[Angelic Layer]

I think I'm coming at it from the perspective of NOT making another mirrorless system. Pentax producing an L-mount camera would be like a quarter of the R&D and could be pure profit from that perspective, without trying to force another camera/system into an overcrowded market. I think micro four thirds proved that an open alliance and commonly-specced system is a good way to do things. I think we need a lot more of that and a lot less of what Canon and Nikon are doing with their late to the game mirrorless systems.

I agree for Pentax yes better specialize and stay in the DSLR business, but leaving the mirrorless to other players

---------- Post added 03-07-21 at 10:19 AM ----------

It's weird not to see the benefit of lenses made specifically for APS-C format as a Pentaxian, seeing as we have very nice limited lenses made for the APS-C sized image circle! Smaller lenses are better! I don't see the appeal of "moving up" to a FF system any more, that was a thing back when all the DSLR systems were APS-C except for a few expensive pro models, and slowly cheaper FF DSLRs were trickling out. Now, I believe you buy a format for the advantages of that format.

I think for something marketed for the retro market, ie using older lenses like Nikon DF.

There is benefit going straight to FF.
Maybe create another additional product line for that along with APSC system.

[Rondec]

The L mount is just as late to the game as Nikon and Canon.

Pentax has made it plain that they have no interest in mirrorless, they have chosen the DSLR as the hill they will die on.

Their decision makes a lot more sense than trying to use their spaghetti muscles to force their way into a market that will do nothing for them other than drain resources with little to no ROI.

Sony is out of SLRs. Canon won't be far behind, and I suspect neither will Nikon.
In a couple of years, if a person wants a new SLR, they will have one option, that being Pentax. Considering that a significant percentage of people cannot use mirtorless cameras comfortably, Pentax is positioning themselves very wisely.

I agree. The biggest thing to me is that mirrorless doesn't play to Pentax's strengths. They aren't a tech heavy company that is strong in video. Beyond which, the MILC market is crammed full of cameras. Figuring out how to target a niche that is different from all of the existing brands would be hard. Smaller? Faster auto focus? Better video? Better ergonomics? It feels like between Olympus, Fuji, Nikon, Canon, Sony, Panasonic, Sigma, and Leica there isn't a lot of space for another one.

I think there are going to continue to be people who value a good quality OVF and Pentax can easily make a go of it and even grow, serving their needs.

[Jonathan Mac]

It's weird not to see the benefit of lenses made specifically for APS-C format as a Pentaxian, seeing as we have very nice limited lenses made for the APS-C sized image circle! Smaller lenses are better! I don't see the appeal of "moving up" to a FF system any more, that was a thing back when all the DSLR systems were APS-C except for a few expensive pro models, and slowly cheaper FF DSLRs were trickling out. Now, I believe you buy a format for the advantages of that format.

The inability to see the benefits of APS-C, and to see "going FF" as the only upgrade option is a common delusion among many people. It's the narrow-sighed view that Canon and Nikon have fostered for many years.

For me, using a system that is well designed and comfortable is more important than sensor size.

[AgentL]

The inability to see the benefits of APS-C, and to see "going FF" as the only upgrade option is a common delusion among many people. It's the narrow-sighed view that Canon and Nikon have fostered for many years.

For me, using a system that is well designed and comfortable is more important than sensor size.

That's why I went back to a micro four thirds body, for part of my shooting. Hard to beat the size/cost/performance ratio with cameras that have been refined over many generations.

[Wasp]

Retro done exactly right. Note the A position that the Zfc lacks.

[pres589]

I think on the Zfc, the H1 and H2 positions can be programmed to different automatic ISO settings. 1/3rd Step on the exposure dial sets the exposure into an automatic mode. I think. Not 100% sure and not finding info on that via quick searches.

[bdery]

How many cameras with direct controls do manufacturers have to make before we can stop saying they're copying Fuji? Just because it's the direction Fuji went whole-hog on doesn't mean it's not a legitimate design for part of a manufacturer's lineup!

In 2021, if it looks like a Fuji, smells like a Fuji, tastes like a Fuji, operates like a Fuji, but isn't a Fuji, you can't say they came up with the concept on their own...

[mee]

The inability to see the benefits of APS-C, and to see "going FF" as the only upgrade option is a common delusion among many people. It's the narrow-sighed view that Canon and Nikon have fostered for many years.

