Why FF didn't happen?

octavmandru · 11-03-2009, 02:23 AM

Could be I'm a romantic fool, but this is what I found while searching news from PDN - Photoplus New York 2009. Not much about Pentax there.
The past was greater.

NEWS! - Pentax EI-3000 and unnamed digital SLR - exclusive pics!

I keep dreaming about MZ-S, possibly the best camera ever made.
If Pentax would have taken this project further, who knows where we'd be today...

FF, 6Mp, KAF2. I would pay big bucks for it, today. No second thoughts.
And this was way back in 2001.

Zav · 11-03-2009, 02:29 AM

Ever heard of Contax N Digital? It used the same sensor as this prototype.

ogl · 11-03-2009, 02:29 AM

The answer is easy. Contax had died after launch FF camera with the same 6 MP sensor from Philips. Pentax decided not to release such camera.

The price was too high for 2000-2001. Pentax is small company and the market (and the users) weren't ready to pay $6000-8000 for 6 MP FF camera.

Pentax will make FF camera below $1500-1700 next year. Not for $6000. The time is changed.

Wheatfield · 11-03-2009, 05:20 AM

That sensor actually killed Kyocera. They never did work all the bugs out f it. If Pentax had released that camera it would have been their first and last DSLR, and they'd be gone as well.

**Rondec** · 11-03-2009, 05:29 AM

Actually this was part of Pentax's problem. They were sort of playing around with full frame, etc while everyone else was actually releasing digital cameras. Their initial foray into the digital dSLR marketplace was with the 6 megapixel *ist D, which sold for 1600 dollars retail. I had actually considered getting one, but I went with a film *ist instead because of the high price. That was in 2003, long after Canon and Nikon had started releasing digital SLRs. When you are late to the party, you just have to pick up the scraps that remain.

pcarfan · 11-03-2009, 06:52 AM

WOW! a FF and built-in flash..cool.

knoxploration · 11-03-2009, 09:59 AM

Originally posted by octavmandru

FF, 6Mp, KAF2. I would pay big bucks for it, today. No second thoughts.
And this was way back in 2001.

Presuming it retained the Philips sensor, I most certainly wouldn't. I'd choose the K-7 over it in a heartbeat, even if it sold for half the K-7's price.

Last edited by knoxploration; 11-03-2009 at 09:59 AM. Reason: fix typo

Andi Lo · 11-03-2009, 10:03 AM

Other than DOF and viewfinder, why do people still go gaga over full frame? APS-C cameras of the same quality would eventually be equal in performance to the full frame cameras anyway

Dont we pentax users like to keep it small?

kenyee · 11-03-2009, 10:15 AM

Originally posted by Andi Lo

Other than DOF and viewfinder, why do people still go gaga over full frame?

- low light performance (bigger photosites or ganged photosites)
- better wide angle support (but at a loss of tele support, so you really need APS-C for sports/wildlife)

Pentax will probably eventually have to go to it when Canikon brings it to the low end ($1K bodies) and puts out all the ads trumpeting FF superiority so the consumer lemmings only buy FF cameras ;-)
It'll probably happen in a few years...

Andi Lo · 11-03-2009, 11:34 AM

Originally posted by kenyee

- low light performance (bigger photosites or ganged photosites)
- better wide angle support (but at a loss of tele support, so you really need APS-C for sports/wildlife)

Right now maybe it's hard to imagine APS-C sensor beating FF in terms of low iso... but I'd say it's not impossible. Who knows what the next sensor technology breakthrough is in though?

The only reason why full frame is wider is the existence of sigma 12-24, otherwise FOV wise APS-C already have lenses that equal all the full frame wide angles. If we have an 8mm wide angle prime / zoom released for aps-c someday, the advantage really would disappear. How many people really buy a full frame just for Sigma 12-24mm?

For me myself a reason i would use full frame is to use the taks at their true FOV... once the 1ds / 5d1 drops below 500$ I'd probably get one just to do this

By then pentax might already have a full frame though.

Gooshin · 11-03-2009, 11:36 AM

holy old news batman!

