Is a K-3 with a full frame sensor enough for you?

kadajawi · 02-13-2015, 10:11 AM

Originally posted by mohb

Don't canon have full frame cameras made for taking video? Are Pentax supposed to be able to compete on every level with Canon/Nikon or is it enough to bring out a high quality FF that meets the needs of most photographers?

Nope. Canon has found that selling the same cameras with a handle and some other small changes for 15k is more profitable. The DSLRs haven't been improved for video, some are even worse than what they used to offer.

In what sense is the K-5 terrible for video? I prefer it to many other cameras. The look is pretty nice, it's not too sharp/harsh/video like, no rolling shutter, smooth, ...

LFLee · 02-13-2015, 10:26 AM

no. If it is just K3 + FF sensor, it will not be enough. why? because with the same amount of money, I can buy CaNikon.

Racerdew · 02-13-2015, 10:35 AM

Originally posted by mohb

Don't canon have full frame cameras made for taking video? Are Pentax supposed to be able to compete on every level with Canon/Nikon or is it enough to bring out a high quality FF that meets the needs of most photographers?

Yes, yes they should compete on every level. They are in business to make a profit. We can sell all of our gear tomorrow and buy a Nikon FF for 2000 that is really good. So yes Pentax or Ricoh, need to step up and compete with the best and become the best. You can always be replaced so you better be working hard to compete with your competition. Who wants to buy from the lower class company when you can have the best. I don't think flip phone sales are real good these days.

GeneV · 02-13-2015, 12:11 PM

Originally posted by LFLee

no. If it is just K3 + FF sensor, it will not be enough. why? because with the same amount of money, I can buy CaNikon.

How do you know that?

And if you buy a body in another mount, all your lenses are orphans, so even if you can buy the same features in another brand, there is a big advantage to staying with Pentax.

---------- Post added 02-13-15 at 12:19 PM ----------

Originally posted by monochrome

$2,000 is an entry level FF camera (List) price at introduction. Certainly the street price for an entry level FF camera is 25% lower at end-of-product-cycle.

Correct. I also agree that loading up a bunch of new features and bumping up the cost is a tricky way to go.

Pentax really got back into the game of the serious DSLR (to the extent it did) with the K10d--at least that was the model that got me back into Pentax on the digital side. At the time, my reason for getting that body was not because it had every bell and whistle, but because 1) I could use my Pentax lenses and 2) it had a feature set comparable to other brands but at a lower price.

jsherman999 · 02-13-2015, 01:16 PM

Originally posted by monochrome

*I've read that a FF sensor costs the manufacturer $300 - $400 more than an APSc sensor at the factory level. Then they have to add markup for themselves, the distributor and the retailer. I don't know this, but the total markup might be as much as 100%

What I've seen (Thom Hogan and one other source I can't recall) is that the sensor in the D3x cost Nikon $400 more than the one they used in the D300 ($50), both bought from Sony, although (reportedly) including some design specs provided by Nikon. That delta has since reportedly been reduced in the latest bodies.

So that was cost to Nikon (buyer,) not to Sony (Manufacturer,) so that removes one of your markup items. Re the rest, I don't know why the sensor markup would be on a separate schedule and not just bundled with the overall camera markup.

Regardless, I suspect we could estimate a FF sensor costing Pentax between $200 and $400 more per camera. And yes, there will be additional costs as itemized but I doubt that all the additional costs would surpass that big sensor delta, or even match it. A mirror might cost Pentax $20, a FF one maybe $30, ASICS $25 to $50, and that's the biggest costs. A motor costs very little, you can buy motors of the same torque requirements from Edmunds *retail* for $9. Aside from the R&D costs and sensor the actual parts don't cost as much more as people think.

Even if all the additional parts cost cost as much as the sensor, we're looking at a markup of $800 over the cost of the K3 to get Pentax as much per-unit profit as the K3 gets now. A markup of more gives more.. so if a K3 is making a profit at $1000, the K-FF makes the same profit (not % profit, same dollar value) at around $1800. If it sells for $2500, it makes and additional $700 per body, which could be applied toward a ROI schedule we presume. Then there are the additional lenses sold...

