[Aristophanes]

Again, nothing but assumptions. And Sony will sell a FF sensor to anyone willing to pay for them. The Sony semiconductor company has nothing to do with the camera company apart from a close relationship. They would be stupid limiting sales to only a few (or only one) camera maker.

This is totally not factual.

It has been well known that Sony has given Nikon precedence in sensor fabrication and exclusivity. There is actually no evidence Sony *will* sell a sensor to anyone; in fact, all the evidence points to Sony reducing sales to itself (the discontinuance of the A850) and favouring industrial production in a sweetheart deal to Nikon who bring the one thing that Sony cannot deliver: volume.

Can Pentax deliver FF sales at Nikon volume, from a 5% or less market share of its 35mm market?

No way. That's the raw math here.

Sony would be very wise to limit sales to one, high-volume purchaser at high margins rather than risk a commodity pricing system to multiple bargain-chasers. The real $$ made in industrial production is on select, high-value deals with locked-in prices and deliverables. Sony wants FF to stay high-margin as APS-C is turning into a commodity product with lower returns. It is entirely normal to restrict supply to have one segment become commodity and another up the value ladder be restricted to drive margins higher. It's the history of retail electronics of which DSLR's are now a handmaiden industry. With almost no price pressure from MF at starting $10k price points, there is no reason for Sony or any chip supplier to ramp up FF production to drive down costs and increase market penetration. This explains Leica's sweetheart deal with Kodak and even Sigma's insane, recent pricing strategy.

FF sensors are restricted in supply and priced according to keep margins very high, and are done so through exclusive design and distribution deals. you don't see chop suppliers rushing to serve a burgeoning, nascent FF market. In fact, the opposite is happening; APS-C product cycles are eclipsing FF and cannibalizing that market. Sony saw that. Pentax would have to bring substantial volume to the table to budge this equation. I cannot see Pentax FF sales at $3,000 per body coming even close, not when the baseline is a 5% market share. The # of FF Pentax DSLR bodies sold would be in the hundreds per month which is likely nowhere enough for Sony strike design and fab deals with Pentax.

FF will come to be when APS-C 'tops out' and capital can go to larger sensors as a market advantage. The image circle of the Sony NEX system tells that story.

[twitch]

Which do you think would have the best IQ?

1) New FF Pentax with FA50 @ f/2.8
2) K-5 with FA31 wide open @ f/1.8

I ask this because the savings on glass alone (wide & normal, not long) could be enough to buy the FF body instead of the K-5.

[RBellavance]

The beauty of a full frame body is it allows folks to grow at their own speed. Since presumably it would be based on the K mount, even DA series lenses would still work, just with an APS-C sized virtual crop factor.

And what, pray tell, prevents someone to "grow at their own speed" with an APS-C sensor ?

For folks who aren't ready to take the full frame plunge yet, the camera could still be a stepping stone for the future, allowing them to upgrade a lens at a time.

You make it sound as if everyone desires a "full frame" camera. That is simply not true. I'd hasard a guess that the vast majority of photographers don't care (or are not even interested) at all.

I think a full frame body will have huge appeal.

And I think it would have a very limited appeal, and even more limited profit potential for Pentax.

I'd like someone to explain to me what exactly makes a "full frame" camera an "upgrade path" for someone with a top-of-the-line APS-C camera and a corresponding full assortment of APS-C-specific lenses. I know it has a bigger & brighter VF, lower noise (for an equivalent sensor generation), and allows thinner DOF. How all of that can make one a *better* photographer I just do not grasp.

[maxfield_photo]

Why is it the APS-C fan peoples have to hate on us that want a FF Pentax?

Haters gonna hate I guess.

[Pentikonian]

Maybe, but not for users of old glass. Please try to understand the appeal of the current mirrorless market. It's not because of the lack of the mirror, but the fact that all sorts of lenses fit those cameras, both old and new. Nikon is not known for being highly adaptable to all sorts of glass. There's a reason indie filmmakers prefer Canon. Nikon has the worst registration distance in the market.