For me, using a system that is well designed and comfortable is more important than sensor size.

It seems hostile, your take. But I understand what you're getting at and agree with that last line.


That is partly why I like the Nikon Z full frame system. The bodies are slightly smaller and can be 20% lighter of Pentax DSLR crop bodies but are using full frame sensors. They're compact and I find they feel sturdy in the hand.

[Wheatfield]

It's weird not to see the benefit of lenses made specifically for APS-C format as a Pentaxian, seeing as we have very nice limited lenses made for the APS-C sized image circle! Smaller lenses are better! I don't see the appeal of "moving up" to a FF system any more, that was a thing back when all the DSLR systems were APS-C except for a few expensive pro models, and slowly cheaper FF DSLRs were trickling out. Now, I believe you buy a format for the advantages of that format.

The benefit is there, but putting an APS-C sensor behind a 45mm flange distance dilutes things.
Fuji got it right by building a small format system with excellent lenses from the ground up.
Pentax didn't have the resources for that, and had to compromise a lot.

---------- Post added Jul 5th, 2021 at 10:34 AM ----------

The inability to see the benefits of APS-C, and to see "going FF" as the only upgrade option is a common delusion among many people. It's the narrow-sighed view that Canon and Nikon have fostered for many years.

For me, using a system that is well designed and comfortable is more important than sensor size.

There really aren't that many benefits to APS-C over full frame, but there are a lot of benefits to full frame over APS-C.
That's not delusion, that's just the way it is.

[AgentL]

In 2021, if it looks like a Fuji, smells like a Fuji, tastes like a Fuji, operates like a Fuji, but isn't a Fuji, you can't say they came up with the concept on their own...

I can't say Nikon came up with the concept of... what? A shutter speed dial? My gosh, forgive me, that was obviously Fuji!

[Ian Stuart Forsyth]

It's weird not to see the benefit of lenses made specifically for APS-C format as a Pentaxian, seeing as we have very nice limited lenses made for the APS-C sized image circle! Smaller lenses are better! I don't see the appeal of "moving up" to a FF system any more, that was a thing back when all the DSLR systems were APS-C except for a few expensive pro models, and slowly cheaper FF DSLRs were trickling out. Now, I believe you buy a format for the advantages of that format.

Having a smaller image circle for a lens most of the time does not make a smaller lens take the 40 2.8 there are FF lenses out there that are nearly the same size and have AF motors in the lens

[Jonathan Mac]

There really aren't that many benefits to APS-C over full frame, but there are a lot of benefits to full frame over APS-C.
That's not delusion, that's just the way it is.

Size, weight, price.

There aren't many, but they're very important.

I've recently considered selling all my gear to raise money to buy into a FF mirrorless system but there just isn't one that I like.

[mee]

Size, weight, price.

There aren't many, but they're very important.

I've recently considered selling all my gear to raise money to buy into a FF mirrorless system but there just isn't one that I like.

Maybe my post and comparison link were missed. Link to comparison --> here.

The Z5/Z6/Z7 are same size as a K-3 III and 20% lighter than the Pentax. But come with a Full Frame sensor.

I think the argument that full frame is bigger and heavier is not as convincing when we include mirrorless systems in the comparison. The weight from the mirrorbox and OVF are removed, which seems to free up some size and weight.

The Z5 is just under 1k USD right now. Used copies of course under that. Used Z6 go for just over 1K USD right now (but factor in the price of an XQD card).


It becomes more a personal choice on which system one values the most for whatever they want to do with it. An argument I care not to have -- thus I am just pointing out objective qualities for comparison (size, weight, price).

[Angelic Layer]

Size, weight, price.

There aren't many, but they're very important.

I've recently considered selling all my gear to raise money to buy into a FF mirrorless system but there just isn't one that I like.

I think when you starting to invest more into a system, the benefit of APSC starting to diminish.
I am thinking it is worthwhile to have APSC as a secondary system and FF as primary if you have the means.
I starting to notice the limitation of APSC once I do prints.
APSC system already reached their bottleneck and I don't think their sensor can develop much further but there is more for FF to grow.

[i_trax]

I just ordered black Zfc , that will be my the first Nikon ever.

It should be interesting , we shall see.........