[rasputin]

I have a K5IIs and I love it. Except for the sensor size it is a fabulous camera. The lack of an AA filter was a great move by Pentax, and I can finally get the clarity out of a digital camera that I always wanted. I shoot mostly with old Carl Zeiss Jena and Russian lenses from the 1940's and 50's. Pentax is the only manufacturer who's register distance is compatible with these old lenses. Some of them have fantastic abberations, the kind of things you can't find in newer lenses. They also have the benefit of round aperture blade assemblies which provide spectacular backgrounds and bizzarre bluring, something that can only be acheived wide open on a modern lens. Unfortunately, the tiny APS-c sensor misses much of the wonderful background abberations, and of course, I can't enlarge or crop them as much. I've been waiting for a long time for Pentax to make a FF body so I can use these classic lenses to their fullest. I realize I am not the kind of photographer Pentax is aiming for because I won't be buying all the new lenses and accessories. Still, from an artistic perspective, Pentax would be doing the world of photography a juge favor by introducing FF body.

Attached Images

View Picture EXIF

File Date

   

View Picture EXIF

File Date

 

[GlassJunkie]

Here?

"Quit crying in your beer feeling sorry for your pathetic selves and get on with your lives."

You often take these discussions as a personal affront, for some reason, and lash out in ways like that. Not sure why, and it's not consistent - sometimes you seem to be in a good mood, sometimes not. I'd suggest you try to stick to equipment discussions in other parts of the forum if it gets you so worked up to be in here...


.

---------- Post added 09-08-14 at 07:56 PM ----------



So, for the record, glassjunkie, if Pentax comes out with a FF body and lenses... how will you reconcile that? Are they making a huge, huge mistake? Should they have consulted you?

Great Question. Let me poke at an answer... The "mistake" you suggest is a decision Ricoh Pentax makes on behalf of it's shareholders.... And its other stakeholders (customers ans employees) If they make one ant it is a success, good for all, Including me (I want a strong company that can support what I bought to date). If it fails (and since I am not a shareholder in Ricoh, it will only affect the resale on my equipment and may affect their ability to provide quality service on it). My only concerns. As for what I see for other Site visitors, Pentax (if they fail on the FF journey, would have squandered tremendous brand equity and loyalty which is part of their value to both customers and shareholders, a bad move. If they do it, they sure had better do it right, else be the next Contax or Konica, or Minolta, or Bessler Topcon, or whatever, and become another dead end. Sux...

More importantly, a majority of Ricoh stock is held by institutions, so risk averse capital allocations are likely to take the front seat. They want predictable cash flows to float pension funds, etc. Particularly in Japan. A VERY risk averse capital allocation environment. I worked for a Pentax affiliate (kiretsu partner) in Japan in the early 90s.Wrong bet get's you a "window seat"...

They surely should NOT have consulted me, I am an outsider with limited value and input. The members of this forum are a better sample, albeit skewed by their interest in the brand. They need a very large focus group, multi-modal in enthusiasts (aptly labeled by another forum member as the folks that spend money), "Pros" (whatever that means, best segmented by the type of work supported: sports, landscapes, Architecture, Wildlife, Portraits/ weddings, etc.), and niche players (technicals, medicals, archivists with special needs). Only then will they have enough of a basis to make a decent (albeit never perfect) business decision.

If they make a FF DSLR in the next 2 years without a FULL set of lenses, I will celebrate the fact that I am not a shareholder. Subsidizing a third party is silly and in addition, NOT the Japanese way (unless there is licensing, interlocking directorates, or equity shares in the third party involved). If they do it in 2-3 years or after they have a full set of lenses including long, I MIGHT buy the camera/system, but WILL buy Ricoh stock, as I would if they build better optics for existing platforms (645z, APSC,Q) and then a FF ILC, then MAYBE a DSLR that can truly compete as a system. To plow ahead and rely on third parties to make glass is silly and value dilutive to the brand and sunk R&D.

They have the best optical designers in photography, but have been sub optimal as a growth entity. They do VERY well "leapfrogging" (645z, PZ, K-3, and before in Spotmatics and K2 as systems). I just look at what works. Like Texas Instruments. For 25 years, their business reinvents itself with new products, by building on the legacy. So always buy TI on the dips and figure you won't turn it for 3 years. Pentax life cycles are not as calendar definite, but they iterate what they have just the same, IMHO.

