[mecrox]

The more I think about it, the more a K-3 with a FF sensor just makes sense. That and a 24-70 and 70-200 f/2.8 lenses and we're good for a launch.
Who says Pentax needs to have a complete system when it comes out. Get the basics out first. Rename some DA primes to DFA (55 1.4, 100 2.8, 300 4), re-release some classics like the 20/2.8, 24/2, 28/2.8, 35/2, and the 85 1.4 (haters are gonna hate, who cares) with HD coatings and we're good! Maybe even re-release the 50 1.2 as a manual focus, A-setting lens with the latest and greatest coatings, sell it for $1,000 and call it a Zeiss alternative

But I can't help but question if Ricoh is in it for the long haul, lots of stuff has ceased with no replacements yet, like K-01, K-500 (reportedly out of production for a while now), MX-1... that leaves K-3, K-50 and 645Z.

Imho, a K-3 with with an FF sensor and a few bits and pieces chucked in with it has the making of an absolute disaster. The competition is very strong and offers both lenses and bodies/electronics of a very high level indeed. Anything less than full-on from a new entrant - a sound plan and enough investment to be credible to the market, convincing consumers that this pony is worth backing with your own money - just isn't going to work, I'd suggest. Sure a few Pentax diehards will bite, maybe all three hundred of them or whatever, but the many thousands of new sales a system like this would need to be financially viable - well, er ... If Ricoh go for it, I really hope they go for it very seriously. That means lenses whose performance cannot be questioned (at their price point, at least), not retreads of oldie clockwork classics with a new HD coating, a red Ricoh band and b-all besides.

But as you suggest, do Ricoh have the stomach for it? Well, we simply don't know at the moment.

---

Last edited by mecrox; 06-24-2014 at 01:57 AM.

[ChristianRock]

Imho, a K-3 with with an FF sensor and a few bits and pieces chucked in with it has the making of an absolute disaster. The competition is very strong and offers both lenses and bodes/electronics of a very high level indeed. Anything less than full-on from a new entrant - a sound plan and enough investment to be credible to the market, convincing consumers that this pony is worth backing with your own money - just isn't going to work, I'd suggest. Sure a few Pentax diehards will bite, maybe all three hundred of them or whatever, but the many thousands of new sales a system like this would need to be financially viable - well, er ... If Ricoh go for it, I really hope they go for it very seriously. That means lenses whose performance cannot be questioned (at their price point, at least), not retreads of oldie clockwork classics with a new HD coating, a red Ricoh band and b-all besides.

But as you suggest, do Ricoh have the stomach for it? Well, we simply don't know at the moment.

I agree they need to have a full-on plan, but they don't need to execute on it on day 1. That's the new marketing of the 21st century - release something as soon as you have the most basic feature set. Then give your users a plan and keep giving them new features. That's how Apple works.

The days of "release it when you have the full perfected product" days are over, because if you do that, you release it when the market has already moved on. If you have the basics and a plan, you can always direct that plan according to the market changes.

[Kunzite]

Well, I think that a K-3-level "full frame" should work (at least, I would buy it). They could reuse most components (when possible), however there is one important exception: autofocus. I would not like them to reuse the K-3's APS-C autofocus system, but - let's say - scale it up to "full frame" size, for a proper viewfinder coverage.
With this, they would have a capable camera to build on.

Why do I think it would work? Well, the K-3 is working for them

[ChristianRock]

Kunzite, I completely agree - the whole SR system, the AF system and a lot of image-size related stuff needs to be changed. But they've done it for the 645Z (well - not SR), and previously they did it for the K-7/645D. So they know how to do this.
If they can't give us a perfect solution - which is never perfect to everyone or even to most people, anyway - at least give us something. Naysayers will complain because it's not exactly how *they* would have done it, but that's unavoidable.
In Brazil we have a saying: "Let the dogs bark, the parade moves on"...

---------- Post added 06-23-14 at 04:49 PM ----------

Here's another thought:

I think everyone's expecting the Pentax FF to have SR. But it might be more of an advantage to make the new FF camera a K-3 with a full-frame sensor and NO Shake Reduction.