Well... as a D700 owner, I'm not sure what you are getting at here? I have a growing collection of manual focus Nikon Ai-S lenses, and use them regularly. The camera meters properly in all metering modes (matrix, center-weighted and spot), and works in full manual or aperture-priority. The lenses work wonderfully. And they are a joy for me to use due to the solid build and nice focus feel.

With regards to full frame cameras, Nikon has backwards compatibility just about as far back as they can go...

The current consumer APS-C/ DX DSLRs have been crippled by removing the AF drive motor, and lack the capability to meter with old lenses. However, the current pro and prosumer models can mount and meter everything except the old invasive lenses (fisheyes) and non-converted pre-AI lenses. They can also drive the old AF lenses because they have the AF motor and drive screw. (Converted pre-Ai, Ai, Ai-S, Ai-P, AF, AF-D, AF-I, AF-S - that's a lot of Nikon/ third party glass...)

The older consumer/ prosumer bodies are a mix of capabilities.

Removing the AF drive motor is useful in making a smaller camera. But I believe Nikon made an error with the decision to remove the ability to use the older lenses, and have actually caused some people to get other cameras due to this decision.



As for Pentax going FF? I'm not sure they'll go there. Wouldn't mind seeing it. And I think they could make a FF model a little smaller than Canon or Nikon - but there is a limit to how much smaller you can go, just due to the increased space required for the larger sensor and support structure.

[Rorschach]

Right, but our point was that people mention the 645D as an 'upgrade path' for the K-5 shooter, but it's really not an 'upgrade path' any more than the Nikon D3X or a Hassy for example would be. It's a different mount altogether, it just happens to carry the Pentax name.

The FF cameras from other manufacturers do represent upgrade paths for those shooters, because the mount is the same as their ap-c bodies. With the exception of the aps-c only zooms (and a few primes,) you'd be able to use all your existing lenses when you upgrade. You'd even be able to mount and use your aps-c-only lenses in DX-mode, because they mount and work just fine, with full metering and AF, and no adapter required.

As far as you, the shooter, is concerned; If you were able to buy a gently-used K-1 for, say, $1800 a couple years from now - and not have to buy any more lenses - wouldn't that be an attractive option?

As far as Ricoh is concerned, they probably will find it hard to justify a FF push without some lenses to go with it. Ned Bunnell has hinted this was the real investment-impediment when Pentax was a standalone.


.

Wrong. There's a lot of people with 645 and 67 lenses. A FF is not particularly interesting to me. But a bare bones 645D would be.

[twitch]

jsherman999 was stating the bleeding obvious to be honest. A 645D is an upgrade path for film 645 shooters, not for APS-C shooters. The 645D is not an upgrade path for K-mount shooters, as jsherman said, it might as well be a Nikon 645D as we can use nothing from our current K-mount system on the 645D other than perhaps a flash.

[sjwaldron]

1. It is unlikely there would be for mirrorless as well, FF or otherwise. The entire concept of the DSLR may be "topping out" as a growth market. FF at 2x the cost of the K-5 is not going to grow any market by definition.

2. Making a $3,000 body for legacy k-mount glass is foolish because that throws all the profit onto the body, not the glass and accessories. The real $$$ in camera systems is the lenses and accessories.

And selling to legacy lens owners is economic suicide. You don't trick out an $800 Sony sensor in a pro DSLR body only to have some guy throw a budget 30 year-old eBay prime on it for his shooting experience.

Could you include reference links when you start talking numbers or engineering limitations? It's not that I won't take your word for it completely, but you seem determined to talk with such authority on the the subject.

There is no profit in bodies and real profit is in lenses and accessories? The vast percentage of people I've seen with DSLRs stick to one or two kit lenses and end up buying another body rather than lenses when they feel the upgrade itch. When they do buy a lens they most often go for a cheap entry level one just to have more range rather than higher quality. While I agree that lenses seem to be profitable, I don't think camera bodies are that much different. Not to mention a lot of people buy 3rd party glass, especially when they are starting out.

