[mecrox]

So, having Sony build a K-mount A7 with a Pentax label is bad. But the current scenario where Ricoh buys the sensors from Sony, the mainboard from X, the memory from Y, the processor from Z, lenses from Tokina or Tamron, etc and then slaps on a Pentax lable, is OK?!?

That does not compute.

The heart of the camera, the sensor, is Sony anyway. In that respect they're already selling rebadged Sony gear as it is.

Surely not very likely that a proud and independent company which is on record as stating that its ambition is to be one of the world's top three imaging companies would capitulate and go cap in hand for product to its main rival for that very position, after Canon and Nikon. I'd guess the chairman of Ricoh would prefer to spend a year walking to work naked rather than bear the loss of face that approach suggests. Cross-licensing, shareholding stakes and alliances - which mean sharing - are something else, of course. In fact, I'd wager they are quite likely among the camera-makers over the next few years if the whole photography market continues to tank. We've already had a taste of that with Sony's investment in Olympus.

Ricoh and Pentax got themselves into this pickle, if such it is, and it's up to them to get themselves out of it. Why should we, the users, really care? There are plenty of other choices out there. Besides, the great unknown is whether Ricoh even regard having no FF as a problem. On the contrary, they may see it as a blessing and have other plans entirely, feeling that "low light specialists" are not really for them. There is more than one way to achieve standout image quality and a "must have" camera. Both Sigma and Fuji have shown that image quality can be tackled via a non-standard (i.e. non-Bayer) sensor, for example. And whether you like either of them, they are certainly distinctive and different.

Go out and buy an A7 and quality adapter today, I say. You'll have had months of enjoyable shooting before Pentax produce any K-mount FF, if ever they do.

---

Last edited by mecrox; 06-30-2014 at 12:07 PM.

[philbaum]

I also don't think it gains anything or is even worth the effort to involve Sony so heavily in the body aside from the sensor.

Pentax can make the FF body in just about any form they want, the main problem has always been getting new AF-K lenses spun up with existing design teams and factory lines. It's a resource/capacity/capital problem, mainly centered around the lenses.

The 645z proves they can make a fantastic, modern, state-of-art large-format camera body. Ming Thein has said his 645z CMOS images downsampled to D4-sized 'blows his D4 out of the water'. Coupled with the much faster AF and less image-display lag than the 645D, etc, that 645z is an example of what Pentax can do utilizing a component-integration strategy.

.

Actually, i can't find anything in this quote that i disagree with

Pentax has good judgement in several areas like: quiet shutters, good menus, ergonomics, lens design, etc.

I've sampled the "dark side" by buying Nex cameras and seriously thought about the A7 series -

Compare camera dimensions side by side

I think for a lot of shooters, that Sony has stumbled on a key factor of smaller camera size and weight. I'm 66, so at my age do i really want to carry around heavy large cameras and lenses. Its not like i'm decrepit or anything - but still. And yet at the other end of the age spectrum, those in their 20's, 30's, don't seem to want to carry around the big cameras etiher - speaking in large numbers that is. So thats what Sony has tapped into regards customers - folks that want a more discrete, easier to carry camera, but yet high IQ.

I invited a 40's gal from our camera club to shoot with me at a dress rehearsal at the local playhouse. She has a D800, so i was interested in how her pictures compared to mine- i had both the K5 and K3 strapped around my neck. The conclusion i came to from looking at her uploaded pics compared to mine - for practical purposes:

A. The D800 shutter seemed a lot louder than my K3 - I was sitting prob. 30 feet away from her with activity going on and could still hear that shutter. The A7r has a loud shutter too, wonder if that larger sensor in FF cameras makes it more difficult to engineer a quiet shutter?

B. At low light scenes - the D800 did better

C. With adequate lighting - i couldn't see any significant difference between the D800 and my K3 pics as far as theater/ 8x10/12 printing use.

I'm sort of amazed at the recent turn this thread has taken.

Compare camera dimensions side by side

There was a time that one of Pentax's feature set was small size - now Sony has come in and taken that away from Pentax. Nuff said.

[normhead]

If you look at this thread, you can sort of see Pentax's problem, with so many companies taking so many different tacks already in the game, what can Pentax possibly do, that will both appeal to the average FF customer, and have a unique spot in the market place?

