Full Frame So They Say
Lets get real, any Pentax FF will be expensive (it won't be cheaper than current FF cameras and lower volumes suggest it would be more expensive). It will annoy half the Pentax users because it's too big or isn't a digital K1000/MX/LX or Ricoh decide to put their name on it. Whether it has an articulated screen or not will alienate others and woe-betide if it has a crippled K mount.
Most of us will never be satisfied, and fewer will be able to justify the expense of the body and possibly new lenses. If one were to be launched next year, it's likely you could buy a used 645D for similar money.
Pentax have to aim high, they have to focus on a pro spec body for it to work. They have to pull users from other systems as well as current Pentax users, that means something special and that may mean concentrating on the 645Z.
John.
Interesting statements John.
You think it will be more expensive than a D4s, EOS 1D X or Leica M, all of which are current FF cameras.
The name on the front should not matter as it's a Ricoh owned company which have in the past said that DSLR's would be branded Pentax.
There are plenty of lenses available. Pentax have been making 35mm format glass longer than cropped glass. There may be some newer, better FF glass to come but that's a choice one makes.
I disagree about the cheaper, used 645D analogy.
If we already use a crippled K mount then what's the issue?
I can't see any but the odd few that would change from an alternative pro system to Pentax FF with the exception of previous Pentax user/owners.
I would buy a Pentax FF body and in the past have been quite noisy and annoyed that it had not appeared.
I got over it and just bought other systems FF bodies and glass. If Pentax do or don't release a FF body it's no deal breaker as there are some spectacular alternatives out there.
A camera is a tool and shouldn't have to be of a specific brand to do the job properly.
Best regards
You think it will be more expensive than a D4s, EOS 1D X or Leica M, all of which are current FF cameras.
Not necessarily, but I think it will be more expensive like-for-like whether it's a 'pro', 'prosumer' or 'enthusiast' body. The existing FF manufacturers have already paid for a large chunk of their R&D, their volumes are much higher than Pentax (currently zero) and developing a FF camera in 2014/15 is more expensive than in 2010/11. Obviously it would be cheaper than a Leica M... hopefully
The name on the front should not matter as it's a Ricoh owned company which have in the past said that DSLR's would be branded Pentax.
It was the Ricoh name on the back of the K-3 that alienated many on the US forum, along with 'wasting' the 'MX' logo on the MX-1.
There are plenty of lenses available. Pentax have been making 35mm format glass longer than cropped glass. There may be some newer, better FF glass to come but that's a choice one makes.
Yes, but many Pentax users have stocked up on expensive DA & DA* lenses (some of the UK prices are eye-watering). The APS-C format suggests that you may need really wide-angle lenses which aren't available in 'FF' K mounts (K/M/A/F/FA series), so the only options have been DA/DA-Ltd lens lines. To get equivalent existing FF lenses you're basically looking at FA/FA* lenses which are far from cheap (new lenses launched with an FF body would be much more expensive).
If we already use a crippled K mount then what's the issue?
It means that to get the most of the camera you'd need an 'A' lens or later. Many Pentaxians prefer to use older glass and when faced with the decision as to whether to buy or not, it gives them the excuse not to 'If only they hadn't crippled the mount I'd have pre-ordered one today, but as it is I won't be buying one'. The negativity on the US forum when the K-3 had 'Ricoh' on the back was surprising & shocking.
I would buy a Pentax FF body and in the past have been quite noisy and annoyed that it had not appeared.
I'd buy one if available, but then I've got a good collection of FA glass waiting to go on it...
John.
So if you want it, be careful what you wish for and be patient for just a bit longer
My viewfinder is 576,000,000 pixels.
My other viewfinder is 5.76,000,000.
www.exaggeratedperspectives.com
What would be nice is for those who need 135, and for those that think they need it (a rather larger number), to buy a brand that does offer 135-format bodies.
This "debate" about 135-format has been going on ever since Pentax introduced the *ist D. All the arguments have been put forward a thousand times before. They were boring then, and they are very boring now.
There are a couple of people on this forum, namely K10D and MikeP, whose example the whingers should follow. These two didn't moan endlessly; they went out and bought a larger format body from another manufacturer. As far as I know, they now use the system, Pentax or other, that best meets their needs at the time.
Let's be quite clear. This debate has little to do with photography and a lot to do with penis-envy.
Lenses: Pentax DA 10-17mm ED(IF) Fish Eye, Pentax DA 14mm f/2.8, Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8, Pentax-A 28mm f/2.8, Sigma 30mm F1.4 EX DC, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.2, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.4, Pentax-FA 50mm f/1.4, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.7, Pentax DA* 50-135mm f/2.8, Sigma 135-400mm APO DG, and more ..
Flash: AF-540FGZ, Vivitar 283
If a 135-format camera had made sense commercially, Pentax would have made one before now.
What would be nice is for those who need 135, and for those that think they need it (a rather larger number), to buy a brand that does offer 135-format bodies.
This "debate" about 135-format has been going on ever since Pentax introduced the *ist D. All the arguments have been put forward a thousand times before. They were boring then, and they are very boring now.
There are a couple of people on this forum, namely K10D and MikeP, whose example the whingers should follow. These two didn't moan endlessly; they went out and bought a larger format body from another manufacturer. As far as I know, they now use the system, Pentax or other, that best meets their needs at the time.
Let's be quite clear. This debate has little to do with photography and a lot to do with penis-envy.
