Rumour of the Week: Pentax Full-Frame and New DFA Lenses

<p>John, the only speculation here is whether Pentax are planning a FF camera and/or set of lenses. The medium format lenses are already on <a href="http://www.pentax.jp/english/imaging/digital/lens/roadmap.pdf">the official roadmap</a> and Pentax have stated the 645D will be released in 2010.</p>

<p>Or were you trying to say something else?</p>

<p>A Pentax 400mm F4 ED[iF] SDM would certainly be something I would seriously consider! No kidding, I now have a great DA*300 F4 and works flawlessly. Only problem is that it is 50% of the time not quite long enough for bird photography, especially birds of prey such as Merlins, Kestrels and such smaller predatory birds.<br>

But again, is there such a great difference between a 400 and 300 prime? Is it really worth the "investment"? If there is a noticeable difference and that the lens is fast and sharp, then perhaps that would be worth stashing some bucks aside for it.<br>

Would I want a FF camera? Good question because I have become quite accustomed to the 1.5X factor with the K20D sensor. Gives a good and wanted "jolt" as far as focal "length" is concerned, especially for wildlife photography. Should they bring in a K30D, not FF, .... interesting that would be.<br>

JP</p>

<p>I had an FL mount (pre auto-aperture Canon) 58mm F1.2.... It's front element 48.3mm and the inside diameter of the body flange is 47mm, so an aperture bigger than the mount is possible. Also the FD 85/1.4L was very popular and it's front element would be 60.7mm. So I'd say it's possible. </p>

<p>The blurred out photos of some document on a computer screen aren't very informative either... no apparent source... and if it is from a source with insider knowledge all it tells us is that there will be several cameras who's name starts with K- in the next hundred years. But for all we know, the document in question could be wild speculation or possibly a summary of wild speculation. </p>

<p> </p>

<p>Mis, I'll also note (though it may not be news for some here) that as of now, that roadmap you linked to (says 'As of <em>March</em> 24, 2009') includes a "DFA645 ultra-wide" and a "DA Super Telephoto", so two of those rumors make some sense, though the spec on a hypothetical roadmapped DA400/4 (though it wouldn't be a huge shock if the actual product is at least a little slower) seems slightly more likely than f/2.8 on the D-FA u/w. Anyway, the more realistic the rumor, the better a rumor it is...so this one suffers somewhat...</p>

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=4154934">Somanna Muthanna</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"><img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/1roll.gif" alt="" title="Frequent poster" /> </a> , May 26, 2009; 02:49 p.m. (<a href="../bboard/admin-edit-msg?msg_id=00TTNR">edit</a> | <a href="../bboard/admin-delete-msg?msg_id=00TTNR">delete</a> )</p>

</blockquote>

<blockquote>

<p>Even if there is a f/1.0, what in world is the use for it?? That depth of field will be ridiculous won't it..? I mean if you want such extreme bokeh, maybe just shoot your photos out of focus :P</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>You are a smart man Somanna. It is precisely why someone is paying you the big bucks where ever you are employed.</p>

<p>If we had signatures on this forum, I'd erase whatever I had and put your quote in, "I mean if you want such extreme bokeh, maybe just shoot your photos out of focus." - Sommana</p>

<p>Absolutely classic!</p>

<p>The most compelling reason that this is a hoax is the 50 mm f1.0. I can not imagine this would be one of the first new full frame lenses that Pentax would bring out. This is a very large, low volume, expensive, specialty lens. Pentax is not that stupid. On the other hand, if the design is simple enough they could offer it on a special order, low volume basis. But why?<br>

Pentax will not release a full frame camera until they can sell it on a very nice body (like K7 or better) for about $2,000, and until they can update and get into production six or so of the most popular full frame lenses with improved SDM.</p>

<p>Yah Justin...im in with u with that one. LOLOLOL!<br>

It's just hilarious.<br>

In my opinion, it would be a totally bad move to design a FF for Pentax. That market is small, and the IQ difference is not critical enough for a big investment. They would rather concentrate on the MF digital offer. Make it cheap, make it good. And Hail Pentax for its 645...</p>

<p>An FYI post. Slap a 50mm f/1 on a FF camera. Go to a gig at a pub. Stand 5m from the lead singer. Take a photo with the lens wide open and your DoF is ~60cm (~23.5").</p>

