[Pål Jensen]

Gets my vote.

Note that the 'low-end' of Canikon FF's (Canon 6D, Nikon D610) are still excellent cameras with great image quality. 'Low-end' is no slur nowadays. The Canon 6D is a great low-light performer, the Nikon D610 outranks the D750 on DxOMark.

But these models all have some deficiencies that would make a Pentax 'low-end' FF stand-out - Pentax could add better build quality, WR, shake reduction, a bigger buffer, higher fps, quieter shutter, no anti-alias filter etc. In other words, a FF K-3 with a few tweaks (maybe even share the same battery grip and batteries with the K-3). Pentax could even throw in WiFi and a flippy screen, just to really bring the fight up to Nikon and Canon at that end of the market. Make the price competitive with the 'low-end' Canikons and it would be a very easy camera for Ricoh to to sell lots of.

...but then it wouldn't be a low end camera anymore...

[promacjoe]

completely disagree, pentax did very professional cameras, at some points in history, there always was one model that exceeded the consumer cameras.
The LX, for an example, the Z-1P, K2DMD, and the MZ-S are very popular and professional cameras, and they were able to compete, if not surpass other SLRs at their time.
The MZ-S was a real heavy hitter when it came out. The only thing with Pentax in the recent time is, that the top models let you wait. The MZ-S for example was time-wise behind Canikon but at the time when it came out, it was a real competitor.

A real "hole in one" but last in row on the golf-court.

And if you look at the features of the K-7, K-5, K-5II and so on, you have to admit, that Canikons Crop-SLRs are way behind Pentax.(I hereby also point at the cheap feeling of Nikons kit lenses) Those cameras(digital K) are as professional as can be in the APS-C DSLR sector. The only thing here with some tech fanboys is, that they are all missing 100 AF sensors of which neither they nor the camera really would make use of.
And what is so special about the 5D except the sound designed shutter?(The first one did not even had live view...)
Lets take a note here, that the 5D series is not classified as professional by Canon itself.(only the 1D series, of which only the 3rd Generation had a full frame sensor.) Far too much spook, guys. too much spook.
And if the technology is here and well tested, the Ricoh-Pentax guys should beat up the market with a real behemoth.

I agree, although I'm not a professional, I have known some professionals that would only use Pentax. Some of their glass rivals Leica glass. And at one time, if you went to photojournalism school, you learned on a Pentax, and many continued using Pentax. A full frame camera appeals mostly to professionals and the really dedicated hobbyist. Pentax should make as good a full frame camera as possible, and price it for the lowest price possible. Pentax should not lower their standards just so they can compete on a lesser market. High standards, and striving to put out the best product they can should be their goal. To me it is like telling your kid, there is no way you can win so you shouldn't try. That is counterproductive, and in the end will cause Pentax to fail.

Pentax can only survive if it can compete. And it cannot compete if no one has confidence in the product.

[rawr]

...but then it wouldn't be a low end camera anymore...

No Pentaxes DSLR's ever are, really, despite how they are often priced. They generally offer better features, value and performance.

I agree with Poit - if Pentax makes their FF debut with a body that is priced at $4000+ and was aimed at competing with the likes of the Canon 1Dx or the Nikon D810 or D4s, it would probably be biting off more than they can chew at this stage. Without a family of pro grade new FF lenses to accompany it, such a body would be a hard sell. They should start off their FF family more modestly, and grow and improve the lineup of bodies and lenses progressively.

The problem with launching big, expensive battle-ships right up front is that Ricoh haven't even tested the market yet for any full-frame Pentax. They don't know what full-frame buyers want or will likely buy. Including buyers like me. If the first Pentax FF is $4500 and has a big brute of a body like the 1Dx, I certainly won't be a customer.

[mythguy9]

flippy screen

Given that the 645Z has implemented this, there is a chance that a future FF will have one too...

Also maybe focus on a smaller size than Canikon's entry FF too, as Pentax has always been doing for APSC.

[RonHendriks1966]

Are we ssure we are talking about FF and not the upcoming medium format camrea from Sony and Mamiya?

http://photorumors.com/2014/10/24/more-details-on-the-rumored-sonyzeiss-and-mamiya-medium-format-digital-rangefinder-cameras/

[Poit]

Well, I'm glad my comments have taken the conversation away from "maximum MP on all counts", and into some other considerations.

I agree with Patarok and Promacjoe. I don't necessarily buy the Pentax can't compete with the big guns so shouldn't even try comments.

Here's another 'what if'....what if Pentax took a similar strategic approach as they did with the 645z (a really attractive price point for the feature and performance set). What if they released a 24MP FF with similar specs and performance as the 1Dx and D4s, but in a much smaller body (similar size to the K-3), and at $2,500. They might not quite reach the AF performance of the two big guns, but the price difference might make people think it was an incredibly attractive option. The marketing line is simple....A real alternative to the 1Dx and D4s, in a smaller body, and for $3,000 less.

The development costs for new tech (improved AF etc etc) could be spread over future releases, such as the K-3 replacement in 12-18 months.

[RonHendriks1966]

Here's another 'what if'....what if Pentax took a similar strategic approach as they did with the 645z (a really attractive price point for the feature and performance set). What if they released a 24MP FF with similar specs and performance as the 1Dx and D4s, but in a much smaller body (similar size to the K-3), and at $2,500. They might not quite reach the AF performance of the two big guns, but the price difference might make people think it was an incredibly attractive option. The marketing line is simple....A real alternative to the 1Dx and D4s, in a smaller body, and for $3,000 less.

Well for that reason there is the D750. I don't think that anyone will believe the message that the first Pentax could compete with those two.

[rawr]

Well for that reason there is the D750.