(mainly what I'm getting at is that Pentax will probably make a profit with this venture unless the bottom falls out of the DSLR market

)

kooks · 02-13-2015, 01:21 PM

K3 with FF sensor and some other tweeks will work perfect for me.. perhaps just a tweek on AF, flash sync, tethering, and wifi (without the flucard) would be really nice.

LFLee · 02-13-2015, 01:26 PM

Originally posted by GeneV

How do you know that?

And if you buy a body in another mount, all your lenses are orphans, so even if you can buy the same features in another brand, there is a big advantage to staying with Pentax.[COLOR="Silver"]

hm.... the thing is, old FF lenses might not work so well on new FF camera. That's why they are pushing new DFA lenses, along with the new FF camera. I am not sure holding lots of old FF lenses really is the reason to buy the Pentax FF.

If you need to 'rebuy' lenses for Pentax FF, one might as well consider other system.

**Ash** · 02-13-2015, 01:32 PM

Then again, Pentax specialises in support for legacy glass. I couldn't see an issue with the FF camera handling M, A, F and FA glass the same way past Pentax dSLRs have. It will only be the image circle that will differ, and since film SLRs covered this circle whilst having all these lenses mounted, again, I cannot see a huge challenge in supporting pre-DFA lenses.

Eyewanders · 02-13-2015, 01:42 PM

Originally posted by LFLee

hm.... the thing is, old FF lenses might not work so well on new FF camera. That's why they are pushing new DFA lenses, along with the new FF camera. I am not sure holding lots of old FF lenses really is the reason to buy the Pentax FF.

I disagree. They will push new DFA lenses simply to remain competitive in the market. A simple deduction to be made here (and Pentax/Ricoh certainly *knows* this): if the legacy FF Pentax lenses for some reason *do* perform poorly on the upcoming K-FF camera, then this entire endeavor will live the shortest lifespan imaginable. If they aren't genuinely catering to the existing installed base of Pentax users, it is madness to expect they'll move an inch in the market doing so simply by announcing 2 modern FF lenses, a body, and a roadmap.
Holding lots of legacy Pentax glass is truly the biggest reason to buy the new Pentax FF.

kooks · 02-13-2015, 01:45 PM

Well rumors said that they will release around 8 lenses with the 2015 .. dont know if all are going to be FF lenses but thats what have been around..

**monochrome** · 02-13-2015, 01:56 PM

Originally posted by jsherman999

What I've seen (Thom Hogan and one other source I can't recall) is that the sensor in the D3x cost Nikon $400 more than the one they used in the D300 ($50), both bought from Sony, although (reportedly) including some design specs provided by Nikon. That delta has since reportedly been reduced in the latest bodies.

So that was cost to Nikon (buyer,) not to Sony (Manufacturer,) so that removes one of your markup items. Re the rest, I don't know why the sensor markup would be on a separate schedule and not just bundled with the overall camera markup.

Regardless, I suspect we could estimate a FF sensor costing Pentax between $200 and $400 more per camera. And yes, there will be additional costs as itemized but I doubt that all the additional costs would surpass that big sensor delta, or even match it. A mirror might cost Pentax $20, a FF one maybe $30, ASICS $25 to $50, and that's the biggest costs. A motor costs very little, you can buy motors of the same torque requirements from Edmunds *retail* for $9. Aside from the R&D costs and sensor the actual parts don't cost as much more as people think.

Even if all the additional parts cost cost as much as the sensor, we're looking at a markup of $800 over the cost of the K3 to get Pentax as much per-unit profit as the K3 gets now. A markup of more gives more.. so if a K3 is making a profit at $1000, the K-FF makes the same profit (not % profit, same dollar value) at around $1800. If it sells for $2500, it makes and additional $700 per body, which could be applied toward a ROI schedule we presume. Then there are the additional lenses sold...

(mainly what I'm getting at is that Pentax will probably make a profit with this venture unless the bottom falls out of the DSLR market

)

I don't disagree with your conclusion, Jay, but you're flipping between Sony's loading dock, Ricoh's loading dock and B&H's loading dock.

I meant to write what it costs Ricoh-Japan to bring 1 K-FF to their loading dock; the question isolated the cost of the Sony Sensor TO RICOH-Japan, at Japan's loading dock - what price they sell them to Ricoh Imaging Americas for.
Ricoh Imaging Americas marks that price up to compensate their salespeople, overhead and to make a profit in that Division. So what's the cost at Ricoh Imaging Americas' loading dock after their markup?
That's what B&H pays. B&H marks up the camera again to cover their overhead and salesman (if a phone order) - so does your $800 total markup over the cost of the parts apply at Ricoh-Japan, Ricoh-Americas or B&H?