Problem for Pentax and other majors is.... the technologies are moving so fast, how to you look at product payback. Granted, the level of disruption as was seen from film is not as likely in the near term (EVF "ain't ready" IMHO, but I can't see how long a DSLR, let alone a FF DSLR play could last). If someone figures out a 40MP or 36MP APSC while managing cross-talk, and has the right glass, I would submit (for coffee talk) that ALL bets are off. Nikon and Canon would freak at the prospect of a collapsing FF market. A truly disruptive event, which could invert a market. I just don't know who could/would spend the $$$ needed to change it, or who feels it would be worth it......

Should provide us all with entertainment for the next several years while we watch/ seek a better mousetrap, or hope our invested brand gets stronger?

[jsherman999]

.
Good post.

Great Question. Let me poke at an answer... The "mistake" you suggest is a decision Ricoh Pentax makes on behalf of it's shareholders.... And its other stakeholders (customers ans employees) If they make one ant it is a success, good for all, Including me (I want a strong company that can support what I bought to date). If it fails (and since I am not a shareholder in Ricoh, it will only affect the resale on my equipment and may affect their ability to provide quality service on it). My only concerns. As for what I see for other Site visitors, Pentax (if they fail on the FF journey, would have squandered tremendous brand equity and loyalty which is part of their value to both customers and shareholders, a bad move. If they do it, they sure had better do it right, else be the next Contax or Konica, or Minolta, or Bessler Topcon, or whatever, and become another dead end. Sux...

More importantly, a majority of Ricoh stock is held by institutions, so risk averse capital allocations are likely to take the front seat. They want predictable cash flows to float pension funds, etc. Particularly in Japan. A VERY risk averse capital allocation environment. I worked for a Pentax affiliate (kiretsu partner) in Japan in the early 90s.Wrong bet get's you a "window seat"...

This is what I've been pointing out for a while - that risk aversion, not necessarily careful, airtight analysis, as some suppose - is what's holding them back from introducing FF. An institutional inertia, as I've phrased it.

What's more I think it's fair to criticize this - to not simply accept it as an un-changeable Japanese cultural artifact. We've seen risk taken on from Fuji, Panasonic, Samsung, even Sony. We've seen Pentax move successfully into the MFD market where the margins are great enough to keep a very low-volume operation in the black (we assume,) but there has been no decision to bolster their main product line - K-mount - in a way that could help sustain it in the face of the MILC disruption, which will not be kind to K-mount. The EVF situation is only a temporary detent to that - it's coming strong.

If I'm wrong about the institutional inertia, then there's only one other viable explanation in my view - they are treading water with K-mount with the full intention of dumping it in order to move forward with a more MILC-friendly mount. In that scenario K-mount will possibly be 'supported' with an AF-capable adapter... but no further development will happen there. This is one way to go, and they may be moving toward that break.

I'd actually feel better about that if it didn't appear that they were allowing it to happen by default - by dithering until external market forces and competitors made the decision an easy one, an only one. I've been in a few companies where that was the trunk of the decision tree (dithering, waiting until there's only one path forward and $ returns have shrunk to 'survive', because no one executive wants to be on the hook for a risk-holding choice) and I feel like I see signs of that here, bubbling below the surface. I've felt that way for a while, but feel the need to acknowledge the two ownership changes in the last six years as contributors to this dithering... but that excuse only travels so far.

Pentax should commit fully and strongly to their path forward. If that path is centered on K-mount, it needs to include an FF product, or they will be squeezed from below by MILC and fixed-large-bridge and from above by FF (MILC and DSLR) until they disappear into the ether, surviving in name only like a Kodak or Vivitar.

.

[dtmateojr]

If Pentax wishes to go FF then they might as well get rid of the mirror and go EVF. CaNikon's refusal to adapt to this trend is going to be their downfall...just like Kodak.

[mecrox]

.
Good post.



This is what I've been pointing out for a while - that risk aversion, not necessarily careful, airtight analysis, as some suppose - is what's holding them back from introducing FF. An institutional inertia, as I've phrased it.

What's more I think it's fair to criticize this - to not simply accept it as an un-changeable Japanese cultural artifact. We've seen risk taken on from Fuji, Panasonic, Samsung, even Sony. We've seen Pentax move successfully into the MFD market where the margins are great enough to keep a very low-volume operation in the black (we assume,) but there has been no decision to bolster their main product line - K-mount - in a way that could help sustain it in the face of the MILC disruption, which will not be kind to K-mount. The EVF situation is only a temporary detent to that - it's coming strong.

If I'm wrong about the institutional inertia, then there's only one other viable explanation in my view - they are treading water with K-mount with the full intention of dumping it in order to move forward with a more MILC-friendly mount. In that scenario K-mount will possibly be 'supported' with an AF-capable adapter... but no further development will happen there. This is one way to go, and they may be moving toward that break.

