[Rondec]

Sony simply didn't release a product that compelled much beyond the price. It wasn't really any smaller, didn't have any better resolution than the 5dmII, and worse noise and AF than the D700. It carried the Sony name, which at a camera counter is a drawback, no matter what they do.

The Sony FF model is instructive, but it isn't an unavoidable path. Also, AFAIK, there's no evidence that they're losing money with it, and in fact are possibly coming out with one or two more FF bodies.


.

It is hard to say what the lessons are to be learned with Sony's full frame experience. Certainly, if anything, Sony has a better base than Pentax -- more people you would expect to be ready to purchase full frame who were already using Sony gear.

I think they had hoped that people would switch brands, but the reality is that few people did. Inertia is really strong and if you have used Nikon for a long time and are comfortable with them and own some nice lenses, your tendency will not be to switch -- even if there is a nice camera body from another camera maker available for slightly less cost.

Professionals make decisions more based on glass than bodies anyway.

[eddie1960]

Sony could well get to market before Nikon at this point. Nikon is still without a FF plant (which was destroyed in the earthquake - as of a couple of weeks back they were negotiating for a Malaysian plant - this probably means the death of the f6 film body as retooling for it probably makes no sense now)
It is almost impossible to find any new FF Nikon for sale at the moment, hence the ridiculous resale value on used D700 bodies (maybe 1-150 off retail which actually increased earlier this year, some people are selling off used for likely what they paid new)
the D800 was originally planned to be announced in February and was delayed till the fall because of this
The market for FF looks falsely rosy because of this, since it's hard to pick them up new and this is driving Canon FF sales which is making their stock tougher to find
in reality the market is probably no different than it was 2 years ago for FF
just less supply available
As much as I'd like to see FF Pentax I think it is low on the priority list of things to do for Ricoh. lens development is a priority including an improved SDM, Developing DFA lenses would be good long term thinking as FF will come, and for those of us that shoot both Film and APS-C (and the people looking towards a FF in future) there would be no reason not to look at these when we buy new lenses
The big issue is though that APSC has gotten so good with the K5 the reasons for FF become fewer and fewer, and for many APSC will be good enough (like 35mm was good enough versus Medium format)

[Winder]

Pentax has a lot of other things they need to address/improve before worrying about a FF option.
While I would love t see Pentax produce a FF body, I think they have a lot of more pressing issues to deal with first.

[Blue]

Pentax has a lot of other things they need to address/improve before worrying about a FF option.
While I would love t see Pentax produce a FF body, I think they have a lot of more pressing issues to deal with first.

I think most of us would agree with you there, however those same things would need to be addressed before releasing a ff anyway like better af etc. We already have mentioned sdm needs major improvement which is an electro-mechanical engineering issue and not an optics issue.

[jsherman999]

Pentax has a lot of other things they need to address/improve before worrying about a FF option.
While I would love t see Pentax produce a FF body, I think they have a lot of more pressing issues to deal with first.

These things (AF, tethering, flash, maybe QC) would get dealt with as part of the funded FF project. There is absolutely no reason Pentax can't match or come close to matching Nikon in these areas if they had the funding from a parent corp like Ricoh - who probably wouldn't even need to finance any of the expenditure, if they didn't want to, or if they wanted to they probably have access to cheaper financing than Pentax would as a standalone. And those things (AF, tethering, flash) also find use in the aps-c tier then going forward, enhancing those bodies.

Nikon isn't some unreachable, otherworldy entity. They are a camera company that made better, more risky decisions than Pentax during the 70s and 80's, and who can draw some foul-weather support and underwriting (maybe) from Mitsubishi companies, its loose-parent.

A $124 million purchase isn't something that comes close to making or breaking a giant like Ricoh, but they now have a vested interest in not letting that investment die on the vine. They basically paid for K-mount and the name, and a FF push adds to that same purchase value and enriches it.

A new lens rollup is the big issue, expensive and probably more time-consuming. They would need the new lenses to expediate ROI as well as to make the brand more enticing.


.

[Aristophanes]

These things (AF, tethering, flash, maybe QC) would get dealt with as part of the funded FF project. There is absolutely no reason Pentax can't match or come close to matching Nikon in these areas if they had the funding from a parent corp like Ricoh - who probably wouldn't even need to finance any of the expenditure, if they didn't want to, or if they wanted to they probably have access to cheaper financing than Pentax would as a standalone. And those things (AF, tethering, flash) also find use in the aps-c tier then going forward, enhancing those bodies.

Nikon isn't some unreachable, otherworldy entity. They are a camera company that made better, more risky decisions than Pentax during the 70s and 80's, and who can draw some foul-weather support and underwriting (maybe) from Mitsubishi companies, its loose-parent.