Three advantages:
- It will allow Pentax/Ricoh to sell image-stabilized full frame lenses - so at least a portion of the user base wouldn't be people just buying a FF camera to use with their old lenses; people could still use the old lenses but they wouldn't be stabilized. I think that's a current concern - that a lot of people would want to just buy the FF body since there's so many FF Pentax lenses out there. This way I think most people will want at least one stabilized lens.
- It would allow the size of the camera to be the same as the K-3, as far as I know! The mirror box is already the size it needs to be, and the bigger sensor would use the space used up now by the SR system.
- All "comparison" websites rate Pentax lower in the stabilization categories because they say in-lens stabilization is better than in-body stabilization. Pentax FF would rate higher. I know it's a frivolous concern but a lot of people look at these ratings and decide what to buy based on them.

[Kunzite]

But for the 645D they didn't adapt the AF system, they used the one designed for APS-C; as a result, the AF points are all clustered in the center.

Regarding the use of in-body or in-lens SR (we know Pentax has both technologies), I'd guess it will be down to technical reasons.
I don't think in-lens SR would help selling more lenses; on the contrary, in-body SR might be a much needed USP. People willing to buy modern lenses would do it anyway, those unwilling - not so much.

[Big Dave]

Ugh. With adapters that are bulky, ugly and expensive if you want AF.

Seriously, if Pentax went both mirrorless AND dropped the K-mount in any new camera (let alone a new FF), people would leave the brand in droves. Suddenly you may as well have a Sony or something.

Sony added a full frame mirrorless camera to its lineup and it is a big hit. people are leaving Canon and Nikon for the A7/R. It is a real FF compact body. Pentax could make a better A7, with better ergonomics and longer battery life. It would be $1000 cheaper then a conventional FF DSLR as well. Adapters are no more ugly then a teleconverter. Most of my adapters cost less then $10 and weigh less then 4 oz. This is a hobby or profession, not a religion. These are tools and they should allow you to be as creative as possible. That is why I have a Alpha 7 to compliment my K5II. I have been using Pentax since 1967 and I will always will have one.

---------- Post added 06-23-14 at 09:35 PM ----------

But for the 645D they didn't adapt the AF system, they used the one designed for APS-C; as a result, the AF points are all clustered in the center.

Regarding the use of in-body or in-lens SR (we know Pentax has both technologies), I'd guess it will be down to technical reasons.
I don't think in-lens SR would help selling more lenses; on the contrary, in-body SR might be a much needed USP. People willing to buy modern lenses would do it anyway, those unwilling - not so much.

No one has a stabilized FF sensor yet. It would require a larger body and a bigger battery. We might end up with a camera bigger then a Nikon D800. Pentax needs a game changer, not just another FF body.

[ElJamoquio]

No one has a stabilized FF sensor yet. It would require a larger body and a bigger battery. We might end up with a camera bigger then a Nikon D800. Pentax needs a game changer, not just another FF body.

Sony has stabilized a FF sensor. It was as big as a Nikon D800. I don't see a reason why it needs to be though. The K-5 is smaller than the D7100, for example.

[rawr]

Most of my adapters cost less then $10 and weigh less then 4 oz.

While I too have several cheap eBay K to NEX adapters for my NEX, the ones with AF for E-mount - like the Sony A to NEX adapters LAEA4 (FF), LAEA3 (FF), LAEA2 or LAEA1 - dont meet the 'cost less than $10 criteria. Think $150-$350. And the Metabones EF to NEX AF capable adapter goes for $350.

I still say the adapters with built-in PDAF like the LAEA4 are pretty bulky and ugly. Pic related:

[Kunzite]

Sony added a full frame mirrorless camera to its lineup and it is a big hit. people are leaving Canon and Nikon for the A7/R. It is a real FF compact body. Pentax could make a better A7, with better ergonomics and longer battery life. It would be $1000 cheaper then a conventional FF DSLR as well. Adapters are no more ugly then a teleconverter. Most of my adapters cost less then $10 and weigh less then 4 oz. This is a hobby or profession, not a religion. These are tools and they should allow you to be as creative as possible. That is why I have a Alpha 7 to compliment my K5II. I have been using Pentax since 1967 and I will always will have one.

