[devorama]

I've always thought of Pentax as the Mazda to Canon/Nikon's Honda/Toyota duopoly.

[Raybo]

A tweaked K-5 (better AF and video which I don't care about) with the same (tweaked) 16MP sensor would be a start.

[Wired]

The LXD...but here is how I would build it:

1: The big issue with the D800, D4, 5D mkiii, are the size and weight. No one wants to haul around this huge kit around for extended periods. It's heavy, and if you are shooting in remote locations or wandering the streets looking for that perfect shot, its going to start draining you quickly. This has been Pentax's advantage in the DSLR field for a while. The K5 is very small compared to the competition and delivers just as good and in many cases better image quality for better price and ergonomics.

So lets make the LXD smaller. What do we get rid of? The mirror. Lets learn from Olympus's amazing OMD. Lets make a mirrorless Full Frame. I was opposed to this theory at first, but after handling and seeing the OMD from Olympus I realized what one could do with this on a larger scale for image sensor. Obviously the camera will be bigger than the OMD once we add in some more of the main features needed for the Pentax full frame. If Sony can make the NEX series so small and with the ASP-C sensor to boot...Pentax should be able to fit a Full Frame sensor into something around the size of a 70's film camera... and that leads to:

2: Retro styling. It's huge right now, and Olympus and Fuji got it right with the OMD and the X series. These cameras are growing in popularity and breathing life into these brands by jumping on the retro bandwagon. But they are very beautiful looking cameras, and are full featured. They are getting $1000+ hard earned dollars from people on small sensor cameras. People whined with the Q came out and said the money was too much for a small sensor camera... but now the OMD and X are out and the sensors are smaller than APSC, and the money is higher than many APSC's in the same "class" and they are getting it... wonder why? People love retro.

3: While mirrorless, we cannot have just a monitor on the back like the Pentax K-01, Nikon J1, NEX, Q...etc. Give us an electronic view finder and an articulating screen like that of the OMD. The screen of the NEX which articulates is very thin, and has amazing rendering qualities. But in direct sunlight is almost impossible to use... same with the Q. I've never used the K-01 in sunlight but can't expect it to operate much better. A serious camera, with a serious sensor in it, needs a serious way to compose shots. The NEX7 and OMD do it with electronic view finders, and they work well... lets get that on our Pentax Full Frame.

4: The sensor... Well, I would love for it to have 36.6mp sensor of the D800 from Nikon... but really, its overkill, especially for what Pentax needs to build. So lets "settle" for a 24mp sensor. We will still get the beautiful rendering qualities of Full Frame, and still have a manageable file size that we can work with. The other benefit will be having a sensor that will not outperform most lenses currently on the market, which many D800 owners are mentioning. Pentax could get away with having their FA limited series and revamp some of the DA line and have a cost effective lens lineup that can match 24mp easily. The other big benefit...cost

5: On the subject of cost, Pentax would be shooting themselves in the foot if they were to price this like the D800 and 5D mkii. I think $2000 USD would be the peak for this camera. Any more than that and they will be too expensive to get the enthusiast market not to go with the heavy hitters. Any cheaper and they will have to cut out too many features needed to be competitive. This is a very tight balance beam to tread on, one that will admittedly be tough to do.

6: Speaking of features, one thing Pentax is known for is being an outdoors camera. Many of their bodies are weather sealed, and this is huge for a semi-pro FF camera. if the LXD leaves out the sealing we would still need a very high build quality they are know for with the alloy bodies and tough skins. I know many, including myself, would prefer a sealed body...and I think something they would be silly to leave out.

7: Better auto focusing. The one thing that many complain about is not only the accuracy of Pentax's auto focusing system, its also the speed. Myself personally....I only use centre weighted if I'm not focusing manually so this does not affect me. But to be successful they need to improve AF as most of the shooting public rely on it. Right now... its decent but far from the competition....

8: One other thing the competition does better is speed light control. Once again, I shoot with available light, but I understand the need for better flash control. When using flash in the auto modes on my K5 I can tell it does not meter very well and ends up over exposing very easily. I don't know for sure if this is what many are complaining about, but I do know it could be done better.

9: Can Pentax sacrifice the movie modes? They seem to be very popular with modern camera bodies, and almost a must have. I'm torn on this issue... as leaving out the movie mode(s) could keep the price point manageable, but at the same time...we could do some fun stuff here. First off, we need a dedicated movie record button. The next is full manual control. But one thing I would love? A high speed mode like the Nikon 1 series. This high speed feature could help set this camera apart from the competition.

