So what would turn you off from buying the new Pentax FF

mecrox · 09-07-2015, 02:01 PM

There would have to be something really off-key to turn me off if I were in the market for a 36-42 mpx DSLR camera and that is very unlikely, I'd hope. I'd give the camera six months in the market and see how I felt about it (and about the ecosystem around it), before I made any move. As it happens I'm not in the market for a camera like this because I don't need that many mpx for my photography. What I hope Ricoh take pains to avoid, however, are the reliability problems which tainted the K5 (sensor stains and loose buttons), the K3 (mirror flap) and the K3 II (a full recall, IIRC). Not only would that spoil the camera's early days but folks spending serious $$$ aren't likely to be all that forgiving if major or perhaps even more minor bugs start to emerge. There's a very tough game being played out there with some rough customers fighting for a small and perhaps shrinking pool of customers.

Last edited by mecrox; 09-07-2015 at 02:11 PM.

**interested_observer** · 09-07-2015, 02:55 PM

Originally posted by bass3587

Tethering and better AF. I have no doubt being a Pentax the IQ will be excellent but I want it to be able to compete with the Canikons FF. Tethering is only available for the medium format and it needs to be for APSC and FF.

Pentax should have had a fully functional tethering capability available since the K20.
________________________________

The two new lenses weigh in at 4 pounds each.

A wide angle lens that competes with Nikon's 14-24/f2.8.

wed7 · 09-07-2015, 11:43 PM

Originally posted by Mattox

With all the rumors and requests out there let's change the subject a bit (maybe Pentax Ricoh are listening???). What would put you off from buying the FF. For me it comes down to one feature that Pentax just can't get right and I hope with the new FF they get it right. If they do t come out with a fast and super accurate AF system for me I won't be buying. I find there AF to be terrible and if they don't do anything about it with the FF I may have to say goodbye

-Because I don't have FF lenses.

zeitlos · 09-08-2015, 12:49 AM

1. Price
2. Size

blende8 · 09-08-2015, 04:54 AM

@monochrome:
Are you suggesting that the new camera should come out in both screw-mount and bayonet-mount?

bilybianca · 09-08-2015, 01:59 PM

1. Price - even if it's "worth it" I can't buy with money I don't have. Hoping for and counting on ~2000 EUR.

2. If early adopters' reviews reveal that film era premium lenses are a bit obsolete, with annoying colour fringing, I'm off. I hope not, but I do admit I'm a bit concerned about the matter.

If the price is what I'm able to pay and early adopters' reviews are enthusiastic, I have a nice set of K, A, A*, F* and FA lenses waiting for a workout.

rawr · 09-08-2015, 02:12 PM

Originally posted by bilybianca

film era premium lenses are a bit obsolete, with annoying colour fringing

Most have been tried already on Sony sensor full-frames like the A7 series, and they usually perform OK. There are several threads about it on these forums, with samples from many an older Pentax lens. Some older film lenses may no doubt have some issues with chromatic aberration etc, but I wouldn't worry too much.

I think if an older lens performs OK on your existing Pentax APS-C, it will do OK on a FF.

**mattb123** · 09-08-2015, 03:28 PM

Price (value).
Size. I don't mind big but if it's really huge I might rather use a 645D/Z (if I could afford one).
Fatal flaws.

redcat · 09-10-2015, 01:23 AM

Prize !
I know Pentax will deliver a great FF camera, best of its class like always, if it's ~2000$ then I'm the early adopter, but if it's ~3000$ then I might be turned off ^^

**Rondec** · 09-10-2015, 02:45 AM

Cost of more than 3000 dollars. Otherwise, I'm probably getting one. My wife has shot a bunch of weddings this year and has the money to spend and she really wants a full frame camera. Probably continue to shoot a K3 along side it.

Edvinas · 09-10-2015, 03:09 AM

1. Price

2. High megapixel count - rumoured 42 megapixels are way too much for me, I'm fine with 12 Mpix Nikon D3s and disliking Nikon D600 for it's 24 Mpix, which give me virtually no advantege, but consume huge amount of storage space. 42 Mpix is total overkill...

Gimbal · 09-10-2015, 04:01 AM - **1 Like**

One of the good things with lots of pixels is that you can do some lens and perspective corrections, straighten up the horizon, and maybe crop a little and then downsize to 12Mp (if that is what you want). And those 12Mp will be perfect. Much better than 12Mp from a 12Mp sensor with interpolated data from the bayer matrix, even if you don’t do any further corrections.