The new round is all centred around low light capacity. Nikon with the D4s, Sony with the A7s, and Canon's soon to be announced organic sensors18-24 mp ff, covered to death..... Low light is an area that APS-c is not really strong at, but it's not an area of interest to every enthusiast... 36 Mp FF adequately covered, low light FF, soon to be released in Sony, Canon and Nikon, what is this "unique offering" Pentax is aiming for?

It's good they have the 645z...

The Pentax executives said they would release an FF if they could come up with something unique.. but that gets less and less likely every day. A year ago that seemed like a certainty, with all the new stuff coming out and Pentax still not making a move, it seems less and less likely with each passing ay.

[kadajawi]

What you're seeing is - most likely - mFT companies pushing hard the image of professionals shifting to mFT, maybe even paying some of them to promote their products. The hype is strong with the mirrorless side.


For whom?
For Ricoh Imaging, unlikely. They would probably try to protect their margins by adding higher-end K-mount products (i.e. "full frame").
For the Pentaxians wanting something more than APS-C, nope. They are fewer, but high-spending customers and should not be ignored and pushed towards other systems.

And to the "How on earth can Pentax compete in that market" question, the answer is: exactly how they're doing it with APS-C products.


I strongly disagree.

Yes, Panasonic is certainly having Lumix Luminaries or so, pros that are sponsored by Panasonic. Seems to work. And really, if I were to get into photography now, I'd be getting a Panasonic or Olympus. I want light and small gear.

For the general public, you know, the people photos taken for ads are taken for, it makes no difference if it's an iPhone or a Hasselblad. They will hardly see the difference, and they won't care. The photographer is of course having a much easier day with the Hasselblad.

The number of Pentax photographers is small. The number of them that wants FF is a small subset. The number of them that will be happy by whatever FF Pentax will release (some want mirrorless, some want mirror, some want entry level FF, some want high end FF, ...) will be even smaller. That means only few have to be produced, despite high development costs. Drives up the price, and even fewer will buy it. And while Canon and Nikon can subsidy their bodys with lenses, Pentax can't, cause the Pentax users specifically want the Pentax FF because of their OLD lenses.

Their APS-C products are hardly bought. That despite being the best there is on the market (for photography only), because Canon and Nikon don't really care about that market. They want people who want pro equipment to buy full frame.

Sony is already making cameras for Hasselblad.

Of course Pentax CAN develop a FF camera. That's not the problem. But they release maybe 1 camera a year? 2? And those are usually updated products. The K-50 is a slightly updated K-30 in a new body. The K-5 II/IIs was a K-5 with mild tweaks was a K-7 with a new sensor and some tweaks. The K-500 is a K-50 with less sealing. A K-1 or whatever couldn't be based that closely on what exists already. And besides that a wide array of FF lenses needs to exist (Pentax doesn't profit from you using grandpas lenses). Canikon can sell you a cheap FF body and make their money back with overpriced lenses. Pentax can't, if they don't offer those lenses, and if they do, they'd do best to develop a new lens mount to block out the old lenses. Or, alternatively, they need to make enough profit to cover costs with the body itself. Are you willing to spend significantly more on a FF Pentax than on a competing product?

Btw., for Pentax FF could mean starting all over. Design new lenses etc. At that point they might as well do a mirrorless, at which point they may as well introduce a new mount. All your FF glass would be useless again.

I'm one of those who prefer weight and size over the very last bit of image quality. The best camera is the camera that you have with you. A FF camera would sit at home on a shelf, unless Pentax can really bring down size and weight. I don't see that happening to the extend (with a mirror) that I'd be ok with. Many others seem to see it the same way (a friend switched from Nikon to Panasonic because of size, weight and the video functionality of Panasonic. Another friend with a D7000 is also considering switching to Panasonic. Same considerations. Both have lost/will lose plenty of cash in the process. I am considering switching to Panasonic or Olympus, yet again, same reasons. I'll probably stick with Pentax for the time being, but they need to up their game). Pentax now has the compact, rugged APS-C DSLR "niche" covered. Which is quite nice. You get a camera that has a sensor not quite as small as mFT, and actually is very close to S35 (which is what Hollywood uses, FF is too big), that is rugged and usable and yet not as big and heavy as FF. Let Canon and Nikon battle themselves out in the FF category. Sony is trying to play in all areas, with mild success. Panasonic and Olympus has the high-end small mirrorless segment. So Pentax is pretty much without competition (now Canikon does have competitors, but they aren't going all in. I don't see the D7x00 and x0D/7D as real competitors, as they are much bigger and heavier, and not as good).