A $124 million purchase isn't something that comes close to making or breaking a giant like Ricoh, but they now have a vested interest in not letting that investment die on the vine. They basically paid for K-mount and the name, and a FF push adds to that same purchase value and enriches it.

A new lens rollup is the big issue, expensive and probably more time-consuming. They would need the new lenses to expediate ROI as well as to make the brand more enticing.

Canikon are neither perfect nor unreachable.

But the # of qualified people capable of creating and improving things like AF systems, both mechanical and software, is limited. The resources of Canon and Nikon are 20x each those of Pentax and they have trickle-down options.
Pentax may have 6 engineers whereas Canon and Nikon have 20 each (just blue sky estimates).

The same was true of shutters in the SLR days where only a handful of companies could manufacture those items and they had a lock on supply to some customers (Nikon) ahead of others (everyone else).

Basically you want Ricoh to shift financial resources from x part of the company to FF for a market share in unit sales measured probably in the hundreds/month, if that.

Same for optical. Pentax even under Ricoh cannot suddenly find 25 more optical engineers who can pump out designs and fabricate assembly systems for 6 new FF zoom lenses necessary for the introduction of a new system.

All for a few hundered FF sales per month. Look at the sale data and Pentax market share for APS-C and extract from there FF unit sales 5% of that. It gives you an idea as to exactly how small the Pentax DSLR market really is when you realize Pentax only sells under a million cameras per year of which DSLR's are only a couple of hundred thousand. Extrapolating from Canikon's FF buy-in you get well under 3,000 Pentax FF's sold per year worldwide, and I am being very generous. And that's just an assembly line for the body. Now try that for the lenses where some models might only sell a couple of hundred per year. Pentax could well put $40 million into FF and not see a return for 25 years! The Pentax Q could make a return in something like 3 years given it's off-the-shelf tech. the only company that exists to make numbers like that work is Leica, and they are something of a hobby for a rich Bavarian (Voigtlander too, maybe).

FF can only enrich Ricoh if it makes money by taking FF customers away from Canikon as their FF unit sales are stalled due to very high prices and very slow model turnover (which pros care less about that fanbois). Pentax lost something like $122 million in 2009. they simply do not have the revenues and capital; flow to invest in FF for such a tiny market at super-high premiums. The numbers do not add up. They just don't. I am sure there is a skunkworks hack job FF lurking in R&D, but no development plans.

[Blue]

Canikon are neither perfect nor unreachable.

But the # of qualified people capable of creating and improving things like AF systems, both mechanical and software, is limited. The resources of Canon and Nikon are 20x each those of Pentax and they have trickle-down options.
Pentax may have 6 engineers whereas Canon and Nikon have 20 each (just blue sky estimates).

The same was true of shutters in the SLR days where only a handful of companies could manufacture those items and they had a lock on supply to some customers (Nikon) ahead of others (everyone else).

Basically you want Ricoh to shift financial resources from x part of the company to FF for a market share in unit sales measured probably in the hundreds/month, if that.

Same for optical. Pentax even under Ricoh cannot suddenly find 25 more optical engineers who can pump out designs and fabricate assembly systems for 6 new FF zoom lenses necessary for the introduction of a new system.

All for a few hundered FF sales per month. Look at the sale data and Pentax market share for APS-C and extract from there FF unit sales 5% of that. It gives you an idea as to exactly how small the Pentax DSLR market really is when you realize Pentax only sells under a million cameras per year of which DSLR's are only a couple of hundred thousand. Extrapolating from Canikon's FF buy-in you get well under 3,000 Pentax FF's sold per year worldwide, and I am being very generous. And that's just an assembly line for the body. Now try that for the lenses where some models might only sell a couple of hundred per year. Pentax could well put $40 million into FF and not see a return for 25 years! The Pentax Q could make a return in something like 3 years given it's off-the-shelf tech. the only company that exists to make numbers like that work is Leica, and they are something of a hobby for a rich Bavarian (Voigtlander too, maybe).

FF can only enrich Ricoh if it makes money by taking FF customers away from Canikon as their FF unit sales are stalled due to very high prices and very slow model turnover (which pros care less about that fanbois). Pentax lost something like $122 million in 2009. they simply do not have the revenues and capital; flow to invest in FF for such a tiny market at super-high premiums. The numbers do not add up. They just don't. I am sure there is a skunkworks hack job FF lurking in R&D, but no development plans.

Now you are the one failing to understand. Its not optical engineers that is needed (well they do need to bring some pre-Hoya people back), it is electro-mechanical engineers and I suspect that Ricoh has a few more than Hoya had. They ought to open up a set of lenses to sell to Nikon folks while they are at so that they don't have to go get "Knock-offs" from Tokina.

