[Clavius]

The problem that Pentax has with FF is that Pentax itself has a bit of an identity crisis. A FF version of the K-3 would be OK but might struggle to compete with the Canon and Nikon FF DSLRs. I think Pentax realises this and hence why they've said on several occasions that were they to do a FF camera they would do it differently.

The problem now is that Sony has just done FF "differently". A retro LX-D would need to be K mount to take advantage of existing lenses or they go mirror-less with yet another new mount and run straight into Sony.

Yes, Sony outpentaxed Pentax in this case. Off course a Pentax mirrorless FF can still be very different then the Sony A7(r). Have you seen the monstrous adapter sony made to mount A lenses on it? If Pentax was really smart, they can learn from that and make a much more simple adapter. Just transporting the screwdrive mechanism or SDM AF contact over the required adapter distance. Realisticly speaking though, I just don't think that is going to happen.

[stevebrot]

whether more than a handful of folks would be able to afford it anyway.

Why all the assumption that a minimalist dSLR would be super expensive?


Steve

[jcdoss]

Because the intended market would be people like us who like spending money on photo gear.

[Kunzite]

The problem that Pentax has with FF is that Pentax itself has a bit of an identity crisis. A FF version of the K-3 would be OK but might struggle to compete with the Canon and Nikon FF DSLRs. I think Pentax realises this and hence why they've said on several occasions that were they to do a FF camera they would do it differently.

The problem now is that Sony has just done FF "differently". A retro LX-D would need to be K mount to take advantage of existing lenses or they go mirror-less with yet another new mount and run straight into Sony.

I disagree; they know exactly what they are: a traditional SLR manufacturer, those who made the Japanese SLR.

I also disagree that the only possible USP they could have would be to go MILC (a "me too" move, actually - what's "different" in that?)
Pentax can compete with Canon/Nikon just fine.

[mecrox]

Why all the assumption that a minimalist dSLR would be super expensive?


Steve

You're right: it could go either way. However, I was keeping the recent Coolpix A in mind when I wrote that. It's another niche camera, Nikon marketed as a real photographer's street camera with teaser shots to match and, on release, priced it very highly. Where I live, on release the Coolpix A was about 999 compared to the 600 or so for the (arguably superior) Ricoh GR although prices have moderated quite a bit since then. If this is another effort to put style before substance and charge accordingly, then the new Nikon's price might be quite high, too, especially given the likely demographic (wealthy 50s-60s types who owned fine Nikon cameras back in the day). And, besides, quality FF sensors and solid, well-made mag alloy bodies with tight tolerances aren't inexpensive to begin with. That is what folks want, isn't it?

But you could well be right. Selfishly I hope you are because I'm then in with a chance of being able to afford one. However, the rule "buy cheap, buy twice" does come into play with some of the cameras from Canon and Nikon. Their build quality doesn't look up to much to me and I wonder how long their creaking plastic bodies are really going to last.

[Kunzite]

Why all the assumption that a minimalist dSLR would be super expensive?


Steve

Because it's niche.

[RonHendriks1966]

You're right: it could go either way. However, I was keeping the recent Coolpix A in mind when I wrote that. It's another niche camera, Nikon marketed as a real photographer's street camera with teaser shots to match and, on release, priced it very highly. Where I live, on release the Coolpix A was about 999 compared to the 600 or so for the (arguably superior) Ricoh GR although prices have moderated quite a bit since then.

Overhere the Coolpix A went from 1099 to 699 euro, so that drop is more then just a little one. I guess nobody is interested in a to expensive toy.

[mecrox]

Overhere the Coolpix A went from 1099 to 699 euro, so that drop is more then just a little one. I guess nobody is interested in a to expensive toy.

Alternatively, Ricoh's GR trumped Nikon's attempt to be greedy and they were forced to reprice the Coolpix to saner levels. No such considerations apply to the rumoured FM2-style camera, however, because (so far) it has no direct competitor. Nikon was a great company back in the day; those cameras from the FE/FM2 era were simply superb. And now? I'd buy a Nikon but it would be from a totally different company, one which has traded integrity and solid metal for fancy marketing and acres of plastic. Sad.

[Caat]

I disagree; they know exactly what they are: a traditional SLR manufacturer, those who made the Japanese SLR.