<p>I'm just sayin'...</p>

<p>People will say they want lenses so fast that the whole lens assembly could invert as though it were sucked into a black hole. "I want a f/-0.25 lens!"</p>

<p>"Oh, that CaNikon f/-0.25 Black Hole lens just doesn't suck enough light into barrel. Get the CanNikon 'Mark II' instead. I can't wait to upgrade to the Antimatter 3000."</p>

<p>"With two separate light-sucking systems, one for the lens, and one for the sensor, you only need a PhD in Astrophysics to operate this thing at a wedding."</p>

<p>"Those Pentax Black Hole sensors are obviously for amateurs. The Boutique Collection from this other company maintains the star at brown dwarf status for a little longer, just to get the mass right. Nevermind that Pentax invented the Black Hole Lens Assembly."</p>

<p>Don't buy one of those imitation Black Hole lenses; they'll suck your face off if you try to make the picture without the Billy Hoozits Endangered Species Whale Flash Diffuser with Custom Chrome Spoiler on the hot shoe.</p>

<p>We don't need "Fractional Frame", "FF", cameras. Some people still can't properly expose sensors of the existing size! And, sometimes, I'm one of them!</p>

<p>50mm 1.0 eos weighs almost 1,000 grams. Here's specs and "depth of field" at various distances/apertures link is at top right. Thesedays yen to dollar makes it cost $4,000. Size should be comparable if the 50mm 1.0 Pentax version is full frame.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/camera/lens/ef/data/standard/ef_50_10l_usm.html">http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/camera/lens/ef/data/standard/ef_50_10l_usm.html</a></p>

<p>Now if you travel further back in time, to 1961 Canon offered their 50mm .095 which broke the f1.0 barrier:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/camera/lens/s/data/50-85/s_50_095.html">http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/camera/lens/s/data/50-85/s_50_095.html</a></p>

<p>I'm enjoying all the new buzz over Pentax. The rumoured lenses are very interesting.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Yah, stand 5m, hope said musician stays still, hope your focus is spot on, and then hope 50mm is enough at 15ft to fill the frame with enough quality image that it doesn't need to be seriously cropped down. That is 50mm on a full frame sensor, not 50mm with an effective 75mm FOV.</p>

<p>23in at 5m sounds impressive, but in the real world, it's very tough to get accurate focus on live subjects. Feel free to disagree, but don't curse me as you go through your digital files and go, "damn there must be 1 shot in focus out of all these" No thanks, I'll take f/2.0 to 2.8 any day and hope for the best!</p>

<p>Here is a shot taken at your distance, but with a 43mm x 1.5 so ~ 65mm, and still cropped to 4x5. This was shot at f/2 or 2.8...probably 2. The top one the focus is on the drummer (more visible bigger). The bottom one the lead singer.<br>

<a title="Chris Jonson @ Blues City Cafe" href=" title="Chris Jonson @ Blues City Cafe"> <img src="http://static.flickr.com/3354/3193017743_32fe8c402f_d.jpg" border="0" alt="" /> </a></p>

<p><a title="Chris Jonson @ Blues City Cafe" href=" title="Chris Jonson @ Blues City Cafe"> <img src="http://static.flickr.com/3419/3193858496_b71befd077_d.jpg" border="0" alt="" /> </a> <a title="Chris Jonson @ Blues City Cafe" href=" title="Chris Jonson @ Blues City Cafe"> </a></p>

<p>Of course you can just down size them to 480 pixels and sharpen them and claim they are in focus. The thing is everyone has different needs, if your's are purely web, this will work, if you want to print or even digital display at high res it won't work.</p>

<p>Anyway, the next time I go to Memphis, I am taking the 645N and Ilford 3200...I am going to play around at 3200-6400 and see what happens. The K20D shots were at 2500 which is as far as I am comfortable shooting that camera, although, I am very impressed with it at 2500 (where it is better than the K10D in the shadows but about the same as the K10D at 1600 in the highlights, mid tones)</p>

<p>Anyway, it's on the road map...doesn't mean it's being made, where is the 30mm 1.4 DA*??<br>

I agree, Pentax needs to release and have a lineup of FF lenses before releasing a FF body. If they release the body without lenses there will be a mass riot.<br>

