[Big Dave]

Does this mean I can almost have your DA* 50-135mm f/2.8 now? ..or too early?

---------- Post added 07-21-14 at 10:03 PM ----------




Anytime I see 'is state of the art' I have to giggle thinking about reading this in 3 or 4 years from now much like I watch old commercials from the 50s or 60s today and see 'state of the art' televisions sets now with color.. and 'state of the art' microwave ovens. haha

Technology is moving so rapidly today.. almost feels exponential in advancement in places.

It seems anything 'Pentax' releases today is already outdated by the technology in their labs to be released 'tomorrow.' Perhaps also why they've been slow with releasing a FF digital body.. trying to figure out how to get what they want it to be with the limitations of the K mount ring and (at any time) current technology.

State of the art simply means that this is what exist at the present time. You also must take into account the limitations of physics. You can't put fifteen pounds of crap into a ten pound bag. We are trying to make a smaller camera using large components. Why do you think that the Sony A7/R/S doesn't have in body SR? Canikon FF DSLR's are big and they don't even have in body SR.

[ElJamoquio]

State of the art simply means that this is what exist at the present time. You also must take into account the limitations of physics. You can't put fifteen pounds of crap into a ten pound bag. We are trying to make a smaller camera using large components. Why do you think that the Sony A7/R/S doesn't have in body SR? Canikon FF DSLR's are big and they don't even have in body SR.

But Pentax APS-C cameras have SR and comparable Canon cameras are larger...

[rawr]

It would dictate a fairly large body.

The A99 body isn't that big. From the dimensions at camerasize.com:
Sony SLT-A99 is 12% (15.5 mm) wider and 11% (11.2 mm) taller than Pentax K-3.
Sony SLT-A99 is 1% (0.9 mm) thicker than Pentax K-3.
Sony SLT-A99 [812 g] weights 2% (12 grams) more than Pentax K-3 [800 g] (*inc. batteries and memory card).

Accounting for camera styling differences you could say they were pretty close in size. About 1.5cm or so size difference on the body, maximum, in width. Looking at the depth of the body, including the mirrorbox, it's a tie.

Furthermore, the flange distance for Sony A mount is 44.5mm, for K-mount it is 45.46mm. The throat diameter for Alpha mount is 49.7, for K-mount 45mm. So the size of the mirrorbox required for a Pentax FF would likely be about the same as for the Alpha 99 ...

[Big Dave]

But Pentax APS-C cameras have SR and comparable Canon cameras are larger...

Canon an Nikon could build smaller, that isn't their desired image for the advanced models. I think without radical design changes FF will remain larger then asp-c models.

---------- Post added 07-22-14 at 10:49 AM ----------

The A99 body isn't that big. From the dimensions at camerasize.com:
Sony SLT-A99 is 12% (15.5 mm) wider and 11% (11.2 mm) taller than Pentax K-3.
Sony SLT-A99 is 1% (0.9 mm) thicker than Pentax K-3.
Sony SLT-A99 [812 g] weights 2% (12 grams) more than Pentax K-3 [800 g] (*inc. batteries and memory card).

Accounting for camera styling differences you could say they were pretty close in size. About 1.5cm or so size difference on the body, maximum, in width. Looking at the depth of the body, including the mirrorbox, it's a tie.

Furthermore, the flange distance for Sony A mount is 44.5mm, for K-mount it is 45.46mm. The throat diameter for Alpha mount is 49.7, for K-mount 45mm. So the size of the mirrorbox required for a Pentax FF would likely be about the same as for the Alpha 99 ...

You basically you proved my point that there are limits to the size of a FF dslr with in body SR. At $2300 the new A99 is cheaper then the D800/810 or 5D3. So why would Pentax try to enter that market now? I just discovered how inexpensive the A99 is now. Pentax could make a mirror-less FF with SR even cheaper with a larger markup if they wanted to. It could be a lot smaller and compete against both dslr's and mirror-less bodies. This is all fun to talk about, but I have to use what is available now. Fortunately both Pentax and Sony make really great cameras.

[ElJamoquio]

So why would Pentax try to enter that market now?

Three years ago would've been better, of course, but Pentax needs to diversify in my view. Right now they don't have any... 'enthusiast' mirrorless at all. They only have APS-C DSLR's.

