[Clavius]

I figured OSV was referring to full frame and not medium format, when he made his comment. I just don't think there is that much overlap between those two markets. Anyone dropping over 8,000 on a camera and lenses, is not likely to flip that gear.

As to Sony being a threat with mirrorless medium format, I doubt it. The lenses just are unlikely to be there for quite awhile and it is lenses that will drive those bodies.

Both true... I myself shoot APS-C and FF. Of course I would like to inlcude Medium format as well, but I simply can't justify the costs. Therefore, I refrain from digital in that area and still enjoy shooting my film Pentax 645. However, if a Sony MF MILC does turn out to be affordable for me it's going to be a complete no-brainer.

For how many people will an MF MILC mean they suddenly CAN enter the MF world? I think it's a great number.

[rasputin]

As much as I hate to say it, I think I've been waiting in vain. Full frame is a format that was carried on over years because of the need for a universal format for film manufacturing. Nowadays, it doesn't matter at all. They could manufacture sensors in any size or format they desire, and photoshop and other processing engines will have no problem processing them. A full frame camera will have a few advantages and a few disadvantages, but other than maximizing the whole field of view from the larger lenses, which Ricih/Pentax no longer manufacture, the sensor size really isn't overly important. High quality photo's can be made with any camera, and as digital imaging technology advances, sensor size becomes less and less important, even for enlargments. I can already make near poster size enlargments with no signs of pixelization with my camera. I think any camera manufacturer is banking on selling lenses and accessories for their profits, the camera just opens the door. I've been thinking of getting the Sony A7r since I have so many old lenses I love to shoot with. They are all m42, so they work with my current camera, a k5IIs, but I would like to catch the beautiful abberations created by those old lenses in full frame. That is the only reason I want one. But, the Sony camera is very akward and clumsy, it's too small, doesn't balance well in your hand once a large lens is attached, and isn't nearly as rugged a the Pentax. I love the way my K5IIs feels in my hand. I like the size, the weight, and the fact it's water and shock resistant. It simply blows the competition out of the water. The problem for Ricoh is the fact they don't advertise and most people have no idea they manufacture a superior camera at a lower overall price. What we need to think about is what will come in the future, and that is predicated by what young photographers are willing to spend their hard earned money on, not the dreams of old codgers like me. I love DSLR's, but sadly, I see the mirrorless market dominating the market very soon, so if Ricoh/Pentax eventually does come out with a FF, I predict it will be mirrorless. A mirrorless camera should also be less expensive for them to manufacture, once the tooling is made. I still have my fingers crossed. I would love to have a full frame Pentax DSLR!

[osv]

I figured OSV was referring to full frame and not medium format, when he made his comment. I just don't think there is that much overlap between those two markets. Anyone dropping over 8,000 on a camera and lenses, is not likely to flip that gear.

it's already happening, people have been comparing ff vs. mf and acting on it: https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/48-pentax-medium-format/241753-645d-vs-a7r.html

there are plenty of ff canikon/sony lenses that will handle 50mp, and give all of the ff benefits that you can't get with mf, for a whole lot cheaper.

what 50mp ff is going to do is steal potential mf converts market share... it'll directly attack the entry-level 645z market, even if it doesn't match the iso performance and dr.

if sony does an mf mirrorless, it'll be higher rez than 50mp, because they will already have 50mp in a ff camera... what if it's 80mp, priced closer to a 645z, because it'll be much cheaper to make?

pentax has a k3/645z window that they are capitalizing on, but how long can it last? if they are going to release a ff body, they need to step up and officially confirm it.

[Rondec]

it's already happening, people have been comparing ff vs. mf and acting on it: https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/48-pentax-medium-format/241753-645d-vs-a7r.html

there are plenty of ff canikon/sony lenses that will handle 50mp, and give all of the ff benefits that you can't get with mf, for a whole lot cheaper.

what 50mp ff is going to do is steal potential mf converts market share... it'll directly attack the entry-level 645z market, even if it doesn't match the iso performance and dr.

if sony does an mf mirrorless, it'll be higher rez than 50mp, because they will already have 50mp in a ff camera... what if it's 80mp, priced closer to a 645z, because it'll be much cheaper to make?

pentax has a k3/645z window that they are capitalizing on, but how long can it last? if they are going to release a ff body, they need to step up and officially confirm it.

I think you miss the point. The difference between 40 and 50 and 80 megapixel medium format camera isn't very big. People buy into medium format for the glass. Buy an 80 megapixel Sony medium format camera and then deal with mounting a bunch of non-Sony glass on it. I just don't buy that that's going to be a big seller, unless Sony comes out with a bunch of killer Zeiss lenses that other makers can't match.

[LFLee]

^^^roflol^^^ Glad it is not just me! I see all these arguments that the 'glass' has to look right on the 'original format'. Seriously? Look through the freakn viewfinder. What you see is what it is. Don't like it? Change lens or move your feet. Are we making images or just using 'no FF Pentax' as an excuse?


