K3 ?

http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/also-pentax-will-use-the-new-sony-24-megapixel-ff-sensor/

What do you think?

In the recent past we have covered many of the rational business reasons why Pentax should not release a 24x36

format body. 

During this latest Ricoh ownership period, however, I'm willing to believe that almost anything could happen. Judging

from recent and forthcoming product announcements, Ricoh appears to be treating Pentax as more of a hobby. So

maybe they are willing to absorb the high development costs associated with producing a FF body and critical lenses?

Ricoh is certainly large enough, and the acquisition cost of Pentax entailed fairly low risk. 

I know it doesn't make sense, but a lot of what Pentax does doesn't make sense. 

So bring on a truly compact FF body to continue the Pentax heritage. 

ME

<p>Hey Richard, good to see you around these parts!</p>

<p>Every year for the past...10 years (???)...this rumour pops up. At some point it will become reality, I don't doubt that, and given the recent Ricoh acquisition, this could be that time.</p>

<p>If it were to happen, that Pentax introduces a FF DSLR, I fully expect a huge dearth of lenses and angry complaints from everyone who was asking for FF, but now finds they have no modern AF lenses to attach to it. That <em>is</em> the way of the Pentaxian, after all.</p>

<p>I've always said, eventually Pentax MIGHT actually produce a full frame camera.</p>

<p>A lot depends on cost of the sensor and cost of the supply chain for the camera. </p>

<p>Pentax simply will not sell enough $2000 cameras to justify the full frame investment. IF they can produce a K-5 like camera with full frame for K-5 pricing, they'll definitely sell a few.</p>

<p>However, you have to remember, Pentax has almost 0 full frame lenses (yes, they have a few very expensive limiteds, and a few updated full frame (FA*) DA* designs that MIGHT work flawlessly on full frame sensor, but for the most part, you have no lenses to go with this camera.</p>

<p>And here is the argument against anyones argument of the FA Limiteds being enough. Buying all 3 FA limiteds is now a $2000 investment, I don't consider this a bad investment, but it would come on top of a $1500-2000 camera. And, you' still only have 3 prime lenses. For many people that would be enough, but take a look at all the threads that reference the "holes" in Pentax lens lineup because they don't have 5 flavors of every lens like Canon does. </p>

<p>Now think about this, you not only don't have 5 flavors of EVERY lens, but you now have ONLY 3 lenses to choose from. Do you really think the K-FF will be a hot seller?<br /><br />I suppose they could sell it as a package with the 3 Limiteds, for like $3500 or something. That would be a great deal, but how many people does that really appeal to?<br /><br />Whenever we Pentax supporters mention, "well, Pentax has the Limiteds and no other Japanese company makes anything like them," we mostly hear, "so what, a bunch of overpriced primes."</p>

<p>Point being, the Limiteds are a niche lens design that appeals to a decent number of Pentax shooters, but for a K-FF to work, it would have to make pretty much every user upgrade. Ffor me, that would involve reinvesting in 35mm lenses I no longer have. Honestly, I'd buy a K-FF, but I probably wouldn't invest in new lenses for it. At least not many. So where is Pentax making money off me? <br>

<br /><br /></p>

<p>Greets!</p>

<p>Wouldn't the Taks & Super Taks be compatible with a FF K3?</p>

<p>G</p>

<p>There's still the FA50 and the FA35 they could resurrect. Admittedly, it's getting crowded in that range. Also, although it's not money in Pentax's pockets, there do exist many decent Sigma lenses that are FF. The fact that they are 3rd party doesn't change that they are decent lenses and help fill the FF gaps. So as consumers, we do have options. This will be more apparent to the informed Pentax user vs newcomers, however.<br>

<br />Still though, FF is not new. I understand the growing pains of updating product lines and introducing new tech, but to crank out an obligatory FF 18-55mm kit lens to bide time - how hard can that be for Pentax/Ricoh? <br>

<br />I think where Pentax can really make a mark with FF though will be if they offer a compact form with ergonomic interface and conventional presentation; following the DS, K-x, and K5/7 tradition. I see reviews of the newest Nikon FF body - and while an impressive piece of work - I can't imagine ever wanting to carry around that car battery and taking pictures with it. SR would be a bonus, but not really essential for a first run if they nail the other attributes. </p>

<p>I agree with Justin, I just want to clarify that he is talking about new lenses in production. In other words, money for Pentax.<br>

All the old glass will work, assuming the same mount remains, and it will. Most of the DA line will not work, some of the DA lenses that do work may have issues on the edges.<br>

All the old Sigma, Tamron, Tokina etc will work up to their D_ (Digital) lenses which has to be checked on an individual basis. Sigma has been better than other on this front.<br>

Recycling old lenses does not help the brands bottom line...</p>

<p>Antoni is spot on with what I was getting at.</p>

<p>Selling Sigma lenses does nothing for Pentax. Pentax needs to sell Pentax lenses and accessories for the K-FF to make sense. Which means, quite simply, they have to have an existing and sales worthy lens lineup in stock in stores or online retailers. </p>

