[luftfluss]

What could be different with FF ? I say NO VIDEO MODE ! ! !

I wonder how many people actually find any regular use for video on an SLR

Why no video mode? I seldom video, but the tech is already there and developed, so it's not like video capability is taking away from other aspects of the camera.

Also, quite a few folks engage in DSLR video. An entire episode of the TV program House was shot exclusively with Canon 5D Mk2's.

---

Last edited by luftfluss; 09-07-2014 at 09:09 AM.

[monochrome]

If they can make and sell DSLRs for a profit then they can do the same with a mirrorless. If they can't then Ricoh won't be able t save the brand and it doesn't matter.

If they can (if so many people here and elsewhere are correct about the future market).then I don't understand why they won't.

[Winder]

If they can (if so many people here and elsewhere are correct about the future market).then I don't understand why they won't.

We could ask the same question to Canon and Nikon.

[monochrome]

We could ask the same question to Canon and Nikon.

Ricoh Imaging aren't Canon and Nikon.

[JimmyDranox]

Maybe Canon and Nikon understand that a mirrorless APS-C, or FF camera, will need a full line of new lenses, with different registration distance and ray traces. Or some complicated, and not very cheap adapters. As everybody can see, not even Sony didn't have enough lenses for it's E mount.

[easyreeder]

Sony didn't have enough lenses for it's E mount

Yes, and now, Sony is pretty close to having everything on E mount. Nineteen Sony lenses and more coming. Fifty + lenses with third party. EF is a little sparse maybe.

I wonder how many people actually find any regular use for video on an SLR

Sketchbooks are cheap.

[Winder]

Ricoh Imaging aren't Canon and Nikon.

I know, but Ricoh sees them as their direct competition. Especially Canon who they compete against in the office equipment market as well as the camera market. Ricoh is following their model.

An Interview with Pentax Executive Vice President Jim Malcolm - Reviewed.com Cameras

"So do you see Pentax in the next couple of years being a viable competitor to Canon and Nikon?"

"No doubt about it. I have no hesitation, in my mind and in my business direction, that in the future—whether it’s three years or five years out—that there will be three dominant imaging companies on a global basis and it will be Canon, Nikon, and Pentax/Ricoh.

The reason I say that with such confidence is if you really look at Ricoh, which is our parent, Ricoh as a company is more than half the size of Canon and is twice the size of Nikon. And they’re already a dominant imaging company. They have a global footprint, they have office automation, and obviously the printer business and copier business is their heart. So if you had to compare Ricoh as a company we’re much more similar to that of Canon than we are of Nikon."

Ricoh isn't Canon or Nikon, but that is the business model they are copying.

[philbaum]

Nope, they can't. You must've missed this part of my post :
Also the mirror box on the K-3 is too small for a FF mirror, this has already been explored in the past by many other members.

Everyone assume FF should be the easiest thing in the world for Pentax because of the existing back catalog of FF lens designs. But the fact is that many (most?) of those lenses have an image circle that just barely covers the frame. Any sensor shift would generate one or more soft corners and ugly vignetting. So to go full frame and retain compatibility with existing lenses, Pentax would have to either:

a) drop sensor shift or disable it on unsupported lenses (one of their defining features)

b) crop the image on unsupported lenses (to about APS-H size)

c) use an actual APS-H sensor

I far prefer the last option. It would give us a more agile camera with responsive sensor shift and retain SR on old lenses without IQ issues. The best of all worlds.
---------- Post added 09-07-14 at 09:42 AM ----------

..

"A rising tide raises all ships" Don't know who said that, but it seems to apply to sensors as well. For whatever reason, Sony has had the hot hand in designing sensors. And the biggest customers for the FF sensors is Nikon and Sony, probably in that order. For Pentax to order a custom FF sensor, such as the H size, would probably require Pentax to order such a large quantity of sensors from Sony that it would have no chance of selling in a reasonable amount of time. And Canon has been the only user of H size sensors and they don't sell to their competitors.

But i acknowledge upfront, my ignorance about economies of sensor ordering for cameras. Perhaps GoremanX has touched on the real reason that Pentax has not built a FF DSLR to this point. Too many negative issues.