If the K-FF MSRP at launch is $2,649 (given the strong dollar), does that mean the price at Ricoh-Japan loading dock was $1,325, including the FF sensor that cost them $200 - $300 - $400 more than the APSc to buy from Sony? I think we also have to include a likely different (faster of larger or dual) Milbeaut Image Processor, faster or larger or dual Bus, larger shutter - maybe faster and more durable, too (Seikosha? it can't be a Copal shutter), larger prism (including R&D cost), a rumored new IBIS system, and maybe another technology surprise, plus general engineering expense for the entire thing. The financial guys do a complete cost-accounting routine on the entire product (including run-time cost of manufacturing which isn't much different than any other camera body), and

Add a profit margin for RICOH-Japan at the shipping dock. Once the camera goes out the back door all of Ricoh-Japan's profit is earned - everything that happens afterward is someone else's profit.

But everyone after japan (Americas, B&H) mark up a percentage - not a dollar amount - because that's what businesses do. Businesses take a percentage of Gross Revenue. A higher dollar final cost item has a higher dollar final profit / unit because it is higher dollar. Of course, unit volume is lower than for lower dollar units, so Gross Revenue (and Gross Profit) may be equivalent. so:

A FF sensor that cost RICOH-Japan (for example) $300 to buy from Sony might cost a consumer (for example) $600 to buy from B&H
Depending on which price point Ricoh targets, the FF camera they release might cost $1,325 at the RICOH-Japan loading dock and $2,650 at the retail customer point-of-sale - IOW Ricoh-Japan's cost might actually be higher than a K-3 Retail, end-consumer price.

If it really is targeted at professional photographers I doubt it will be much less than $2,700 MSRP (controlled for the strong dollar).

jsherman999 · 02-13-2015, 02:14 PM

Originally posted by monochrome

I don't disagree with your conclusion, Jay, but you're flipping between Sony's loading dock, Ricoh's loading dock and B&H's loading dock.
....

I get the markup requirements at each stage, but If Pentax is making a profit on a (final price) $1000 K3 after it gets through all the loading-docs markups, a K-FF doesn't incur any additional loading-docs markups that the K3 wouldn't - it takes the same path to the customer.

.

twitch · 02-13-2015, 02:24 PM

I want a flippy screen, wifi and a FF sensor.

aleonx3 · 02-13-2015, 02:30 PM

Originally posted by LFLee

no. If it is just K3 + FF sensor, it will not be enough. why? because with the same amount of money, I can buy CaNikon.

This is funny... (and make sense ?)... why would I wait until Pentax come out with FF before I decide to buy a Canikon FF model. I could have bought it now... and many to choose from.

GeneV · 02-13-2015, 02:41 PM

Originally posted by LFLee

hm.... the thing is, old FF lenses might not work so well on new FF camera. That's why they are pushing new DFA lenses, along with the new FF camera. I am not sure holding lots of old FF lenses really is the reason to buy the Pentax FF.

If you need to 'rebuy' lenses for Pentax FF, one might as well consider other system.

That is a lot of assumptions, though. D-FA lenses have been around a while, with the macro offerings, and the two new lenses are focal length/aperture combinations which have not been available from Pentax, Comparable lenses are very popular with users of systems from other FF manufacturers. I don't see those new lenses as anything other than serious preparation by Pentax for getting into the FF market.