Oh and one more thing. Noise. I don't like loud cameras. And the Sony A7 is very, very loud (despite the lack of a shutter). Is it because it's FF? Or can such a camera be made quiet?

---

Last edited by kadajawi; 06-30-2014 at 12:23 PM.

[philbaum]

If you look at this thread, you can sort of see Pentax's problem, with so many companies taking so many different tacks already in the game, what can Pentax possibly do, that will both appeal to the average FF customer, and have a unique spot in the market place?

The new round is all centred around low light capacity. Nikon with the D4s, Sony with the A7s, and Canon's soon to be announced organic sensors18-24 mp ff, covered to death..... Low light is an area that APS-c is not really strong at, but it's not an area of interest to every enthusiast... 36 Mp FF adequately covered, low light FF, soon to be released in Sony, Canon and Nikon, what is this "unique offering" Pentax is aiming for?

It's good they have the 645z...

The Pentax executives said they would release an FF if they could come up with something unique.. but that gets less and less likely every day. A year ago that seemed like a certainty, with all the new stuff coming out and Pentax still not making a move, it seems less and less likely with each passing ay.

All good points!

I'm amazed at the number of shooters that are sampling cameras from more than one maker. Because i occasionally read posts on a Sony Forum, i see posts from folks that have both a Canikon FF and a Sony FF. So maybe photography culture is changing such that shooters are no longer defined by the manufacturer of their camera - because they are buying from all over.

Then it follows, that Pentax missing a FF model is not a handicap - its a sign of the times. Uhhh.... maybe its hard hat time again :-)

Its actually educational when one buys different brands - one learns that no single mfr has all the best practices.

[ElJamoquio]

The most recent FF announcement is the D810. The D800 is among-the-best if not the-best at low light; I'd expect the D810 to also be among-the-best if not the-best.

Fortunately you don't have to give away resolution for low light.


For Pentax? I had thought FF was going to be last fall. Now I think it'll be this fall. Camera announcements are usually in the fall... I wouldn't get too bent-out-of-shape until Oct 15.

[Kunzite]

Yes, Panasonic is certainly having Lumix Luminaries or so, pros that are sponsored by Panasonic. Seems to work. And really, if I were to get into photography now, I'd be getting a Panasonic or Olympus. I want light and small gear.

If that's important to you, why wait?

For the general public, you know, the people photos taken for ads are taken for, it makes no difference if it's an iPhone or a Hasselblad. They will hardly see the difference, and they won't care. The photographer is of course having a much easier day with the Hasselblad.

I'm afraid I'm missing your point here... should Pentax give up on people willing to pay for a real camera, and go smartphone instead? Something else?
The 645Z is not made for such people, by the way. Is that a bad thing?

The number of Pentax photographers is small. The number of them that wants FF is a small subset. The number of them that will be happy by whatever FF Pentax will release (some want mirrorless, some want mirror, some want entry level FF, some want high end FF, ...) will be even smaller. That means only few have to be produced, despite high development costs. Drives up the price, and even fewer will buy it. And while Canon and Nikon can subsidy their bodys with lenses, Pentax can't, cause the Pentax users specifically want the Pentax FF because of their OLD lenses.

That's not true, only some Pentax users - not all still Pentax customers - want it just for their old lenses (that's the "anything would work, just rebadge a Sony" camp ). Many other Pentaxians are buying new lenses, and this won't change with the introduction of a FF. There are new people too, a part of those might want to go FF at some point; or they might want to buy FF lenses to use them on APS-C cameras.

Sony is already making cameras for Hasselblad.

And Hasselblad is a laughing-stock because of this.