No, I have not missed it, it's just that the SR movement is not large enough to be an issues on most FF lenses. I don't think any Pentax K-mount FF lens will make the image totally useless when the FF sensor moves a few 1/10 of mm needed for 3-4 stops of SR. In worst case there will be small amount of extra vignetting in the images. But I don't see any reason for limiting all images to 1.3x crop because of this.

And as a 1.3x crop sensor will have to be custom made, it might make the sensor more expensive than a FF sensor. And to build the future development on a custom design sensor which might not get the best support from sensor manufacturers might end up a nightmare for Ricoh/Pentax.
New lenses also have to be designed for 1.3x crop which will make it difficult to move up to FF in the future, and we can all forget 3rd party support on lenses.

To only go half the way that the market want, is just not good enough.

If they can make and sell DSLRs for a profit then they can do the same with a mirrorless. If they can't then Ricoh won't be able t save the brand and it doesn't matter.

Sony and Fuji have come into the APS sensor camera marketplace and to some degree taken away what used to be Pentax's main selling points, that is - small camera size, reasonable selling prices, and WR - namely Fuji Xti and Sony A7 series. One of the ingredients to this coup, has been new mounts designed to enable smaller size camera bodies and lenses, to some degree.

So i would suggest, that Pentax build a FF mirrorless camera, but with a modern smaller registration distance lens mount, that would allow Pentax to again compete in size against Sony and Fuji mirrorless camera designs. When a Pentaxian or anyone else buys this K-Short mount camera, I propose they be given an included electronic adapter that would allow all older and AF K-mount lenses to be used on the new mount - much in the same way as the FE and E mounts are now used with the older A-mount lenses.

And yes, i have a number of modern and older k-mount lenses that i use on K3 and K5 as well as on my Nex cameras. I have in fact used my DA-300 on the Nex 5n and 6. Works just fine, but of course one has to use the DA300 foot when using it on a tripod

My guess is that mirrorless cameras are the way forward and Pentax needs to have a bigger footprint in that marketplace.

[Winder]

Maybe Canon and Nikon understand that a mirrorless APS-C, or FF camera, will need a full line of new lenses, with different registration distance and ray traces. Or some complicated, and not very cheap adapters. As everybody can see, not even Sony didn't have enough lenses for it's E mount.

Sony has really bad leadership when it comes to market direction. They have missed the mark time and time again. The A7 launched with very few lenses because Sony was rushing it to market. Sony admitted that they were surprised by the demand for high end mirrorless and shifted A-mount resources over the E-mount two years ago. Sony is selling more A7 bodies than A99 bodies.

The popularity of the A7 cameras has driven up the demand for a lot of older manual glass. This has appealed to a lot of people and as more A7 bodies enter the market, demand for native FE lenses has increased. I'm a little surprised Zeiss is already making 3rd party lenses for the FE mount. If Zeiss didn't see strong growth in the mirrorless FF market they wouldn't be launching new product for it.

[GoremanX]

I don't think any Pentax K-mount FF lens will make the image totally useless when the FF sensor moves a few 1/10 of mm needed for 3-4 stops of SR. In worst case there will be small amount of extra vignetting in the images.

You are incorrect in your opinion, this has already been determined years ago. But it seems it gets forgotten again with every new generation. This forum seems to repeat itself every few months long after conclusions have already been determined.

And as a 1.3x crop sensor will have to be custom made, it might make the sensor more expensive than a FF sensor.

Again incorrect. It's been determined many times that an APS-H sensor would cost about the same as a FF sensor to acquire, but have many benefits. Plus it would fit in existing bodies, whereas a FF sensor would not. And, it would be different. That's the title of this thread. The last APS-H camera was discontinued 2 years ago. You're just rehashing the same old myths from previous years. The sensor from the 645z cropped down to APS-H size ends up being just about 20mp. So it's not like production would have to come from a void.

To only go half the way that the market want, is just not good enough.

ahem... "the market want" or "what Fogel70 want"? I want an APS-H. It would suit my needs better and would be the perfect blend of benefits from APS-C and FF with none of the drawbacks.

Was the Canon 1D (Mark II/III/IV) really such a crappy, low-end camera? Or was it favored by many professional sports photographers? "The market" didn't seem to mind it so much. In fact, I never heard anyone say "My 1D is a great camera, but I sure wish it was full frame".