As for the topic, price will stop me if it is to high. And of course minimum is 36Mp, 42 would be great.

pathdoc · 09-10-2015, 07:43 AM

Originally posted by UncleVanya

If DA lenses that cover FF are locked into APSC crop mode.

Lack of intermediate crop modes between APSC and FF.

Much weaker than competition autofocus.

Further k mount crippling (loss of screw drive for example).

I find Pentax AF sufficient for my needs, so I won't address that issue, and Intermediate crop settings are something I don't get the point of. Loss of screw-drive would, however, be an absolute deal-breaker, as would a crop-lock on APS-C lenses (unless they relented and changed that in firmware). I'm with you 100% on those two.

I would like a pixel density equivalent to the K-5, so I didn't lose anything in APS-C crop mode.

I think an inbuilt flash is a necessity. I understand why they didn't put one on the K3-II, but I would rather have the flash than the GPS.

Right now my biggest turnoff is that I don't actually NEED it. However, there may come a day when my K-5 dies, and if that is the case I will be looking seriously at the (or possibly by that time a) Pentax full-frame to replace it. Subject of course to the above.

neostyles · 09-10-2015, 12:07 PM

I think the boxy design will put alot of people off. I think that has whats been turning people away from pentax. Forget about the dynamic range, when they pickup one and see the not so modern ui that is reminscent of consumer devices from like 2002, i think it really serves to give their cameras a dated feel to be honest. Pentax has been modernizing the tech slowly but imho if they want to gain a bigger foothold in the market they need to focus on the design side of things. Panasonic and sony have gorgeous, modern looking uis. No one has been into boxy cameras since the 70s. Pentax needs to stay current with design trends. Samsung has some of the nicest looking lenses ive ever seen.

They've already got alot of competition from sony i think. Sony has really changed the full frame landscape with their recent offerings. I think it would be hard for them to win me over with out atleast some sort of evf. Being able to see your exposure in advance has really changed the game imo. Sony has really made chimping a thing of the past, in the long run anyway. Low light i think is becoming the new frontier, too with many cameras offering iso 100k or more. Sony proved that you can have a complete video and stills package and i think this is what the pentax ff needs to be too. The pentax ff should have good low light in video and stills. This is where DSLRs fall short. With the d600 you get fantastic low light in stills but in video you get less than aps c it seems.

Quote:

2. High megapixel count - rumoured 42 megapixels are way too much for me, I'm fine with 12 Mpix Nikon D3s and disliking Nikon D600 for it's 24 Mpix, which give me virtually no advantege, but consume huge amount of storage space. 42 Mpix is total overkill...

Read more at: https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/169-pentax-full-frame/303217-so-what-woul...#ixzz3lMevkMBu

The d800 is a favorite of many pros because of its high megapixel count, which lets you crop in and make huge prints. If pentax wants to atteract more of the market i think starting with pros would be a good place to start. When amateurs want pics of their dog see pros using a brand i think it really makes them feel good about investing in it. The pentax ff is their chance to do just that, to make pentax more than a hipster brand. My nikon also lets me select a smaller image size if you are concerned about the file size..

**UncleVanya** · 09-10-2015, 12:26 PM

Originally posted by neostyles

I think the boxy design will put alot of people off. I think that has whats been turning people away from pentax. Forget about the dynamic range, when they pickup one and see the not so modern ui that is reminscent of consumer devices from like 2002, i think it really serves to give their cameras a dated feel to be honest. Pentax has been modernizing the tech slowly but imho if they want to gain a bigger foothold in the market they need to focus on the design side of things. Panasonic and sony have gorgeous, modern looking uis. No one has been into boxy cameras since the 70s. Pentax needs to stay current with design trends. Samsung has some of the nicest looking lenses ive ever seen.

I have never been impressed with camera "looks". But I have to say I think you have this all wrong. Style does not go before performance - and no matter how slick and good looking the system is - no advertising, no brand presence = no sales.

