[Rondec]

On the other hand, I don't understand why Pentax can't release a full frame camera and lenses and just price it really high. Say 3500 or 4000 dollars. It then gives an upgrade path for those who truly "need" full frame and keeps the rest of us who don't quiet.

[Aristophanes]

It would tend to steer people away from APS C lenses like the DA 15, DA 35, DA 16-50, DA 50-135. There are a lot of folks who would by full frame lenses, even on the off chance that some day they just maybe might be able to buy a full frame camera. If it isn't hinted at, it is more likely that they will buy APS C specific lenses.

Since the 645D does not share a mount with the K mount cameras this reasoning does not apply.

Right. They need the equivalents of the DA 15, 21, and 35's in FF primes for Pentax to stay Pentax.

There are already many people who will only buy the FA Ltd's precisely as an investment for FF eventuality. The bad for Pentax is that this also seers people to the used market for other A/F/FA lenses not longer in production, starving Pentax of DA customers.

They need a solution. Soon.

[Blue]

However, I think the #1 reason for secrecy is to drive everyone including the competition wombat-shit crazy kind of like a 21st Century Japanese water torture.

[KxBlaze]

How do you know FF isn't coming this year? The 645D, plus a FF camera could be a nice 1-2 punch for Pentax.

None-the-less, we're bound to get at least 1 new body at Photokina, and it will probably actually be 2 or more. Where those bodies will lie, only a lucky few people know. For now we just have to wait, and hope for some fortunate leaks to come out of China.

I don't know for sure but Pentax has been releasing a new camera (or 2) every year for the past few years so I think at Photokina Pentax will do one of two things

1) announce a new camera that is either better than the K7 (but not a FF) or between the Kx and K7, or maybe both

2) announce a FF camera for next year.

The reason I believe those are the two options for Pentax is because, like stated before, they tend to release new cameras every year (option #1) BUT if they were to release a FF (option #2), that would be a pretty big deal and they might take a year off to let the current top of the line (K7) sales fade and to build anticipation for the FF.

Either way I will be happy to upgrade my Kx to the "between" model or if they announce a FF I would like to pick up a K7 after the huge price drop.

[szurinaga]

Announcing or a sudden release of a Full Frame body wouldn't kill the sales of the K-7 or of DA lenses. All this would do is add depth to the Pentax body line so it can compete (or at least can technically be on the same list) with Nikon FF D3 and Canon 1Ds, most likely though it would compete with the D700 or 5D, whos gonna buy a $5,000 pentax body? and what would you put on your 5,000 dollar pentax body, FA 41mm? Thats why I reiterate that expect to see a new line of FF lenses if a pentax FF body comes out.

I know its superficial to say this, but Pentax needs a 2,000 dollar FF dslr. They do not need a gap camera between the K-7 and K-x, there is no room there and if they did make that gap camera then it would be a sad display of micro-managing on the part of Pentax. No, what they need is a 2,000 dollar FF dslr with all the bells and whistles. Lets not forget about all the Philistines in the world who think cameras less then 2 grand arent worth buying; You know, all the people you see with leicas but cant even pronounce the name(if you haven't seen this then you've never been to NYC). Plus it would steal many customers who want a camera like the A850 but are timid because most of the sony cameras feel like shit in your hands.

Pentax is a wacky company, they've been in the dslr business for almost 10 years and they make a 9,000 dollar MF body before having a FF dslr. Play catch-up already Pentax or else you gonna get left in the dust.

Ohh and if your listening to my rant, I'd like a FF sensor with a 12-18mp range, I like how the D3s performs

[Rondec]

I think 2000 dollars is too cheap for a Pentax full frame. Make it a decent camera, without cutting corners and price it accordingly. Even the Canon 5d MK II and the D700 are currently priced around 2400 right now.

I agree that they would need new lenses for it. That goes without saying.

Pretty sure they'll have a minor up date to the K7 sticking a sensor with better high iso and video in it and probably better auto focus.

