Originally posted by 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.
Have you seen the size of the APS-C in-camera SR system? And the AF systems? And the circuitry to d/l a 10fps sequence in RAW for 3 minutes? Or the power necessary to run all that with stable supply?
The K-5 and K-r are pretty much as small as one can go.
And an FF sensor will chew up even more space with a bigger mirror box. FF may be able to get as a small as APS-H, smaller with pellicle, much smaller mirrorless and dropping an OVF. Trade-offs need to be made, not a laundry list of additions. Are you willing to do without SR? That could drop cavity space by as much as 25%. There's no engineering miracles here; the support system for digital takes up more space than the film case ever did for 135. Power alone for the D700 takes up the equivalent (with no video!). I suspect the D300 size is as small as FF can go, and that's much larger than a K-5.
When Falk claimed that the FF sensors were only $200/unit over APS-C I double-checked and I think he was wrong. I say FF sensors coming in closer 2.5 APS-C because the latter's production curve is still bending downwards (the $299 D3000 is a case in point, or the $199 D60 I saw 6 months ago) whereas very weak FF demand has kept FF sensor cost very, very high/unit. I would not be surprised to see FF sensors at no less than $800 per with 3x that cost for the other added components plus margin. You'd need to sell as much as Nikon to lower that cost. There'a a reason Canon makes an APS-H to keep a cost floor at the fab. You're a me-too camera maker if you have to buy the same sensor as your much larger competitor and circuit boards can only shrink so far.
Pentax will need a series of 2.8 zooms because that's what the other guys have! You cannot hope to compete by under-speccing your lens array on the hope that some miracle of engineering will magically shrink a Pentax FF below what 3 other major manufacturer's have been able to do. You're assuming people buy the body and then figure out which lens to get; not in the land of multi-thousand $$$ cameras they don't.
The only way to grow an FF market from 5% market share in APS-C is to go after the other guy's users. How Pentax can do that without FF 2.8 glass when that's the mainstay of Canikon is absurd. Pentax's "strengths" in the smaller form factor APS-C world have got them a 5% market share, or haven't you noticed yet! It's not like the K-5 is taking away share from Canikon using your strategy. If anything, it's cost them pro market potential where the big margins come to subsidize everyone else.
If you want a lightweight FF camera without all that added circuitry, you want an M9 which is only marginally larger than an M7. That same 1-for-1 tradeoff for RF's cannot be made for DSLR'S with all the AF, SR, high FPS, video, live view, blah, blah, blah without increasing the form factor. Even the MZ-D was a big beast. If we see Sony issuing a FF pellicle in 2012 once Nikon has proven this sensor's worth, then we'll maybe see some innovation on a smaller form factor. Rumour has it the D800 is slightly smaller than the D700.