[redrockcoulee]

Perhaps I am a FF naysayer. I simply think that Pentax having a FF camera will not bring in customers for the K-r and so that should not be used as justification. Perhaps retaining K5 users who believe that they need something to grow into is one but that is not what some were arguing.
The 645D argument is a red herring, as stated elsewhere different market, different expectations and different competition. Not any where as many long lenses in the MF market. You want a FF camera and how many lenses to go with that? Those long lenses are needed for both FF and cropped formats. I still think that Pentax needs to promote itself more at the entry level and offer some additional lenses for a greater range prior to a FF. No idea about the Q, different market from either the K series or the 645D and not one I am the least bit interested in, if it is a big market or not I have no knowledge.

I do not think that Pentax needs to build a FF to survive or even to grow. If they do produce one I think it will be hard pressed to compete with both the D700 and D3/D3X markets and then people will complain that it is too big too expensive and needs to be upgraded too soon. Sure Pentax will sell FF cameras but I think one lower than the K-r, more lenses and much more marketing should be higher priorities for the company. Myself I do not need the lower model, more lenses or the marketing so I think (and hope) I am only stating what I think is best for the brand and its future and not for my own personal desires. Not naysaying just prioritizing.

[eddie1960]

I agree FF is not priority # 1 but it does I think have to appear to remain relevant in the market in the long term. I think there needs to be a strong 3 camera APS-C lineup first (entry-mid-enthusiast) and an APS-C MILC (maybe a GXR module setup??)
I also think in the next 2 years outside there will need to be a 645D mark 2 probably with a FF 645 sensor
Lens production is also a priority if FF is to come about as some holes need to be filled

I think the biggest error i see in thinking here is comparing what happened under Hoya to future plans. Pentax was essentially parked under hoya and the minimum was done to rationalize it and make it attractive for sale, there was no long term plan as there was no plan to keep it long term. Just my opinion but that's what it looks like. Ricoh on the other hand in it for long term and growth from the limited statements they have released. So basing future on the past is a bit of a fallacy as a lot changes in this equation
I think we will get a really good feel of what is going to happen by spring of next year-until then it's just a bunch of camera nerds sitting around speculating with nothing to back it up (unless of course one of us is secretly a Pentax head office marketing or R&D guy in disguise getting a pulse on what the plan should be )

[TaoMaas]

What if Pentax were to build a "no-frills" FF camera? Kinda take the approach that they did when they came out with the 6X7 years ago. The 6X7 left off things like interchangeable backs and leaf shutters which were common on almost all medium format cameras up to that time. Losing those things allowed Pentax to offer a camera with a lower price point and much better handling, but which gave nothing away in imaging power. What if Pentax did something similar with FF? For instance, do away with in-camera shake reduction in order to help hold down size and cost, but build in a sensor with the highest resolution and best low-light performance possible.

[Asahiflex]

What if Pentax were to build a "no-frills" FF camera? Kinda take the approach that they did when they came out with the 6X7 years ago. The 6X7 left off things like interchangeable backs and leaf shutters which were common on almost all medium format cameras up to that time. Losing those things allowed Pentax to offer a camera with a lower price point and much better handling, but which gave nothing away in imaging power. What if Pentax did something similar with FF? For instance, do away with in-camera shake reduction in order to help hold down size and cost, but build in a sensor with the highest resolution and best low-light performance possible.

That's exactly what they did with the 645D. However I agree; a FF camera from Pentax could be a K-5 minus the SR. But PLEASE make it the smallest FF DSLR available and have it WR'ed from front to back. Give it the best viewfinder on the market. 1080p/24 movie mode with full controls.

[Clinton]

That's ex However I agree; a FF camera from Pentax could be a K-5 minus the SR. But PLEASE make it the smallest FF DSLR available and have it WR'ed from front to back. Give it the best viewfinder on the market. 1080p/24 movie mode with full controls.

But, but... I want the SR

[Asahiflex]

But, but... I want the SR

No problem; just attach 10 LBS of weight to the tripod socket

[RonHendriks1966]

On the sensor:
There is one miscalculation in here. When Pentax can make a 5 % marketshare in Full Frame in future. The Pentax part is almost entirely based upon making the Full Frame market bigger and not much eating out on the markets from Nikon/Canon. And Sony makes the sensors used in Nikon/Sony/Pentax Full Frame camera's. And the two platforms, Canon- and Sony-based sensors are sharing the market almost on even 50 %. Then the sensors used and needed for Pentax are only 5 % of the total market, but are 10 % of the production made by Sony, and that is a significant number!

[eddie1960]

while it would reduce cost (somewhat) and size a little then they would have to develop OS lenses to compliment it. not having stabilization of one form or the other would be a bad idea. Given the legal battles out there over OS design, I'm pretty certain they will stick with SR

[TaoMaas]

That's exactly what they did with the 645D. However I agree; a FF camera from Pentax could be a K-5 minus the SR. But PLEASE make it the smallest FF DSLR available and have it WR'ed from front to back. Give it the best viewfinder on the market. 1080p/24 movie mode with full controls.

So you'd be okay with a reduced feature set if it gained certain other things? I was just thinking that SR might be the logical thing to dump since one of the big draws off FF is being able to use fast wide-angle lenses. The faster aperture is going to allow faster shutter speeds, as will the better high ASA performance of FF, so SR might not be as needed.