02-13-2015, 01:16 PM	#20
jsherman999 Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Photos: Gallery Posts: 8,237	napkin scribblings Originally posted by monochrome I've read that a FF sensor costs the manufacturer $300 - $400 more than an APSc sensor at the factory level. Then they have to add markup for themselves, the distributor and the retailer. I don't know* this, but the total markup might be as much as 100% What I've seen (Thom Hogan and one other source I can't recall) is that the sensor in the D3x cost Nikon $400 more than the one they used in the D300 ($50), both bought from Sony, although (reportedly) including some design specs provided by Nikon. That delta has since reportedly been reduced in the latest bodies. So that was cost to Nikon (buyer,) not to Sony (Manufacturer,) so that removes one of your markup items. Re the rest, I don't know why the sensor markup would be on a separate schedule and not just bundled with the overall camera markup. Regardless, I suspect we could estimate a FF sensor costing Pentax between $200 and $400 more per camera. And yes, there will be additional costs as itemized but I doubt that all the additional costs would surpass that big sensor delta, or even match it. A mirror might cost Pentax $20, a FF one maybe $30, ASICS $25 to $50, and that's the biggest costs. A motor costs very little, you can buy motors of the same torque requirements from Edmunds retail for $9. Aside from the R&D costs and sensor the actual parts don't cost as much more as people think. Even if all the additional parts cost cost as much as the sensor, we're looking at a markup of $800 over the cost of the K3 to get Pentax as much per-unit profit as the K3 gets now. A markup of more gives more.. so if a K3 is making a profit at $1000, the K-FF makes the same profit (not % profit, same dollar value) at around $1800. If it sells for $2500, it makes and additional $700 per body, which could be applied toward a ROI schedule we presume. Then there are the additional lenses sold... (mainly what I'm getting at is that Pentax will probably make a profit with this venture unless the bottom falls out of the DSLR market ) Last edited by jsherman999; 02-13-2015 at 01:24 PM.

02-13-2015, 01:56 PM	#26
monochrome Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Working From Home Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 26,276	Originally posted by jsherman999 What I've seen (Thom Hogan and one other source I can't recall) is that the sensor in the D3x cost Nikon $400 more than the one they used in the D300 ($50), both bought from Sony, although (reportedly) including some design specs provided by Nikon. That delta has since reportedly been reduced in the latest bodies. So that was cost to Nikon (buyer,) not to Sony (Manufacturer,) so that removes one of your markup items. Re the rest, I don't know why the sensor markup would be on a separate schedule and not just bundled with the overall camera markup. Regardless, I suspect we could estimate a FF sensor costing Pentax between $200 and $400 more per camera. And yes, there will be additional costs as itemized but I doubt that all the additional costs would surpass that big sensor delta, or even match it. A mirror might cost Pentax $20, a FF one maybe $30, ASICS $25 to $50, and that's the biggest costs. A motor costs very little, you can buy motors of the same torque requirements from Edmunds retail for $9. Aside from the R&D costs and sensor the actual parts don't cost as much more as people think. Even if all the additional parts cost cost as much as the sensor, we're looking at a markup of $800 over the cost of the K3 to get Pentax as much per-unit profit as the K3 gets now. A markup of more gives more.. so if a K3 is making a profit at $1000, the K-FF makes the same profit (not % profit, same dollar value) at around $1800. If it sells for $2500, it makes and additional $700 per body, which could be applied toward a ROI schedule we presume. Then there are the additional lenses sold... (mainly what I'm getting at is that Pentax will probably make a profit with this venture unless the bottom falls out of the DSLR market ) I don't disagree with your conclusion, Jay, but you're flipping between Sony's loading dock, Ricoh's loading dock and B&H's loading dock. I meant to write what it costs Ricoh-Japan to bring 1 K-FF to their loading dock; the question isolated the cost of the Sony Sensor TO RICOH-Japan, at Japan's loading dock - what price they sell them to Ricoh Imaging Americas for. Ricoh Imaging Americas marks that price up to compensate their salespeople, overhead and to make a profit in that Division. So what's the cost at Ricoh Imaging Americas' loading dock after their markup? That's what B&H pays. B&H marks up the camera again to cover their overhead and salesman (if a phone order) - so does your $800 total markup over the cost of the parts apply at Ricoh-Japan, Ricoh-Americas or B&H? If the K-FF MSRP at launch is $2,649 (given the strong dollar), does that mean the price at Ricoh-Japan loading dock was $1,325, including the FF sensor that cost them $200 - $300 - $400 more than the APSc to buy from Sony? I think we also have to include a likely different (faster of larger or dual) Milbeaut Image Processor, faster or larger or dual Bus, larger shutter - maybe faster and more durable, too (Seikosha? it can't be a Copal shutter), larger prism (including R&D cost), a rumored new IBIS system, and maybe another technology surprise, plus general engineering expense for the entire thing. The financial guys do a complete cost-accounting routine on the entire product (including run-time cost of manufacturing which isn't much different than any other camera body), and Add a profit margin for RICOH-Japan at the shipping dock. Once the camera goes out the back door all of Ricoh-Japan's profit is earned - everything that happens afterward is someone else's profit. But everyone after japan (Americas, B&H) mark up a percentage - not a dollar amount - because that's what businesses do. Businesses take a percentage of Gross Revenue. A higher dollar final cost item has a higher dollar final profit / unit because it is higher dollar. Of course, unit volume is lower than for lower dollar units, so Gross Revenue (and Gross Profit) may be equivalent. so: A FF sensor that cost RICOH-Japan (for example) $300 to buy from Sony might cost a consumer (for example) $600 to buy from B&H Depending on which price point Ricoh targets, the FF camera they release might cost $1,325 at the RICOH-Japan loading dock and $2,650 at the retail customer point-of-sale - IOW Ricoh-Japan's cost might actually be higher than a K-3 Retail, end-consumer price. If it really is targeted at professional photographers I doubt it will be much less than $2,700 MSRP (controlled for the strong dollar). Last edited by monochrome; 02-13-2015 at 02:02 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
why is a full frame Pentax such a holy grail?	adwb	Pentax Full Frame	427	07-24-2015 12:32 PM
What is a " full frame, interchangeable sensor" for the LX?	nick h.	Troubleshooting and Beginner Help	8	11-18-2013 08:14 PM
really...is it a good bussines for Pentax a FULL FRAME Camera?	pentaz	Pentax Full Frame	88	08-01-2013 08:15 AM
Would you buy a Pentax Full Frame DSLR?	Tesla	Pentax Full Frame	364	07-11-2013 10:01 AM
Is Full Frame Enough?	mithrandir	Photographic Technique	10	10-04-2008 10:00 PM