[Votesh]

Like someone else said there isn't really room for a camera between the Kx and K-7. A WR version of the Kx with a few other incremental upgrades might fly, but they would also probably have to release a model higher than the K-7, and discontinue the K-7 to differentiate the products. If they did that, the new high end product would have to sufficiently different than the K-7 to warrant a sufficiently higher price. The K-7 is already down about $500 from its initial release price from less than a year ago. I'm sure sales have already slowed significantly, and it will probably be down to half price in a few months.

So what would they do to improve on the K-7 and warrant another ~$1300 body? AF could definitely use an upgrade, but what else? I doubt they'd try a new APS-C sensor, because there isn't really anywhere to go. A fully upgraded K-7 type body could possibly warrant a ~$1300 price tag, but they'd have to upgrade just about everything, if they didn't put in a new sensor.

They'll almost surely announce at least 2 new bodies around the time of Photokina. Where they'll lie is up to speculation. I think it's undeniable they'll go FF eventually. Whether they try and squeeze a little more out of APS-C before heading that way is left to be seen. I personally hope they don't, but only because I'm selfish and don't have any desire for another APS-C camera.

Also, it seems like a few people here, who might be in a position to hear interesting facts or beta test new, unreleased bodies have been hinting at a FF body. I could be wrong about that though.

[Lowell Goudge]

aside from this beloning in news and rumors and not here in the DSLR forum, but any way.

there is no point in pentax announcing work on a FF dslr without concurrent offering of about 15 lenses that don't exist presently

this can be a major tasking for the benefit of a few that want full frame, without adding anything new for the satisfied with ASP-C users.

FOr me, personally, I am not sure I would buy a full frame camera although out of all my lenses only 1 is not full frame.

If pentax does offer a full frame I only hope they allow people use ASP-C lenses with an option that permits no cropping in camera with ASP-C lenses. Let the user decide whether they want a circular or vignetted image or not.

[Aristophanes]

aside from this beloning in news and rumors and not here in the DSLR forum, but any way.

there is no point in pentax announcing work on a FF dslr without concurrent offering of about 15 lenses that don't exist presently

this can be a major tasking for the benefit of a few that want full frame, without adding anything new for the satisfied with ASP-C users.

FOr me, personally, I am not sure I would buy a full frame camera although out of all my lenses only 1 is not full frame.

If pentax does offer a full frame I only hope they allow people use ASP-C lenses with an option that permits no cropping in camera with ASP-C lenses. Let the user decide whether they want a circular or vignetted image or not.

15 lenses? Try 8.

The long end can be covered by 3rd parties for awhile. It's the zooms and wide and long primes that are the problem.

[Lowell Goudge]

15 lenses? Try 8.

The long end can be covered by 3rd parties for awhile. It's the zooms and wide and long primes that are the problem.

I disagree

If they are offering a system, it needs to be complete. Note that the long lenses are also needed for ASP-C.

I don;t think people want to rely on sigma only, and note that sigma for some of the most interesting long lenses don't include pentax now. try for example the 120-300F2.8 zoom, not available in pentax.

While relying on existing users and old lense collections got them into the DSLR market in a big way, it is no longer viable to move them forward. They have exhausted that market.

I don't disagree the short end will get a lot of attention also, but they need essentually to re-make the FA system over, using modern materials, and ultimately get down to a 12mm -24 mmrectalinear zoom, plus the full frame ultra wide primes.

15 lenses is a reasonable full system requirement. (after all I have 27 lenses presently, but 11 of them are M42's because I decided to make an M42 kit over a limited range of focal lengths)

[Aristophanes]

I disagree

If they are offering a system, it needs to be complete. Note that the long lenses are also needed for ASP-C.

I don;t think people want to rely on sigma only, and note that sigma for some of the most interesting long lenses don't include pentax now. try for example the 120-300F2.8 zoom, not available in pentax.

While relying on existing users and old lense collections got them into the DSLR market in a big way, it is no longer viable to move them forward. They have exhausted that market.