---------- Post added 06-23-14 at 09:35 PM ----------



No one has a stabilized FF sensor yet. It would require a larger body and a bigger battery. We might end up with a camera bigger then a Nikon D800. Pentax needs a game changer, not just another FF body.

No, no, no. I don't want to hear "better" and "cheaper" in the same sentence (and I bet Ricoh doesn't either). I don't want to hear about Pentax making "a better A7", either; I like Pentax for what they are, if I wanted a Sony I would get one instead of asking Pentax to make a Sony. I don't get it; why do you want us to have no other choice than Sony cameras with different labels?

Adapters are uglier than teleconverters, as they have to adapt between two incompatible mounts. With the RC, I merely increase my lens' focal length by a factor of 1.4x. With an adapter, I would have to give up first on my current mount, decide I don't like OVFs, new lenses won't work on my current camera, probably the other mount will be full-electric so possibly not all functions would be kept or they'll need a kludge like that LAEA4 shown in the post above etc.

Pentax DSLRs featuring in-body SR are no bigger than same class Canon/Nikon cameras. The K-3 is a bit smaller than the D7100, for example, which is a bit smaller than the D300s; same story when compared with the 70D and 7D. I see absolutely no reason to assume a Pentax "full frame" DSLR would be bigger than a D800.

[philbaum]

Had a bit of a shock last night. I have this Tamron 28-75 f2.8 lens and i was manually focusing it on a magnetic advertising sign on my refrigerator, 25 feet away from my easy chair.

1. I used the OVF on the K3 and tried to focus it that way. Also noticed that the AF blip showed up when i was close to focus - not that i could tell at that distance. print on the advertising is too small for my eyes to read. When i played the image back and enlarged it 8 times, it wasn't close to being in focus.

2. I then switched to live view and even enlarged the live view by pressing on the OK button. I could see some focus peaking effects when i snapped the picture. I then played the image back as in 1, enlarged 8 times. Better than 1, but still a bit blurry.

3. I then transferred the K-mount Tamron lens to my Nex 6 via a $19 dumb adapter. Unlike my k3, there was no stabilization system active with the Tamron in manual lens mode on the Nex 6. I took a picture under the same parameters as with the K3, i.e. 1/160s, 1600iso, 75mm, and f4. (although on this adapter, one can't tell the f-stop precisely) Taking the shot with the Nex 6, the phone numbers on the magnetic sign were more defined than they were with the K3 image.

So my Nex 6 with the Tamron 28-75 f2.8 lens manually focuses better than the same lens on my K3. My K3 cost me about $1300 and the Nex 6, cost about $650. How do i explain this difference. Well the explanation that makes the most sense to me is that the Nex6 has an EVF, and when you manually focus, its easy to brace the EVF against your face while the K3 in Live View mode must be held out at 1/2 arms length. So therefore, the Nex6 is better braced when in manual mode. So an APS DSLR costing twice as much as my APS mirrorless loses out in manual handheld focus mode.

The K3 is an Auto-focusing monster, it just lacks a bit in the manual focus mode. Probably on a tripod, it might be just as good as the Nex 6, don't know - didn't test for that.

I shot a technical rehearsal last night of a new play with my K5 with the 50-135 tele on it, and the K3 with a 17-70 wide angle on it. First time with 2 cameras at hand. Enjoyed the OVFs of both as i waited for actors to get in just the right spots. Got enough keepers to make the director happy. It was autofocus for the whole 2 hours. So there are advantages to the traditional DSLRs, but i'm convinced the market tide is changing direction in favor of the mirrorless cams. Pentax would be ahead if they made a mirrorless FF, but rest assured, i get no vote in the matter

[mecrox]

Had a bit of a shock last night. I have this Tamron 28-75 f2.8 lens and i was manually focusing it on a magnetic advertising sign on my refrigerator, 25 feet away from my easy chair.

1. I used the OVF on the K3 and tried to focus it that way. Also noticed that the AF blip showed up when i was close to focus - not that i could tell at that distance. print on the advertising is too small for my eyes to read. When i played the image back and enlarged it 8 times, it wasn't close to being in focus.

2. I then switched to live view and even enlarged the live view by pressing on the OK button. I could see some focus peaking effects when i snapped the picture. I then played the image back as in 1, enlarged 8 times. Better than 1, but still a bit blurry.

