[jstevewhite]

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

I dunno. The a900 specs say it uses sensor-shift stabilization. I wonder if they just accept some vignetting? Color me puzzled.

[fuent104]

"HD Video is going to kill screw dive. I don't think that Pentax will continue screw drive in a FF body."

You made some interesting points, but I don't see that screw drive has much to do with HD video. People who would be likely to use any kind of autofocus or powerzoom function while recording video would most likely be documentary filmmakers. For documentaries, dslrs are MUCH less desirable than dedicated video cameras, either with large sensors (which have begun to arrive on the market) or smaller sensors (deep focus is much more desirable than shallow depth of field for most documentary filmmaking).

Dramatic (fictitious) filmmakers who enjoy the wonderful benefits of HDSLR video are, much, much less likely to use any of the features utilized by screw drive.

[jstevewhite]

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.

This is one of those "Depends on how you look at the extra pixels and format size" things. If you print at 8x10, the lenses will be *exactly* as good as they've always been. And that's how most of the APS-c to FF comparisons are done - that is, using the same size prints. But some might ask - why would I need more MP if I wasn't printing larger prints?

I snipped out the rest because I pretty much agree with it across the board.

[jstevewhite]

"HD Video is going to kill screw dive. I don't think that Pentax will continue screw drive in a FF body."

You made some interesting points, but I don't see that screw drive has much to do with HD video. People who would be likely to use any kind of autofocus or powerzoom function while recording video would most likely be documentary filmmakers. For documentaries, dslrs are MUCH less desirable than dedicated video cameras, either with large sensors (which have begun to arrive on the market) or smaller sensors (deep focus is much more desirable than shallow depth of field for most documentary filmmaking).

Dramatic (fictitious) filmmakers who enjoy the wonderful benefits of HDSLR video are, much, much less likely to use any of the features utilized by screw drive.

I think you should go back and read your own post... I think DSLRs are creating many new filmmakers and niches as they improve. Sure, the guy shooting a movie is going to tape off the distance, set it and forget it, and steam up around the ears if it autofocuses. But I've seen, as an example, several wedding shooters using 5DmkIIs to shoot wedding videos - that way the team of three shooters has five identical machines to work with. The videos they make are stunning - somewhat predictable and formulaic, but stunning nevertheless.

[Aristophanes]

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.

[Aristophanes]

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.

There has been huge pent-up demand for a non-Leica rangefinder equivalent in digital,especially one using an OVF/hybrid, whatever it is. M43 thought they had that market with their add-on hotshoe VF's but Fuji saw better and went for the high-margin jugular.

But with Fuji, it's always better to wait for V.2.0.

[jsherman999]

I think you should go back and read your own post... I think DSLRs are creating many new filmmakers and niches as they improve. Sure, the guy shooting a movie is going to tape off the distance, set it and forget it, and steam up around the ears if it autofocuses. But I've seen, as an example, several wedding shooters using 5DmkIIs to shoot wedding videos - that way the team of three shooters has five identical machines to work with. The videos they make are stunning - somewhat predictable and formulaic, but stunning nevertheless.

.

I'm convinced that I'm seeing more television commercials taken with DSLRs now also, although I can't usually confirm it. Once in a while I'll see a shot framed kinda wide-ish, but with the subject isolated in an odd way - and by 'odd' I mean unlike I'm used to seeing in TV commercials, arresting and attractive. Joseph Wisniewski claims that a lot of commercials, documentaries and interviews are being done with 5DIIs now, and I believe him.



.

[sjwaldron]

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

"CCD-Shift SteadyShot INSIDE system" for the A900.

[Aristophanes]

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.

Good point. Only Leica seems to get away with that.

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.

And the phase detect system; that takes up unshrinkable real estate. Sensors doing video or high FPS get very hot as does the underlying circuitry, so there's cooling that wasn't there for film. Mirror lock-up requires extra circuits for timers and, or course, power. And so on.

Take a look at how much space the Q SR system, one of its defining specifications, takes up relative t the sensor size, and you get some idea as to how difficult it is to incorporate SR into a K1000 size body (or even an MZ-D):

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)?

None. IS/VR for Canikon makes for some very big lenses, primes and zooms,them's that have it. The better ones don't (14-24, 24-70).

For Pentax, the allure of a digital FF is an SR-stabilised FA Limited primes.

The Sony A series FF's are big cameras with a lot of internal space dedicated to sensor shift.

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).

We'll go FF when APS-C runs out of steam and marketing says to engineering: "Time to go big". And the bean counters say "Here's some money, go big".

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

I saw a guy with a digital Hasselblad. I wanted to run up and scratch the lens with a dime when I actually saw him rub the lens with his sleeve, I kid you not!

[jsherman999]

.... Are you willing to do without SR?

After shooting the D700 with unstabilized lenses now for about 1.5 years, I'd say definitely yes, although SR is a strong selling point to lose at the counter.

When Falk claimed that the FF sensors were only $200/unit over APS-C I double-checked and I think he was wrong.

FWIW, As a point of reference either way, Thom Hogan has said that the D3x sensor costs Nikon $450 more than the sensor used in the D7000.

The only way to grow an FF market from 5% market share in APS-C is to go after the other guy's users.