09-07-2015, 02:55 PM	#92
interested_observer Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Tumbleweed, Arizona Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 5,707	Originally posted by bass3587 Tethering and better AF. I have no doubt being a Pentax the IQ will be excellent but I want it to be able to compete with the Canikons FF. Tethering is only available for the medium format and it needs to be for APSC and FF. Pentax should have had a fully functional tethering capability available since the K20. ________________________________ The two new lenses weigh in at 4 pounds each. A wide angle lens that competes with Nikon's 14-24/f2.8.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
What's the first lens you would mount on your new FF Pentax DSLR?	6BQ5	Pentax Full Frame	269	01-06-2016 04:20 PM
What features would you like to see in K-3's successor? (No FF!)	mmichalak	Pentax DSLR Discussion	82	04-06-2015 03:40 AM
So what do you think of the new Sony camera killer?	FoTom	Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands	42	10-21-2013 02:03 PM
What would you be upgrading from when the mythical K3 arrives	txsbluesguy	Photographic Industry and Professionals	47	09-28-2013 07:20 AM
What would you do if Pentax does not announce a FF for 2013?	LeDave	Pentax DSLR Discussion	125	08-08-2012 08:38 PM

09-07-2015, 02:01 PM	#91
mecrox Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Oxford, UK Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,375	There would have to be something really off-key to turn me off if I were in the market for a 36-42 mpx DSLR camera and that is very unlikely, I'd hope. I'd give the camera six months in the market and see how I felt about it (and about the ecosystem around it), before I made any move. As it happens I'm not in the market for a camera like this because I don't need that many mpx for my photography. What I hope Ricoh take pains to avoid, however, are the reliability problems which tainted the K5 (sensor stains and loose buttons), the K3 (mirror flap) and the K3 II (a full recall, IIRC). Not only would that spoil the camera's early days but folks spending serious $$$ aren't likely to be all that forgiving if major or perhaps even more minor bugs start to emerge. There's a very tough game being played out there with some rough customers fighting for a small and perhaps shrinking pool of customers. Last edited by mecrox; 09-07-2015 at 02:11 PM.

09-07-2015, 11:43 PM	#93
wed7 Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: Manila, Philippines Posts: 1,421	Originally posted by Mattox With all the rumors and requests out there let's change the subject a bit (maybe Pentax Ricoh are listening???). What would put you off from buying the FF. For me it comes down to one feature that Pentax just can't get right and I hope with the new FF they get it right. If they do t come out with a fast and super accurate AF system for me I won't be buying. I find there AF to be terrible and if they don't do anything about it with the FF I may have to say goodbye -Because I don't have FF lenses.

09-08-2015, 12:49 AM	#94
zeitlos Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: In the middle of Bavaria - Germany Posts: 282	1. Price 2. Size

09-08-2015, 04:54 AM	#95
blende8 Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Bremen, Germany Photos: Albums Posts: 1,521	@monochrome: Are you suggesting that the new camera should come out in both screw-mount and bayonet-mount?

09-08-2015, 01:59 PM	#96
bilybianca Pentaxian Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Hassleholm, Sweden Photos: Gallery Posts: 334	1. Price - even if it's "worth it" I can't buy with money I don't have. Hoping for and counting on ~2000 EUR. 2. If early adopters' reviews reveal that film era premium lenses are a bit obsolete, with annoying colour fringing, I'm off. I hope not, but I do admit I'm a bit concerned about the matter. If the price is what I'm able to pay and early adopters' reviews are enthusiastic, I have a nice set of K, A, A, F and FA lenses waiting for a workout.

09-08-2015, 02:12 PM	#97
rawr Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 11,913	Originally posted by bilybianca film era premium lenses are a bit obsolete, with annoying colour fringing Most have been tried already on Sony sensor full-frames like the A7 series, and they usually perform OK. There are several threads about it on these forums, with samples from many an older Pentax lens. Some older film lenses may no doubt have some issues with chromatic aberration etc, but I wouldn't worry too much. I think if an older lens performs OK on your existing Pentax APS-C, it will do OK on a FF.

09-08-2015, 03:28 PM	#98
mattb123 Site Supporter Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: Colorado High Country Photos: Gallery Posts: 10,872	Price (value). Size. I don't mind big but if it's really huge I might rather use a 645D/Z (if I could afford one). Fatal flaws.

09-10-2015, 01:23 AM	#99
redcat Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2014 Location: Paris Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,939	Prize ! I know Pentax will deliver a great FF camera, best of its class like always, if it's ~2000$ then I'm the early adopter, but if it's ~3000$ then I might be turned off ^^

09-10-2015, 02:45 AM	#100
Rondec Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Gladys, Virginia Photos: Gallery Posts: 27,653	Cost of more than 3000 dollars. Otherwise, I'm probably getting one. My wife has shot a bunch of weddings this year and has the money to spend and she really wants a full frame camera. Probably continue to shoot a K3 along side it.

09-10-2015, 03:09 AM	#101
Edvinas Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Kaunas Posts: 1,458	1. Price 2. High megapixel count - rumoured 42 megapixels are way too much for me, I'm fine with 12 Mpix Nikon D3s and disliking Nikon D600 for it's 24 Mpix, which give me virtually no advantege, but consume huge amount of storage space. 42 Mpix is total overkill...