3. I then transferred the K-mount Tamron lens to my Nex 6 via a $19 dumb adapter. Unlike my k3, there was no stabilization system active with the Tamron in manual lens mode on the Nex 6. I took a picture under the same parameters as with the K3, i.e. 1/160s, 1600iso, 75mm, and f4. (although on this adapter, one can't tell the f-stop precisely) Taking the shot with the Nex 6, the phone numbers on the magnetic sign were more defined than they were with the K3 image.

So my Nex 6 with the Tamron 28-75 f2.8 lens manually focuses better than the same lens on my K3. My K3 cost me about $1300 and the Nex 6, cost about $650. How do i explain this difference. Well the explanation that makes the most sense to me is that the Nex6 has an EVF, and when you manually focus, its easy to brace the EVF against your face while the K3 in Live View mode must be held out at 1/2 arms length. So therefore, the Nex6 is better braced when in manual mode. So an APS DSLR costing twice as much as my APS mirrorless loses out in manual handheld focus mode.

The K3 is an Auto-focusing monster, it just lacks a bit in the manual focus mode. Probably on a tripod, it might be just as good as the Nex 6, don't know - didn't test for that.

I shot a technical rehearsal last night of a new play with my K5 with the 50-135 tele on it, and the K3 with a 17-70 wide angle on it. First time with 2 cameras at hand. Enjoyed the OVFs of both as i waited for actors to get in just the right spots. Got enough keepers to make the director happy. It was autofocus for the whole 2 hours. So there are advantages to the traditional DSLRs, but i'm convinced the market tide is changing direction in favor of the mirrorless cams. Pentax would be ahead if they made a mirrorless FF, but rest assured, i get no vote in the matter

Yes, the "arm's length" method is a piggie here too since it's necessary to keep the shutter speed that much higher to minimize shake. I found that a drawback on my K-01. OTOH, if the camera is light, well balanced and fairly easy to grip, I can take the shutter speed down to much lower levels - as with my MX-1. I wouldn't now buy a mirrorless without an EVF even if I didn't need it for every shot.

[Kunzite]

1. I used the OVF on the K3 and tried to focus it that way. Also noticed that the AF blip showed up when i was close to focus - not that i could tell at that distance. print on the advertising is too small for my eyes to read. When i played the image back and enlarged it 8 times, it wasn't close to being in focus.

That's why I want a larger sensor (and viewfinder ) K-mount DSLR

[Rondec]

Had a bit of a shock last night. I have this Tamron 28-75 f2.8 lens and i was manually focusing it on a magnetic advertising sign on my refrigerator, 25 feet away from my easy chair.

1. I used the OVF on the K3 and tried to focus it that way. Also noticed that the AF blip showed up when i was close to focus - not that i could tell at that distance. print on the advertising is too small for my eyes to read. When i played the image back and enlarged it 8 times, it wasn't close to being in focus.

2. I then switched to live view and even enlarged the live view by pressing on the OK button. I could see some focus peaking effects when i snapped the picture. I then played the image back as in 1, enlarged 8 times. Better than 1, but still a bit blurry.

3. I then transferred the K-mount Tamron lens to my Nex 6 via a $19 dumb adapter. Unlike my k3, there was no stabilization system active with the Tamron in manual lens mode on the Nex 6. I took a picture under the same parameters as with the K3, i.e. 1/160s, 1600iso, 75mm, and f4. (although on this adapter, one can't tell the f-stop precisely) Taking the shot with the Nex 6, the phone numbers on the magnetic sign were more defined than they were with the K3 image.

So my Nex 6 with the Tamron 28-75 f2.8 lens manually focuses better than the same lens on my K3. My K3 cost me about $1300 and the Nex 6, cost about $650. How do i explain this difference. Well the explanation that makes the most sense to me is that the Nex6 has an EVF, and when you manually focus, its easy to brace the EVF against your face while the K3 in Live View mode must be held out at 1/2 arms length. So therefore, the Nex6 is better braced when in manual mode. So an APS DSLR costing twice as much as my APS mirrorless loses out in manual handheld focus mode.

The K3 is an Auto-focusing monster, it just lacks a bit in the manual focus mode. Probably on a tripod, it might be just as good as the Nex 6, don't know - didn't test for that.

