[Spare Tire]

"If you don't like this country you can go back to Canikon."

Why are pentaxians so racist?

[Blue]

This is why I would never buy a FF camera even if it was 500 dollars. I want a small tool, I value compactness.

I bet Pentax could pull off a ff body the size of the K-5 with SR or *istD without it.

[RioRico]

"If you don't like this country you can go back to Canikon."

Why are pentaxians so racist?

CaNikonism is a religion / mental disease, not a race. Converts / victims are always open for ridicule. Have you laughed at any Scientologists / TeaBaggers lately? Same thing. And the same with Pentaxianism -- always good for a laugh. Especially the anti-Ricoh crowd.

[twitch]

If all Pentax did was roll out a FF body, what would be the list of current production Pentax lenses that could be used without compromise with it?

FA31
DA40(?)
FA43
FA50
DFA50 macro
DA*55 (?)
DA70(?)
FA77
DFA100 marco
DA*200 (?)
DA*300 (?)

No zooms other than third party (eg Tamron 28-75 & 70-200).

That's not a horrible list, I'd be happy with just the 3 FA ltds + one of the longer DA*.

[Emacs]

No zooms other than third party (eg Tamron 28-75 & 70-200)

60-250 is compatible

[Blue]

If all Pentax did was roll out a FF body, what would be the list of current production Pentax lenses that could be used without compromise with it?

FA31
DA40(?)
FA43
FA50
DFA50 macro
DA*55 (?)
DA70(?)
FA77
DFA100 marco
DA*200 (?)
DA*300 (?)

No zooms other than third party (eg Tamron 28-75 & 70-200).

That's not a horrible list, I'd be happy with just the 3 FA ltds + one of the longer DA*.

They could update the FA* 28-70 and 70-200/2.8 easy enough. Everyone over looks the fact that Pentax has being rocking full frame lenses for 60 years.

[eddie1960]

This is why I would never buy a FF camera even if it was 500 dollars. I want a small tool, I value compactness.

It's a huge market now with many sectors. a lot of people want something smaller with good performance (this is not a new thing either, the Advent of "good enough" 35mm point shoots particularly with Auto focus and zooms really ate into the film SLR market that had thrived up to the early eighties - and many more advanced photographers bought compacts like The Rollei 35 which gave them a compact with a decent lens and control forgoing a lot of the benefit of their SLR for day to day shooting.

There will always be a market for the higher priced big FF bodies though. the level of control, image quality and lens selection/performance being the main consideration for a pro shooter. Weight is secondary, always has been. pro level cameras have never been small lightweight affairs. Annie Leibovitz Worked with a Mamiya 67 outfit for years - mind you she had assistants (read slaves) to lug it around and set it up

[RonHendriks1966]

If all Pentax did was roll out a FF body, what would be the list of current production Pentax lenses that could be used without compromise with it?

FA31
DA40(?) Yes
FA43
FA50
DFA50 macro
DA*55 (?) Yes
DA70(?) Yes
FA77
DFA100 marco
DA*200 (?) Yes
DA*300 (?) Yes

That's not a horrible list, I'd be happy with just the 3 FA ltds + one of the longer DA*.

And the DA*60-250mm/f4 should be good for FF.

I said things about it in the lenssurvey wich you can still look at:

Then there is the Full Frame mission. When new lenses are designed, what about the compatability with Full Frame sensor. I think you are right that 28-70 and 85 should be DFA* to work with FF (see below). Mainly for FF the FA Ltd range is the lens line-up, that's why the new lenses. The FF camera is for people who are using it either proffessionally or are amateurs with deep pockets. Such a camera with the FA Ltd lensrange and the DFA* lenses make a good team, from 20mm to 500mm (or 700mm with TC) and will cost a fortune!

When there will be new DFA*28-70mm/f2.8, DFA*80-200mm/f2.8; DFA*85mm/f1.4; DFA*200mm/f4 macro; DFA*500mm/f? and DFA*1.4xTC the lens line is complete enough to make a good start.

Finding a new niche in this market is also very important. So a small camerabody is important.

[RioRico]

FA31
DA40(?)
FA43
FA50
DFA50 macro
DA*55 (?)
DA70(?)
FA77
DFA100 marco
DA*200 (?)
DA*300 (?)

That list is thick between 31-77 and thin elsewhere. What were the in-demand lenses in film days? 24,35,50,85,100,135,200, with 20 and 300+ as extremes. Some of those are covered, many aren't. Needed: fast FA20,24,35,85,135. And in keeping with the Q-system, some 'toy' lenses, and maybe even MFL's.

I await the roll-out.

[Penkon]

It would have been nice if Pentax were to develop and market a line of full frame DSLR. Demanding Ricoh's managment to spend more $$$ to develop and market a Pentax full frame DSLR is just wishful thinking.