There was a photo of the K7 LCD showing an aperture of f1.0...so maybe...I'd rather have the 30mm f1.4.</p>

<p>John, I'm going to get myself one of those there Astrophysics PhDs so I can operate the black hole lens. It sounds...exciting :-)</p>

<p>Justin, don't get bent out of shape, man...I was just sayin' ;-)</p>

<p>A 50/1 is kind of like a black hole for your wallet...</p>

<p>Maybe we should hope for some refrigeration units to supercool sensors.</p>

<p>Do any of these lenses resemble old Pentax film designs? Maybe they're just dusting off the schematics for some film lenses and re-releasing them?<br>

Personally, I think if Pentax had been planning a full frame DSLR they wouldn't have spent so much money on making all those crop-sensor primes :P</p>

<p>Nah, no bending, I was just saying real world results and lab based #s don't always mesh. It's not that I don't want them too, it's just that experience says they don't.</p>

<p>You are better off using that Phd to stop time, a friend of mine from MIT said to me once when I remarked star trek was a bunch of BS, "really, you don't think any of that is possible" (with a little sparkle in his eye). I say stop the performance, fill the frame at X meters with your subject at f/1 and ISO 400 and fire away!</p>

<p>Just remember to unstop time so we can all see the results!</p>

<p> </p>

<p>The latest German computer magazine CT reported the K7D to be a full frame camera but they have corrected that on their website www.heise.de.</p>

<p>Pentax is like Sony, determined to make a spot for themselves, but facing marketing realities.<br>

1. You need an assortment of models to be seen in the marketplace, there is no alternative. Even if only 2 of your cameras make up 80% of your sales.<br>

2. you need a flagship, even if it isn't profitable. Does anyone thing Sony has made a dime off the A900?<br>

The only other choice was Fuji's, to bail out of the DSLR market.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>MIS, It's a competitive business and nobody in their right minds shares future marketing decisions a full year in advance. I don't think many "offical road maps" are meaningful .</p>

<p> Pentax, marketing nearly-exclusively to amateurs since the first Asahis, with the sole exception of playing second-fiddle or third-fiddle as a wedding photographer's 645 (vs Mamiya and Hasselblad), has no reason to introduce a digital 645.</p>

<p>Nobody who relies on prosumer labs or internet display (as opposed to printing their own or using a professional lab) can fully appreciate K20d - K7... but if they do demand 2X-plus as much , they already have it, relatively inexpensively with Canon 5DII. <strong> And they already have Canon's exceptional full frame L lenses as well, probably, as the original 5D. </strong></p>

<p>John,</p>

<p>When the 645D was "unlikely", I was in the don't-release-it camp, thinking that Pentax's limited resources would be better spent on its APS-C line. However, it now seems pretty certain that the 645D will actually be released. I still don't think it's a good idea, but nevertheless I hope they sell enough to recoup costs.</p>

<p>The 645D is another of those weird things Pentax does that most people don't understand why. But hey, it's that same thinking that gave us the 31 Ltd or the 77 Ltd, so we can't complain too much :-)</p>

"Pentax, marketing nearly-exclusively to amateurs since the first Asahis, with the sole exception of playing second-fiddle or third-fiddle as a wedding photographer's 645 (vs Mamiya and Hasselblad), has no reason to introduce a digital 645."

 

 

Wedding photographers? I guess circus musicians is your reference for musicians!

Pentax MF cameras was marketed as field cameras. The Pentax 67 was very sucessful saleswise over the years. The 645N/NII was the worlds most sold MF SLR. Pentax had 50% marketshare of the worlds largest MF market; Japan. Pentax have sold close to 1 000 000 medium format lenses. The 645 Digital will be equally sucessful at its targeted price and it is not either ment for wedding photographers!