Edit: Pentax still has the MZ-D prototypes etc. The big issue at the time was the sensor and af.

[eddie1960]

Now you are the one failing to understand. Its not optical engineers that is needed (well they do need to bring some pre-Hoya people back), it is electro-mechanical engineers and I suspect that Ricoh has a few more than Hoya had. They ought to open up a set of lenses to sell to Nikon folks while they are at so that they don't have to go get "Knock-offs" from Tokina.

Edit: Pentax still has the MZ-D prototypes etc. The big issue at the time was the sensor and af.

MZD would need a lot of changes to make it compete with the current crop. it was pretty cool in comparison to the 35MM stuff, but compared to a D700 or 5 D mkII it's pretty stale

[sjwaldron]

Saying Pentax can't make the smallest full-frame DSLR by a visible margin is laughable. They are the company that excels at small yet extremely powerful cameras. Their cameras like the K-7 and K-5 have SR and WR in them and they are still considerable smaller than the competition.

Pentax isn't a me-too camera maker. They don't need a full set of 35mm FF f2.8 zooms to make a place for themselves in the FF market. It's about using their strengths applied to such a body.

- FF Small to fit the mobility of their FA Limited and D-FA glass. Often I get from users of other systems positive comments on the size yet pro level features and feel of my K-7/K-5. This is Pentax's main selling point of their system in any sensor size.
- In body SR, good for all K-mount/M42 lenses and good for video.
- Weather Resistance
- Pentax ergonomics, a combination of the K-5 and 645D.
- High value for the dollar, I think Pentax could meet or come out lower than the current D700 price. So around $2400-3000.

I talked about the positives of using a Kodak sensor in a 35mm FF camera on my blog a few months ago, but I realize that Kodak sensors are a no-go because video is too big of a feature these days on 35mm FF. So if Sony does have a new FF sensor close to completion and will or has offered it out, then we do have a chance in Pentax land. At this point there hasn't been any speculation of what the K-5 successor will be. Given the trends that Pentax follows with high-end releases, we should see a new physical camera body for the next iteration. Whether that new body has a FF sensor in it or not, we have no hints. I at least think video functionality will be improved.

[RonHendriks1966]

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.

Good Lord!

You just laid out 5 years worth of lens development.

They'd also require a 14-24 equivalent.

FF is a pro market for the most part now, and pros spend their money on big zooms. There are not enough Pentax prosumers to drive a small prime line-up for FF sensors.

Well I started out with all old lens designs to shorten developmenttime on them. Some off them, if not all will have some pretty good ground in the current APS-C high-end userbase. So starting somewhere is by designing some lenses that will give a future in either Full Frame direction, or I would even be very pleased with APS-H sensordesign. Completing a lensline to serve top of the line APS-C should be priority 1!

[Blue]

MZD would need a lot of changes to make it compete with the current crop. it was pretty cool in comparison to the 35MM stuff, but compared to a D700 or 5 D mkII it's pretty stale

Where did I say it could compete with the D700 etc. My point was to refute a Greek friend's ( j/k) assertion that the Pentax engineers had only worked on ff stuff during the lunch hour and coffee breaks. The MZ-D is pushing 10 years old. The *istD came out in 2003 and the shell and mirror box of it were probably originally intended to be full frame. The were working with Kodak on the old MZ-D prototype.

[fuent104]

I think today's photographic market is an amazing, wide open, unpredictable place. For example: the Fuji X100 seems to have been successful so far. Think about that; a camera which is not part of a system, and is severely limited compared to every other $1000 camera.

Obviously, people enjoy its strengths and don't see its limitations as such. They are not judging it by what it doesn't offer, they're judging it by the positive aspects it does offer. It's a bold product, one for which there was basically no demand, and it seems to have done well so far.

The i-pad is another item for which there was very little demand before it was put on the market.

I think an error in the ff argument is the assumption that the ff camera would only appeal to professionals. I can see a HUGE benefit to essentially selling a full-frame version of the Kx or the K20, with a price that reflects the feature set. This could sell nicely, and serve as an introduction for Pentax into the ff arena. It could also boost brand awareness. If I were launching such a product, I would also try to make arrangements with manufactures of wireless triggers, umbrellas, bags, and other accessories, with the idea that users of the new Pentax ff could assemble a more complete photographic system for less than the cost of the next company's camera body.

When I got my first dslr (my k20), I would have been happy with a digital K1000.

[jstevewhite]

When I got my first dslr (my k20), I would have been happy with a digital K1000.

While I agree with much of what you say, I have to point out that a "digital K1000" isn't really even possible. Av/Tv/TAv/Program modes etc are just software. In the grand scheme of things, it costs nearly zero dollars to add software features. I don't think you could convince people to buy a manual focus DSLR for the cost of a FF sensor alone, much less the cost of a system.