So your whole argument for adding a FF camera to the line is that some enthusiasts with 20 year old glass might buy it so they can use their old glass? If I'm sitting on the Ricoh product development committee that argument is not going to make me jump up and cheer for adding yet another format to the line.

There are I think valid reasons to add a FF camera, but 'so we can use our old glass the way it was intended' is not one of them.

hahaha... valid point. by the time Pentax have a FF, those old glasses are really "too old" (designed for film). sad, but true.

[normhead]

Anyone can use their Pentax glass, exactly the way it was intended, go buy a roll of film an shoot away. Using 20 year old glass on a digital sensor, is not the way it was ever intended to be used.

[cali92rs]

if they are going to release a ff body, they need to step up and officially confirm it.

No way. That's not they way they do things.
I think people forget about the history of Ricoh, with the GXR, the GR, the GRD, the K-S1 etc. I think that Ricoh is perfectly content nibbling around the edges, doing what they want, market share be damned.
If they do release a FF, it will be on their terms and not be in direct competition with anything else that is currently out there.

[jatrax]

If they do release a FF, it will be on their terms and not be in direct competition with anything else that is currently out there.

+1 They do not like going head to head with anyone. They just nibble here, nibble there and let everyone ignore them. Until all of the sudden all those little nibbles add up to market share. Take a look at their history in the copier market. No bluster, no big innovations, no big marketing campaign, just nibble, nibble, nibble.

[Pentax-K]

"hahaha... valid point. by the time Pentax have a FF, those old glasses are really "too old" (designed for film). sad, but true.

Read more at: https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/169-pentax-full-frame/272489-why-pentax-s...#ixzz3M8eVfP26"

Explain how a lens becomes "too old"? As long as the lens can be mounted and is functional it is still useable. Some people are still using Pentax (Takumar) glass that was manufactured during the 1960's and before.

Obviously all the Autofocus fans will want to buy new Pentax glass anyway. Allowing for using vintage glass has not hurt Nikon any. Some 1959 Nikon F cameras and lenses are still in use. And many Nikon users use vintage "film" lenses on their digital cameras. "Film" lenses cover both "FX"/FF and "DX" /CF sensors as well as film anyway. Pentax FA lenses are basically "digital" versions of K(F) lenses.

[mecrox]

+1 They do not like going head to head with anyone. They just nibble here, nibble there and let everyone ignore them. Until all of the sudden all those little nibbles add up to market share. Take a look at their history in the copier market. No bluster, no big innovations, no big marketing campaign, just nibble, nibble, nibble.

A fair point. But does anyone know how Ricoh's share of the camera market has performed over the past few years? The impression I've been given is that Ricoh have been engaging in a bit of the old reverse nibble. A nibble here, a nibble there and pretty soon you've become so easy to overlook that people forget to put out any carrots for you and you aren't getting enough to eat. This may not be true, of course, and in fact there is a nice store of tidbits stashed in the burrow. Just asking.

[jatrax]

But does anyone know how Ricoh's share of the camera market has performed over the past few years? The impression I've been given is that Ricoh have been engaging in a bit of the old reverse nibble. A nibble here, a nibble there and pretty soon you've become so easy to overlook that people forget to put out any carrots for you and you aren't getting enough to eat. This may not be true, of course, and in fact there is a nice store of tidbits stashed in the burrow. Just asking.

I actually thought that I read someplace it had increased nicely. Maybe, not significantly since we are talking single digits but definitely up nicely. But then I see the post above where someone says it is now 1.6%?? So I don't know. Perhaps there are no reliable numbers.

In the US market I don't possibly see how it could have gotten worse. We see more market presence now than a few years ago. Not what I would call great but at least improving.

But who knows, I certainly do not.

[ElJamoquio]

But when it's at the D610 pricepoint customers would rather go for the D610 itself because of all kinds of reasons. So it would have to be even cheaper to motivate them. And that will earn them the mark of being the "cheap" brand. I don't want that, and I don't think I'm alone in that. I had that name once and they're still not quite done trying to shake it.

What's the cost differential between the D7100 and the K-3? I don't think it's very much.

[Rondec]

What's the cost differential between the D7100 and the K-3? I don't think it's very much.

It might be more than you think. The D7100 is about 900 dollars right now. From both Adorama and B and H, you can get a K3 and grip for 800 (body alone is 760). There were some pretty amazing deals a little while ago with lens/flash combos and the K3 too, but I'm not sure if those are still available or not.

[Ash]

If FA Limited lenses are still being sold new, there is at least some notion that current lenses are appropriate for a FF K-mount body.
Every time I mount an FA Limited onto a current K-mount dSLR, I get results that impress me far beyond other K-mount lenses, as well as most non-K-mount lenses, I have used. I would never call these lenses outdated.

[Rimfiredude]

I don't know if this camera has been posted yet, but I would love to have a Pentax that looks similar to this.