[Clavius]

Just pointing out, that's the a7. B&H prices:

1. a7 = $1,198 - 12Mp
2. a7II = $1,698 - 24Mp
3. a7r = $2,298 - 36Mp
4. a7s = $2,498 - 12Mp w/ 4K video

It is not a competitor with the coming Pentax FF. An alternative, maybe, if having a FF sensor at a really low price is the objective and you don't mind manual focusing your lenses using a third-party adapter.

Third-party adapter and manual focus are irrelivant. And only applies to Pentaxians with a nice collection of FA lenses. But if I'm a Pentaxian with crop lenses (or very few FF lenses) I could get the ~$2500,- Pentax FF and still need to spend some more from there onwards on lenses. But if my pockets aren't so deep, I could also get the $1200,- A7 and have $1300,- to spend on FE lenses. Or, better yet, an A7II @ $1700,- with $800,- to spare for a lens. And by the time the Pentax FF is released, the price discrepancy will be even more interesting. And probably there will be even more Sony cameras and lens options to choose from too.

I'm sure the Pentax FF camera and lens line is going to be awesome. Probably better, sure. But we should accept that it's not going to be in the Pentaxy price bracket anymore.

---

Last edited by Clavius; 04-01-2015 at 03:11 AM.

[normhead]

Ya, but you're stuck with mirrorless. You have to be comfortable with mirrorless for that to be true. At this point all the pro-mirrorless freaks jump in and dismiss the opinions of all who haven't gone mirrorless yet and call them neanderthals and troglodytes and pretty much everything else, but that doesn't change the fact, most of us are never going mirrorless. In this case I'm pretty sure I know who's in error.

[mecrox]

Third-party adapter and manual focus are irrelivant. And only applies to Pentaxians with a nice collection of FA lenses. But if I'm a Pentaxian with crop lenses (or very few FF lenses) I could get the ~$2500,- Pentax FF and still need to spend some more from there onwards on lenses. But if my pockets aren't so deep, I could also get the $1200,- A7 and have $1300,- to spend on FE lenses. Or, better yet, an A7II @ $1700,- with $800,- to spare for a lens. And by the time the Pentax FF is released, the price discrepancy will be even more interesting. And probably there will be even more Sony cameras and lens options to choose from too.

I'm sure the Pentax FF camera and lens line is going to be awesome. Probably better, sure. But we should accept that it's not going to be in the Pentaxy price bracket anymore.

Why should it work like this? It sounds as if the assumption is that someone will use only one camera and so will indeed eventually need to find a suite of lenses for it. But surely a lot of folks don't do that these days? They use different cameras for different purposes. If I had an FF camera I would use it for dimly lit church interiors and landscapes, most probably. A couple of Samyang lenses and my old MF Pentax lenses would likely be more than enough for it. A typical FF would not be a good choice for street photography (imho), critters using a macro and travel (when light and compact kit is important), at least in my case. A Pentax K3 and appropriate lenses is more than enough for those. This all points towards a second-hander which can take a variety of lenses via adapters, because I wouldn't use it all the time so $$$ is not worth it. The truth is there are 1001 alternatives out there now. No one needs to feel that if they need something their APS-C camera cannot deliver, then their only alternative is bankrupting themselves by plonking down 5000 bucks on "FF". The camera-makers might love that, but I doubt their users do. I wouldn't really care whether the FF second-hander I had was OVF or EVF. I'd be buying it for the sensor and would use it on a tripod a lot of the time anyway.

[Clavius]

Ya, but you're stuck with mirrorless. You have to be comfortable with mirrorless for that to be true. At this point all the pro-mirrorless freaks jump in and dismiss the opinions of all who haven't gone mirrorless yet and call them neanderthals and troglodytes and pretty much everything else, but that doesn't change the fact, most of us are never going mirrorless. In this case I'm pretty sure I know who's in error.

Personal preference like this is what I can understand and respect. There's even people who only want to use rangefinders and pay an additional $6000,- to achieve it. But they were talking about price and sacrificing AF functionality and needing adapters for a lower cost FF body. Which is plain hogwash because of that lower price.

[monochrome]

Third-party adapter and manual focus are irrelivant. And only applies to Pentaxians with a nice collection of FA lenses.

The OP's question asks what are alternatives to the Pentax FF.

People with 'a nice collection of FA lenses' are the prime targets for the Pentax FF, especially if the rumored 5000 units a month for a year volume is correct. Consequently adapters and manual focus are actually very relevant for the actual target buyer. There aren't many (any?) acceptable alternatives to the Pentax FF.

People with a nice collection of manual focus primes are targets for the adapted Sony MILC's. For them an adapter and no AF may not be relevant at all.

Everything is a compromise. For $2,7xx we'll get a pretty close to pro-spec Pentax FF camera. For somewhat less money we can get somewhat less camera.

What matters is what matters - there's no absolute right or wrong answer.

[Clavius]

The OP's question asks what are alternatives to the Pentax FF.

People with 'a nice collection of FA lenses' are the prime targets for the Pentax FF, especially if the rumored 5000 units a month for a year volume is correct. Consequently adapters and manual focus are actually very relevant for the actual target buyer. There aren't many (any?) acceptable alternatives to the Pentax FF.

People with a nice collection of manual focus primes are targets for the adapted Sony MILC's. For them an adapter and no AF may not be relevant at all.

