[easyreeder]

What makes ASP-C better than M4/3?

The sensor is just too small. If you're a serious still photographer, there is no competition from M4/3. But as a still/video device, M4/3 doesn't have rolling shutter issues. It's possible to have a 4k device with autofucus and tracking and stabilization, that you can shoot with handheld (like dads do, etc): the holy grail. Even so, at this point, with ff cameras smaller than M4/3, developing a line of M4/3 lenses to compete with Panasonic and Olympus in a field they dominate—seems like harikari. Dunno, maybe if it were set up in such a way as to bring the M4/3 people over to the APSC? Have no idea how this could work, but it does seem that the M4/3 market, as strong as the lens lineup is, would be vulnerable to poaching from a larger sensor.

[Jean Poitiers]

Nope. Won't be this year, sorry!

I've gotten sick of not knowing, so I wrote to them and asked. Here's the response, from Ricoh Japan:
"Dear Sir,
We regret to inform you that we currently do not have actual plan to put the full-frame DSLR camera on the market.
However, we will certainly transfer your comment to the related section."

So, what does that tell us?
They have a FF Pentax under development. ("the full-frame") ("to the related section") They even have a "section" working on it.
But sadly: "we currently do not have actual plan to put the full-frame DSLR camera on the market"

So, as far as I can tell, not this year. Drat.

Not surprising ... I do not think that they would confirm anything before they decided to leak/announce it themselves to the appropriate press/buzz rumor mills.

Wish that you had received a "positive" response ... we'll see soon enough.

[JimC1101]

True, there are not that many current updated Pentax FF lenses, but they have them on the FF roadmap, why would they produce them if not for a FF body ? Also, there are other third party FF lenses in the K mount so there would be FF lenses ready for sale now. I think it would be better to release it now even with limited Pentax lenses, then to wait til they have actual Pentax lenses. The clock is ticking here, and something seems to be up with all of the price cuts on the K-3.

[GlassJunkie]

True, there are not that many current updated Pentax FF lenses, but they have them on the FF roadmap, why would they produce them if not for a FF body ? Also, there are other third party FF lenses in the K mount so there would be FF lenses ready for sale now. I think it would be better to release it now even with limited Pentax lenses, then to wait til they have actual Pentax lenses. The clock is ticking here, and something seems to be up with all of the price cuts on the K-3.

It is NOT due to weakness... They are making a surgically focused attack on APSc at CaNikon. This time, the discount is to take share as CaNikon have tried to make APSC look "terminal" to try for upselling to FF.

This one is going to get good....

[Winder]

The sensor is just too small. If you're a serious still photographer, there is no competition from M4/3. But as a still/video device, M4/3 doesn't have rolling shutter issues. It's possible to have a 4k device with autofucus and tracking and stabilization, that you can shoot with handheld (like dads do, etc): the holy grail. Even so, at this point, with ff cameras smaller than M4/3, developing a line of M4/3 lenses to compete with Panasonic and Olympus in a field they dominate—seems like harikari. Dunno, maybe if it were set up in such a way as to bring the M4/3 people over to the APSC? Have no idea how this could work, but it does seem that the M4/3 market, as strong as the lens lineup is, would be vulnerable to poaching from a larger sensor.

I'm just using M4/3 for the purposes of argument. M4/3 users use the same arguments against APS-C that APS-C users use against FF. APS-C users will say that size doesn't matter until you bring up M4/3 and then they claim that M4/3 is too small.

[monochrome]

#1... I don't think K-Mount is going anywhere.... so Yes On #2, there is a plan they are not sharing... FF is coming, but I believe in MILC, that will retain K-Mount utility (with or without an adapter).... DSLR in FF, several years out if at all, and not until they can leapfrog CaNikon (like K-3 did and 645z did to the medium formaters)

if you are correct any self-honest owner of manual focus K-mount primes should be very happy about such a camera. However I do not believe they will release such a camera until they believe EVF technology is as good as a 100% passive viewfinder, and they are not yet convinced.

[GlassJunkie]

if you are correct any self-honest owner of manual focus K-mount primes should be very happy about such a camera. However I do not believe they will release such a camera until they believe EVF technology is as good as a 100% passive viewfinder, and they are not yet convinced.

I 100% agree. I do a lot of "fine" work, pixels in the VF won't help

[jsherman999]

i'm just using m4/3 for the purposes of argument. M4/3 users use the same arguments against aps-c that aps-c users use against ff. Aps-c users will say that size doesn't matter until you bring up m4/3 and then they claim that m4/3 is too small.