APS-C DSLR is squeezed by high-end P&S (RX100 III) from the bottom.
APS-C DSLR is squeezed by MILC from the bottom.
APS-C DSLR is squeezed by FF from the top.

A few years back, P&S's went for ~$300-$400 and Canon/Nikon FF cameras went for ~3k. Now the 6D is $1500 and the RX100 III goes for $800 or something.

Everyone has their own needs of course, but the FF market is getting more and more of the DSLR market share.

[Big Dave]

Three years ago would've been better, of course, but Pentax needs to diversify in my view. Right now they don't have any... 'enthusiast' mirrorless at all. They only have APS-C DSLR's.

APS-C DSLR is squeezed by high-end P&S (RX100 III) from the bottom.
APS-C DSLR is squeezed by MILC from the bottom.
APS-C DSLR is squeezed by FF from the top.

A few years back, P&S's went for ~$300-$400 and Canon/Nikon FF cameras went for ~3k. Now the 6D is $1500 and the RX100 III goes for $800 or something.

Everyone has their own needs of course, but the FF market is getting more and more of the DSLR market share.

Pentax could do a small batch to get started and stay in the game. Hopefully they would break even. Maybe we will see a FF at Photokina.

[rawr]

Pentax could do a small batch to get started and stay in the game.

Agreed. There is no need to aim for world-domination from day one. But they need to establish a beachhead.

[mee]

State of the art simply means that this is what exist at the present time. You also must take into account the limitations of physics. You can't put fifteen pounds of crap into a ten pound bag. We are trying to make a smaller camera using large components. Why do you think that the Sony A7/R/S doesn't have in body SR? Canikon FF DSLR's are big and they don't even have in body SR.

Yes, I understand the definition. It is still a dangerous phrase to use as time moves fast. This thread in a few years will be amusing in that regard.

Much like state-of-the-art computers were warehouse sized systems in the past with dedicated teams to keep it operational. Today, anyone can have more computing power in a pocket smartphone they can buy from K-mart. I chuckle when watching old commercials and info movies about the wave of the future and seeing all of the horribly outdated technology.

Where we are today isn't where we'll be tomorrow... or the next day.. or the next day.... or the NEXT day.... OR the next day..... etc. If you dry the fecal matter, you can pack more of it into the bag. I.E., there are ways to innovate and make better use of the space you are given. We aren't at physical limitation yet... outside of traditional lens sizes. Which kills much of the mirrorless attraction for me.

Besides, Canikon APS-C dSLRs typically are big too.. because they make fat bodied cameras. They don't have to -- Pentax makes comparable or superior bodies much smaller... but they do anyways..

[Alizarine]

Everyone has their own needs of course, but the FF market is getting more and more of the DSLR market share.

what we don't know is with this strategy Canikon is employing, are they making more money from bodies or lenses? And is the market share dictated (in terms of success) by sales of bodies ... or lenses? Or is it as a pure system? As Pentax is right now, they've generally got APS-C very well-covered that the big two will have a hard time competing (this one not in sales terms but performance), unless a 7D MkII or D400 comes out - which will more or less be paired with FF lenses making it even more expensive.

If Pentax indeed comes out with any digital-135, I wonder how will Pentax sell that? The only ones currently "marketed" as fully compatible are the FA Limiteds (rumored to be out of production) and DFA lenses.

[ChristianRock]

But Pentax APS-C cameras have SR and comparable Canon cameras are larger...

I handled an SL1 yesterday. That thing is TINY and proves they can do small when they want to. I think with the pancake 40 2.8 it is very jacket pocketable...

[ElJamoquio]

I handled an SL1 yesterday. That thing is TINY and proves they can do small when they want to. I think with the pancake 40 2.8 it is very jacket pocketable...

Yup, and there's no comparably-featured Pentax.

[ChristianRock]

Yup, and there's no comparably-featured Pentax.

So you're saying Canon couldn't make a comparably featured APS-C that is smaller than a Pentax?

I'm saying they don't want to. That was my point.

[kenspo]

FF from Pentax will come. Mark my words!

[rawr]

FF from Pentax will come.

But when?

I sometimes think we will probably see a Samsung or even SamYang full-frame before we will see a Pentax FF.

[ElJamoquio]

So you're saying Canon couldn't make a comparably featured APS-C that is smaller than a Pentax?

Nope, just that they don't, even without the 'handicap' of SR.