So what would a "digital K1000" look like?

The big problem I see with the whole discussion is in-body SR. If you take the lens off your k-5, switch on live view, and watch the sensor, it sweeps out nearly full-frame area anyway - probably why many of the "crop-sensor" lenses from pentax work on FF film. If you gave the FF sensor that much movement *1.5, I'm thinking you're talking at least 40-45mm of coverage. That's nearly MF territory. I bet the FA ltds don't cover 45mm x 34mm.

Now I'd certainly be willing to buy a K-5 size machine with a FF sensor that had the K-5's high-iso performance and dynamic range *without* in-body stabilization, but how many people would resist the marketroid's "No stabilization" assertions (as Pentax doesn't make OS lenses)?

I really doubt that FF is in Pentax's future; I suspect it's probably fading from everyone's future unless they dump a lot of marketing dollars into it, or someone suddenly discovers how to defeat the cost of manufacture 'scaling problem'. The cost of a sensor goes up as the square of the area; double the area, quadruple the cost (because of the lost yield).

I see more and more wedding pros (the only kind I see regularly nowadays) using APS-c systems.

[Winder]

These things (AF, tethering, flash, maybe QC) would get dealt with as part of the funded FF project. There is absolutely no reason Pentax can't match or come close to matching Nikon in these areas if they had the funding from a parent corp like Ricoh - who probably wouldn't even need to finance any of the expenditure, if they didn't want to, or if they wanted to they probably have access to cheaper financing than Pentax would as a standalone. And those things (AF, tethering, flash) also find use in the aps-c tier then going forward, enhancing those bodies.

Nikon isn't some unreachable, otherworldy entity. They are a camera company that made better, more risky decisions than Pentax during the 70s and 80's, and who can draw some foul-weather support and underwriting (maybe) from Mitsubishi companies, its loose-parent.
.

People want FF because they think that all of the legacy K-mount glass is going to work great on a FF Pentax. I think people are going to be disappointed in the results of of older glass on a new 36MP Sensor from Sony. Pentax would need 3 years to redevelop glass and modernize the designs. Before we see Pentax roll out a FF body we will see lenses like the 28-75 and 80-200 get redesigned and released. HD Video is going to kill screw dive. I don't think that Pentax will continue screw drive in a FF body. The FF body might actually be mirror-less.

Pentax can make a lot more money by re-using the K-7/K-5 in the K-5 replacement (K-5 Super?) and dropping in a Sony 24MP sensor and meet (exceed) the needs of 98% of its user base.

How much does Pentax need to sell a FF body for in order to justify the net cost of a new body and lenses? Pentax does not sell the volume of Nikon.Canon or have its own sensor fab like Canon/Sony. I think Pentax would have a hard time making money with a FF for less than $2,800. Marketing cost, Customer Service expectations, Quality Control all become more important and I don't think Pentax has those in place.

How much are people willing to pay for a FF Pentax body? If people want a sub-$2,000.00 Pentax FF what does that do to the price of the K-5 line? IF Pentax is barely making money with a $2,000 FF and that ends up driving down the price of its own APS-C bodies (lower margins) then they would be making a mistake.

I would love to see a Pentax body..... I would love to see some updated high quality glass even more.

I would take an APS-C body with a Sony sensor with a much improved AF system and a larger (1.15x) OVF and 2 SD card slots first. Fast (F/1.4) glass and the correct focal length can give you razor thin DoF with an APS-C. Give me an updated 50mm f/1.2 with a true ring AF motor. I'll go for fast, high quality glass over a FF body given the current level of performance of APS-C sensors.

A few weeks back I ran into a guy with a Canon 7D and a super-zoom while using my Canon 5D and K-7. He started talking about how he wanted thinner DoF and was going to upgrade to a FF. I really just wanted to slap him. If he is too cheap to buy fast glass then he is too cheap to buy a FF body. If he had fast glass and knew how to use it he would find that APS-C will do 90% (probably more) of what he needs.

The majority of the major posters on this forum represent a very small percentage of the Pentax customer base.

[RioRico]

The big problem I see with the whole discussion is in-body SR. If you take the lens off your k-5, switch on live view, and watch the sensor, it sweeps out nearly full-frame area anyway - probably why many of the "crop-sensor" lenses from pentax work on FF film. If you gave the FF sensor that much movement *1.5, I'm thinking you're talking at least 40-45mm of coverage. That's nearly MF territory. I bet the FA ltds don't cover 45mm x 34mm.

Hmmm, that point sounds like an FF-killer. How does Sony handle IBIS in their FF's?