Samsungian · 11-03-2009, 11:54 AM

I didn't consider Sigma's 12-24 full frame lens as a reason to buy full frame dslr.

Nikon 14-24mm f2.8 G First Test: Introduction

I did however buy a D700 to drive the Nikon 14-24mm 2.8. The nikon ultrawide zoom is clearly superior to 12-24mm full frame Sigma.

Originally posted by Andi Lo

Right now maybe it's hard to imagine APS-C sensor beating FF in terms of low iso... but I'd say it's not impossible. Who knows what the next sensor technology breakthrough is in though?

The only reason why full frame is wider is the existence of sigma 12-24, otherwise FOV wise APS-C already have lenses that equal all the full frame wide angles. If we have an 8mm wide angle prime / zoom released for aps-c someday, the advantage really would disappear. How many people really buy a full frame just for Sigma 12-24mm?

For me myself a reason i would use full frame is to use the taks at their true FOV... once the 1ds / 5d1 drops below 500$ I'd probably get one just to do this

By then pentax might already have a full frame though.

**Ash** · 11-03-2009, 12:12 PM

Sure, the prototype has potential - it may have even been a hit.
But it wouldn't have made much business sense for the reasons already given.
It makes a lot more business sense now - seems to be a lot more interest, and preemptive plans for Pentax photogs to go FF...

Andi Lo · 11-03-2009, 12:19 PM

Originally posted by Samsungian

I didn't consider Sigma's 12-24 full frame lens as a reason to buy full frame dslr.

Nikon 14-24mm f2.8 G First Test: Introduction

I did however buy a D700 to drive the Nikon 14-24mm 2.8. The nikon ultrawide zoom is clearly superior to 12-24mm full frame Sigma.

Wasn't aware that there's a full frame lens that wide and that fast at the same time... Looking at that link looks like the lens is beastly sharp o_O; 9-15mm/2 (or 2.8 even) that good would be pretty hard to make in aps-c indeed

Samsungian · 11-03-2009, 12:38 PM

Indeed, 14-24mm nikon is INSANE. Stunning image quality throughout zoom range. I've always been drawn to ultrawide imaging and nikon making a 14-24mm sharp as primes zoom made me buy my first ever brand new nikon camera and lens. As soon as I get my D700 L Plate I'll be working on my pano~stitching skills with the 14-24mm 2.8 in vertical, portrait mode. Where's my Mail, Man?

That said Canon possibly has one in the pipeline they just processed usa patents on. Competetion is fun for consumer... well, as long as the goodies they create remain affordable. Canon and Nikon usually have lenses ready to go when they get around to processing patents in usa.

Optical system and optical apparatus ... - Google Patent Search

I realize 14mm full frame isn't as wide as 12mm full frame sigma but image quality for me trumps wider field of view.

Next up, another full frame design ultrawide lens that shines on full frame.

This is next lens I'll buy. Pricey at $2500, indeed.

The most expensive lens I'll have ever purchased.

But at least it exists and gives me a goal to shoot for:

http://www.jo-1.de/images/Bonifatius%20Kirche.jpg

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1029&message=33571393

Originally posted by Andi Lo

Wasn't aware that there's a full frame lens that wide and that fast at the same time... Looking at that link looks like the lens is beastly sharp o_O; 9-15mm/2 (or 2.8 even) that good would be pretty hard to make in aps-c indeed

11-03-2009, 02:23 AM	#1
octavmandru Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: somewhere around Posts: 615	Why FF didn't happen? Could be I'm a romantic fool, but this is what I found while searching news from PDN - Photoplus New York 2009. Not much about Pentax there. The past was greater. NEWS! - Pentax EI-3000 and unnamed digital SLR - exclusive pics! I keep dreaming about MZ-S, possibly the best camera ever made. If Pentax would have taken this project further, who knows where we'd be today... FF, 6Mp, KAF2. I would pay big bucks for it, today. No second thoughts. And this was way back in 2001.

