking. I believe strongly that cameras like the new Sony A7 and A7r and other mirrorless offerings represent the beginning of the end for APSC. The price point for good mirrorless is similar to the better APSC cameras like the K3 and offer something new and exciting and full frame. If Pentax doesn't get into the full frame game very soon, either by offering a mirrorless alternative or a high end DSLR, it will be too late and they will go the way of Konica and the other brands that have disappeared.

[ElJamoquio]

Does anybody actually want 24MP, let alone 36MP?

Yes. Even with mid-level lenses it provides good detail at 100%, meaning I can crop and the camer ais much more flexible... meaning less lens costs.

[Jonathan Mac]

I think the K3 was a huge mistake. It will only appeal to existing Pentax users wishing to upgrade and will not attract many new customers. I say this because a 24 mp camera with an APSC sensor completely misses the current trends. Like it or not the perception in the buying public's mind is that crop sensor cameras are "entry level" only and that "serious photography" requires full frame. While this may be nonsense, the point is that this is exactly what the buying public believes. It therefore doesn't matter that the K3 may be a fine camera, superior in many ways to the full frame offerings of other brands, Pentax will not be able to educate the camera buying public enough to correct the current thinking. I believe strongly that cameras like the new Sony A7 and A7r and other mirrorless offerings represent the beginning of the end for APSC. The price point for good mirrorless is similar to the better APSC cameras like the K3 and offer something new and exciting and full frame. If Pentax doesn't get into the full frame game very soon, either by offering a mirrorless alternative or a high end DSLR, it will be too late and they will go the way of Konica and the other brands that have disappeared.

I don't think so. There are already reports that Nikon users are saying the K3 looks like what the D400 should have been.

With regard to the buying public, most of them know that DSLRs are better than compacts for IQ, but they don't know why. Ask them about sensor sizes and 80% of them won't have a clue. Remember that the majority of people with DSLRs own only the kit lens, will never take the camera out of auto mode and bought the Canon rebel XXX because the salesman told them to, or because "everbody knows" that they're the best. The K3 is not aimed at them, but neither was the D300.

It's in the interests of CaNikon to force people who want to upgrade into FF because the lenses are more expensive, but there are a lot of people out there who resent that really top-notch APS-C DSLRs are few and far between and that CaNikon no longer make them. They don't need FF, they want smaller, lighter cameras that are not plasticky. In short, they want what's best for their photography, not what "everyone says" is best for them.

They want a K3

[edgedemon]

<p>Am I the only one who thinks the K3 is an excellent step up and I for one cant wait to get one next year. The Sony has too many trade offs for me, and FF has receded that little bit more for me now, 24mp and selectable aa is enough for now, at least until the K1 p>

[John Poirier]

Does anybody actually want 24MP, let alone 36MP? Whatever for? There are very few professionals left... and, of those, VERY few who would ditch their existing Canikon gear collections.

Well, I suppose people who routinely make and sell large high quality prints might find a use for 24 or (gasp) 36MP.

I realize that print making is a total waste of time given the unsurpassed experiences to be had by looking at all those great captures on your smart phone, but there are still a few deluded fools who attempt to practice photography as an art form that includes beautiful physical objects as a possible outcome.

If you look at the contemporary photography that is carried in most serious art galleries these days, you will find a lot of honking big prints.

My standard file sizes for medium format scans exceed 60MP, and I don't find that excessive at all.

Photography is a very diverse field. Like many other amateurs, the OP comes across as though he thinks his personal requirements ought to be the industry standard. Please remember that other people operate to different standards, and perhaps expand your vision by imagining why that is so.

Getting back to the original question. Would a Pentax full frame be a huge mistake? I don't know. It depends on the ownership's strategic intentions, on how much of an investment they intend to make or not make, and on how well they have conducted their market research and planning. I would be a bit surprised if any of us on this forum had full access to that information. (I like surprises, so if anyone wants to step up, feel free!)

