Pentax FF Dead, Maybe

Have just been away with an MX-1 and Fuji X100. The latter is ridiculously good fun and if Pentax do go down the FF route it's left me thinking they should out-Fuji Fuji, and produce a FF competitor to the X-Pro. I'd be more interested in that than another me-too FF SLR. Could also give them a good reason to launch a new mount (sacrilege I know) but they need the revenue from lenses as well as bodies. Given it'd be mirrorless,, adapters for K mount lenses should still be possible.

At one point I wondered if the K-01 was headed in that direction, but apparently not.

No he wasn't, unless he did mean inches. Can't how you could type 'cm' instead of 'in' though.

And it can't be 10mx15m or 10mm x 15mm

Yup size matters

For a proper shoot I don't have a problem lugging two DSLRs( K-5 ) around, but I wouldn't like to do the same with two Nikon D4 sized breeze blocks.

But an increasing amount of photography for me is general capturing real life as I live life so that's when something compact, that I alawys carry with me is ideal.

John Wrote:
.

Well john, I am not sure if you know, how it works:

The crop factor of APS to FF is 1.5. So your 300mm lens looks like a 450mm lens. However it is still a 300mm lens if you consider the FF Size.
You apparently get a more telephoto with APS, but only because you look at a part of the image the lens can produce. Assuming your FF Pixel count is 1.5 times The APS count which may be 16Mp. This the works out to 24Mp.
If you now take a shot with a FF sensor, you still have all the information on the image the APS sensor gave you, plus some extra.
Now if you crop the FF image by the factor of 1.5, You arrive at the same Image and the same quality as if you mounted the 300mm lens on to an APS camera.

Again John:
How do you know, that the FF is more compact than an APS size camera?
Also If this is your reason for APS. It would be probably better to go to the Pentax Q or even to some of the pocket cameras. I don't think this argument is plausible.

John further:

Well, I suppose, according to your theory, all the people for example who own a Pentax 645D have to be a bunch of idiots. To pay a lot more money for a larger camera if they can a an APS for about 1000 bucks and get the same image quality as the 645.

Agreed, the 35mm format was more manageable, but the Pentax 110 was even more manageable. However, this was not my argument. I talked about the quality. Are you trying to say, the image quality of 35mm is as good or better than for example 2-1/4 square?
Agreed, 35mm was faster, Agreed the lenses where faster. So what? It depends what you do with your camera.
Not everybody is a sports photographer. If you ever had a look at colour slides and saw the difference between a 35mm slide and a a 2-1/4 square slide, you notice a great difference in favor of the 2-1/4 square.
The Photographers who took the pictures for the Swiss landscape and mountain scenery calenders took Linhof's with heavy Zeiss and Schneider lenses up in to the mountains. This was a hard slog, but no publisher would buy 35mm negatives. I wonder why?

John Schick wrote:

There is really no reason, why a full frame camera should be that much larger. most of your pre-digital cameras where FF. some where smaller than the K5. E.G the MX ME, Super-A etc.
People and especially news people bought the Nikon-F's in big quantities. They where bigger and heavier than the equivalent Pentax cameras.

John Schick wrote further:

You're spot on John and it is true that many people go for the size and features which suits them best. That why the Instamatic cameras where such a success. However it would be nice to have the choice.



I can only assume, the reluctance of the majority of the forum members to acknowledge that the FF size is better is because they are the proud owners of a Camera with an APS sensor. This was and still is quite an investment for most of us and it is hard to acknowledge that there is something which may be better then one has paid a high price for it.

I am sure, Pentax may also be reluctant to go to FF, because of the many DA type lenses, which must be a lot easier and cheaper to produce, the the lenses which cover the FF size. The best example is the high price of the DA-Limited lenses, which, so I have read, Cover the FF size.

Regards, Horst

Well you do make quite a few assumptions and dubious statements that are presented as fact but may well not be, for example the 110 is not more manageable than a 35mm SLR or a DSLR. We need to define "manageable" in which case my meaning is the ability to shoot the required image easily and effectively. It would be a real challenge to survive on a Pentax 110 or a Q for that matter.

No, it's what we mean by "better" that's the problem. Better for what? Better how? I could counter argue that those who have spent large amounts on a FF DSLR would be reluctant to admit that their pictures are not any better and from the large number of images I see around and about there's no difference whatsoever in the end results.