I don't disagree the short end will get a lot of attention also, but they need essentually to re-make the FA system over, using modern materials, and ultimately get down to a 12mm -24 mmrectalinear zoom, plus the full frame ultra wide primes.

15 lenses is a reasonable full system requirement. (after all I have 27 lenses presently, but 11 of them are M42's because I decided to make an M42 kit over a limited range of focal lengths)

I was speaking to entirely new lenses. Yes, a total FF-capable quiver of 15+ would be right.

They need the equivalent of the dominant FF Nikon line-up, especially high-quality zooms:

14-24
24-70
and something longer, less fast
maybe a 17-x as well
And one long zoom, 70-300/4-5.6 with a 70-200/2.8 later.

The reason the Sigma 120-300/2.8 is not offered is that it is an FF model by design. When Pentax comes with FF, Sigma would likely offer. Currently Pentax cedes the long zoom market to Sigma and Tamron. That may not change.

For primes they need a 24 and something wider eventually. 85 for sure and 135 perhaps. Maybe 17, 24, 31, 43, 50, 77, 85, 100, 135. 5 of those are currently in production.

They'd need a TC. 100 is a macro, but they'd need a shorter one. Maybe a 50 variant, the DA 35 equivalent. FE and TS are other issues.

A more critical problem is that the other brands have expensive fast "pro" lenses, or the option of less expensive, slower versions. So with FF body investments, price-conscious consumers have price point lens options. Pentax hasn't the market headroom for both. The whole * and Limited variance might need to disappear if FF comes back and DA lenses are still in the mix for the larger APS-C market. There will be aperture trade-offs in the line-up, for sure, like a 17 prime at f/4, not 2.8.

Pentax may try and put out a relatively inexpensive FF body to make up for total system cost. This appears to be the same tactic used with the 645D.

[northcoastgreg]

there is no point in pentax announcing work on a FF dslr without concurrent offering of about 15 lenses that don't exist presently

this can be a major task for the benefit of a few that want full frame, without adding anything new for the satisfied with ASP-C users.

This cuts to the heart of the matter. The decision to introduce an FF dslr must be, in the final analysis, compelling from a business point of view. Pentax must feel comfortable that they can make a profit from such an undertaking. Selling lenses is more profitable than selling cameras, not merely because there tends to be greater margins on lenses, but because you sell more of them. The last thing Pentax needs is to sell an FF camera primarily to people who already own legacy FF glass or who will end up buying 3rd party FF glass.

Would Pentax introduce 15 FF lenses concurently to an FF camera? That's doubtful. (I'm not even sure they are capable of such a thing.) So what would be the best business decision? Perhaps the best strategy is to begin introducing the FF glass, incrementally, a year or two before the FF camera. If Pentax introduced, say, a 24-70 DFA zoom, this would be of interest, not only to those lusting for an FF camera, but even for satisfied APS-C users who might want a companion zoom to their 12-24. Of course, releasing such a lens would tip off users as to the future FF camera, so there would be no point in allowing it to remain a secret. So under this scenario, Pentax would announce ahead of time plans to release an FF camera.

Now having said all that, it would still make more sense to put plans for an FF camera on the shelf for a while and continue building up the APS-C side of things, making better APS-C cameras and filling out the APS-C lens lineup. We still have not seen a fully professional APS-C camera from Pentax, and wouldn't Pentax make such a camera before taking the plunge into FF? Moreover, Pentax really has, more than any other camera company, put all their eggs into the APS-C basket, producing the largest line-up of high quality APS-C lenses. Whether they announced it ahead of time or not, an affordable Pentax FF camera would inevitably canabalize their existing APS-C lineup. And an unaffordable FF camera simply wouldn't sell. So the most likely scenario is that we won't see a Pentax FF camera any time soon. Someday, if Pentax's market share continues to grow, Pentax will get around to FF. But that will probably be later rather than sooner.