<p>@Pål: Not doubting most of what you're saying, but:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>The 645 Digital will be equally sucessful at its targeted price</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Do we even know what that that targeted price is? (I didn't think we did.)</p>

<blockquote>

<p>2. you need a flagship, even if it isn't profitable. Does anyone thing Sony has made a dime off the A900?<br /> The only other choice was Fuji's, to bail out of the DSLR market.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Actually, I cannot stress this enough...SONY HAS NEVER MADE A PROFIT FROM IT'S CAMERA DIVISION. Unless something changed recently. The camera division like the gaming division (and I still cannot understand how the PSP and PS systems lost money) is a black hole for Sony. Sony hasn't commented on the DSLR division but it has talked about cutting a lot out of the gaming division.</p>

<p>Keep in mind, Sony PSIII vs. the Nintendo Wii is like the Canon 1DsMIII taking on the Pentax K20D. And Nintendo is winning that battle!</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Pentax, marketing nearly-exclusively to amateurs since the first Asahis, with the sole exception of playing second-fiddle or third-fiddle as a wedding photographer's 645 (vs Mamiya and Hasselblad), has no reason to introduce a digital 645.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>You keep saying this, but you are completely wrong. Many many many many landscape pros used Pentax 645 system. Many fashion pros used Pentax as well. Pentax 645 system was one of the best selling camera systems of all time, and Pentax was still producing those cameras till a few months ago, so someone was buying them! Oh, and have you checked KEH used bins? The 645 is drying up, so people still interest in the system (or are bulking up for the 645D) Anyway, I'm not going to argue with you on this, you've made up your mind that because the P645 system was lower cost it was some Holga'esque wedding photographers toy camera. Your not going to change your stance, so we'll agree to disagree and be done with it!</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I still don't think it's a good idea, but nevertheless I hope they sell enough to recoup costs.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Here is the funny thing, when it's shelved I agree with you. They can better spend resources. But then I think a f/1 lens and the 31 and 77 limited are just stupid as well. The reason is realistically these aren't tremedously better than their counter parts (like the FA 35mm), but cost 3x as much. They probably don't cost 3X as much to build, but they could sell a lot more $300 FA 35mm than they do $800 FA 31mm. Walmart is the most powerful company in the world selling junk at 3% profit margins. Better to sell 100,000 FA 35s than 10,000 FA 31s.</p>

<p>The 645D will give the brand recognition, it will be a marketing point, people will buy the 645D because it has a removable back making it upgradeable, and because they have a pile of 645 AF Star lenses sitting in the closet that they already spent $10,000 on. So your initial investment of 10K isn't wasted, since Pentax can keep cost down by producing that body for a decade, while releasing better backs as cost and tech improves. Pentax CANNOT beat Nikon and Canon at it's own game, it needs to be Pentax, and it is why the company is still around even if only as a "brand". The Limiteds and the 645D are Pentax.</p>

<p>As far as the 645D, I'm not going to say I will buy one when it comes out (caney pretty much made sure of that), but if one gets into the $5000 range used (or even $7500 new) in a year or 3, I'll most likely buy one. The reason is I can screw around buying FF and APS upgrades for years and blow that $5000...(think about it K10D, K7= $2400 or 1/2 of that $5000 price I am aiming for), and what if Pentax comes out with the FF camera? How many will buy it after buying a K10/K7? You've just spent $5000 on incremental BS upgrades, and you still don't have a camera that outperforms the 645D on large prints or detailed scenes...or I can just drop $5000 and have a camera that does everything I personally need from a landscape camera for a decade or more with upgradeable backs. I'll still have the K7 for more mobile adventure shooting and with a little luck that will last a decade or more, and I'll have the Nikon system for sports! All my problems are solved.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Justin, do we know the 645D will have a removable back?</p>

<p>Sample shots showed it with the back off. I assume that means you can put a different back on in the future.</p>

<p>Actually assuming it does have a removable back, it's sort of the modular camera we (i've) been asking for.</p>

<p>Think about it. You might go through a few backs in a decade, but you will be using the same base body. Good for landfills and the wallet.</p>

<p>As Andrew pointed out some time ago, modular is neither cheap, nor small. I guess what he was saying is if you want modular, 645D is the only way to go.</p>

<p>What I am saying is this, IF the 645D is modular and IF it is anywhere near a Canon FF 1Ds in price, and we will ASSUME it will blow the 1Ds away in IQ, it is a better value for the people who typically use the 1Ds (studio, landscape, fine art). When the 1Ds is antiquated, you sell it on ebay for 30% of what you paid, when the 645D is getting long in the tooth you put a new back on it. Further you can have CMOS backs, CCD backs, square backs, low MP high ISO backs, high MP backs, etc. Just a better route to go for a near $10,000 camera (Canon/Nikon vs. Pentax).</p>