Of course Pentax CAN develop a FF camera. That's not the problem. But they release maybe 1 camera a year? 2? And those are usually updated products. The K-50 is a slightly updated K-30 in a new body. The K-5 II/IIs was a K-5 with mild tweaks was a K-7 with a new sensor and some tweaks. The K-500 is a K-50 with less sealing. A K-1 or whatever couldn't be based that closely on what exists already. And besides that a wide array of FF lenses needs to exist (Pentax doesn't profit from you using grandpas lenses). Canikon can sell you a cheap FF body and make their money back with overpriced lenses. Pentax can't, if they don't offer those lenses, and if they do, they'd do best to develop a new lens mount to block out the old lenses. Or, alternatively, they need to make enough profit to cover costs with the body itself. Are you willing to spend significantly more on a FF Pentax than on a competing product?

I see you didn't mention their most modern platform, the K-3, and the one they could use as a base for a FF camera; interesting

Blocking the old lenses means blocking the current customers. You know, those people who keep buying Pentax K-mount lenses...

Btw., for Pentax FF could mean starting all over. Design new lenses etc. At that point they might as well do a mirrorless, at which point they may as well introduce a new mount. All your FF glass would be useless again.

Or they might do a DSLR, as they said they'll do.

Oh and one more thing. Noise. I don't like loud cameras. And the Sony A7 is very, very loud (despite the lack of a shutter). Is it because it's FF? Or can such a camera be made quiet?

No, it's because of cutting corners in order to make it cheaper. Just like with the light leaks.

---------- Post added 30-06-14 at 11:28 PM ----------

If you look at this thread, you can sort of see Pentax's problem, with so many companies taking so many different tacks already in the game, what can Pentax possibly do, that will both appeal to the average FF customer, and have a unique spot in the market place?

To ask Sony for an A7 rebadge

[kadajawi]

If that's important to you, why wait?

I'm happy with APS-C. I like the sensor size. Not too small, not too big. I like the aspect ratio 3:2 more than 4:3. And the K-5 is not too big or too heavy. FF would be, APS-C is, for me, still acceptable. However if Pentax keeps neglecting video I might end up switching brands.

I'm afraid I'm missing your point here... should Pentax give up on people willing to pay for a real camera, and go smartphone instead? Something else?
The 645Z is not made for such people, by the way. Is that a bad thing?

I'm saying APS-C is close to FF in terms of quality. And if an iPhone is good enough, being close to FF should be more than enough for most intents and purposes. I have the feeling the desire for FF is more a desire of wanting more, not needing. It's like saying "oh, that Ferrari is nice, but it could do with more power. It's not good enough".

The 645Z fills a niche. That's what Pentax tries. The Q is without an alternative, all other mirrorless ILC cameras are much bigger. The APS-C cameras are as good as possible, and as small as possible. Canikon makes their better APS-C cameras big and heavy. Unnecessarily so, IMHO. And their cameras aren't as rugged. The 645Z has no competition... well, it does, but their competition is Phase One, Hasselblad and Leica, and they cost much more. So again, lack of real competition, giving Pentax room to breathe and sell cameras and lenses. They aren't interested in me too products, also because they would have problems selling those. They realized that when they said a FF Pentax has to be DIFFERENT. Being different is hard.

That's not true, only some Pentax users - not all still Pentax customers - want it just for their old lenses (that's the "anything would work, just rebadge a Sony" camp ). Many other Pentaxians are buying new lenses, and this won't change with the introduction of a FF. There are new people too, a part of those might want to go FF at some point; or they might want to buy FF lenses to use them on APS-C cameras.

But Pentax doesn't really have a FF lens line-up like Canikon do. And to build that up it will take a long time, and it will take away lots of resources from their APS-C line-up, which I'm much more interested in. Besides, developing a FF Pentax would take away resources from developing a even better APS-C flagship model.

And Hasselblad is a laughing-stock because of this.

They are because they are adding fancy wood handles and other materials and jack up the price massively (I'm sure Hasselblad is doing VERY well with these. They are aiming at Vertu customers. At Rolls Royce drivers. Bugatti drivers. Private jet owners. People who want something really exclusive. For who Leica is just too common, and who aren't really that much into photography I guess. The latest Vertu phone apparently has the camera "tweaked" by Hasselblad, btw.) A Pentax, based on Sony, at a competitive price, would make more sense. Though I don't see the point of giving a mirrorless camera a K mount. It would add a lot of bulk, and take away compatibility with all sorts of other lenses. I liked the K-01 concept, and given specially developed lenses for it (that extend way into the mirror box) it made a lot of sense. It has much better balance than say a Sony NEX, where you have a tiny body, with a huuuuge and heavy lens in front. A K-01 with a similar lens, but developed for the K-01, would have had much better balance, because all of the lens is inside the body, and you get a nice grip. Also you get to easily use your old lenses. Unfortunately the advantage of mFT for example was gone, namely being able to use every single lens ever made (almost). C mount, K mount, F mount, FE mount, any-mount. Plus being able to use full frame lenses as full frame lenses on mFT, i.e. a 50mm stays a 50mm, complete with shallow DoF etc.