.

[Alizarine]

Youtu.be

Youtu.be

Found this over the net... might be a little related

[easyreeder]

I'm just using M4/3 for the purposes of argument. M4/3 users use the same arguments against APS-C that APS-C users use against FF. APS-C users will say that size doesn't matter until you bring up M4/3 and then they claim that M4/3 is too small.

Sorry, I think I misunderstood your point. Of course, the difference between APSC and M4/3 allows for just as much argument as FF and APSC. If your the point is that FF's advantage are glaringly evident in comparison to a M4/3, I'm with you.

But for stills, haha, M4/3 is too small, and, ergh, I can envision a Qish M4/3. I fear that argument you posed will be taken seriously. No ultimate difference between FF and M4/3. I have heard read stranger things in here.

[Jean Poitiers]

FYI - this thread has been linked to by the PF Facebook page ... with the image of a K-3 Prestige, ha!

https://www.facebook.com/pentaxforums?fref=nf

[cfraz]

Optical Physics that constrain "1.Good, 2.Small, 3.Affordable, 4.Constant-aperture: pick three" + "Marketing epiphany: Sometimes Big Sells" == that lens

I think we get two out of four on this lens.

[cyberjunkie]

I'm hoping it will be this year.... but I voted no.

I did the same...

cheers

P

[northcoastgreg]

Why does it seem to me that some people jumping into this anti-Fuji circlejerk the moment they see it being on the large side, and possibly expensive, while ignoring all other points?

I don't think it's fair to describe criticism of Fuji as "anti-Fuji circlejerk." Fuji's being criticized for a specific decision -- namely, matching large lenses with small cameras. Until these large f2.8 zooms (and the 50-140 f2.8 is even bigger -- 2.2 lbs), Fuji was doing a good job of matching lenses with the cameras, keeping lens size down (even coming out with high end variable aperture lenses, which most mirrorless manufacturers (other than Leica) don't have the guts to do). Fuji was supposed to be the company that cared about the user experience with the camera (as opposed to Sony, who cares primarily about technology). But now, with these f2.8 zooms, Fuji has descended to Sony's level.

Incidentally, my biggest objection to a new "modern" Pentax mount to replace the K-mount is not so much the adapters or EVFs (although I object to those things too) but the size of the cameras that would be built around this new mirrorless mount. For the photography I do at the local zoo, I need to shoot with large lenses; and I don't want to be shooting large lenses on a small camera: that's a very difficult combination to stabilize. Small cameras are great -- when matched with small lenses. With larger lenses, an SLR mount camera is preferable.

[GlassJunkie]

I don't think it's fair to describe criticism of Fuji as "anti-Fuji circlejerk." Fuji's being criticized for a specific decision -- namely, matching large lenses with small cameras. Until these large f2.8 zooms (and the 50-140 f2.8 is even bigger -- 2.2 lbs), Fuji was doing a good job of matching lenses with the cameras, keeping lens size down (even coming out with high end variable aperture lenses, which most mirrorless manufacturers (other than Leica) don't have the guts to do). Fuji was supposed to be the company that cared about the user experience with the camera (as opposed to Sony, who cares primarily about technology). But now, with these f2.8 zooms, Fuji has descended to Sony's level.

Incidentally, my biggest objection to a new "modern" Pentax mount to replace the K-mount is not so much the adapters or EVFs (although I object to those things too) but the size of the cameras that would be built around this new mirrorless mount. For the photography I do at the local zoo, I need to shoot with large lenses; and I don't want to be shooting large lenses on a small camera: that's a very difficult combination to stabilize. Small cameras are great -- when matched with small lenses. With larger lenses, an SLR mount camera is preferable.

Fujica SLRS, 6x8 MF, 6x9MF, Then the DSLR deal with Nikon for lenses.... They think they will play better in the "rectangular shaped camera space" New technology, yup. a 16mp sensor in a sturdy box? Yup. Great Lenses? nope, all past iterations of the firm couldn't touch a Zuiko or Pentax, heavy mount wannabes. Show me a 24mp MILC (minimum), glass as good as Zuiko or Pentax.... I might buy it... As a travel, non-job cam. Not compelling when you see Fuji's 6-7 prior 3 year product launch failures.

This may be blunt but Fuji is no Rollei and this isn't 1980.... A dead man walking. The website has 14 nicely built and finished dead ends....No compelling vision, and marginal differentiation in the line or between models. I went looking with genuine interest, more exciting buying tires... IMHO