I think people of a certain level feel that the important thing about the system is the glass and to fully utilize it they want a full-frame DSLR. These are the people that will front the cash necessary to buy one and these are the people that do hold a large quantity of older glass.

Just having a FF sensor camera available doesn't make it a me-too offering.

[jsherman999]

Which do you think would have the best IQ?

1) New FF Pentax with FA50 @ f/2.8
2) K-5 with FA31 wide open @ f/1.8

I ask this because the savings on glass alone (wide & normal, not long) could be enough to buy the FF body instead of the K-5.

Ah, you get it

The FA 31ltd is great, but it's not sci-fi great; they will even out quite a bit there. The FA 50 1.4 is two stops down by f/2.8, it's center is going to be noticeably sharper, and it will have less vignetting. CA will still favor the 31ltd, but that's correctable in post. 31ltd on aps-c will be a bit wider, still (50mm of FF ~ 35-36mm on aps-c)

Compare 50 @ f/2.8 to 31 @ f/1.8:











My most-used lens on my D700 is the $109 50 1.8D. You could use the $700 you save on the 31ltd towards the cost of the K-1 body, or sink it into more glass, etc.

It would be much better if Pentax came out with a new FA 20 2/8, or if there were a bunch of used ones around, because it will be hard to go wide/small with a prime without that 20mm.


.

[jsherman999]

It has been well known that Sony has given Nikon precedence in sensor fabrication and exclusivity.

Source?

Nikon may have a time-base exclusivity arrangement with Sony, but it's probably very short-term and open-ended. If Nikon had the power to tell Sony what to do, do you think the K-5 would have got the exact same sensor at the exact same time as the D7000?

There is actually no evidence Sony *will* sell a sensor to anyone; in fact, all the evidence points to Sony reducing sales to itself (the discontinuance of the A850)

Much more plausible is that Sony didn't see the point of continuing with two FF DSLR bodies with specs so similar, when the majority of A850 buyers would have just bought an A900 if that were the only option. Plus, they may be coming out with another FF body in 2012 that fits into the A850 slot, possibly a translucent mirror body.

Dumping A850 because Nikon told them to seems far-fetched to me in comparison.

Sony would be very wise to limit sales to one, high-volume purchaser at high margins rather than risk a commodity pricing system to multiple bargain-chasers.

How are they risking a 'commodity pricing system' if they sell directly to both Nikon and Pentax at the same per-unit price? They aren't throwing the sensor wafers out the door like frisbees to OEMs for discounting, they determine the asking price, keeping the margins where they want them to be.




.

[jsherman999]

I'd like someone to explain to me what exactly makes a "full frame" camera an "upgrade path" for someone with a top-of-the-line APS-C camera and a corresponding full assortment of APS-C-specific lenses. I know it has a bigger & brighter VF, lower noise (for an equivalent sensor generation), and allows thinner DOF. How all of that can make one a *better* photographer I just do not grasp.

It wouldn't make you a better photographer any more than upgrading from a *istD to a K-5 would make you a better photographer.

It just tends to expand your options, increase shot-shot performance and keeper ratios. It gets out of the way a bit more effectively, frustrates you less, and may be more enjoyable to shoot as a result.

Plus, some lenses that are so-so on aps-c because of wide-open performance or FOV are much more useful on FF. (it flips on the long end - aps-c pulls ahead in size/cost/IQ ratios with long telephoto when you consider pixel densities of current sensors.)



.

[Asahiflex]

This is totally not factual.

It has been well known that Sony has given Nikon precedence in sensor fabrication and exclusivity. There is actually no evidence Sony *will* sell a sensor to anyone; in fact, all the evidence points to Sony reducing sales to itself (the discontinuance of the A850) and favouring industrial production in a sweetheart deal to Nikon who bring the one thing that Sony cannot deliver: volume.

If this quote is factual, then please show me proof of that.