I'd actually feel better about that if it didn't appear that they were allowing it to happen by default - by dithering until external market forces and competitors made the decision an easy one, an only one. I've been in a few companies where that was the trunk of the decision tree (dithering, waiting until there's only one path forward and $ returns have shrunk to 'survive', because no one executive wants to be on the hook for a risk-holding choice) and I feel like I see signs of that here, bubbling below the surface. I've felt that way for a while, but feel the need to acknowledge the two ownership changes in the last six years as contributors to this dithering... but that excuse only travels so far.

Pentax should commit fully and strongly to their path forward. If that path is centered on K-mount, it needs to include an FF product, or they will be squeezed from below by MILC and fixed-large-bridge and from above by FF (MILC and DSLR) until they disappear into the ether, surviving in name only like a Kodak or Vivitar.

.

Samsung is South Korean.

Yes, the "treading water" analysis before a pretty large step change is the only reasonable one, imho. The alternatives are a) insanity - betting the farm on the APS-C DSLR in 2014. while continuing to rely on an FF mount which is never fully utilized; or b) allowing Pentax's mainstay lines and nearly all their customers to fade away as the equipment and form factor decays into obsolescence, in which case Ricoh would have thrown a few hundred million $$ (by now) down a manhole cover by investing in a company only to press the "auto shutdown" button soon afterwards. Unlikely.

The sudden emphasis on medium format doesn't add up either. The Pentax 645 platform is a very strong card to have, but Ricoh's camera division has several thousand employees and many production lines and other facilities. The notion that lots of stuff is now on hold - which I've seen said in other threads in recent days, with the usual "Be Patient" nostrums - in order to flesh out the Pentax medium format offering is predicated on a market of just a few thousand unit sales a year, maybe less than 3,000, with lens sales of the same order. Did Ricoh really buy Pentax in order to service about 0.001 per cent of the whole camera market and dispense with almost everything else? Unlikely. The Q isn't going to save them and the MF operation doesn't require all those staff and factories. There's no getting away from the "squeeze" problem on the traditional APS-C DSLR market where the broad mass of all camera-buyers live.

I imagine the camera-makers all have a very good idea of what the others are up to. What they may see coming down the pike is a fast increase in the decline of the DSLR, certainly for all but the top end and specialists, the moment the problems holding back mirrorless cameras have been licked. The moment the MILC is perfected and can be produced cheaply and effectively in its millions, it will be open season on ye olde Squeeze.

[Rondec]

I don't think it is clear as to whether or not Pentax should make a full frame camera. Sure, there are maybe 100 people on the forum who actually have money stored away to buy one and the f2.8 zooms that would come with it, but the idea that it would be a cheap product is just not based on reality. You are talking D800 and Nikon upper end glass prices -- 2800 for a body and 2000 each for lenses. If you just plan to get Sigma or Tamron lenses, then you are better off getting a Nikon or Canon anyway, as they have better glass support from third party companies.

A Pentax full frame camera has to have some features that will draw people from other camera brands to try it. Small body size is unlikely to be enough. SR on the sensor might be. Different glass -- probably slower, smaller glass -- would certainly be an oddity in the market as well. But I just don't know what it is that sells Pentax full frame to folks who have three or four lenses in another brand already and are considering going full frame. Honestly, why does someone choose a Pentax K1 over a Canon 6D, 5D Mk III, Nikon D610, D810, DF, D4s, or one of the Sony mirrorless options? I don't know. It is a crowded camera market right now and APS-C cameras are still the biggest sellers by far and making a splash in the full frame sector, which is maybe a tenth of the crop sector isn't going to be easy.

Each one of us wants Pentax to cater to our individual needs, but that is a solution for failure. If Pentax released a "full manual" full frame camera, as some have suggested or, "ditched video" as others have suggested, apparently thinking that these things would lead to a cheaper camera, the resulting camera would be dead on arrival. It isn't the software that costs, anyway, it is the hardware and R and D to get specs up enough to be competitive.

I do think Pentax is probably working on a full frame camera right now, but I think it is a harder proposition than we think it is. It isn't enough just to shoe horn a D600 sensor into a K3 camera body and float it out on the market.

[monochrome]

So, for the record, glassjunkie, if Pentax comes out with a FF body and lenses... how will you reconcile that? Are they making a huge, huge mistake? Should they have consulted you?

Well, the last robotic factory he built in 2001 cost as much as Ricoh paid for Pentax all-in.