True enough. But it wouldn't take much for Pentax to develop a camera that met or exceeded the specs of the D750, or matched the likes of the 1Dx. The K-3 tech is a very good starting point. All they really need to match the big boys is do some more work on the AF and include the latest Sony FF sensor in the body.

Some comparative basic specs:

[disconnekt]

If they priced it around $2500 I think it will do well, especially if they can spec wise can match up well against Nikons Df, 750, & 810 (just keep the MP range to around 18 to 24.)

[RonHendriks1966]

True enough. But it wouldn't take much for Pentax to develop a camera that met or exceeded the specs of the D750, or matched the likes of the 1Dx. The K-3 tech is a very good starting point. All they really need to match the big boys is do some more work on the AF and include the latest Sony FF sensor in the body.

Some comparative basic specs:

Well there is a difference.So Ricoh Imaging is a small company that has to cross share stuff between camera's. If it came out today, that means PRIME III inside and the electronic hiway with it. In no way that can compeet with D4s and 1Dx. Also 7D and D750 are much faster. Not the biggest issue, but you have to deal with it. There is no way that Pentax can match the AF system of those two. Simply not having the knowledge for it and not having the fast focussing lenses to go with it. There can be steps to set steps ahead.

[rawr]

Simply not having the knowledge for it and not having the fast focussing lenses to go with it. There can be steps to set steps ahead.

Yes, optimum AF performance is a system result - lenses, AF software, AF control interface, camera CPU, camera buffer, write speeds, card speed etc. Steps need to be taken in each area to deliver optimum results.

But I think Ricoh have demonstrated that they can do very competitive AF, metering and speed with the improvements they introduced with the K-3 in 2013. By 2015, I imagine, they will be able to introduce further performance upgrades in any FF body, and in any K-3 successor too.

[Erictator]

Gets my vote.

Note that the 'low-end' of Canikon FF's (Canon 6D, Nikon D610) are still excellent cameras with great image quality. 'Low-end' is no slur nowadays. The Canon 6D is a great low-light performer, the Nikon D610 outranks the D750 on DxOMark.

But these models all have some deficiencies that would make a Pentax 'low-end' FF stand-out - Pentax could add better build quality, WR, shake reduction, a bigger buffer, higher fps, quieter shutter, no anti-alias filter etc. In other words, a FF K-3 with a few tweaks (maybe even share the same battery grip and batteries with the K-3). Pentax could even throw in WiFi and a flippy screen, just to really bring the fight up to Nikon and Canon at that end of the market. Make the price competitive with the 'low-end' Canikons and it would be a very easy camera for Ricoh to to sell lots of.

I know the 645z implimentation of the flippy screen is pretty stout and weatherized, but, after reading this thread on the new D750 flippy screen already, I think I'd just assume do without on the new Pentax FF!

D750 screen cutting out: Nikon FX SLR (DF, D1-D4, D600-D800) Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review

Eric

[rawr]

but, after reading this thread on the new D750 flippy screen already,

I saw that thread. It's a very different design on the 645Z - no cables hanging out, like the Nikon. Very simple, very sturdy. I would have no issues at all about a Pentax FF flippy screen.

I've been using flippy screens on NEX for several years, BTW, on two NEX models. Even on 'toy-cameras' like NEX, I've never never had a problem with flippy screen durability or design like the ones described for the D750. Nikon just can't into robust design, it seems, at least for some cameras.

A while ago I even gave one of my NEX's to a teenage relative to take overseas in her backpack for several months across Europe and the USA. She abused the camera quite a lot, but the flippy screen came through totally unscathed.

[Erictator]

I saw that thread. It's a very different design on the 645Z - no cables hanging out, like the Nikon. Very simple, very sturdy. I would have no issues at all about a Pentax FF flippy screen.

I've been using flippy screens on NEX for several years, BTW, on two NEX models. Even on 'toy-cameras' like NEX, I've never never had a problem with flippy screen durability or design like the ones described for the D750. Nikon just can't into robust design, it seems, at least for some cameras.

A while ago I even gave one of my NEX's to a teenage relative to take overseas in her backpack for several months across Europe and the USA. She abused the camera quite a lot, but the flippy screen came through totally unscathed.

Right, and if you quoted my whole message i acknowledged that the 645z flippy is stout and weatherized. I also have a camera way older than your NEX, my Olympus E10 4MP camera has a flippy screen that has survived just fine over many (14) years...

IMG_0961.jpg Photo by dawlatzai | Photobucket

What i was trying to convey and must have failed is that I don't want Pentax to try and make the smallest lightest FF with a flippy screen. The 645z is a large robust camera, and my old E10 is nearly as tank like as the 645z for its size. The D750 implementation appears to be an attempt to keep the camera small and light, which Pentax has been known to also do, and I think sacrificing durability in the flippy screen would be a mistake. If Pentax does one right, its prolly going to make the camera larger and heavier than it needs to be, so I personally would prefer they left it out all together, hence my comment.

Hope that makes more sense, and its just my personal preference, you don't have to agree with me.
(I just hope Pentax does)
Eric

[rawr]

I think sacrificing durability in the flippy screen would be a mistake. If Pentax does one right, its prolly going to make the camera larger and heavier than it needs to be, so I personally would prefer they left it out all together

It all depends on the design. They can do small, light, strong, WR and unobtrusive if they need/want to. As it stands, for example, the D750 is no fatter than the K-3, even with a flippy screen.


Link to comparison

But in general, of course, the less bits hanging out of the camera, the less there is to break, leak or catch dirt, and no requirement for screen articulation will help a camera body stay slim.

The production engineering also probably gets easier, and the camera may even end up costing less. Would I pay $400 extra for a flippy screen on a Pentax FF? No.