10: Lenses. Pentax's lens profile right now...well it does not cater to Full Frame very well with most of the lenses being made currently focusing on ASP-C. Naturally of course... The only Full Frame lenses available are the FA series limited, DFA macros, and a few select DA lenses. All of which are prime lenses. While primes are finding a huge come back in modern digital photography, the value of a solid zoom lens cannot be understated. Pentax would have to release a solid lineup of lenses to be competitive in this field. Like the camera, they should be compact...where ever possible. They should all also be WR.

10a: The first thing we need is a zoom lens. Take the DA* 16-50mm and convert it to full frame would be ideal. It's sharp, it has great rendition, and its has a constant 2.8 aperture setting. It would be costly though.

10b: The second would be a cost effective version of the above. But longer... probably a 28-135mm f2.8-4 would be ideal in my opinion. This would make a decent walk around lens and could be made a bit smaller to be more effective. It also gives you the popular 28/50/85/135 focal lengths in one lens. Hopefully priced in the $750-$1000 range.

10c: A longer zoom. 50-200mm f2.8. If you can't beat them, join them...and making a lens based on the Canon EF 70-200 f2.8L USM would be ideal. Price though... $2000 probably...

10d: Bring back a 135mm f1.8 from the A* series for the DA*. To my knowledge there is no current Pentax lens in the 135mm range. This was fine for the APS-C format, as the 70mm Limited gets you close to that same field of view and focal length...but if we are to expect a new Full Frame camera, we need a lens that can give us this focal length and be fast. I would expect this lens to be $1000+, probably closer to $1200/1400.

10e: On the opposite side of the equation, 28mm f2.8. I don't think in the DA* line though. Probably a lower cost prime that will give you some solid shots.

Those lenses coupled with the already stellar FA 31, 43, 77 primes, DFA 50, 100 macros, and the DA 40mm limited can provide a solid stepping stone for Pentax and their FF mirrorless....

I would buy it....

[Kerrowdown]

Subaru have to build cheap cars in order to survive among the auto giants like Toyota

Toyota already have a large percentage (17% ish) of the Subaru (parent company).

The Star Trek Borg phrase "resistance is futile" springs to mind here.

[ihasa]

Wired... I think that's the recipe for a great camera, but don't forget the k-mount precludes quite such a small (thin) camera, at least with current technology. And on video.. No I'm pretty sure video capability doesn't add cost!

Ooh, and on lenses, don't bother converting the DA16-50 to full frame... Simply reissue the FA20-35mm, 24-50mm or 28-70mm.

[Wired]

Wired... I think that's the recipe for a great camera, but don't forget the k-mount precludes quite such a small (thin) camera, at least with current technology. And on video.. No I'm pretty sure video capability doesn't add cost!

Ooh, and on lenses, don't bother converting the DA16-50 to full frame... Simply reissue the FA20-35mm, 24-50mm or 28-70mm.

Thanks. I've been thinking about it for a while. The body dosent have to be a brick like the k01 though. More sculptured like the current dslrs. Maybe more like a k1000 with grip kind of shape.

You could make the mount extrude instead of having it flush with the body like the k01.

Its tricky... I handled both the k01 and 645d this weekend and i think neither are right for me. The k01 is a great camera but too bulky and i dont like the lack of a ovf. The 645 is way too much money for me...and it processes way to slowly.... But the size isn't bad...

If they can make the 645 as small as it is... Even with regestation distance the Pentax FF can br the smallest out there

[D0n]

Thanks. I've been thinking about it for a while. The body dosent have to be a brick like the k01 though. More sculptured like the current dslrs. Maybe more like a k1000 with grip kind of shape.

You could make the mount extrude instead of having it flush with the body like the k01.

Its tricky... I handled both the k01 and 645d this weekend and i think neither are right for me. The k01 is a great camera but too bulky and i dont like the lack of a ovf. The 645 is way too much money for me...and it processes way to slowly.... But the size isn't bad...

If they can make the 645 as small as it is... Even with regestation distance the Pentax FF can br the smallest out there

do you mean collapsable? or even retractable? I think a cheap way to extend the Pentax lineup is to take the electronics from the k-01, and put it into a plastic body with a collapsable lens mount... a fold up k-01 that lets the camera with 40mm pancake fold up to a pocketable size, but opens up to keep the standard kmount.... more traditional styled and a low price point..

[Wired]

oh thats a neat idea..... but for a higher end camera with weather sealing would that be practical? Would QC be affected too much? more moving parts = more pain?

what I ment was instead of the mount being flush against the body, make the lens/mirror/mount box extend out of the body a bit. It's pretty flush even on the K5/K30. but you could make the body thinner and extend the mount in its own housing. If done right it may even be attractive?

