[btnapa]

I too like the idea of a very stripped down Pentax full-frame model. The problem I see is that it would take potential sales away from the K-1II (and future full-frame "flagship" models). I'd expect Pentax and other brands to be consolidating model ranges rather than expanding on them, given the state of the market...

I agree. The market is so saturated that any canibalization could be detrimental. Let's also remember that the K1 is already priced at the entry level of other brands (D750, 6DMarkII etc.)

What would the prices be, less than $1,200? They have to go this low or even lower to make it worth the buyer forgoing the K1 series in its favor.

[stevebrot]

Such a camera would probably cost significantly more than a regular FF Flagship. It could be marketed as a specialty manual camera to a small slice of the Pentax niche, and would need premium features to be attractive (metal dials, metal body, etc, like a Leica or high-end Sony MILC).

Yes, I agree. I would not expect much of a cost savings, if any, though I would note that Sony manages to give some price break on the A7 III while retaining IBIS. A 24Mpx camera from Pentax with reduced feature set using the K-1 form factor would work for me.


Steve

[monochrome]

Yes, I agree. I would not expect much of a cost savings, if any, though I would note that Sony manages to give some price break on the A7 III while retaining IBIS. A 24Mpx camera from Pentax with reduced feature set using the K-1 form factor would work for me.


Steve

I suppose in that case any potential price leverage would come from a lower cost 24Mp sensor.

[Pentaxis]

A truly stripped-down manual focus (digital K1000 if you will) FF camera with a metal body would be interesting.

Now that would be just up my street, if the price was right, of course.....!
I only have Pentax film cameras at present. It would be rewarding, enjoyable and very cost-effective to use my existing (great quality!) manual focus lenses on a full frame, digital camera.

---------- Post added 04-28-18 at 01:08 PM ----------

What else would be the point of getting or upgrading to FF?

My answer is that, for people like me, the attraction would be the ability to use our film era, manual focus lenses on a digital mount. I am not a pixel-counter, I can hold a camera quite steadily, I can focus a lens, and I don't go picture-making in downpours.

[clackers]

I have been told by someone on this site who enjoys putting out all of Sony and Fuji's new products that that void is filled by Canon lenses as they can be mounted with an adapter and focus faster than on Canon bodies.

Yeah, propaganda from the Chinese TechArt company, I suspect.

I don't think the person you're referring to actually owns one or has even used one, he's forever scouring mirrorless publicity sites and putting up 'news' here.

[UncleVanya]

I have been told by someone on this site who enjoys putting out all of Sony and Fuji's new products that that void is filled by Canon lenses as they can be mounted with an adapter and focus faster than on Canon bodies.

I guess that works for some people?

The AF adapters for Sony seem to vary with testing and the body selected. The best results being expensive and still not super fast autofocus. This requires at least the A7RII to be useful for anything besides Landscapes and don't think about doing it with the cheap adapters. However I'm no expert - just following the trend and paying attention to understand the market.

[mikesbike]

I agree that the K-70 should be the model for a cheaper, smaller, LIGHTER, FF body, same features, plastic and all. Could keep the 36mp, which would be comparable in pixel density also to the K-70. Should be cheaper than the K-1, as is the K-70 compared with the KP. Even I might consider such an addition. I already have appropriate lenses.

[ZombieArmy]

There's no way it'd be cheap enough for people to consider. You have to consider anyone looking for a super cheap full frame is going to just get something like a used A7 for 700ish dollars.

I just think the FF sensors themselves are prohibitively expensive due to low volume.

[MarkJerling]

Once you bring K-3 into the discussion, you've destroyed the whole concept, and essentially answered "No" to the concept.

Not really. Imagine, if you will, playing the Volkswagen trick and using parts from various past models to save money: They could use a combination of K-1 and K5 / K3 dials, K5/K3 top LCD, hell - even K3 or K70 rear LCD.

[Kevin B123]

I agree that the K-70 should be the model for a cheaper, smaller, LIGHTER, FF body, same features, plastic and all. Could keep the 36mp, which would be comparable in pixel density also to the K-70. Should be cheaper than the K-1, as is the K-70 compared with the KP.

I would largely agree with this but would be more expensive than the K-70 and that wouldn't be a problem, they would still sell, to me at least. The real issue is that a FF body that size and weight would tend to destroy the APS-C sales. I think would sell well enough at 75% cost of the K1ii.