I do think that if Ricoh intends to compete in the numbers wars that now drive equipment marketing, they will have to go a step or two beyond the K-3. The K-3 in itself looks like a very fine product, so I may well acquire one.

I also think that over the next few years the allure of increasing megapixels will begin to fade. In my view competition will shift to some extent from steadily increasing resolution to areas such as "features" and niche products.

However, I think the really smart players will move to building loyal enthusiast user bases via things like improved support and online/workshop based communities. For example, I would say that strong promotion using events such as sponsored workshops (as in the old Nikon School of Photography) could be valuable in educating, thereby attracting, new enthusiasts in areas with an emerging middle class. Or maybe smaller workshops where people are given loaners to get the feel of a product. By coincidence I was at a meeting this evening where an experienced marketer touched on the idea of "authenticity", which roughly means interacting with customers in a manner that recognizes their individuality and draws them in by educating interactively rather than simply broadcasting homogenized drivel. (I guess authenticity is something of a buzzword in marketing these days, but that doesn't mean it won't work under some circumstances.)

Anyhow, as the owner of a quite a few fine vintage lenses that won't work with K-Mount, I will probably also buy a Sony A7r- and that camera will likely be the platform for much of my serious work. I think the K-3 and A7r would complement one another nicely.

[Kunzite]

As RonHendricks advocates, I think APS-H would be a sweet spot for Pentax.

Custom sensor needed.
More expensive than APS-C (also due to the point above), not a "full frame". People will continue to complain.
It signals Pentax' inability to launch a "full frame".
Will still need new lenses, even if few other DAs will work reasonably well.
If Pentax APS-C and "full frame" small format cameras won't make people switch, neither will APS-H.

I can't think of any good reason why they should do it; sorry.

I think the K3 was a huge mistake. It will only appeal to existing Pentax users wishing to upgrade and will not attract many new customers. I say this because a 24 mp camera with an APSC sensor completely misses the current trends. Like it or not the perception in the buying public's mind is that crop sensor cameras are "entry level" only and that "serious photography" requires full frame. While this may be nonsense, the point is that this is exactly what the buying public believes. It therefore doesn't matter that the K3 may be a fine camera, superior in many ways to the full frame offerings of other brands, Pentax will not be able to educate the camera buying public enough to correct the current thinking. I believe strongly that cameras like the new Sony A7 and A7r and other mirrorless offerings represent the beginning of the end for APSC. The price point for good mirrorless is similar to the better APSC cameras like the K3 and offer something new and exciting and full frame. If Pentax doesn't get into the full frame game very soon, either by offering a mirrorless alternative or a high end DSLR, it will be too late and they will go the way of Konica and the other brands that have disappeared.

And I disagree.
Pentax needed a new high-end APS-C, and now they have it. It appears to be well received, it even made some Nikon users jealous Which means it cannot be considered a mistake, no matter how much hyped other products are.
It also offers technology which could be shared with other formats, and/or trickled down in future lower end models. It makes perfect sense.

The A7 is cheap because they cut corners; for example its magnesium alloy body has quite a lot of plastic, and its shutter is said to be amazingly loud (and syncing at 1/160, too - I thought Pentaxians despise everything under 1/250 ). It should not be compared with a high-end camera like the K-3.

The small format "full frame" market might just barely break into double digits, but I don't see it taking over. Unless we'll all get rich, which is unlikely.

[Clavius]

I think the K3 was a huge mistake. It will only appeal to existing Pentax users wishing to upgrade and will not attract many new customers.

I disagree, the K-3 is no doubt is a very fine camera. And it will not only appeal to existing Pentax users. Because existing Pentax users already have above excellent crop cameras. A lot of them won't see very much need to upgrade an above excellent crop camera to a slightly more then above excellent crop camera.

It's a flagship camera that will attract new users needing a high end crop camera, period.

