Pentax FF Dead, Maybe

Just because you don't want it doesn't mean it makes no sense at all
20mm thinner would be fantastic, but I think we would really expect 8mm difference, which would still be worthwhile, at least for me
It wouldn't need a full line up of lenses as existing K mount lenses could still be used with just an 8mm thick adapter fitting in the otherwise 'wasted' space Now that would be very nice indeed - if it was affordable enough. Even nicer would be an APSC K01 as it is now but 8mm thinner and able to take the K mount lenses with an adapter.

gwing, assuming you could have a camera 8mm thinner, in what way would you find that an advantage? What is the benefit as you see it?

It would increase the number of times I was prepared to carry it around, especially if that camera was my K01 and I could slip it into a normal non-enormous pocket. For an SLR I want, and have always wanted, to be able to fairly easily slip it into the top pocket of a climbing rucksack, even when that pocket has some foam lining put in to protect it's contents a bit.

I find the APSC format a really sensible compromise for DSLR and am really happy with it. I just want the option to choose a camera actually designed and optimised for that size. I don't want a camera big enough for FF if I'm not using a FF sensor.

The GR will do that for you, albeit with a fixed 18.3mm lens.

Having said that, the sticking point for me is that you can't put CSCs in a pocket in the same way as a GR. The lenses stick out too far. And this is where I don't find any advantage to them over the K-01.

Now a bigger version of the MX-1, with a fixed zoom lens that retracts, just might be more of the way to go. It just needs to be flattish when closed down to fit in a walking jacket pocket.

How about a K-01 with 40mm lens? Any good for you?

Where did I say I didn't want it? I was talking from waht I see as manufacturing sense.



Which is why making new lenses just to save 8mm makes even less sense.








As long as it had a decently wide aperture, say F/1.8 and a usuable xoom range, I'd be happy for an FF Compact ( ala Sony RX1 or prettier version of the K-01 with FF mount ) with a fixed lens.

Sticking the usual K lenses on even wth an adaptor is going to take it out of the realms of easy transportation anyway. Might was use a DSLR then

Having used this combination a lot over the past couple of weeks I can say that I really like it. The size of the K-01 does not bother me in the slightest - it's more important to me that it takes all my lenses. It is nice to use with the 40mm pancake though and this little lens is something of a star performer - very sharp with lovely colours and contrast.

Even though the K-01 is quite big, it still seems to be less intrusive than a DSLR and is easy to use one-handed for street shots.

Regards
David

Like many of these threads it has turned into what we want from Pentax in the future, but as you are aware, what we want and what we get are two very different things.

What is for certain, whatever Pentax bring out next half of us will be jumping for joy and the other half jumping ship.

Thats why I think Pentax if they do bring out a FF camera they will play it very safe indeed, no new mount, use the same Sony sensor as in the Nikon and Sony Dslrs and keep the price a bit lower then the compitition.

I hope they dont though,

If beggars could be choosers

--

I recently bought an Olympus EPL-5, thinking "that's my street shooting kit......" etc.

Anyway, with the DA 35 2.8 or very specially the DA 21 LTD, no real difference in size. K5 plus prime lenses.......... Or film, I'd be as well off with my 3 prime film kit as the M4/3rd...

I'm selling my Olympus kit.

And trying to get a K-01.

I am a prat. The point is why bother with FF when Pentax do APSC so stupidly well? And with perefect cameras (ergonomics)?

Like I have said before in this thread, my K5 with 21mm Lens is my micro four thirds/mirrorless camera, why would I want more or saying that less

Funnily enough, I have exactly that already I'm not that keen on the 40mm lens though and generally use it with other lenses.

And a larger Anti-shake mechanism, which requires more room inside the body, which means the electronics have to be shoved somewhere else, which means the body gets bigger... Might only be a slight increase, but it would have to be bigger. The D600 isn't much bigger than the D7000 (they have very similar bodies), but it is still bigger, and that's without the need for anti-shake inside it.

Yes, the crop factor is 1.5x, but that's the linear dimensions, not area. FF (36x24mm) is 2.25x the size of APS-C (24x16mm), so you actually need the D800's 36Mp sensor in order to get the same pixel density as the 16Mp sensor in the K-5. A 24Mp FF sensor would give a 10.6Mp image if cropped to APS-C size.

Dan

Hi Dan. You are perfectly correct. I mucked that up. It should be about 36k.
I have mentioned in one of my earlier post, when i worked it out like you did and arrived at your figure.
Thanks for your comment.

It also looks like you are the only one who read my comment and took it in.

Regards, Horst

Well, I certainly read it and took it in, but just didn't agree with it.

Dan

Regarding price - this really is no longer the case that Pentax is cheaper. Comparable bodies for me are K5iiS and Nikon D7100 - the Pentax body costs 10% more but does not offer 10% more features or quality. They need to change this - otherwise it might get difficult to beat against the competitors (especially when using same parts as Nikon or Sony )