According to the press, Ricoh purchased Pentax because of the security related products and the service business (image archiving business via medium format digital cameras).

Ricoh's is now focusing on bringing Pentax back into the black to preserve cash flow. A 10% global workforce reduction plan had been announced. A full frame DSLR is "out of focus" for now

Well I don't know about the racist part here but apparently management at Ricoh and Pentax has bigger fish than the "full frame DSLR" to fry if you know what I mean

[eddie1960]

It would have been nice if Pentax were to develop and market a line of full frame DSLR. Demanding Ricoh's managment to spend more $$$ to develop and market a Pentax full frame DSLR is just wishful thinking.

According to the press, Ricoh purchased Pentax because of the security related products and the service business (image archiving business via medium format digital cameras).

Ricoh's is now focusing on bringing Pentax back into the black to preserve cash flow. A 10% global workforce reduction plan had been announced. A full frame DSLR is "out of focus" for now

Well I don't know about the racist part here but apparently management at Ricoh and Pentax has bigger fish than the "full frame DSLR" to fry if you know what I mean

I've not read any press that focussed on that even the press release is off handed about it (see point 3 after 1 and 2)

"1) Strengthening the digital camera business
􀁺 Enhanced interchangeable-lens cameras to meet expected future growth
􀁺 Expansion of product lineup and interchangeable lens portfolio
2) Creation of new business delivering added value to consumers
􀁺 Creation and development of value-added businesses such as making it easy to view, save and retouch photos.
3) Other benefits
􀁺 Possible entry into the image archiving business using medium format digital cameras
􀁺 Expansion of security related products"

[Blue]

If all Pentax did was roll out a FF body, what would be the list of current production Pentax lenses that could be used without compromise with it?

FA31
DA40(?)
FA43
FA50
DFA50 macro
DA*55 (?)
DA70(?)
FA77
DFA100 marco
DA*200 (?)
DA*300 (?)

No zooms other than third party (eg Tamron 28-75 & 70-200).

That's not a horrible list, I'd be happy with just the 3 FA ltds + one of the longer DA*.

People seem to forget that when Asahi Pentax rolled out the K-mount in 1975 they brought out a whole compliment of lenses for it and even more within 1.5 years and a second series by 1980 (M). Given all the lens designs they have in their archives both AF and MF, this is one of the biggest "Straw Man Argument" I have seen regarding this subject. The second one is, well those were designed for film which is also a weak argument given many of the FA and FA* lenses got Ghostless Coatings on the rear element, a material which was developed in the early 90s for High Res Traffic Cams. The sensors, especially early on, were as big of a problem or bigger regarding lens designs and that has changed for the better. Therefore, if Pentax were to roll out a ff body, I would suspect them to show up with ~ 6 lenses to compliment the existing list with more to follow.

[Rondec]

People seem to forget that when Asahi Pentax rolled out the K-mount in 1975 they brought out a whole compliment of lenses for it and even more within 1.5 years and a second series by 1980 (M). Given all the lens designs they have in their archives both AF and MF, this is one of the biggest "Straw Man Argument" I have seen regarding this subject. The second one is, well those were designed for film which is also a weak argument given many of the FA and FA* lenses got Ghostless Coatings on the rear element, a material which was developed in the early 90s for High Res Traffic Cams. The sensors, especially early on, were as big of a problem or bigger regarding lens designs and that has changed for the better. Therefore, if Pentax were to roll out a ff body, I would suspect them to show up with ~ 6 lenses to compliment the existing list with more to follow.

Its not really a straw man argument. It is assumed (rightly or wrongly) that if Pentax brought out a full frame camera, that they would release with it lenses with in motor lenses, but with real ring motors, not SDM. That would clearly require complete reworking of the designs. As to the second part, I don't disagree. Old formulas with some newer coatings would probably be adequate from an optical standpoint.

[twitch]

They could update the FA* 28-70 and 70-200/2.8 easy enough. Everyone over looks the fact that Pentax has being rocking full frame lenses for 60 years.

While they could, I don't think it's acceptable these days for a manufacturer to release pro zooms with screw drive AF. Pentax would need to redesign such lenses to accomodate SDM v2 tech. First they need to figure out SDM v2 tech though

[Blue]

While they could, I don't think it's acceptable these days for a manufacturer to release pro zooms with screw drive AF. Pentax would need to redesign such lenses to accomodate SDM v2 tech. First they need to figure out SDM v2 tech though

I think the motor argument is a more recent one. The average Pentax nay-sayer general blames it on optical designs. The motor issue is a valid one but it should be the easiest to address. They just need some electro-mechanical engineers in there to work along side the optical people. I am wondering if they real holdup on sdm improvement was the Hoya boys.