I see you didn't mention their most modern platform, the K-3, and the one they could use as a base for a FF camera; interesting

I don't particularly like the K-3, because they have ruined a few things that I like most about the K-5. But yes, they'd be basing it on the K-3. But they need a new body to put it in, they need to rework their SR system, they need a new mirror and shutter system, new pentaprism, ... it's not as trivial as doing yet another APS-C camera (and keep in mind the K-3 and K-50 share processor, prism, and probably more parts).

Blocking the old lenses means blocking the current customers. You know, those people who keep buying Pentax K-mount lenses...

They need people to buy new lenses.

If Pentax could easily scale up their operations and add another engineering team that works on FF, and FF lenses, fine. They should do it. But I doubt that is so easy. And I don't want them to sacrifice APS-C for FF, as Canikon have done. It might not be worth the effort from a financial standpoint. There is still a lot left to do for Pentax on APS-C.

[normhead]

To ask Sony for an A7 rebadge

You got a more likely scenario?

[ElJamoquio]

And the K-5 is not too big or too heavy. FF would be,

That depends on your assumptions... The K-5+16-50 is pretty comparable to the D600+24-85 in weight. The nikon is lighter than the K-3+16-50, for example.

[kadajawi]

That depends on your assumptions... The K-5+16-50 is pretty comparable to the D600+24-85 in weight. The nikon is lighter than the K-3+16-50, for example.

I don't know if I have handled the D600 yet. But it surely is bigger, right? The K-5 and K-3 are bricks, but they are small bricks, meaning they fit easily into my camera bag.

Pentax has a lot of work left in APS-C.

I'd like them to create an API that can be accessed via WiFi or BT. Let programmers write software that access the Pentax camera with unprecedented control, i.e. I want to be able to have scripts that let me for example do focus stacking (calculated by letting me tell the camera/software which parts of the image need to be in focus), with exposure bracketing, and with sensor shift image frame extension (i.e. take one photo in the upper right corner, upper left, lower right and lower left). So I push a button on my phone and 60 photos are taken. That would save me a lot of work.

I'd also like to see Pentax put much, much more effort in video. Hire the Magic Lantern team and give them full access to whatever they need to develop a firmware designed for videographers (at the same time they'd remove a selling point for Canon by slowing down ML development).

Those are features that could differentiate Pentax. Nikon is trying to get into video, but they don't really get it, aim their cameras more at home video makers. Switch to video, press record and pray everything works well (same attitude as Pentax has). Canon is more keen to sell their very expensive C100, C300 and C500, so they limit their DSLRs. Only Panasonic goes full on with video. Pentax can differentiate that way.

Then they can take these innovations and improvements, including amazing video SR, and stuff them into a FF body. Voila, a FF Pentax that is different from their competitors, that has an edge. Canon doesn't want to do that, Nikon can't so far. Panasonic does it, but with a mFT sensor and without the SR. Olympus has the SR, but fails at everything else. Sony is sort of going in that direction (getting the SR from Olympus, and combining it with a kick ass image processor that is pretty amazing). However build quality fails them, and they don't want their cameras to be to good for video, since they want to sell their F5/F55.

Nikon, Pentax, Olympus, Fuji and Leica are the brands without professional video gear, they can enter that market and offer significantly better prices, and cameras that are both great for stills and for video (which is what (some? many?) professional photographers IMHO need). And consumers like to buy brands they see the pros use.

[Kunzite]

I'm not sure why do you repeatedly bring the iPhone into this discussion? What are you trying to prove, except perhaps that your point is based on a market Pentax should never attempt to serve?

A Pentax FF only has to be as different as a Pentax APS-C. In any case, I hope you agree that a rebadged Sony is not different (how many times it's "different... just like X or Y"?)