02-13-2015, 10:11 AM	#16
kadajawi Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2010 Posts: 2,799	Originally posted by mohb Don't canon have full frame cameras made for taking video? Are Pentax supposed to be able to compete on every level with Canon/Nikon or is it enough to bring out a high quality FF that meets the needs of most photographers? Nope. Canon has found that selling the same cameras with a handle and some other small changes for 15k is more profitable. The DSLRs haven't been improved for video, some are even worse than what they used to offer. In what sense is the K-5 terrible for video? I prefer it to many other cameras. The look is pretty nice, it's not too sharp/harsh/video like, no rolling shutter, smooth, ...

02-13-2015, 10:26 AM	#17
LFLee Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: Southern California Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,292	no. If it is just K3 + FF sensor, it will not be enough. why? because with the same amount of money, I can buy CaNikon.

02-13-2015, 10:35 AM	#18
Racerdew Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2011 Location: Thousand Oaks, CA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 285	Originally posted by mohb Don't canon have full frame cameras made for taking video? Are Pentax supposed to be able to compete on every level with Canon/Nikon or is it enough to bring out a high quality FF that meets the needs of most photographers? Yes, yes they should compete on every level. They are in business to make a profit. We can sell all of our gear tomorrow and buy a Nikon FF for 2000 that is really good. So yes Pentax or Ricoh, need to step up and compete with the best and become the best. You can always be replaced so you better be working hard to compete with your competition. Who wants to buy from the lower class company when you can have the best. I don't think flip phone sales are real good these days.

02-13-2015, 12:11 PM	#19
GeneV Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Albuquerque NM Photos: Albums Posts: 9,830	Originally posted by LFLee no. If it is just K3 + FF sensor, it will not be enough. why? because with the same amount of money, I can buy CaNikon. How do you know that? And if you buy a body in another mount, all your lenses are orphans, so even if you can buy the same features in another brand, there is a big advantage to staying with Pentax. ---------- Post added 02-13-15 at 12:19 PM ---------- Originally posted by monochrome $2,000 is an entry level FF camera (List) price at introduction. Certainly the street price for an entry level FF camera is 25% lower at end-of-product-cycle. Correct. I also agree that loading up a bunch of new features and bumping up the cost is a tricky way to go. Pentax really got back into the game of the serious DSLR (to the extent it did) with the K10d--at least that was the model that got me back into Pentax on the digital side. At the time, my reason for getting that body was not because it had every bell and whistle, but because 1) I could use my Pentax lenses and 2) it had a feature set comparable to other brands but at a lower price.