[TaoMaas]

This cuts to the heart of the matter. The decision to introduce an FF dslr must be, in the final analysis, compelling from a business point of view. Pentax must feel comfortable that they can make a profit from such an undertaking.

I agree. I just don't think FF makes sense for Pentax right now. They've already got a pretty good foothold in the APS-C market by offering weather-resistant gear. I think the logical thing would be for them to continue to grow that segment, rather than take on something new that would require new designs, re-tooling, and a whole new lens line. I just don't see that happening. It's too big of a gamble.

Someday, if Pentax's market share continues to grow, Pentax will get around to FF. But that will probably be later rather than sooner.

I agree with this, too. If the APS-C cameras continue to do well and the 645D gains a share of the professional market, then I think Pentax might take a shot at FF...but I wouldn't expect it any time soon. I think that a big clue as to Pentax's intentions is in how few long lenses they offer. They just don't seem to be interested in competing in that more specialized, upper end of things.

[northcoastgreg]

I was speaking to entirely new lenses. Yes, a total FF-capable quiver of 15+ would be right.

They need the equivalent of the dominant FF Nikon line-up, especially high-quality zooms:

14-24...

Needing the equivalent of the FF Nikon line-up would seem to support the contention that Pentax will not be introducing an FF camera anytime soon. In recent years, Pentax has been very sqeamish about introducing any product more expensive than $1,500. There's a sort of risk-aversion mentality that makes Pentax shrink from the higher end of the market. Remember the DA 400 f4 on the roadmap? We still haven't seen hide or hair of it. Why not? Perhaps the main reason is the cost of such a lens (+$3,000?). Now an FF lens like the 14-24 would be +$1,700. Other FF lenses, though not as expensive, would still be pricey. Can they actually make a profit selling such lenses? Is their potential FF market big enough? Maybe, maybe not. It is precisely the uncertainty that Pentax is facing in regards to this question that would make them fearful of entering the FF market.

Now it could be argued, in opposition to this, that Pentax's foray into MF shows their willingness to go after a high-end market. However, observe how cautiously they have entered this market, introducing the camera only to the Japanese market and releasing it to the rest of the world at a miserably snail-like pace. Even more to the point, this is a market where Pentax enjoys a huge competitive advantage in terms of price: they will not enjoy such an advantage in FF. If they procede with such extreme caution and risk-aversion in a market where they enjoy huge price advantages, what makes anyone think they will procede at all in a market where no such advantage exists?

[Votesh]

I don't think they "need" to match any other brand, or offer any particular set of FF compatible lenses at first. They didn't have a full line-up of APS-C lenses for years(it could be argued that they still don't, especially if compared to other brands) and I don't think anyone would expect them to have a full line-up for FF initially.

They could release 3-5 lenses at first, covering the more important FL that aren't present for FF at the moment, and build from there. They don't have the resources for a full relaunch of a FF system initially, unless Hoya just decides to inject a huge amount of cash into Pentax.

At the same time, there are a limited number of interesting new upgrades that could be made to their APS-C body line-up while being able to sell those APS-C cameras at $1300. This necessitates something outside of the APS-C DSLR range so they can stay relevant. They've got to put R&D money somewhere, and I doubt they'd put it into the 645D at the expense of the more popular smaller formats, and putting that money into developing a more full APS-C lens line-up would be seen by many as betting on a format that's already on the decline.

I disagree that there are only a few current Pentax users that would buy an attractively priced(~$2000) FF body. There will be even more people willing to go FF as the prices of the bodies drop.

I also disagree that the market of people using legacy glass has dried up and wouldn't lead to sales of FF. Maybe those that are deciding on their first DSLR and have old k mount glass have dried up. However, those within the Pentax digital world already, that have FF glass, and would like a FF body are numerous. Of course, not all would buy a $2000 camera body, but the prices will come down, and there are plenty of us that would buy a $2000 camera. Not to mention, the way Pentax body prices fall, a $2000 FF would likely become a $1500 FF after a year.