[johnmflores]

Seems like Pentax some owners want bigger (Full Frame), while others want smaller (EVIL).

Which one are you more interested in?

Which would complement your current kit or fill a hole in your camera bag?

Assume that both will be priced competitively - this survey is more about want/need and less about price.

Assume that both will include typical Pentax features - body SR, good compatibility with legacy glass, good controls, etc...

Also, this is not about what you think will succeed in the marketplace. This is about you and your needs as photographers.

Discuss. Thanks for playing.

---

Last edited by johnmflores; 01-08-2010 at 10:12 AM.

[PentaxPoke]

Neither. I would like Pentax engineering to focus their energies on:
a) ring-SDM
b) Ditch SAFOX and bring us into the 21st century.

[Miserere]

Neither. I would like Pentax engineering to focus their energies on:
a) ring-SDM
b) Ditch SAFOX and bring us into the 21st century.

Yeah, good points. I would also add:

c) Fast primes for APS-C at 28mm, 90mm and 135mm focal lengths. The DA* 11-16mm f/2.8 is also long overdue. I know these are not camera bodies, but lenses affect how bodies behave, e.g., larger apertures can improve focusing in low light as well as IQ (because you can use lower ISOs).

[Art Vandelay II]

It would depend on the products. I just want them to produce both because I personally believe those are the two directions the "serious" camera market will go in (along with camera phones eventually wiping out small P&S cameras).

I personally would like both if Pentax's FF camera is as large as a D700, but if it's the size of a Pentax MZ-S then I'd have very little need for an EVIL camera.

How about a 'EVIL' FF? ;p

[arpaagent]

Neither. I would like Pentax engineering to focus their energies on:
a) ring-SDM
b) Ditch SAFOX and bring us into the 21st century.

Yeah, good points. I would also add:

c) Fast primes for APS-C at 28mm, 90mm and 135mm focal lengths. The DA* 11-16mm f/2.8 is also long overdue. I know these are not camera bodies, but lenses affect how bodies behave, e.g., larger apertures can improve focusing in low light as well as IQ (because you can use lower ISOs).

Ditto and Ditto. I want better tech for what is existing rather than diluting R&D on more projects. I want a fast 28mm-ish lens that doesn't cost $1k like the 31ltd.

I wouldn't mind a FF camera though. I'd care more about that than EVIL. I have been keeping some nice FF lenses just in case .

Six months ago I would've voted for FF but have been converted into a small-camera believer. I like the concept of an E-P1 and GF1 VERY much. So I voted for EVIL, but not just any EVIL. Not NX10 EVIL with a fairly bulky body, pseudo-DSLR prism hump, a new mount etc. but a classical looking smallish body. Like one of the above mentioned micro4/3 cameras, but with K-mount support (disregarding all the talk about registration lengths and all), SR and an APS-C sensor.

[redrockcoulee]

I voted no as neither fits into MY needs or wants. But Pentax as a company needs to be able to satisfy a variety of needs.

As a counterpoint to some of the comments, the more products that Pentax makes and sells the more units the cost of R&D can be spread over. I would think an improved autofocus system's research would be used on both cropped and full frame for example.

[edri]

I want an EVIL FF.

[Ash]

If Pentax can make small dSLRs, then they can make small FFs (comparatively).
Bring it on...

[juu]

I like the concept of an E-P1 and GF1 VERY much. So I voted for EVIL, but not just any EVIL. Not NX10 EVIL with a fairly bulky body, pseudo-DSLR prism hump, a new mount etc. but a classical looking smallish body. Like one of the above mentioned micro4/3 cameras, but with K-mount support (disregarding all the talk about registration lengths and all), SR and an APS-C sensor.

Exactly my thoughts. Except I don't think we can ignore the realities that taking full advantage of EVIL requires a new mount - hopefully with a well-featured K-mount adapter.

Except I don't think we can ignore the realities that taking full advantage of EVIL requires a new mount - hopefully with a well-featured K-mount adapter.

True. And while there may be technical challenges in making a "micro-K mount" that would provide AF to K mount lenses using a proper adapter, I refuse to believe that it's impossible.

[juu]

I actually wonder... can you make an AF motor small enough to fit in the adapter?

[eurostar]

An EVIL Pentax could have same bayonet with shorter registration and an adapter that could keep all functions, or also a slim body but with a protruding mount, to use the existing lenses (especially limited) and special EVIL only lenses with a rear portion entering deeply into the body. Pocketability (with pancake lenses) would be essentially the same.

[snostorm]

I voted neither, but I could be talked into a FF Pentax if:

1. it was a relatively compact body (K20 or smaller),
2. was at least as featured as the K-7,
3. it offered at least close to best-in-class (for FF) IQ and very high ISO performance
4. it was priced under $2K USD.

For me, anything less in any single category would be a deal breaker, and make the body not worth considering for my use. This is as close as I can come to being a FF supporter.

If it were to be just marginally better high ISO performance than the Kx, why bother. . . I'd rather wait for the next generation APS-C sensor in a K-7 body.

Scott