I've read with interest and attention the post titled "Dear Pentax: Never Build a "Full Frame" Camera", linked on this site homepage. It is an interesting article, well written, but extremely subjective.
It should have no place on the home page. I am asking myself why it does...
The experiences of the author are in no way special. I have the same: I don't have the A* 135mm, but i do have the 85mm, the 200mm, the 300mm, and most of the best A glasses. Many of those who would actually buy a full frame body have high performance old lenses, with a wonderful build quality. But i suspect that the active posters on pentaxforums.com do not represent a statistically credible example of the advanced amateurs who are still interested in a FF body (many gave up already).
After reading many, many forum posts, with a reasonable level of attention, i've made up my mind: a good part of the active users is made by fanboys, newcomers, and old farts loyal to the brand. For example i am of the latter type, i am just 56 but i started taking pictures when i was 10 y.o., and sold my Nikkormat for a Pentax, as soon as it was possible to find the first MX bodies second-hand. Then i purchased the LX, the Super Program, the K2, the 6x7, all of them second-hand. The only two new bodies i ever bought (Sfx-n and Z-1p) were brought from the USA at a price competitive with a good used body in Italy!.
After that i waited for the digital. When it came i deemed it not good enough... i wanted the full frame, to use all my fantastic wides!
I got so fed up of waiting, that i decided that if i had to use analog, at least i had to get the maximum quality, so i restarted with large format (4x5" and 5x7") and lately embraced 8x10".
A big change in my private life brought me back to small cameras, usable for travel photography.
I finally bent to Pentax, and got a K10D and K200D (both used).Since then, i added a K-5 II and a K-01, bought at 1/4 the original price. I guess i'm not an impulsive buyer, or a big spender... but i do love lenses!
During all this time i took advantage of every occasion i found, exchanging old K and M glasses for more ergonomic (and often better) A and F/FA ones. The only DA i own is the pancake Limited... which happens to cover the FF
My personal opinion is that most of the enthusiasts who would consider to buy a Pentax full frame have some (often plenty of) good old glasses, and that would be the main reason to buy one. Some of them already own different equipments, but some have enough money to invest in a body which will allow them to shoot with the lenses they kept for all this time, those old wonderful glasses they didn't feel to sell.
I've posted a comment to the original post (maybe it's more an article), but there is a limit in the allowed characters. That's why i'm posting here a more articulated reply.
I've browsed all the comments, a great number of them, and i have been impressed by them. I think i decided to write about my personal view on the matter, after reading some of them.
Most of the comments i've read are unrealistic, or just "pour parler". That's true about both sides, i guess. Pentax FF is a divisive issue...
I'd really want to know how many people would really want (and afford) to buy a decently complete 645 digital outfit. Com'on, please!
There was a time when Asahi Pentax was the second player, very innovative, and sold the best affordable cameras for reportage. Canon was in no way at the same level.
Now, after two horribly wrong choices (late switch to bayonet; no pro camera after the LX), Pentax is struggling to remain relevant, after the disaster of the Hoya tenure.
Now Pentax is smaller than ever, there have been insufficient investments in R&D, and most of the inventory had been sold. I have some hope, but i don't think Ricoh has enough cash to compete with the big players, at least not at any level of the market. When Pentax concentrated on compact cameras, at least you could see them in supermarkets. I don't see them since long, and the choice has proven totally wrong. If it sounds vaguely familiar... it's because Kodak and Polaroid tried to compete in the low end market as well!
There was a time when Apple was in real danger, Steve Jobs was called and the trend changed in a short amount of time. It can happen only in a way. Building on your assets and innovating, thinking out of the box.
Pentax has a base, a signature: SR and WR bodies, plus camera menus and ergonomics conceived for real photographer's needs (well... not the K-01!). Then it has an asset, just one. Fortunately is huge: an immense number of good (and sometimes very good) lenses in K mount, built during a long span of time and diffused in any corner of the world. Most of the good ones are primes, some are fast, and some have an optical signature which sets them apart from the mass of AF zooms sold today.
It is NOT true that Pentax has to invest a huge amount of money in the project of a brand new full line of lenses made for FF. Some cover already, many zooms could be provided by third parties (Canikon owners buy wonderful Tokina lenses, which we call Pentax... Tamron could be the ideal substitute of Tokina), and a few specialty lenses could be assigned to Cosina (they have the know-how, just think about the price/performance ratio of the fake-Voigtlanders in M/LTM mount!).
The big money is made with amateurs nowadays. The real professional is broke. They get less and less money, big stock agencies shut down, and many good professionals quit their job to do something else or to retire before time. How many pros buy the new digital medium format? Very, very few, trust me, other way the used 645 lenses made in the film days would cost four time their price.
What makes a FF camera desirable? The sensor and the glass. The glass is already there, plenty of it. Those who are so happy with APS-C can't be as happy to see the best new third party lenses made in any other mount but Pentax! I don't. It's my MAIN complaint. No Tokinas at all. Not the best new Sigmas. The Tamrons are available only in their old version... when the stock will be emptied, do you really think they will make a new batch for PKAF?
I am happy with my K-5 II and (for a particular use) with my K-01, but i would never buy Pentax if i had to start afresh, today. When i purchased the K10D i had already a dozen of the best MF Pentax lenses ever. That was my reason. I would have been crazy to buy any other brand!
So the glass is already there... if a sensor allowing in-body SR is already available, better move your ass Pentax! Tomorrow is too late.
No need to be extremely innovative, just copy what the others did well. Nikon has different level of compatibility with vintage glasses, the more expensive bodies are more flexible. A down-to-earth FF version of the K-3, with limited improvements and an UNCRIPPLED mount, would sell by itself. Provided that the price is competitive... but at this stage even selling under cost could be an option, at least initially. It would be more effective than a planetary advertising campaign, it would get all the interest of the main sites, the attention of the growing numbers of MF vintage lenses enthusiasts (especially the new crowds from the countries of the rising sun), of collectors of K and M42 lenses, and would get the Pentax name once again in the radar of third party lens makers. I think it would also sell to all those rich old farts who shoot Canon/Nikon/Sony but still own their old Takumar or SMC Pentax glasses.
You don't have to trust me cause i've been a pro, or because i'm a collector and have 250/300 lenses at home... i'm nobody. It's just common sense. The advanced amateur, the one who makes the fortune of Leica, Nikon and Canon, buying highly profitable products, consider APS-C a second choice. Most of them would never spend good money on something perceived as inferior. The fact that this kind of user don't care about Internet, or just lurks every now and then, means nothing. The market speaks, and speaks volume.
cheers
Paolo
Last edited by cyberjunkie; 09-08-2014 at 03:10 AM.