09-10-2015, 04:01 AM - 1 Like	#102
Gimbal Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Sweden Posts: 2,106	One of the good things with lots of pixels is that you can do some lens and perspective corrections, straighten up the horizon, and maybe crop a little and then downsize to 12Mp (if that is what you want). And those 12Mp will be perfect. Much better than 12Mp from a 12Mp sensor with interpolated data from the bayer matrix, even if you don’t do any further corrections. As for the topic, price will stop me if it is to high. And of course minimum is 36Mp, 42 would be great.

09-10-2015, 07:43 AM	#103
pathdoc Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2015 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 6,381	Originally posted by UncleVanya If DA lenses that cover FF are locked into APSC crop mode. Lack of intermediate crop modes between APSC and FF. Much weaker than competition autofocus. Further k mount crippling (loss of screw drive for example). I find Pentax AF sufficient for my needs, so I won't address that issue, and Intermediate crop settings are something I don't get the point of. Loss of screw-drive would, however, be an absolute deal-breaker, as would a crop-lock on APS-C lenses (unless they relented and changed that in firmware). I'm with you 100% on those two. I would like a pixel density equivalent to the K-5, so I didn't lose anything in APS-C crop mode. I think an inbuilt flash is a necessity. I understand why they didn't put one on the K3-II, but I would rather have the flash than the GPS. Right now my biggest turnoff is that I don't actually NEED it. However, there may come a day when my K-5 dies, and if that is the case I will be looking seriously at the (or possibly by that time a) Pentax full-frame to replace it. Subject of course to the above.

09-10-2015, 12:07 PM	#104
neostyles Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2013 Posts: 445	I think the boxy design will put alot of people off. I think that has whats been turning people away from pentax. Forget about the dynamic range, when they pickup one and see the not so modern ui that is reminscent of consumer devices from like 2002, i think it really serves to give their cameras a dated feel to be honest. Pentax has been modernizing the tech slowly but imho if they want to gain a bigger foothold in the market they need to focus on the design side of things. Panasonic and sony have gorgeous, modern looking uis. No one has been into boxy cameras since the 70s. Pentax needs to stay current with design trends. Samsung has some of the nicest looking lenses ive ever seen. They've already got alot of competition from sony i think. Sony has really changed the full frame landscape with their recent offerings. I think it would be hard for them to win me over with out atleast some sort of evf. Being able to see your exposure in advance has really changed the game imo. Sony has really made chimping a thing of the past, in the long run anyway. Low light i think is becoming the new frontier, too with many cameras offering iso 100k or more. Sony proved that you can have a complete video and stills package and i think this is what the pentax ff needs to be too. The pentax ff should have good low light in video and stills. This is where DSLRs fall short. With the d600 you get fantastic low light in stills but in video you get less than aps c it seems. Quote: 2. High megapixel count - rumoured 42 megapixels are way too much for me, I'm fine with 12 Mpix Nikon D3s and disliking Nikon D600 for it's 24 Mpix, which give me virtually no advantege, but consume huge amount of storage space. 42 Mpix is total overkill... Read more at: https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/169-pentax-full-frame/303217-so-what-woul...#ixzz3lMevkMBu The d800 is a favorite of many pros because of its high megapixel count, which lets you crop in and make huge prints. If pentax wants to atteract more of the market i think starting with pros would be a good place to start. When amateurs want pics of their dog see pros using a brand i think it really makes them feel good about investing in it. The pentax ff is their chance to do just that, to make pentax more than a hipster brand. My nikon also lets me select a smaller image size if you are concerned about the file size..

09-10-2015, 12:26 PM	#105
UncleVanya Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2014 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 28,404	Originally posted by neostyles I think the boxy design will put alot of people off. I think that has whats been turning people away from pentax. Forget about the dynamic range, when they pickup one and see the not so modern ui that is reminscent of consumer devices from like 2002, i think it really serves to give their cameras a dated feel to be honest. Pentax has been modernizing the tech slowly but imho if they want to gain a bigger foothold in the market they need to focus on the design side of things. Panasonic and sony have gorgeous, modern looking uis. No one has been into boxy cameras since the 70s. Pentax needs to stay current with design trends. Samsung has some of the nicest looking lenses ive ever seen. I have never been impressed with camera "looks". But I have to say I think you have this all wrong. Style does not go before performance - and no matter how slick and good looking the system is - no advertising, no brand presence = no sales.