02-13-2015, 01:21 PM	#21
kooks Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2011 Location: San José, Costa Rica Photos: Albums Posts: 794	K3 with FF sensor and some other tweeks will work perfect for me.. perhaps just a tweek on AF, flash sync, tethering, and wifi (without the flucard) would be really nice.

02-13-2015, 01:26 PM	#22
LFLee Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: Southern California Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,292	Originally posted by GeneV How do you know that? And if you buy a body in another mount, all your lenses are orphans, so even if you can buy the same features in another brand, there is a big advantage to staying with Pentax.[COLOR="Silver"] hm.... the thing is, old FF lenses might not work so well on new FF camera. That's why they are pushing new DFA lenses, along with the new FF camera. I am not sure holding lots of old FF lenses really is the reason to buy the Pentax FF. If you need to 'rebuy' lenses for Pentax FF, one might as well consider other system.

02-13-2015, 01:32 PM	#23
Ash Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Toowoomba, Queensland Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 23,920	Then again, Pentax specialises in support for legacy glass. I couldn't see an issue with the FF camera handling M, A, F and FA glass the same way past Pentax dSLRs have. It will only be the image circle that will differ, and since film SLRs covered this circle whilst having all these lenses mounted, again, I cannot see a huge challenge in supporting pre-DFA lenses.

02-13-2015, 01:42 PM	#24
Eyewanders Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Land of the Salish Sea Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,343	Originally posted by LFLee hm.... the thing is, old FF lenses might not work so well on new FF camera. That's why they are pushing new DFA lenses, along with the new FF camera. I am not sure holding lots of old FF lenses really is the reason to buy the Pentax FF. I disagree. They will push new DFA lenses simply to remain competitive in the market. A simple deduction to be made here (and Pentax/Ricoh certainly knows this): if the legacy FF Pentax lenses for some reason do perform poorly on the upcoming K-FF camera, then this entire endeavor will live the shortest lifespan imaginable. If they aren't genuinely catering to the existing installed base of Pentax users, it is madness to expect they'll move an inch in the market doing so simply by announcing 2 modern FF lenses, a body, and a roadmap. Holding lots of legacy Pentax glass is truly the biggest reason to buy the new Pentax FF.

02-13-2015, 01:45 PM	#25
kooks Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2011 Location: San José, Costa Rica Photos: Albums Posts: 794	Well rumors said that they will release around 8 lenses with the 2015 .. dont know if all are going to be FF lenses but thats what have been around..

02-13-2015, 02:14 PM	#27
jsherman999 Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Photos: Gallery Posts: 8,237	Originally posted by monochrome I don't disagree with your conclusion, Jay, but you're flipping between Sony's loading dock, Ricoh's loading dock and B&H's loading dock. .... I get the markup requirements at each stage, but If Pentax is making a profit on a (final price) $1000 K3 after it gets through all the loading-docs markups, a K-FF doesn't incur any additional loading-docs markups that the K3 wouldn't - it takes the same path to the customer. .

02-13-2015, 02:24 PM	#28
twitch Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2009 Posts: 4,571	I want a flippy screen, wifi and a FF sensor.

02-13-2015, 02:30 PM	#29
aleonx3 Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Brampton, Ontario Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,996	Originally posted by LFLee no. If it is just K3 + FF sensor, it will not be enough. why? because with the same amount of money, I can buy CaNikon. This is funny... (and make sense ?)... why would I wait until Pentax come out with FF before I decide to buy a Canikon FF model. I could have bought it now... and many to choose from.

02-13-2015, 02:41 PM	#30
GeneV Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Albuquerque NM Photos: Albums Posts: 9,830	Originally posted by LFLee hm.... the thing is, old FF lenses might not work so well on new FF camera. That's why they are pushing new DFA lenses, along with the new FF camera. I am not sure holding lots of old FF lenses really is the reason to buy the Pentax FF. If you need to 'rebuy' lenses for Pentax FF, one might as well consider other system. That is a lot of assumptions, though. D-FA lenses have been around a while, with the macro offerings, and the two new lenses are focal length/aperture combinations which have not been available from Pentax, Comparable lenses are very popular with users of systems from other FF manufacturers. I don't see those new lenses as anything other than serious preparation by Pentax for getting into the FF market.