Can Pentax deliver FF sales at Nikon volume, from a 5% or less market share of its 35mm market?

No way. That's the raw math here.

The raw truth is that Sony will sell their sensors to whoever wants them. Common business practice. The availability of virtually the same sensor in the K-5 and D7000, at virtually the same introduction time, says it all. I can't for the life of me see Sony telling Pentax "Sorry, but we won't sell you our FF sensors, your business is not worthy to us, please move on". Bad business practice which will even harm their APS-C sales.

Sony would be very wise to limit sales to one, high-volume purchaser at high margins rather than risk a commodity pricing system to multiple bargain-chasers.

Why do you think Pentax would be among this group of bargain chasers? I think you are underestimating Pentax; after all the 645D is not a bargain camera (it may be on the MF market though ).

FF sensors are restricted in supply and priced according to keep margins very high, and are done so through exclusive design and distribution deals. you don't see chop suppliers rushing to serve a burgeoning, nascent FF market. In fact, the opposite is happening; APS-C product cycles are eclipsing FF and cannibalizing that market. Sony saw that. Pentax would have to bring substantial volume to the table to budge this equation. I cannot see Pentax FF sales at $3,000 per body coming even close, not when the baseline is a 5% market share. The # of FF Pentax DSLR bodies sold would be in the hundreds per month which is likely nowhere enough for Sony strike design and fab deals with Pentax.

Hundreds per month: I can assure you that the FF Pentax would easily outsell the 645D because it has a MUCH bigger appeal to current users, both of Pentax and other brands. Please try to understand this from a historical and technical standpoint. If the FF Pentax will have a superb 1080/24p movie mode, I can tell you the 5D MkII will struggle on the indie market... Because the K-mount is really an asset; AF is unwanted for filmmakers. Pentax would be very wise to also cater for that market.

Please try to understand that the Pentax FF market is not exactly the same market Nikon and Canon are competing in...

FF will come to be when APS-C 'tops out' and capital can go to larger sensors as a market advantage. The image circle of the Sony NEX system tells that story.

FF will come, regardless of what you're thinking. Because the APS-C market has already topped out with the K-5. To current K-5 users, there's little to no point to upgrade to its successor... Pentax definitely needs to find new markets to keep selling their products. That means new bodies and even new lenses.

[RonHendriks1966]

FF will come, regardless of what you're thinking. Because the APS-C market has already topped out with the K-5. To current K-5 users, there's little to no point to upgrade to its successor... Pentax definitely needs to find new markets to keep selling their products. That means new bodies and even new lenses.

Well there are still a number of things to improve on our K-5, so when they fix it (not even talking about a new sensor) people will buy this new camera. When a new sensor ads value, there is one more reason.

When sensor technics take on to the next level (no linereading, but pixelreading, no shutter, but electronical opening of the pixel readtime) then we all want that new technic.

[rawr]

That's not a market. Get real.

All your points are valid. I'm not going to argue about FF representing an upgrade path or anything.

But there is still space for Pentax to throw together a prestige FF flagship, one not designed to take over the world or cost a lot of money to develop or support, but which does something to maintain Pentax's high-end DSLR credentials, and generate market buzz.

If the Q is any guide, Pentax are certainly capable of going out on a limb with quirky new products, which is how I would class a Pentax FF But if anything, a Pentax FF might actually be a sounder business proposition than the Q, as long as Pentax stay modest about their goals with the product.

[PentaxForums-User]

Full-Frame? Ha! It almost seems Pentax is going in the OPPOSITE direction with the Q! (Which I can't understand for the life of me! ... Pentax should make a mini like the Q or a PEN that still mounts K,... make it look like the traditional Spotmatics and K1000s, and I bet you it would be a hit!) I've been wanting a smaller retro camera with a K-mount for ages, and FUJI and LEICA proves others want that, too! A K1000 is full-frame, AND SMALL... so why can't it be done? SONY NEXs proves it can be done. Pentax.... get a CLUE!