[Rondec]

If Pentax wishes to go FF then they might as well get rid of the mirror and go EVF. CaNikon's refusal to adapt to this trend is going to be their downfall...just like Kodak.

You may be right. I don't know if there are truly enough current Pentaxians that would go full frame to warrant keeping the K mount. Mirrorless full frame with SR on the sensor could be a way of launching a slightly different product on the market. But all indications are that if Pentax goes full frame it will be a k mount and have an OVF.

[Winder]

You may be right. I don't know if there are truly enough current Pentaxians that would go full frame to warrant keeping the K mount. Mirrorless full frame with SR on the sensor could be a way of launching a slightly different product on the market. But all indications are that if Pentax goes full frame it will be a k mount and have an OVF.

The future isn't about the current Pentaxians. The future is about generating future Pentaxians. People need to stop worrying about how many current Pentaxians will buy a FF DSLR. Pentax has to appeal to photographers outside the current base.

That is the huge difference between Pentax and Fuji. Fuji launched a completely new mount with a focus on generating new customers, and the X-mount is really not an innovative product. The Trans-X filter was simply a way to remove the AA filter, but 24MP APS-C doesn't need an AA filter. There is nothing really unique about the X-mount other than they are moving fast and listening to their customers. It has been extremely expensive to launch an entire system in such a short time, so they probably aren't currently making money, but in the long run it appears to be a very strong system.

Pentax reminds me of Research In Motion and Blackberry. They just refuse to evolve.

[mecrox]

The future isn't about the current Pentaxians. The future is about generating future Pentaxians. People need to stop worrying about how many current Pentaxians will buy a FF DSLR. Pentax has to appeal to photographers outside the current base.

That is the huge difference between Pentax and Fuji. Fuji launched a completely new mount with a focus on generating new customers, and the X-mount is really not an innovative product. The Trans-X filter was simply a way to remove the AA filter, but 24MP APS-C doesn't need an AA filter. There is nothing really unique about the X-mount other than they are moving fast and listening to their customers. It has been extremely expensive to launch an entire system in such a short time, so they probably aren't currently making money, but in the long run it appears to be a very strong system.

Pentax reminds me of Research In Motion and Blackberry. They just refuse to evolve.

It's strange. if look you not only here but at other photography forums, it's pretty clear where things are going and what folks think of Pentax generally. "Fantastically good bodies, a couple of nice lenses, too bad about everything else. I don't think anyone near here sells them now, though. Do they have a strategy at all?" would be a rough summary. So it is not as if the way forward is unknown, and since what folks think across these forums and blogs is a broad consensus which has formed over several years, it's not really a matter of dismissing just a few people as armchair strategists. I'm not talking about specific formats here, but the nature of the current camera market and what the more successful companies are doing and how they are doing it. If Pentax are not evolving then the only reason - apart from a group-think so strong no one can break it - is that Ricoh are refusing to invest. If Ricoh are refusing to invest, then the best thing would be for them to call it a day now, for otherwise in the months or years ahead they would be investing in what they didn't care for and would be glad to be rid of, and the inevitable result would be tears before bedtime. Yes, strange indeed.

[normhead]

Mirrorless has only really caught on in Japan, where it accounts for 36 percent of shipments of interchangeable-lens cameras. By comparison, mirrorless market share is a paltry 10.5 and 11.2 percent in the U.S. and Europe, respectively.
Mirrorless sales in the U.S. dropped 20 percent during the holiday shopping season, while DSLR sales climbed 1 percent.

Report Claims Only Nikon, Canon and Sony Will Survive the Smartphone Revolution

Pentax is doomed.

Fantastically good bodies, a couple of nice lenses, too bad about everything else.

If Ricoh are refusing to invest, then the best thing would be for them to call it a day now, for otherwise in the months or years ahead they would be investing in what they didn't care for and would be glad to be rid of, and the inevitable result would be tears before bedtime. Yes, strange indeed.

Long story short... if you aren't happy with what you've got, you should be thinking about leaving... other brands offer a lot more. Expecting Pentax to come through for you is a waste of energy. They are what they are. They are not an expanding company, they are a treading water company, doing the minimum it takes to stay afloat.

I guess I could repeat, "get on with your lives" but apparently that's too direct.

Pentax is not going to come through for you. There is not going to be a whole revamp of the FF lenses. There is never going to be a Pentax 14-24m 24-70 and 70 200 on par with Nikon's big 3. There are never going to be Pentax ring motor lenses on par with Canon's fast AF systems. A lot of what people think Pentax should do, is never going to happen. Keeping up with Nikon and Canon in many areas is just never going to happen. They are 20 years behind and because of low volumes married to a mount with relatively slow focussing SDM lenses, and their FF glass development is at least 15 years behind.