Anyway, the argument is futile because there isn't a Pentax FF DSLR so we don't know if it would be better or not. The 645D is better in some respects but still not so in others and the same applies to FF.

There's some similarity to the K5II / IIs issue I think - there's a clear difference / 'improvement' with one, but the real question is who exactly can and will benefit specifically based on their photo outputs and methods.

The price difference remains significant here, but is nothing compared to the upheaval of a system sell-off and re-purchase. However, moving to FF will presumably offer up all sorts of additional goodies ???

The problem is defining these clearly for different types of photography and output - Its frustrating sometimes that those who choose to move a FF system do not really list with any great clarity the exact need they've identified and the perceived failure of what they are leaving.

I know now that I won't be getting FF anytime soon - but that's because it will be beyond the budget - I cannot justify it when I'm not making a living from it. But whether I'd actually get it if the price dropped or I won the lottery ... that's the interesting question.

John , I did not make any assumption. it was you, who stated that The larger size is more cumbersome than the smaller ones. I just went a step further and then finally to the 110Size. This on my part was not to say the 110 is better. On the contrary, the small film size is useless for big enlargements. I don't think you understood how it was meant.

further. It seems to me, that you may be slightly biased against any criticism towards Pentax products.
I assume, that most if not all of the forum members,including myself, have and love the
Pentax equipment.
This however does not mean one should not offer any criticism towards Pentax products or mention wishes.

What does it matter if a FF does not exist. This shouldn't stop anyone from thinking and debating about it.
not long ago, there wasn't a K5, but I am sure, some members wished to have the advanced features the K5 has.
After all, what is the forum for, if, besides a lot of other things,
a future FF can not be discussed.

The main argument against a FF seems to be it's size. But we don't even know, if it is larger or not. Going by history, maybe the first model may be somewhat larger, but then normally the next one ends up smaller again.

Regards, Horst

I wasn't aware that anyone was criticising Pentax or anyone else, we're discussing formats here and that could apply equally well to any marque.

I think the idea of having a love of Pentax or any other products is OK up to a point, but it's really a result of finding the product line that fulfils our own requirements. It's not a bias to decide that we like something and it's entirely possible that the next product we won't like at all. On track record so far that may be unlikely, but it's always possible.

I honestly don't know what all the fuss is about FF, ASAP or whatever. I visited The Station, Richmond yesterday to view the winning entries in the photography competition, one of our club members has a winning entry (the osprey). Not a pentax shot
The Phone images section was amazing. link. If I could get shots like this with a phone why hump a heavy DSLR kit about here and there.

If I could add my few to the bigger is better debate,

I shoot 90% of my time with a K5 and 21mm lens without any strap, just held in my hand like a compact, I have yet to find any other camera from any other maker on any other format, including mirrorless cameras, that feels secure in my hand at all times without me thinking this is to heavy but still to produce quality files time after time.

In my mind that's what Pentax are good at, and as long as they don't do something stupid and start to mess around making bigger and heavier cameras they will still have my business for a long time to come.

Are you sure you can't?

The Metric System's rubbish!
I prefer Bushels and Pecks

----

It will be interesting to see what happens. A lot of cameras have been sold since Ricoh took over, hopefully some cash will have been flowing into the coffers and it seems it may be time to expand activities a bit.

There have been constant signs of a gradual ramping up of promotion in all market segments, but particular in the "younger" part of things. Twitter, Facebook, Outdoor activity magazines, sponsorship, and so on. I know these are not solely a "younger" market, but they are a much wider mix than some of the more traditional outlets.

Interesting so see how different preferences are - when I got my K5, I missed a bit the bigger size of the K20D - when I take photos, I want to concentrate on it - I want to work - I don't want to look at a monitor and I don't want to hold a tiny, light camera. Having a good view finder to look through (fully concentrating on the picture) and having a heavy camera in the hand that reminds you, there is a camera, is my preference. I also have the feeling, that a more heavy camera is more compensating the tiny tilts you sometimes get, when pressing down the shutter button.

I am 6ft 4ins & 18 stone, play or try to play rugby and so you would think I would require a bigger,heavier camera, some of my favorite ever cameras that I still use today are a tiny Minox and a Ricoh R1.

Everybody's different, and some people just cannot be pigeonhold, but like I said Pentax just seem to have got it right for me, and for that matter I hope it stays the same