I shot a technical rehearsal last night of a new play with my K5 with the 50-135 tele on it, and the K3 with a 17-70 wide angle on it. First time with 2 cameras at hand. Enjoyed the OVFs of both as i waited for actors to get in just the right spots. Got enough keepers to make the director happy. It was autofocus for the whole 2 hours. So there are advantages to the traditional DSLRs, but i'm convinced the market tide is changing direction in favor of the mirrorless cams. Pentax would be ahead if they made a mirrorless FF, but rest assured, i get no vote in the matter

I really think that at least 90 percent of the market right now is auto focus. Still, I don't think the discussion pitting the OVF friends (I am one) against the EVF friends will ever be decided. I don't enjoy EVFs the same way as I enjoy using a good quality optical viewfinder, but then again, I don't manually focus much. I would think a K-01 sequel could easily have an EVF. It could probably fit a full frame sensor in it too, but without stabilization. That would be a pretty interesting camera...

[Big Dave]

While I too have several cheap eBay K to NEX adapters for my NEX, the ones with AF for E-mount - like the Sony A to NEX adapters LAEA4 (FF), LAEA3 (FF), LAEA2 or LAEA1 - dont meet the 'cost less than $10 criteria. Think $150-$350. And the Metabones EF to NEX AF capable adapter goes for $350.

I still say the adapters with built-in PDAF like the LAEA4 are pretty bulky and ugly. Pic related:

That is why I said most. It isn't a big deal on my A7 with the vertical grip. I can see were any adapter looks out of place on a little NEX crop camera. I personally am old and I no longer am interested in beauty contests. I want equipment that is practical versatile and reliable. Although the ebay adapters are inexpensive, I find that the quality is as good as the more expensive ones. I disassemble them and spray paint the inside with Krylon ultra flat black paint. I find that it is worth the trouble to reduce internal reflections on older legacy glass. I used to have to rework non-Pentax lenses to fit my Pentax, now I just use an adapter and the lenses perform as designed on the FF sensor.

---------- Post added 06-24-14 at 11:03 AM ----------

Sony has stabilized a FF sensor. It was as big as a Nikon D800. I don't see a reason why it needs to be though. The K-5 is smaller than the D7100, for example.

I didn't know that. I have been using a Canon 5D for my FF projects. I had no interest in Sony A mount cameras, since they won't accept anything other the A mount lenses. Almost all of my lenses fit on my 5D, except the K-mount. The aperture lever is a couple MM too long and hangs up on the mirror.

---------- Post added 06-24-14 at 11:43 AM ----------

I really think that at least 90 percent of the market right now is auto focus. Still, I don't think the discussion pitting the OVF friends (I am one) against the EVF friends will ever be decided. I don't enjoy EVFs the same way as I enjoy using a good quality optical viewfinder, but then again, I don't manually focus much. I would think a K-01 sequel could easily have an EVF. It could probably fit a full frame sensor in it too, but without stabilization. That would be a pretty interesting camera...

I grew up using using FF glass penta-prisms and range finder view finders. They were great for manual focusing, big and bright. The current asp-c dslrs with small penta-prisms or even worse, penta-mirror finders are hard to manually focus. My K5 II is a vast improvement with its 100% finder, but it still isn't as good as my FF 5D. The current generation EVF on my A7 is awesome for manual focusing. AF is good, but some folks say that it isn't as good as OVF dslrs. The EVF is a relatively new device and has much room to devolope. The OVF is at the end of development and can only be improved with costly screens or a larger penta-prism.

[Andi Lo]

I didn't know that. I have been using a Canon 5D for my FF projects. I had no interest in Sony A mount cameras, since they won't accept anything other the A mount lenses. Almost all of my lenses fit on my 5D, except the K-mount. The aperture lever is a couple MM too long and hangs up on the mirror. [COLOR="Silver"]

---------- Post added 06-24-14 at 11:43 AM ----------

Dave CMIIW but I always thought Sony A is actually the absolute best mount for M42 stuff. (discounting the new Sony Mirrorless). It doesnt have the mirror clearance issues of 5D and has shake reduction with chipped adapters. The internets dont have much info on it but the few that I've read suggests that this is the case.