[easyreeder]

I want an APS-H

An APS-H would allow for a more gradual move to FF, bringing many more DA lenses with it, while at the same time preserving the K-mount image circle on legacy glass. In video, the rolling shutter/SR issues that have challenged Pentax in APS-C will not be quite as insurmountable as they would be in FF. The APS-H sensor for video is relatively large, plenty to work with for UHD, which is the next bar in video (the crop for 4k is usually pretty high). I kinda think GoremanX has the answer.

[Tan68]

Do APS-H got to be 1.3x ?
Canon's APS-C is ~1.6x
So, perhaps it could be 1.2x APS-H..

... Was the Canon 1Ds (Mark II/III/IV) really such a crappy, low-end camera? Or was it favored by many professional sports photographers? "The market" didn't seem to mind it so much. In fact, I never heard anyone say "My 1Ds is a great camera, but I sure wish it was full frame".

Well, to be fair, the camera overlapped a time when there was a choice for the fellow with the 1Ds. I am not sure an APS-H Pentax would be a good thing.. to easy to just be labeled 'not enough'. When APS-H was the choice or when there was choice between APS-H and FF, that was fine. Now, I think that for the -general public- the size would be more distracting in that it was not quite FF and this 'controversy' would overshadow benefits...

[jcdoss]

If they're going to make something interchangeable it more likely would be the viewfinder(s). If they could figure out how to do a EVF interchangeable with a series of OVF's like the LX it would be - game changing, I think.

This idea is awesome, and ought to be simple and minimally disruptive to the current product line to implement.

[Tan68]

Johnson County Department of Social Services ?

... .

[Fogel70]

You are incorrect in your opinion, this has already been determined years ago. But it seems it gets forgotten again with every new generation. This forum seems to repeat itself every few months long after conclusions have already been determined.

I have been repeating this for years, but few seem to understand how SR works, and the requirements for it. +- 0.5 mm is a very generous amount of movement for the sensor movement for SR on a FF camera. The sensor need to move more for acceleration/slow down, but that can be done outside the image circle before the image is captured. An requirement of an extra mm of image circle will not make much difference on most lenses.

It would be nice if you could explain why SR is not possible on FF. And what makes it not possible for Pentax, when it is possible for Sony/Minolta.

Again incorrect. It's been determined many times that an APS-H sensor would cost about the same as a FF sensor to acquire, but have many benefits. Plus it would fit in existing bodies, whereas a FF sensor would not. And, it would be different. That's the title of this thread.

APS-H sensor don't have any benefits anymore, that is why no one is manufacturing them anymore. And it's not only the sensor that has to be designed specifically for APS-H.
Why do they have to use the same body as APS-C for a larger sensor?
I guess releasing a FF camera with APS-H sensor would be different (this thread is about FF remember?), but that would a FF camera with lens mount on the back be too. Not sure which one of these two would be most successful.

The last APS-H camera was discontinued 2 years ago. You're just rehashing the same old myths from previous years. The sensor from the 645z cropped down to APS-H size ends up being just about 20mp. So it's not like production would have to come from a void.

APS-H was discontinued years ago because now is possible to produce FF with high FPS. APS-H was a compromise that Canon had to use for a few years before they got FF performance fast enough. But once the speed on FF is fast enough, they have had no use of APS-H, and I don't think many of their customers are missing APS-H.

ahem... "the market want" or "what Fogel70 want"? I want an APS-H. It would suit my needs better and would be the perfect blend of benefits from APS-C and FF with none of the drawbacks.

Talk for yourself, I'm fully satisfied with APS-C right now, but if I want to upgrade in the future, APS-H does not seem to be much of an upgrade from APS-C.

Was the Canon 1Ds (Mark II/III/IV) really such a crappy, low-end camera? Or was it favored by many professional sports photographers? "The market" didn't seem to mind it so much. In fact, I never heard anyone say "My 1Ds is a great camera, but I sure wish it was full frame".

Why do you think Canon stopped making APS-H cameras? If there was a big market for $5000+ APS-H DSLR Canon would still manufacture them, but that market has now been taken over totally by FF. FF has now the whole ILC market above $1500-2000.