Yes, a lens line is built in years but this would not necessarily take resources from APS-C. On the contrary, a new system would do just that, because a new system would be incompatible thus requiring a separate lens line.
The K-mount FF will share lenses with APS-C. Indeed, that's why I think it can work - because of the APS-C users buying FF lenses.

Making a new camera is never trivial, otherwise everyone would do that. Yes, some components will have to be developed specifically for this model but that's not such an impediment.
The K-3 and K-50 don't share the same processor; the K-3 has a newer and much more powerful Prime III, while the K-50 has the Prime M introduced with the K-01 (both are actually Fujitsu Milbeaut-family processors).

They need people to buy new lenses, and what better way of doing it than offering their customers those new lenses?
Your idea is to throw away their customers, restart from scratch and hope that some people would buy into the new system. How is that better?

[kadajawi]

I'm not sure why do you repeatedly bring the iPhone into this discussion? What are you trying to prove, except perhaps that your point is based on a market Pentax should never attempt to serve?

A Pentax FF only has to be as different as a Pentax APS-C. In any case, I hope you agree that a rebadged Sony is not different (how many times it's "different... just like X or Y"?)

Yes, a lens line is built in years but this would not necessarily take resources from APS-C. On the contrary, a new system would do just that, because a new system would be incompatible thus requiring a separate lens line.
The K-mount FF will share lenses with APS-C. Indeed, that's why I think it can work - because of the APS-C users buying FF lenses.

Making a new camera is never trivial, otherwise everyone would do that. Yes, some components will have to be developed specifically for this model but that's not such an impediment.
The K-3 and K-50 don't share the same processor; the K-3 has a newer and much more powerful Prime III, while the K-50 has the Prime M introduced with the K-01 (both are actually Fujitsu Milbeaut-family processors).

They need people to buy new lenses, and what better way of doing it than offering their customers those new lenses?
Your idea is to throw away their customers, restart from scratch and hope that some people would buy into the new system. How is that better?

I want them to ignore FF for the time being, unless they can grow their engineering team without sacrificing quality.

Sorry, I forgot about the Prime M. I guess the K-50 successor would be Prime III or Prime IV (the Nikon version of the Milbeaut is IMHO superior already, perhaps they are using a newer version?).

Customers might use old lenses to save cost though. Old Pentax lenses are pretty good after all. And FF lenses are a possibility, but they are heavier and more expensive than if the lens was just designed for APS-C.

Btw., The Canon C100 costs $5000, the C500 costs $20000. They use APS-C (more or less) sized sensors. Imagine Pentax releasing an APS-C, or FF camera that tries to offer what they have to offer (at least in terms of software), but at the price point of a K-3 if APS-C, or the price of a FF Pentax (wherever it would be priced).

Also, one more thing. What if Pentax were to develop something like a Metabones SpeedBooster, basically giving you the option of using FF lenses as FF lenses on an APS-C camera? You'd get a brighter lens, you'd get the focal length it would have on a FF camera, you'd get the DoF. You would lack the bigger viewfinder, but not much else compared to a FF camera.

[Kunzite]

"Sacrificing quality"? What are you talking about?

Which Nikon version is "superior already", and why do you think so?

Customers also are buying new lenses, that's why they're called customers. Canon is selling new lenses (even new versions of old lenses), Nikon is selling new lenses, everyone is selling new lenses despite old lenses existing. Pentax is no different, it's not like they have monopoly on people refusing to use anything but old lenses.

Those are video cameras, perhaps you're with the wrong brand? Canon, Sony, Panasonic, JVC might be better for you?
Anyway, no strategy based on "same product but 15 times cheaper" is worth considering. Please rethink.

[ElJamoquio]

I don't know if I have handled the D600 yet. But it surely is bigger, right? The K-5 and K-3 are bricks, but they are small bricks, meaning they fit easily into my camera bag.

I think it's a small leap from K-3 to D600, about a cm bigger in height and length. Definitely bigger though. The equivalent lenses are generally a hair smaller, going from Nikon FF to Nikon APS-C.

I think if Pentax's goal was a small FF they could do one in a space smaller than the K-3.

I have a tiny camera bag. Honestly it's less full with my FF stuff than APS-C - for APS-C, for me, I basically carry primes from 15 mm to 100mm. For FF I feel like zooms are good-enough-for-me.