They do a lot of things good, but in terms of entering the FF market, they do very little best in class. Where in the FF market would they hang their hat? What would be the thing... where is the " IfI want to do this, I would buy a Pentax FF niche"? Legacy glass doesn't make them money and what could they do special that would steal sales from other makers? Is there any one out there that honestly believes Pentax could make an FF for it's existing customer base?

Nikons sales of FF is what? Maybe 5% of their APS-c sales. What is 5% of pentax's pathetic customer base?

No one, has explained, how Pentax going FF would help the company, except for pie in the sky speculations that do not represent the kind of business plan you can go to the bank with.

For FF cameras, I'm sold on Nikon... as of today.. why would I limit myself by buying Pentax? They don't even have their own 70-200 or (insert half the Nikon /Canon FF lineup here.) Apart from the 31, 43, 77, what lenses do they have? Nikon is a great general system that does everything well, Canon has the sports and action market pretty much locked up. Just where is it you guys think Pentax could fit in? They've already pretty much locked up the high end landscape market and studio markets with the 645z.

What percentage of the market could Pentax users who want to use legacy glass be? They might be a large and vocal part of the forum, but out in the real world, those kinds of comments are greeted with disbelief. "You want a Pentax FF so you can use 20 year old optical designs, that for the most part aren't corrected enough to be optimal on digital? ... Really?"

Meanwhile Pentax has very comprehensive APS-c offerings.

Tess is doin the weekly challenge.. it's on experimental photography....
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/129-weekly-photo-challenges/272573-weekly...otography.html

Get out there and show us what you can do instead of crying over the lack of a Pentax FF.

Coach Norm, signing off.

[GlassJunkie]

If Pentax wishes to go FF then they might as well get rid of the mirror and go EVF. CaNikon's refusal to adapt to this trend is going to be their downfall...just like Kodak.

Light box/thickness of the camera aside.... Would we rather have a Pentax FF MILC at 36MP+ or a DSLR? I'd go with the MILC since it can not be as "crippled" with some of the older lenses that a DSLR might, and put in an element or 2 (adapter or in camera) that operated like that little 1.7x AFTC they built with SMCP-F lenses to put some AF at hand for the "A"s. Or leave it MF.

Take A7-A7r head on.....

[Winder]

I guess I could repeat, "get on with your lives" but apparently that's too direct.

Why not get on with your own life instead of worrying about what other customers want from Pentax? You spend more time than anyone on the internet telling other people what they should or shouldn't want from Pentax. Just because you are complacent with the current Pentax offering doesn't mean everyone else needs to be. Pentax has already disappeared as a separate company. It exists only as a brand name. If they don't evolve with the market K-mount itself will disappear. K-mount has been on the verge of disappearing for the last 10 years. If Pentax is going to make a come back, they can't keep doing what they have always been doing.

[mecrox]

Report Claims Only Nikon, Canon and Sony Will Survive the Smartphone Revolution

Pentax is doomed.





Long story short... if you aren't happy with what you've got, you should be thinking about leaving... other brands offer a lot more. Expecting Pentax to come through for you is a waste of energy. They are what they are. They are not an expanding company, they are a treading water company, doing the minimum it takes to stay afloat.

I guess I could repeat, "get on with your lives" but apparently that's too direct.

Godwin's Second Law: when normhead decides to up the ante, the thread is within 10-20 posts of being closed down by the mods. Maybe only an intervention by Saint Equivalence can save us now.

[Rondec]

Light box/thickness of the camera aside.... Would we rather have a Pentax FF MILC at 36MP+ or a DSLR? I'd go with the MILC since it can not be as "crippled" with some of the older lenses that a DSLR might, and put in an element or 2 (adapter or in camera) that operated like that little 1.7x AFTC they built with SMCP-F lenses to put some AF at hand for the "A"s. Or leave it MF.

Take A7-A7r head on.....

I think I would be OK with this, although, I would feel pretty discouraged with the lack of lens support of the new mount. How long would it take Pentax to launch a decent lens line up for a new mirrorless mount? Multiple years. Using K mount lenses with an adapter is a kludge, to say the least -- auto focus probably quite a bit slower than with a K3, for instance.

Ergonomics are tough with smaller cameras and big lenses, aka f2.8 zooms. As long as you just mount FA limiteds, you are fine. Get into bigger zooms and shooting a wedding, for instance, becomes quite a bit more uncomfortable.

But I don't see why even a K-02 with a full frame sensor, better ergonomics, and better performance couldn't be a possibility.