And/or to intercept the other guy's users before they become the other guy's users. A FF upgrader from Pentax or Olympus or Panasonic or something else doesn't have Pentax as a choice right now, so they become Nikon/Canon or maybe Sony FF-er by default.

Pentax's "strengths" in the smaller form factor APS-C world have got them a 5% market share, or haven't you noticed yet!

K100D wasn't any smaller than the D40 or Xt, K20D wasn't smaller than the D90... the K-7 was smaller than the 7-D and D300s, but underperformed. I think they'll have the small DSLR FF body to themselves for a while if they can jump in there first.

If it's truly not possible to build anything with a mirror and OVF and a 135 sensor smaller than the D700, I'd be extremely surprised.


.

[Blue]

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.

If that is the case then why are Canon guys hacking the damn levers off of A 50/1.2 etc and going to the trouble of shaving the mirrors on there ff bodies to use vintage glass? Furthermore, a lot of the people that want a full frame body want to take advantage of fast, wide angle glass. You, know, the opposite of that argument that FA 20 and K18 aren't really, ultrawide. That is just one aspect of it. On top of that, a full frame digital body isn't going to magically relegate the FA 31mm/1.8 or K28./2 to to opaque glass. Furthermore, it is expected that updated glass will be forthwith. After all, Pentax has been putting out full frame glass since 1952.

Edit:

http://www.16-9.net/5d_mirrorshave/

http://www.flickr.com/groups/m42/discuss/72157608012701824/

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/general-photography/111527-switching-cano...on-camera.html

[Blue]

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

Sony doesn't have an IBIS full frame body, it can't be done.

[jstevewhite]

.

I'm convinced that I'm seeing more television commercials taken with DSLRs now also, although I can't usually confirm it. Once in a while I'll see a shot framed kinda wide-ish, but with the subject isolated in an odd way - and by 'odd' I mean unlike I'm used to seeing in TV commercials, arresting and attractive. Joseph Wisniewski claims that a lot of commercials, documentaries and interviews are being done with 5DIIs now, and I believe him.

.

Me, too. I'm amazed by the quality of video this K-5 produces; give me more control over video and it's a winner. You could do real work with it.

Commercials are nearly the ideal application space for these sorts of machines. Short takes (The 5d - and I think, the MkII ) are time-constrained by the FAT32 filesystem, as are most similar machines) and high quality.

[fuent104]

"I'm convinced that I'm seeing more television commercials taken with DSLRs now also, although I can't usually confirm it. Once in a while I'll see a shot framed kinda wide-ish, but with the subject isolated in an odd way - and by 'odd' I mean unlike I'm used to seeing in TV commercials, arresting and attractive. Joseph Wisniewski claims that a lot of commercials, documentaries and interviews are being done with 5DIIs now, and I believe him."

There are definitely a lot of those types of projects being done with 5ds and 7ds. This is one area in which I can claim some kind of experience, as I currently study under an ASC cinematographer and have been on some professional sets (A spaghetti western spoof I shot can be seen at

Vimeo

password "lira"). Commercials (at least high production-value) commercials are most often (at least historically) shot in the same manner as movies, i.e. focus is marked and pulled entirely manually, and zooming during the shot is generally not done. DSLRS are very suitable to this style of shooting. Interviews are good for this style, too, as they don't usually involve a lot of movement.

Documentaries have used these cameras as well, but it is mostly out of compromise. They have been the only low-cost, large-sensor video cameras on the market. As more dedicated large-sensor video cameras are introduced (the Pansonic AF100 and the Sony NEX-VG10 are the main options right now), documentary filmmakers will be highly likely to choose them over dslrs. The main reasons are that they have better ergonomics, and a wider array of professional caliber inputs and outputs.

[sjwaldron]

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.

When it comes down to it, we are debating with our opinions as evidence. So I don't think we can come to any type of agreement here, but I'll try to prove my point again.

I don't understand what you mean by "The K-5 and K-r are pretty much as small as one can go."... Than what?

- Pentax APS-C SLRs are smaller than the competition, yet have more internal features such as SR.
- The K-5 has many similarities to a 7D for example, yet is smaller and has internal SR.
- Pentax will soon be releasing the Q camera/system. This is the smallest interchangeable lens system ever released from one of the major companies. The extending flash in the Q is a Pentax feat of engineering that disproves a general "it can't be done" mindset.
- Pentax skills at work: PENTAX K-5 body - a set on Flickr


While from your point of view you might feel they need a stable of f2.8 zooms, I don't. If I wanted 35mm full-frame for the sake of it, I'd buy into one of the other systems. I currently own many more prime lenses than zooms. Just look at the president of Pentax USA's blog posts to see a similar style of photographer. I think there is a shift back to primes lenses in all camps. Look at how successful and popular the Fuji x100 is with a fixed prime lens, it's major selling point is that optical viewfinder. Let's even talk about the 645D and it being released successfully with a single 55mm prime lens, where most of the initial sales came from 645 film users. I'm not expecting magic as you say, but I do expect historic Pentax treatment to whatever they release now. Doing otherwise with pseudo-pro K10D/K20D and me-too zoom lens would be a failure and they did basically die because of it, but Hoya stepped in and now Ricoh here. I started with a *ist DS and jumped to a K-7. I did have a short stint with a K10D, but eventually got rid of it in favor of a K-5 and keeping the K-7 as my second.