[UncleVanya]

Could keep the 36mp, which would be comparable in pixel density also to the K-70.

? I'm not following this. The K-70, like the K-3, K-3ii, & KP has a 24mp crop sensor with smaller more tightly packed receptors than the 36mp full frame sensor in the K-1. The crop mode of the K-1 is closer in density to the K-5 and other 16mp crop cameras but is still slightly short of that density. This is why the crop mode on a k-1 is 15.36mp not 24mp. To get a 24mp crop mode requires a sensor with more than 50mp.

[normhead]

? I'm not following this. The K-70, like the K-3, K-3ii, & KP has a 24mp crop sensor with smaller more tightly packed receptors than the 36mp full frame sensor in the K-1. The crop mode of the K-1 is closer in density to the K-5 and other 16mp crop cameras but is still slightly short of that density. This is why the crop mode on a k-1 is 15.36mp not 24mp. To get a 24mp crop mode requires a sensor with more than 50mp.

Exactly, if you want the pixel density of a K-70 your choices are K-70, K-3 or K-P.
I've never understood the advantage of 24 MP ff, unless in an action camera to throughput more data for a higher frame rate.

Buying a 24 MP FF to replace your 24 MP APS-c is more weight for practically nothing. If you aren't getting a higher frame rate, you aren't getting much.

I'm curious about the idea of a 35mm sensor in an APS-c body. Pentax prides themselves on making bodies as compact as possible. People seem to be suggesting they could have made the K-1 smaller buy leaving out some circuitry. I'd suggest that's probably an erroneous assumption and would certainly need to be documented to be accepted as fact. I'm not even entertaining it as a notion.

[Kevin B123]

People seem to be suggesting they could have made the K-1 smaller buy leaving out some circuitry. I'd suggest that's probably an erroneous assumption and would certainly need to be documented to be accepted as fact. I'm not even entertaining it as a notion.

I think we are entertaining the notion that a FF body could be as small as a K-70, whatever the sensor MP count.

It neglects the reality that the prism is of necessity going to be that much larger and heavier, that it would have the smaller battery etc.

So it is nothing more than a notion really as you point out, if could have been done it would have. Or else it would be really stripped back and limiting it's audience.

Still we can dream eh?

[richard0170]

Well I don't know about the prism needing to be bigger. All my film cameras have a smaller prism housing than my K3, yet produce a bigger view finder image.
Before I settled on the K3, which I am very happy with by the way, I looked at full frame. Nikon Df, D750, and D610 Canon 6D, Nikon Df and the offerings from Sony ,the original A7 and the A7ii. Did not like the handling of any of them, apart from the Canon. I would have gone for the Canon, but for the small problem that I did not have any EF lenses. I had and have plenty of AI(S) and PK lenses. The Canon 6D does not have an overly large prism and its body is reasonably compact, same for the Nikon D610. So it is possible to have smallish FF DSLR. When the K1 was announced I started to regret my K3 purchase, but once I saw it in the flesh and had a play in my local camera store, I was very pleased I plumped for the K3. The K1 is for my taste far too big! So if Pentax were to offer a relatively small FF DSLR, or even a mirrorless FF with EVF, which to my Pentax lenses , I would want one. Of course its not going to happen, and as I am happy with the K3, as long as it still lives ( hopefully for many years) I will stick with it.

[mikesbike]

What I really meant is to keep the resolution of the K-1, but in a more compact, less expensive design, yet still full-featured. Like the K-70 is to the KP, or to the K-3. It would be IQ wise comparable to the K-1 II, but without the advanced control set, top LCD, etc. and probably available for around $1,300 to $1,500. No, I don't think it would cut into APS-C sales, because they each still have their own set of advantages, and it still would cost considerably more than APS-C with the same feature set. A K-70 would still be far less costly, as being the APS-C equivalent. For me the lower size/weight would be a major draw, as well as lower cost. Such a design might come out close to the size/weight of a K-3, but not have the feature/control set of a K-3, nor its ruggedness of build. That does not mean I'd not continue using my APS-C models for what they bring to the table. Since I prefer using smaller lenses whenever possible for a similar result, I would likely most often still use an APS-C setup, and turn to the FF setup when its advantage and/or FOV with my FF lenses best suits the situation.