Hi Horst,

I reluctantly upgraded from the E-1 partly as it was a noise box above ISO400, partly because the lens selection was small and expensive (although sometimes of stunning quality), and also to sell before the risk of the bottom falling out of the four thirds (not micro) market. I loved using it though, and in some ways I think the K-7/5 body is the closest I've found to one that fulfills similar criteria. I do also like primes...not a four thirds strength.

Yes I know for primes, there is a good range of reasonably sized FF lenses. But the issue is not so clear cut for zooms. Look at the size of quality fast full frame zooms from any manufacturer, and they tend to be pretty chunky and expensive pieces of kit. I don't think anyone would seriously argue that the equivalent of something like an APS 17-70 lens for full frame isn't going to be larger and costlier ....the Canon 24-105 being an obvious example. Likewise, without getting into arguments about focal length and field of view, the full frame equivalent of the xx-300 APS lenses would be at least the size of the Tokina 80-400, or Sigmas of similar range....and having owned both, I am clear there is a massive (pun intended) difference.

Best wishes,

Jon

....and more computer storage and more processing power (I still miss the speed and ease of processing the excellent 5MP files I used to get from my Olympus E-1). And if we're talking dSLR, some comparatively large and expensive lenses to make the most of the sensor. Even if the bodies get cheaper, the lenses are still going to be a serious outlay for anyone other than professionals, or the most dedicated (and well off).

We're saying the same thing. I'm arguing for a mirrorless FF camera with a new mount (and adapter for K lenses) but there is no sense in changing the mount for dSLR bodies, APSC or FF.

Absolutely, and the backwards compatibility was an important factor for me. However, it reduces an important revenue stream for Pentax and, for average punters in shops without a lot of legacy lenses, there is a wider and more accessible selection of modern lenses in other mounts, even though K may have technical advantages.

I agree that keeping the K mount if they make a FF SLR makes a lot of sense, but I don't think entering that market makes a lot of sense.....

Cheers,

Jon

Well I see little likelihood that they can compete profitably with a me-too FF dSLR using the K mount....immediately reducing their income from sale of new lenses. A more compact mirrorless FF body could have a new mount for smaller lenses (no mirror) but offer an adapter for those who wish to use K mount...offering best of both worlds. Not sure I buy the argument that K is one of the best dSLR mounts. Not any more. And not enough to generate a serious revenue stream to keep them in business.

Don't forget the wedding issue, the black and white issue, how to make moving water look like milk, light painting, oh and the compulsory HDR article!

BJP, which varies from fascinating some months to barely worth me opening on others. But it's more about the art of photography rather than technique, which I find refreshing.

I also occasionally read Black and White Photography and Outdoor Photographer. AP only on rare occasions. Other monthlies not at all...they get terribly repetitive.

I've just checked the Fuji X Pro against a FF Leica....it's bigger! The Leica is slightly wider and taller than a K-01 but nowhere near as deep. In short, no reason why a FF body has to be much different to the K-01, and certainly no bigger than the Fuji X cameras...... If one ditches the K mount. That is the killer issue.

Why? Leicas are not menu driven and appeal to those who like to take control.

Not sure I agree actually - Leicas are hardly massive. FF mirrorless shouldn't require SLR-sized lenses. Hence my suggestion Pentax should out-Fuji Fuji and consider a FF competitor to the X series, but complete with a new mount. Heaven knows, they need revenue from lenses too. An adapter would allow people to use K mount lenses if they insist.