Not so sure that "Full Frame" does make commercial sense George, nor 645, well not on it's own anyway, thats why Hassle-blad are always struggling I guess? As part of a range maybe, maybe it would be there to stem the tide of users leaving? As an individual product if it manages to come in on budget and just not make a loss, it could be deemed worth it, the profit as we all know is in the K-S1's of this world but if you just make them, you lose the enthusiasts eventually, nice as a K-S1 is I couldn't have it as my only camera, there does need to be a higher end I guess? It's probably not for me but I hope they follow the Canon model and keep re-iterating the high end APSC and not the Nikon model where they deliberately cripple them, forcing the enthusiast on to the "Full Frame" offerings with the associated extra costs of the "Full Frame" wide and standard lenses, it's sort of what makes me think there is not much profit in "Full Frame" unless you shift a lot of other gear with it, ok well, you do have to have those lenses. The APSC and M4/3 end of the market is pretty congested and I think Nikon want to shift their customer base to a higher end (Image quality wise) product where they are unlikely to lose them to mirrorless but they reckoned without the mighty Sony throwing mud at everything in an effort to see what sticks, they smell profit somewhere in cameras and are like a bloodhound on the chase, nothing will stop it!
Don't think Mike P has a "Full Frame" model ... yet, well not up until last week anyway!
My viewfinder is 576,000,000 pixels.
My other viewfinder is 5.76,000,000.
www.exaggeratedperspectives.com
Don't think Mike P has a "Full Frame" model ... yet, well not up until last week anyway!
Says the man who has had countless brands of camera body ... how many was it up until you got your K-3 back?
Personally I would quite like to try full frame but most of my photography seems to require reach more than anything so unless it's something like the 36MP sensor in the Nikon D810 where I can crop heavily and get a decent file size I'm not that interested. I did handle a Sony A7 last week which was very nice indeed and would probably go down that route along with an adapter to use my Pentax or Canon lenses.
Anyway, my mind is made up, come next years airshows I will probably still have my K-5II (although I have been talking to Chris about p/x with a new 5IIs) and the 7D will be traded for a 7D MKII.
Don't think Mike P has a "Full Frame" model ... yet, well not up until last week anyway!
Says the man who has had countless brands of camera body ... how many was it up until you got your K-3 back?
Personally I would quite like to try full frame but most of my photography seems to require reach more than anything so unless it's something like the 36MP sensor in the Nikon D810 where I can crop heavily and get a decent file size I'm not that interested. I did handle a Sony A7 last week which was very nice indeed and would probably go down that route along with an adapter to use my Pentax or Canon lenses.
Anyway, my mind is made up, come next years airshows I will probably still have my K-5II (although I have been talking to Chris about p/x with a new 5IIs) and the 7D will be traded for a 7D MKII.
It was 28 Mike!
29 When they update the K3!
I preferred the IIs, the images were always sharper looking to me but it was hard to quantify, you couldn't look at an image and say that was a IIs but none the less they just looked better.
Can't blame you for the 7DII one bit, I know five guys who shoot the D300s as I used to, (:blush that mostly shoot Airshows and Birds and to a man they are dumping Nikon for the Canon 7DII, they are fed up with waiting for Nikon to make another APSC "Pro" body and are just not impressed with the Nikon offering as it is FF and does not have an AF on button despite being billed as an action camera!
That lack of an AF on button was my big bug bear with the Nikon D600/610, fair enough you can re-assign the AE button but the D600 meter is so flakey outdoors, you have to re-assign another button to do that and then... it goes on and on... Eventually I just gave up and came back here.
My viewfinder is 576,000,000 pixels.
My other viewfinder is 5.76,000,000.
www.exaggeratedperspectives.com
Best regards
Your not easily pleased Jules.
Best regards
No Gary, I'm not...
However I appreciate that at the moment I am lucky to have any camera at all and I'm lucky it's a K3! I know your mileage varies!
The trick this time around is going to have to be that if I decide to buy anything else, it runs alongside my Pentax and not instead of...
Hard lesson learned and add the fact, if I do another switcheroo any time soon, I'll be looking for a new roof over my head I reckon!
My viewfinder is 576,000,000 pixels.
My other viewfinder is 5.76,000,000.
www.exaggeratedperspectives.com
If Pentax had FF then not only would it stop the continuous drip drip of users leaving the brand but might actually attract new users as they see pros shooting with the brand. When I say see I mean physically see, not many people see a 645d being used in public.
There's a big swing in pro circles I move in, this year with other brands including Olympus and Fuji sponsoring concert photographers with kit and running competitions along ltd of social marrow marketing. This is an area Pentax are missing out. It's ok sponsoring surfers and mountain climbers or Olympians even but how many people go surfing or mountIneering? Since the brands have sponsored concert shooters I know a number of concert shooters that have also moved to Fuji and dropped canon or nikon.
There's a market out there for the Pentax stuff it just needs to be shouted about more.
Concert photography
Currently on a Pentax hiatus until an FF Pentax is released
Oh! and a massive range of bright colours
--
Pentax K-1 + K-5 and some other stuff
Algi
What will be the biggest gripe on the forum become?
....and at the risk of being branded a blasphemer - perfectly happy with my K5 and K5IIs and can't wait to pick up one of your cast off K3s when you switch to FF - which holds no interest for me at all
Carl
Add Comment
To leave a comment - Log in to Pentax User or create a new account.
1415 posts
12 years
Lancashire
Most of us will never be satisfied, and fewer will be able to justify the expense of the body and possibly new lenses. If one were to be launched next year, it's likely you could buy a used 645D for similar money.
Pentax have to aim high, they have to focus on a pro spec body for it to work. They have to pull users from other systems as well as current Pentax users, that means something special and that may mean concentrating on the 645Z.
John.