11-03-2009, 11:54 AM	#12
Samsungian Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Colorado USA Posts: 1,337	I didn't consider Sigma's 12-24 full frame lens as a reason to buy full frame dslr I didn't consider Sigma's 12-24 full frame lens as a reason to buy full frame dslr. Nikon 14-24mm f2.8 G First Test: Introduction I did however buy a D700 to drive the Nikon 14-24mm 2.8. The nikon ultrawide zoom is clearly superior to 12-24mm full frame Sigma. Originally posted by Andi Lo Right now maybe it's hard to imagine APS-C sensor beating FF in terms of low iso... but I'd say it's not impossible. Who knows what the next sensor technology breakthrough is in though? The only reason why full frame is wider is the existence of sigma 12-24, otherwise FOV wise APS-C already have lenses that equal all the full frame wide angles. If we have an 8mm wide angle prime / zoom released for aps-c someday, the advantage really would disappear. How many people really buy a full frame just for Sigma 12-24mm? For me myself a reason i would use full frame is to use the taks at their true FOV... once the 1ds / 5d1 drops below 500$ I'd probably get one just to do this By then pentax might already have a full frame though.

11-03-2009, 12:38 PM	#15
Samsungian Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Colorado USA Posts: 1,337	Indeed, 14-24mm nikon is INSANE Indeed, 14-24mm nikon is INSANE. Stunning image quality throughout zoom range. I've always been drawn to ultrawide imaging and nikon making a 14-24mm sharp as primes zoom made me buy my first ever brand new nikon camera and lens. As soon as I get my D700 L Plate I'll be working on my pano~stitching skills with the 14-24mm 2.8 in vertical, portrait mode. Where's my Mail, Man? That said Canon possibly has one in the pipeline they just processed usa patents on. Competetion is fun for consumer... well, as long as the goodies they create remain affordable. Canon and Nikon usually have lenses ready to go when they get around to processing patents in usa. Optical system and optical apparatus ... - Google Patent Search I realize 14mm full frame isn't as wide as 12mm full frame sigma but image quality for me trumps wider field of view. Next up, another full frame design ultrawide lens that shines on full frame. This is next lens I'll buy. Pricey at $2500, indeed. The most expensive lens I'll have ever purchased. But at least it exists and gives me a goal to shoot for: http://www.jo-1.de/images/Bonifatius%20Kirche.jpg http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1029&message=33571393 Originally posted by Andi Lo Wasn't aware that there's a full frame lens that wide and that fast at the same time... Looking at that link looks like the lens is beastly sharp o_O; 9-15mm/2 (or 2.8 even) that good would be pretty hard to make in aps-c indeed Last edited by Samsungian; 11-03-2009 at 01:14 PM. Reason: added link

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Something will happen ...	Mindaugas	Post Your Photos!	15	03-30-2009 11:26 AM
It had to happen	graphicgr8s	General Talk	126	03-03-2009 11:02 PM
Why does this happen?	explr1	Pentax DSLR Discussion	48	09-01-2008 08:58 AM
Why does this happen	Fritzvds	Photographic Technique	22	08-20-2008 05:32 AM
Now how did that happen?	ftpaddict	General Talk	11	05-13-2008 12:23 PM

11-03-2009, 02:29 AM	#2
Zav Pentaxian Join Date: Feb 2009 Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,371	Ever heard of Contax N Digital? It used the same sensor as this prototype.

11-03-2009, 02:29 AM	#3
ogl Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Sankt Peterburg Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 8,382	The answer is easy. Contax had died after launch FF camera with the same 6 MP sensor from Philips. Pentax decided not to release such camera. The price was too high for 2000-2001. Pentax is small company and the market (and the users) weren't ready to pay $6000-8000 for 6 MP FF camera. Pentax will make FF camera below $1500-1700 next year. Not for $6000. The time is changed.

11-03-2009, 05:20 AM	#4
Wheatfield Moderator Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: The wheatfields of Canada Posts: 15,981	That sensor actually killed Kyocera. They never did work all the bugs out f it. If Pentax had released that camera it would have been their first and last DSLR, and they'd be gone as well.