All true, no doubt. If you have a large collection of FA glass there is no real workable alternative at all. The only alternative is in switching. But that isn't what the OP is asking, is it? He is openly considering other brands, that involves getting other (AF) lenses.

Hang on... 5.000 units a month for a year equals 60.000 units! Well, I hope truly it will work out that way.

Everything is a compromise. For $2,7xx we'll get a pretty close to pro-spec Pentax FF camera. For somewhat less money we can get somewhat less camera.

Pro-spec camera vs less camera? The specs of the Pentax FF aren't even known yet. Ok, you win: if it's more expensive it also means that it's better.

What matters is what matters - there's no absolute right or wrong answer.

True, there is no absolute right answer. There are very wrong answers though: Answers that are based on misinformation. And telling the OP that there are no alternatives for the Pentax FF, whilst there are currently 38 new and used FF models on the market, with a giant pletora of lenses, marketed by 4 brands that have many more years of experience in the FF market, goes directly against the facts.

[Rondec]

I feel like "Sony" is the answer to question I haven't asked yet.

I think Pentax full frame will fit in well with the ethos of cameras that Ricoh has already released. Nicely specified, tough body, nice ergonomics and yes, a very nice optical viewfinder. It isn't rocket science at this point. The idea that Ricoh was going to buy Pentax, a company with this sort of history, and then throw everything out the window to try to get them to release Sony NEX or Fuji XT knock offs is absurd. Pentax is the K mount (for the most part) with a little bit of medium format mixed in for flavor.

As to what to do if full frame is to rich in price for folks, I guess it all depends on how much you like auto focus and auto control of aperture. I personally like those things a lot and wouldn't be particularly satisfied with a camera body that didn't allow for those things, but if you don't care, then there are a lot of options out there that would work. I would rather save for the Pentax body, as I really have bought into the style of bodies they produce. Very much the opposite feel from what a company like Sony turns out.

[TomB_tx]

It all depends on how you shoot, whether you want autofocus, and what lenses you want to use. I hate autofocus, love shooting film with an MX or LX, and learned to like aperture preferred exposure from my LX. Although I expected to hate EVFs, I've found I can focus the A7 better and faster than an SLR, especially in dim light where the finder is bright regardless of the actual light level and f-stop. My cheap adapter works fine with all my vintage Pentax lenses, and an M42 to NEX adapter does the Takumars directly to the camera. Plus I can use all my '60s & '70s Canon, Nikon, and Leica R lenses as well. These old lenses are much better than people think - I now have no need for new lenses to fit a modern camera and have the convenience of digital. I doubt if the new Pentax FF would be as good an alternative for me.

[ElJamoquio]

For somewhat less money we can get somewhat less camera.

It's not that cut-and-dried.

First off, you're right, the street price has *very* recently been raised from $2100 to $2300 for the Sony A7R. You also get a grip for that price.

The price for the A7 is $1200.

We don't know the specs of the Pentax FF or the price of the FF, but in either case the Sony alternative is likely to be a substantial amount less money.

The Sony alternative might be, for some users, a 'somewhat less' camera. But here is when a different user might come in and say - the Sony is MORE camera in several ways, primarily revolving around the EVF that is very useful in many situations. The sony will almost certainly be lighter weight, have a smaller size, and far greater ability to use other systems lenses, some even with autofocus. In addition, for the A7R, you're getting a grip that's useful, whereas you'd likely pay another $250 when the Pentax comes out, for a grip that you may or may not want.

So, it's likely between several hundreds to a couple of thousand less money, and a substantially better and substantially worse camera.

[Kunzite]

Actually when we extrapolate from what we know about Pentax, the conclusion can be only one: we will get a better camera at a higher price:
- Pentax-level build quality, perhaps even improved from the K-3 (compared to no weather sealing and flimsy mount requiring 3rd-party reinforced components)
- Pentax level optical viewfinder, only bigger
- a properly-sized camera made for human hands; the grip will be truly optional (and not a band-aid fix to an awfully unergonomic body)
etc.

[ElJamoquio]

Yes, a Cadillac Escalade is a much better vehicle than a Prius at a much higher price.

[Kunzite]

I can't be convinced by poorly made analogies; those are only used to restate personal biases and not to support them.
Our perfectly-sized Pentax DSLRs are nothing like a huge, unwieldy SUV, anyway.

[ElJamoquio]

I can't be convinced

I know.

[clackers]

I still prefer the evf.

I find EVFs overrated, Acg.

I have an A7 and you can't trust focus peaking on it.

Magnified focus only does the same job as Live View on a DSLR.

The WYSIWYG is false - an 8-bit JPEG rendering that doesn't express the true dynamic range, and it gets so dark when you close down the aperture for flash photography it's like you still have the lens cap on - you have to go into a menu and turn on an artificial light level.

With fast manual lenses, nothing beats the focus accuracy of the Katzeye split-prism screen installed in my K-30.

[Kunzite]

I know.

The proper quote is "I can't be convinced by poorly made analogies". I can, of course, be convinced by proper arguments - though in this case, on this subject and on this section you cannot possibly have any. Many things are about preferences and "this works better for me", and you can't offer any reason why your preferences would be the "correct" ones.
There's a reason why I don't haunt other brands' forums taunting with my preference (and "works better" argumentation) for DSLRs.