I say this because a 24 mp camera with an APSC sensor completely misses the current trends. Like it or not the perception in the buying public's mind is that crop sensor cameras are "entry level" only and that "serious photography" requires full frame. While this may be nonsense, the point is that this is exactly what the buying public believes. It therefore doesn't matter that the K3 may be a fine camera, superior in many ways to the full frame offerings of other brands, Pentax will not be able to educate the camera buying public enough to correct the current thinking. I believe strongly that cameras like the new Sony A7 and A7r and other mirrorless offerings represent the beginning of the end for APSC. The price point for good mirrorless is similar to the better APSC cameras like the K3 and offer something new and exciting and full frame. If Pentax doesn't get into the full frame game very soon, either by offering a mirrorless alternative or a high end DSLR, it will be too late and they will go the way of Konica and the other brands that have disappeared.

I'm afraid I have to agree here. We all know the Oly 4/3 flagship and its price. And we all figured at one time: "Why get an overpriced 4/3 flagship, if I can get an APS-C mid tier camera for a very good price?" That's exactly where APS-C is headed, and it's happening much faster then everyone (I myself included) dared to predict.

[jon404]

@John Poirier -- "Like many other amateurs, the OP comes across as though he thinks his personal requirements ought to be the industry standard..."

I'm the OP, and I wasn't advocating an industry standard. Was just pointing out that the market for large MP photos for large prints isn't that great, and that Pentax could do better staying with its APS-C sensor rather than diverting resources to full frame.

Further in your post, the comments about authentic user involvement -- like that Nikon school -- are incredibly important. Great ad campaigns can only take you so far. But what you wrote is VERY important. If anybody from Ricoh Pentax is reading these posts, here it is again, from John Poirier --

"I think the really smart players will move to building loyal enthusiast user bases via things like improved support and online/workshop based communities. For example, I would say that strong promotion using events such as sponsored workshops (as in the old Nikon School of Photography) could be valuable in educating, thereby attracting, new enthusiasts in areas with an emerging middle class. Or maybe smaller workshops where people are given loaners to get the feel of a product. By coincidence I was at a meeting this evening where an experienced marketer touched on the idea of "authenticity", which roughly means interacting with customers in a manner that recognizes their individuality and draws them in by educating interactively rather than simply broadcasting homogenized drivel."

[RonHendriks1966]

As RonHendricks advocates, I think APS-H would be a sweet spot for Pentax. If they could have kept most of the stats the same, and used an APS-H sensor, I think they could have had a lot of converts. I think a lot of shooters are still waiting for their 7Dii and D400s because they are invested in glass and the K-3 just isn't quite enough to make them switch. APS-H might have been the right push. Most DA Limited lenses would work on an APS-H sensor, without cropping. Of course Pentax needs someone to sell them an APS-H sensor, and it might have been too cost prohibitive to make a special run, just for them.

Always welcoming APS-H appreciation!!!!!!!!!!! I think your positioning the aps-h against camera's in top tier aps-c is the best way to position it. It will outperform those camera's, and that is what Pentax needs to do.

Custom sensor needed.
More expensive than APS-C (also due to the point above), not a "full frame". People will continue to complain.
It signals Pentax' inability to launch a "full frame".
Will still need new lenses, even if few other DAs will work reasonably well.
If Pentax APS-C and "full frame" small format cameras won't make people switch, neither will APS-H.

I can't think of any good reason why they should do it; sorry.

If Pentax would make an APS-H camera, they will have a unique market. I think that it only takes a short time before the Canon-crowd is mokking and demanding also again an aps-h sensor in a camera. The best off both worlds, having crop, so good for telework and having better IQ. For Pentax there is the advatage of more lenses to be used (except offcourse in the wide-angle range).

I think the K3 was a huge mistake. It will only appeal to existing Pentax users wishing to upgrade and will not attract many new customers. I say this because a 24 mp camera with an APSC sensor completely misses the current trends.

Well the K-3 is never a mistake, since the current Pentax userbase also needs a new camera from time to time. A lot off users that had anything from *IstD to K200D made the switch to the K-5 over the past years. A lot off them will again make the switch to the K-3 over the coming two years (expecting the K-3 to run for two years).