<p>I actually am amazed that FF still gets people giddy enough to claim that Sigma lenses and the 50mm FA will make it all worthwhile. You have to admit, that is kinda funny.</p>

<p>I always point out that Sony built a hell of a lens system and some great camera bodies, including full frame shooters, and has nothing to show for it. </p>

<p>As ME pointed out, Ricoh seems to be using Pentax as a hobby project, so it's definitely possible we will see a K-FF, but I have a feeling this is going to be a Minolta move that gives everyone full frame at the expense of Pentax survival. And this is all for 1 stop of ISO and so we can use what are now probably not so amazing legacy wide angles in all their glory. </p>

<p> </p>

<p>So, what are these 3 FA Pentax lenses that are full-frame? 31/1.8, 43/1.8, 77/1.8? Hmm, I do see what you mean. I know a lot of people that use only 2-3 primes, but would probably still want options longer and wider to find something that works for them. I guess part of the issue is that those that use primes in 35mm/full-frame are used to 24/35/50/85/135. Perhaps you can read too much into what focal lengths really mean, but I believe that would be a stumbling block for some. I see you also have 35/2, 55/1.4, 200/2.8. Sounds pretty good.</p>

<p>I guess a few years ago Pentax could have got in there with the "smallest full-frame dslr" on the market, but this area is inevitably going to be eaten up by something mirrorless sooner or later. So what Pentax could actually do to make it sell is the grey area... They could do the usual Pentax thing of making it good quality, offer a little bit different, make it a well refined photographic tool, but that would only attract the same people, most likely already using Pentax cameras. How many of those have full-frame lenses, and are perhaps willing to spent $2000-$3000 on a body, and then perhaps one or two extra lenses worth a considerable amount...</p>

<p>One mention on lenses... I've been using older Minolta lenses (first generation auto-focus lenses from the mid 80's), as well as even older Rokkors from the 60's and 70's on Sony A900/A850 bodies. There is a lot said about whether a lens is "good enough" for full-frame sensors or not, but in my experience a good lens doesn't suddenly become awful when on digital full-frame. More often that not it appears better and becomes more rewarding. So I honestly wouldn't worry too much in that area. There was a lot of talk about this when Sony showed us the a900 prototype... but all these years later, everyone is using old Minolta (or similar vintage) glass, even wide angles, and getting great results.</p>

<p>Example... 1976 Rokkor 58/1.2 on a900. ISO160, f1.2, 1/400th, CWA. This isn't resized so well for web, but it is tack sharp in print, as the lens always is when I nail focus. </p>

<p><img src="http://www.rharris-images.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Kim__Jason_Pre-Wedding_56.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<blockquote>

<p>Richard Harris wrote:<br>

There is a lot said about whether a lens is "good enough" for full-frame sensors or not, but in my experience a good lens doesn't suddenly become awful when on digital full-frame.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It's not the lenses that are the problem, it's the sensors, and the problems are exacerbated the wider you go (roughly wider than 28mm). The edges of digital sensors can perform poorly with light that arrives at a steep angle, causing vignetting, blurring, and other effects the lens didn't exhibit on film (where the light's angle of incidence matters little). I wouldn't expect a 58mm f/1.2 to cause any problems.</p>

<p>Leica solved (or so they say) this issue by offsetting the microlenses towards the edges of their sensors, but different lenses require slightly different offsets so there's still no optimised fix for individual lenses.</p>

<p>Another issue is colour fringes. Many wide-aperture lenses show purple fringing on digital that didn't occur on film. There's also red/green fringing, that for example my 31 Ltd exhibits in high-contrast areas (and this is a $1,000 lens). Of course, this can be fixed in-camera via firmware, which Pentax already does in the K-5. They might also fix vignetting, but there's no software cure for corner blurriness caused by low-angle light.</p>

It's not the lenses that are the problem, it's the sensors, and the problems are exacerbated the wider you go (roughly

wider than 28mm). The edges of digital sensors can perform poorly with light that arrives at a steep angle, causing

vignetting, blurring, and other effects the lens didn't exhibit on film (where the light's angle of incidence matters little). I

wouldn't expect a 58mm f/1.2 to cause any problems.

I'm well aware of this "problem" Mis, I'm saying that with my experience of film era lenses (including sub 28mm) it's a non

issue. Sure, you might find some poor wide angles that just become awful, but almost all the good ones continue to work

well if we're talking about slrs. Just check fredmiranda alternate forum, search for Leica R, Rokkor, Contax, M42... You'll

find loads of samples from 5D's, a900's... Great results.

Heck, you'll find some "corner blurring" on brand new wide angle full frame lenses. It's really not worth worrying about in

my experience.