[Class A]

Why is that exactly ? I thought you yourself have been harking the point that there needs to be a "K-3" that is a 'reliable K-5' in other threads ..

Unless you'll dig up the thread, I'll deny having said anything like that.
I do believe that the K-5 concept deserves a cleaned up version of it (without low light AF issues, without flash exposure issues, without fear of getting mirror flopping). However I don't think that a reliable K-5 version will be a commercial success as it won't convince many current K-5 owners to upgrade.

There's that assumption that everyone eventually aspiress to a FF again !

I'm not assuming that. However, if I had a working K-5 and all Pentax had to offer were an epsilon improvement on it, why would I splash out >=$1500 to get minimal improvements?

A change in format is another matter. Higher DR, wide-angle photography, sharper images (less AF accuracy required), more DOF options, etc. Not everyone will jump on a camera like that but I believe that it would attract more current K-5 owners than just a K-5s.

[eddie1960]

So you'd be okay with a reduced feature set if it gained certain other things? I was just thinking that SR might be the logical thing to dump since one of the big draws off FF is being able to use fast wide-angle lenses. The faster aperture is going to allow faster shutter speeds, as will the bettter high ASA performance of FF, so SR might not be as needed.

sounds great until you attach an FA77 or a 100 2.8 or a da 200 (which should cover the image circle). the wides may not need SR but anything large than say a 50 would benefit
You could of course always buy one of the Sigmas with OS but that doesn't benefit Ricoh/Pentax and ultimately they will want to benefit on their end
Also one of the huge sell points on all models of Pentax has been SR, why would they want to dump that on what would be the DSLR flagship (MF being different game entirely). the other big thing has been high quality WR an sturdy magnesium chassis. I doubt a FF would omit any of this

[Class A]

Because APS-C makes its $$$ for Sony on volume sales while FF makes it on restricted volume margins.

I don't follow. More profit is more profit for SONY semiconductors. Whether it comes from high volume sales or more high margin sales.

Also, it should be in SONY's (DSLR division) interest to drive up their APC-C camera sales. Every customer lost to Pentax means that SONY will lose revenue on cameras and -- more importantly -- on lenses. If SONY semiconductors were on a leash to not nurture Pentax then they shouldn't sell APS-C sensors to Pentax; much more so than not selling FF sensors (whose numbers are inconsequential anyhow, according to your picture).

Falk is right. Thom Hogan and the Sony camp see this as well.

So there's a much better explanation (AFAIC) than your statement of "there is no FF market".

Pentax has zero ability to "shake things up".

We'll see.

Have you seen the buffers for a Mark II data dump? And a PDAF array in a D700?

I understand the K-5's AF module is bigger than that of the D7000. I don't think that either of us are in a position to authoritatively state what the minimal size for a FF DSLR is. I believe that current FF models do not represent the minimal sizes possible.

The FF mirror box is basically unalterable if a DSLR.

But much of the current Pentax mirror boxes has FF dimensions already (registration distance!)?!

The smaller form factor FF concept is a dead end.

We'll see.

K-5 Super. Better AF system. Stronger video options.

I just don't believe this has great appeal to current K-5 owners. Everyone one this forum (except myself) seems to have a K-5 already so what do you want to offer them beyond these epsilon improvements? Many think the K-5's AF is just dandy and don't need further video options.

Longer warranty. Work on QC. Lower the price.

I don't see longer warranty coming. They would have to start to clean up the SDM mess. Maybe Ricoh will bring some change but I don't see this as one of the first moves. Better QC and lower prices are nice, but no incentives for current flagship owners to splash out again.

DSLR innovation now is about incremental changes.

That's why an FF offering would be a way to break that problem. The next APS-C model will be an incremental improvement. An FF camera would be more than that.

I don't think there's an FF sensor available to Pentax in the current cycle. I think, like Olympus, Pentax will have work on their current offerings and innovate with smaller sensors until the FF cost curve moves towards players with smaller market share.

Quite possible.

[Asahiflex]

while it would reduce cost (somewhat) and size a little then they would have to develop OS lenses to compliment it. not having stabilization of one form or the other would be a bad idea. Given the legal battles out there over OS design, I'm pretty certain they will stick with SR

Did you know that Canon uses some Pentax patents in their OS system?

Anyway, it's up to Pentax to decide on the SR. However, I also think that SR, along with weather sealing and other assets, are to be expected in any FF model.

[adr1an]

Can someone just explain where the new market share is coming from ?

I did ask earlier.. so far we have

Phase 1: Produce a FF Body
Phase 2: ?
Phase 3: Profit!

Can someone help expand on Phase 2 for me ?? I seem to keep missing it....

[TaoMaas]

sounds great until you attach an FA77 or a 100 2.8 or a da 200 (which should cover the image circle). the wides may not need SR but anything large than say a 50 would benefit

True...but if long lenses are your thing, APS-C would be the way to go. You can get the same reach in smaller lenses. I'm just throwing some possibilities out there because I believe Pentax has to find some way to make themselves stand out from the FF crowd if they hope to be successful. If they build a camera that's about the same price as Canon/Nikon, with about the same feature set, but with an AF system that doesn't match Canon or Nikon, I don't see the big appeal to anyone but a subset of current Pentax users.