11-03-2009, 05:29 AM	#5
Rondec Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Gladys, Virginia Photos: Gallery Posts: 27,653	Actually this was part of Pentax's problem. They were sort of playing around with full frame, etc while everyone else was actually releasing digital cameras. Their initial foray into the digital dSLR marketplace was with the 6 megapixel ist D, which sold for 1600 dollars retail. I had actually considered getting one, but I went with a film ist instead because of the high price. That was in 2003, long after Canon and Nikon had started releasing digital SLRs. When you are late to the party, you just have to pick up the scraps that remain.

11-03-2009, 06:52 AM	#6
pcarfan Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Dayton, Ohio Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,978	WOW! a FF and built-in flash..cool.

11-03-2009, 09:59 AM	#7
knoxploration Veteran Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Knoxville, Tennessee Posts: 846	Originally posted by octavmandru FF, 6Mp, KAF2. I would pay big bucks for it, today. No second thoughts. And this was way back in 2001. Presuming it retained the Philips sensor, I most certainly wouldn't. I'd choose the K-7 over it in a heartbeat, even if it sold for half the K-7's price. Last edited by knoxploration; 11-03-2009 at 09:59 AM. Reason: fix typo

11-03-2009, 10:03 AM	#8
Andi Lo Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Halifax, Nova Scotia Posts: 2,924	Other than DOF and viewfinder, why do people still go gaga over full frame? APS-C cameras of the same quality would eventually be equal in performance to the full frame cameras anyway Dont we pentax users like to keep it small?

11-03-2009, 10:15 AM	#9
kenyee Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Boston, PRofMA Photos: Albums Posts: 3,026	Originally posted by Andi Lo Other than DOF and viewfinder, why do people still go gaga over full frame? - low light performance (bigger photosites or ganged photosites) - better wide angle support (but at a loss of tele support, so you really need APS-C for sports/wildlife) Pentax will probably eventually have to go to it when Canikon brings it to the low end ($1K bodies) and puts out all the ads trumpeting FF superiority so the consumer lemmings only buy FF cameras ;-) It'll probably happen in a few years...

11-03-2009, 11:34 AM	#10
Andi Lo Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Halifax, Nova Scotia Posts: 2,924	Originally posted by kenyee - low light performance (bigger photosites or ganged photosites) - better wide angle support (but at a loss of tele support, so you really need APS-C for sports/wildlife) Right now maybe it's hard to imagine APS-C sensor beating FF in terms of low iso... but I'd say it's not impossible. Who knows what the next sensor technology breakthrough is in though? The only reason why full frame is wider is the existence of sigma 12-24, otherwise FOV wise APS-C already have lenses that equal all the full frame wide angles. If we have an 8mm wide angle prime / zoom released for aps-c someday, the advantage really would disappear. How many people really buy a full frame just for Sigma 12-24mm? For me myself a reason i would use full frame is to use the taks at their true FOV... once the 1ds / 5d1 drops below 500$ I'd probably get one just to do this By then pentax might already have a full frame though.

11-03-2009, 11:36 AM	#11
Gooshin Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Toronto, the one in Canada. Posts: 5,610	holy old news batman!

11-03-2009, 12:12 PM	#13
Ash Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Toowoomba, Queensland Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 23,920	Sure, the prototype has potential - it may have even been a hit. But it wouldn't have made much business sense for the reasons already given. It makes a lot more business sense now - seems to be a lot more interest, and preemptive plans for Pentax photogs to go FF...

11-03-2009, 12:19 PM	#14
Andi Lo Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Halifax, Nova Scotia Posts: 2,924	Originally posted by Samsungian I didn't consider Sigma's 12-24 full frame lens as a reason to buy full frame dslr. Nikon 14-24mm f2.8 G First Test: Introduction I did however buy a D700 to drive the Nikon 14-24mm 2.8. The nikon ultrawide zoom is clearly superior to 12-24mm full frame Sigma. Wasn't aware that there's a full frame lens that wide and that fast at the same time... Looking at that link looks like the lens is beastly sharp o_O; 9-15mm/2 (or 2.8 even) that good would be pretty hard to make in aps-c indeed