[D0n]

oh thats a neat idea..... but for a higher end camera with weather sealing would that be practical? Would QC be affected too much? more moving parts = more pain?

what I ment was instead of the mount being flush against the body, make the lens/mirror/mount box extend out of the body a bit. It's pretty flush even on the K5/K30. but you could make the body thinner and extend the mount in its own housing. If done right it may even be attractive?

nope I'm thinking a cheaper, pocketable version of the k-01.... no weathersealing...

[RobA_Oz]

I've always thought of Pentax as the Mazda to Canon/Nikon's Honda/Toyota duopoly.

Oh dear, I hope not. Mazdas, the sports cars apart, are the technologically stunted but prettied-up versions of several dynamically-superior European Fords. Analogies are always fraught, aren't they?

[RobA_Oz]

Thanks. I've been thinking about it for a while. The body dosent have to be a brick like the k01 though. More sculptured like the current dslrs. Maybe more like a k1000 with grip kind of shape.

You could make the mount extrude instead of having it flush with the body like the k01.

Its tricky... I handled both the k01 and 645d this weekend and i think neither are right for me. The k01 is a great camera but too bulky and i dont like the lack of a ovf. The 645 is way too much money for me...and it processes way to slowly.... But the size isn't bad...

If they can make the 645 as small as it is... Even with regestation distance the Pentax FF can br the smallest out there

The film-era Pentaxes had a bit of a box protruding from the body, which itself basically contained the film cassette and transport/take-up mechanism, with the pentaprism sitting on top. The real trick in making a thinner DSLR would be having the sensor and associated hardware (including the anti-shake mechanism) take up no more space behind the sensor plane than the pressure plate and back used to take up behind the film. This could be achieved to some extent if the anti-shake was brought forward, and the sensor back could be kept as thin as possible. However, we all know there's nothing that can be done in front of the sensor plane, except to put the mirror in a box. Even if you take the mirror out, you'd still have the mount registration distance to accommodate, which just means a slightly narrower box.

[jezza323]

The real trick in making a thinner DSLR would be having the sensor and associated hardware (including the anti-shake mechanism) take up no more space behind the sensor plane than the pressure plate and back used to take up behind the film. This could be achieved to some extent if the anti-shake was brought forward, and the sensor back could be kept as thin as possible. However, we all know there's nothing that can be done in front of the sensor plane, except to put the mirror in a box. Even if you take the mirror out, you'd still have the mount registration distance to accommodate, which just means a slightly narrower box.

Dont forget the LCD usually sits somewhat behind the sensor, adding to the total camera depth

[D0n]

The film-era Pentaxes had a bit of a box protruding from the body, which itself basically contained the film cassette and transport/take-up mechanism, with the pentaprism sitting on top. The real trick in making a thinner DSLR would be having the sensor and associated hardware (including the anti-shake mechanism) take up no more space behind the sensor plane than the pressure plate and back used to take up behind the film. This could be achieved to some extent if the anti-shake was brought forward, and the sensor back could be kept as thin as possible. However, we all know there's nothing that can be done in front of the sensor plane, except to put the mirror in a box. Even if you take the mirror out, you'd still have the mount registration distance to accommodate, which just means a slightly narrower box.

or you could just switch form factors...give up on "thinner is better" mentality and go with a video cam styled shape for ergonomics:

now wouldn't that be nice if it had a k-mount and the internals of the k-01 and a larger flip out lcd on the side?

[RobA_Oz]

or you could just switch form factors...give up on "thinner is better" mentality and go with a video cam styled shape for ergonomics:

now wouldn't that be nice if it had a k-mount and the internals of the k-01 and a larger flip out lcd on the side?

I started a thread a week or so back suggesting that a system camera something akin to the Rollei 2000 would be a good form factor that wasn't "me too". This addresses the question of where to put the LCD, too (on the top, possibly as a replacement for the removable pentaprism, or possibly turning it into a full-time waist-level finder camera). Interchangeable backs would allow APS-C or 35FF sensors, as required. The idea doesn't seem to have caught on.

[monochrome]

Toyota already have a large percentage (17% ish) of the Subaru (parent company).

The Star Trek Borg phrase "resistance is futile" springs to mind here.

Toyota bought their share of Subaru's parent company Fuji Heavy Industries (also controls Mitsubishi and Suzuki automobile brands) for $1bilion from GM in 2006. Here's the article from New York Times Business.

Subaru and Saab had been jointly developing vehicles for GM - that sa;e contributed to the failure of Saab. Subaru continues to operate independently of Toyota and was the only automobile company in the world to turn a profit in 2009.