I also disagree that the only possible USP they could have would be to go MILC (a "me too" move, actually - what's "different" in that?)
Pentax can compete with Canon/Nikon just fine.

Well then they are a traditional SLR manufacturer who are supporting Q, K and 645 mounts and are brand that has been bought and sold twice in a few years. I didn't mean to imply that they don't know what they're doing only that their direction seems less focussed than it used to be.

I didn't say that the only possible USP they could have for FF would be to go MILC. I said that MILC, piror to Sony, would have been unique. I also hardly think it's controversial to suggest that Canon and Nikon are hard to compete against in FF. I didn't say Pentax couldn't but given Pentax's market share (and perhaps more importantly mind share) and installed user base it's always going to be a challenge.

[Kunzite]

Two of their 3 mounts are SLR mounts And I agree regarding direction loss, but that happened decades ago; IMO they started regaining it right before Hoya took over (but too late to prevent it) - with the K10D and a nice set of APS-C lenses. 645D was also in development.
The first takeover was the effect of not being able to persuade their shareholders (between which Sparx wanted to sell no matter what) that they could continue on their own. Unfortunately under Hoya the execution started to suffer instead of improving.
The second takeover was the effect of the first: Hoya didn't cared much about the Imaging Systems division.

There's no silver bullet such as having a FF MILC for few months before the competition.

Pentax is already competing with Canon and Nikon, so it would be nothing new for them. All they need is to have an user base large enough to support the more expensive FF cameras (and lenses, those would be shared with APS-C users though).
They can do it because they're doing it, not because it's easy.

[richard balonglong]

I'm still holding my breath and hoping for a FF Pentax...
While more clear image of the new Nikon DF "Digital Fusion" have started circulating around the net...

[Caat]

I find it funny that Nikon is producing a retro camera but doesn't have the nicely styled lenses to go with it, whereas Pentax has the nicely styled lenses but not the retro camera!

Although that Nikon pic is hardly clear I don't like the proportions. That viewfinder looks proportionately to high and narrow for the 'shoulders' of the camera - from an aesthetic viewpoint, not a technical one.

[Clavius]

I find it funny that Nikon is producing a retro camera but doesn't have the nicely styled lenses to go with it, whereas Pentax has the nicely styled lenses but not the retro camera!

Sony, with the A7(r) now has a nicely styled camera that can mount those nicely styled Pentax lenses. Without the AF though... But that just gives the whole retro-thing extra zip.

[Caat]

Sony, with the A7(r) now has a nicely styled camera that can mount those nicely styled Pentax lenses. Without the AF though... But that just gives the whole retro-thing extra zip.

True, but there's something nice about not having an extension tube between the lens and the camera. Adaptors interfere with the integrity of the design I think (that sounds a bit of a airy fairy thing to say!).

But then I guess the move the shorter flange distances is actually a good thing for everyone because if your particular manufacturer goes bust, or whatever, it's going to be a lot easier to use your old lenses on a new body than it was when all you had were DSLRs on the market.

[RobA_Oz]

I find it funny that Nikon is producing a retro camera but doesn't have the nicely styled lenses to go with it, whereas Pentax has the nicely styled lenses but not the retro camera!

Although that Nikon pic is hardly clear I don't like the proportions. That viewfinder looks proportionately to high and narrow for the 'shoulders' of the camera - from an aesthetic viewpoint, not a technical one.

There's something visually uneasy about both the Nikon and Sony, in my view, although we haven't seen the Nikon fully, yet. The Nikon also looks pretty big, but some people like that. Olympus and Pentax have got the proportions pretty much right for this style of edged design, by way of contrast. The Olympus offerings are far more elegant re-interpretations of the film SLR, but the K-3 and K-5 are more modern, without being over-curvy like the current Canon and Nikon DSLRs, but they also retain a nicely understated styling reference to the film era.

Performance and handling, though, will be the important issues. We don't even know how well the Sony will perform with manual lenses and an EVF. The main reason I would like a larger sensor body is for the improved OVF, and I've yet to see an EVF that can do as well as a direct optical system. Anyway, it may all be overtaken in some areas by wireless viewing on larger-screened tablets. Where's my K-3?