Why Pentax needs full frame

FF offers some technical benefits, it's not just about am I good enough?!

FF is typically better in low light (with pixels being physically bigger for a given resolution between APS-C and FF) and a given lens will have a narrower depth of field when used on a larger sensor.

If the above are important to you, for whatever reasons, then you will see a benefit in going to FF. It's not just about MegaPixels anymore, as cellphones can have higher resolutions than some DSLR's.

The reality for me is I can't afford a FF camera. If I could, then purchasing a Pentax FF camera wouldn't mean I was stealing a sale from the 645 range. There is a huge gulf between the two technologies, but the question is, are there enough customers if a solution is provided that fills the gap?

I guess Richard their worry may be that they could split their own customers ... I mean people buying the FF may do that instead of choosing an updated K3 .... So it still adds up to just a single sale.

Definitely a possibility.

I guess that's a concern in any lineup where there are two models at particular price/feature point, or forks in the road yielding similar models down either path.

Price points usually take care of this. Right now it's the K-3 vs the 645Z. I suspect there is room in the middle for another model without competing with existing offerings. But would someone buy FF at an intermediate price point?

I think you could have two offerings very close, say a K-3 and a K-? FF for not much more, and let people chose the sensor that suits their needs. If that results in most people opting for the K-? FF instead of the K-3, then do you need a K-3 anymore? Something to ponder.

Sony have shown that FF doesn't need to mean unobtainable or dramatically different any more. You won't need to go on a 2 week training course and relearn how to take photos for 2 years to be able to start using it. I suspect the only hesitation from Pentax/Ricoh is would anyone buy it? It's a market they don't actively compete in at all at the moment, instead hoping to pull the odd customer or two down from FF to the K-3 offering. FF was a reducing market (maybe still is) so I can understand their concerns.

Simply offering a FF camera though would elevate them above the likes of Olympus and Fuji etc, where they currently reside in the pecking order, and it would offer Pentax an 'upgrade path' that many seem to make a big deal over presently.

Is there a market?

Look at what Sony has done over the last few years.

Is there a market left now ?

Gotta love the internet where people are able to completely misread/misunderstand the point of a fellow Pentaxian's a post and then respond with sarcasm.

Cheers

No sarcasm intended whatsoever. I obviously misunderstood your comment based on your reply.

Best regards

FWIW I too think that the gap from £1000 K3 to £7000 645Z is too large and believe it makes sound economic sense for Pentax to bridge that gap in their range.

Saxon

I agree about that noted price range difference.

Pentax does have the capability to do full frame digital dslr in a certain range outside of medium format. Perhaps an entry level "minimalist" full frame would go for about 2k. Something considerably more advanced; 3k.

But there is also an additional reason.

People typically do not use medium format for much in the way of action photography. The glass for doing so just is not practically there; in terms of keeping the optical ability that the sensor needs in medium format, and also the aperture for action. So Pentax full frame dlsr's outside format are very much needed.

Let me also stress again, Pentax is losing considerable money in not doing it. The company is losing more money in not doing it, than the risk of actually trying it. Or perhaps if Pentax/Ricoh is unwilling to try it simply do the following: 1. admit that it is not doable in Pentax eyes anytime in the near future. 2. Better yet, allow a secondary company to do it, such as selling the patents or allowing their use.

A certain mirrorless camera has just been released, featuring weather sealing, in body stabilisation (technically of more axis than Pentax offer), and in FF. I'm sorry but the only niche option here is to do FF sensor stabilised with an optical viewfinder. The rest of what was Pentax's point of difference has been overtaken by others.

You can't lose something that you haven't first got.
If Ricoh release a Pentax branded FF then they stand to lose money if sales are poor.
As I see it, logic suggests that anyone that really needs a FF camera for their business or work, already has one.
Those who fancy a FF DSLR with the Pentax name on it and are waiting patiently all these years, obviously don't actually need one.
I'm sure this is how Ricoh will be thinking too.

Disclaimer: The above is my opinion only.

I fall strongly into 'would like a FF camera' bracket. I don't need one, and given how many excellent FF cameras are now on the market, I would agree that if you actually had a need for one, you've probably already bought it. By doing so, you're then hooked to another manufacturers lens line up etc, so more sales pass you by.

It's a tough call for Ricoh; to enter the DSLR FF market now it would have to release a camera which gets excellent reviews, has a high specification with unique features to set it apart from the competition, and be a great price.

There's something in the labelling, isn't there? When something is called FULL frame, it's hard not to feel, almost subliminally, that anything less must be deficient.

Regardless of that nonsense, it's still a pity Pentax appear to have let the boat sail without them. By not being more adventurous/innovative, others appear to have taken the advantage, and I believe it will be genuinely difficult for Pentax to come up with a FF camera distinctive enough to pull people away from other brands -- which is what would be essential if the model was to prosper.

I think I understand some of their difficulty. The changes in ownership must have played havoc with any continuity in their strategy: with the best will in the world, takeovers are immensely distracting.

It's how I'm thinking Steve, took me eight (or is it nine?) go's with "FF" to realise I didn't really need it, Ok I'm a slow learner! Far more chance of me going smaller, now than larger having passed fifty, with bad knees to boot! As you say, If somebody needed it and I mean truly, as in it was hurting their business, not to have it, and they hadn't already bought a "FF", then they deserve to go out of business to be honest.
If Ricoh/Pentax bring one to the market, I don't see them selling very many, if it's too whacko (Huge K-S1) no one will warm to it, or too Samey, why would they want it? As Richard has pointed out nearly all Ricoh/Pentax's old USP's are now covered by other brands, at the high end. I still feel that Pentax have a lot to offer at the enthusiast end, they pretty much out spec anything at their price levels, something it would be hard to do with "FF", as the like of Nikon have just finished covering all the bases and I'm lead to believe Canon wiill not be far behind, Sony has the small "FF" angle now amply covered too. Happily though Ricoh/Pentax build in good margins which keep them happy and their clients (Shops/online sellers) happy too, somehow they always seem to be discounted and that keeps us happy (Mostly). I don't think a "FF" Camera would save that which to be honest doesn't really need saving, it is desirable for them to have one in the range but not essential.
"FF" DSLR, Won't make or break Ricoh/Pentax...
Nor will it really help them grow, or cause them to shrink...
Mirrorless, in all it's guises, now thats a different matter...
I go likewise with Steve's disclaimer too!

It would probably be more cost effective for Pentax to BUY some FF cameras from Amazon and just give them to the people who say they need them

Remember how ITV nearly went bust getting involved with football. They could have probably flown the few subscribers they had to every match cheaper then screening them

--