<p>There have been a bunch of rumors about a Nikon D600 as well -- purported to be something like a D7000 with FF sensor. This would be very much like a FF K-5. Of course, Nikon already has a lens lineup for such a camera. This very well could be the camera that convinces a good number of APS-C photogs to switch, and probably away from competing brands as well in some cases. I think there are many who like the idea of FF IQ but think existing FF bodies are just too bulky and a bit too expensive as well.</p>

<p>Not to say that Pentax might not take a flyer on it -- If priced around $2000 I think they would sell enough to existing Pentaxians to make it a worthwhile exercise, but it would sure help to introduce a couple new FF lenses and probably an updated roadmap promising more.</p>

<p>Possibly as m4/3, etc. has been increasingly nibbling entry-level APS-C's lunch, manufacturers with legacy 36x24 mounts will increasingly try to turn lemons (legacy baggage) into lemonade (actually making use of their wide-mouthed mounts).</p>

<p>I think another issue is that with digital pixel-peeping, expectations of lens performance and AF accuracy are much higher than they were in the film era. Digital has created legions of people who will exhaustively nitpick IQ and post the naked results on the internet for all to see. Photographers who drop $2-3 on camera bodies tend to be less forgiving of compromise.</p>

<p>The rumor comes from RiceHigh, so I'm not sure how much there is to it.</p>

<p>A FF sensor will always appeal to enough people. And sales of such cameras could even take a bit of a loss, as long as the cameras and talk about them attract people to the brand and generate sales in the APS-C camera line.</p>

<p>Lack of lenses is not a big issue either. Most Pentax users have tons of FF lenses. And I don't find the Pentax APS-C lens lineup overwhelming either, but that doesn't stop the existence of Pentax users. Lack of FF lenses may impact newcomers, but not current market. </p>

<p>The big issues that I see with a FF DSLR are the following:</p>

<ul>

<li>Pentax's continuing commitment to K mount and DSLRs, which are old technology</li>

<li>The impact on APS-C bodies, APS-C lens development and, really, any other product development, because resources would be sucked in this FF platform</li>

</ul>

<blockquote>

<p>The impact on APS-C bodies, APS-C lens development and, really, any other product development, because resources would be sucked in this FF platform</p>

</blockquote>

<p>As I noted above, Pentax users might get the full frame, but it might also be the end of Pentax. Your comments don't do anything but support that statement. When companies go all in on anything, it better be a winner and a game changer. </p>

<p>I don't really understand how the K-mount is old tech. Nikon still uses it's mount. The mount isn't necessarily limiting innovation, especially not in mirrored cameras. </p>

<p>One thing you note that I do agree with is that perhaps with more competition on the low end (mirrorless and even high end compacts) Pentax might benefit from a full frame sensor to differentiate from the mirrorless cameras. However, I'm not sure that this is enough. 1 stop over a Sony APS-C Nex isn't going to really change the photography world. </p>

<p>As much as some APS-C users feel like they are getting the short end of the stick, it appears it just depends what side of the sensor size fence your mount of choice could use.</p>

<p>In the case of Sony, it's APS-C sensors are competing against M4/3s, so the Nex cameras look spectacular. If they were competing against full frame mirrorless cameras, they might not appear as spectacular. </p>

<p>It goes without saying, I think the whole sensor size debate is pointless at this point. Go out and shoot images, if they are being rejected or coming up short of your needs. evaluate if it is your photography skills or the equipment. If it's the later, feel free to rethink your equipment choices to solve the problems. If it's the former, we'll the minutia of the sensor size probably isn't going to matter. </p>

How about a new mount entirely. A ff mirrorless mount, with a sophisticated adapter (like the ones Sony make) to satisfy

current Pentax users so they could still use their current lenses with AF/AE. Here is definitely a hole in the market there,

but for how long I'm not sure, someone could likely already be plotting.

Justin, I posted the link just to see what you all thought about it. It wasn't meant to be a meaning of everything! Perhaps

you're just exhausted on the subject, which is fair enough, but there is no harm in discussing equipment.

<p>From the same source, one of the postings has this list:<br>

"Pentax lenses officially listed as FF currently in production:<br>

FA 31 f/1.8<br /> FA 35 f/2<br /> DA 40 f/2.8<br /> FA 43 f/1.9<br /> FA 50 f/1.4<br /> DFA 50 f/2.8 macro<br /> FA 77 f/1.8<br /> DFA 100mm f/2.8 macro WR<br>

Pentax lenses that cover FF format (patent + test) without any flaw, currently in production, but listed as APS-C:<br /> DA 35mm f/2.4<br /> DA 40mm f/2.8 XS<br /> DA 50mm f/1.8 (not 100% about this)<br /> DA* 55mm f/1.4<br /> DA 70mm f/2.4<br /> DA* 200mm f/2.8<br /> DA* 60-250mm f/4<br /> DA* 300mm f/4<br>

"<br>

Not sure exactly what is meant by (patent+test). </p>

<p>I sold my one and only full frame DSLR, a Canon 5D, a couple years ago and have never looked back because I mainly shoot film. Shooting Kodak Gold 100 in any of my 35mm cameras gives me plenty of scanned pixels, nice out-of-focus background blur, and I save the ridiculous two thousand dollar plus asking price for these beasts.</p>

<p>If you want "full frame" you can get it for under a hundred bucks. If you need full frame because you need to see every picture right after you shoot it, well, you're in the $2000+ group. :)</p>