why doesn't pentax have a full-frame?

To answer the original question: I can only guess that it has/had something to do with the number of units they figure they can sell and the current lens lineup which is not FF compatible on the whole.

I'm one of those with a soft spot for Pentax and seriously considered the K5. But didn't buy one because:

1. There was/is no full-frame path.
2. The Pentax lens line-up is weird IMO.
 
jett said:
This is probably a naive question, but did Pentax compete with Nikon/Canon in the pro market in the 35mm days?

I'm youngish so I mostly know who the top camera makers are in digital (usually the full-frame guys) but I'm not sure about film.

I know that Nikon and Canon have been making a fleet of professional cameras with tons of accessories but everyone else seems muddled.
Click to expand...
In the early-to-mid 60s Pentax were better regarded than Canon.

Cheers,

R.
 
zuiko85 said:
What is the "magic" of full frame. Why should a digital sensor conform to a frame based on the limitations of 100+ year old double perforated 35mm movie film!

It is digital folks. It can be any shape. The optimum is probably square to take maximum advantage of a lens image circle. No need for a 'vertical grip'. All cropping done on sensor. Or even *GASP* square pictures. (Worked for years for Rolleiflex and Hasselblad shooters)

I know, I know.....legacy lenses and lens mounts. "I want my existing wide angle lenses to be wide angle!" Etc, etc, etc.


What if, when roll film came out the photographers (the few there were) started complaining ".....no, no, no, you have to make it the same size as my full plate camera!"
Click to expand...
Have you ever read any vintage photo magazines? And do you know much about historical film (or indeed plate) sizes? It wasn't quite like that...

Cheers,

R.
 
zuiko85 said:
What is the "magic" of full frame. Why should a digital sensor conform to a frame based on the limitations of 100+ year old double perforated 35mm movie film!
Click to expand...

The 'magic' is that the physics of the size of the sensor dictate that images from it just look 'right'. That's why 35mm has been around so long. Because it just works well.
 
f6andBthere said:
Why do they need to compete with Canikon to retain their niche in the market. A lot of people who buy Pentax cameras are quite loyal to the brand, don't want a Canon or Nikon and will move to full frame via a Pentax when the option becomas available.
Click to expand...

Pentaxians are loyal. I've always thought, analogy-wise, Nikon=Toyota; Canon=Honda; Pentax=Subaru. There's a set of people who don't want the most mass-market, commonplace product, expressly because they don't want to be seen as drone-like, a follower, part of the crowd, part of the mass market. That applies even when the mass-market manufacturer might have a better product at a particular moment (and Subaru and Pentax both havei/i] had some slow years...).

Would I upgrade from my nearly four-year-old K20D to a full-frame Pentax DSLR? Maybe. There's an appeal to getting the full field of view from my old Takumar glass (which, since working via adapter on Pentax DSLRs anyway, I could as easily bolt onto a Canon DSLR), but there's an appeal to not spending a few thousand dollars on any DSLR, as I could buy a shed-load of film and a few more old film cameras with the money saved...

--Dave

p.s. I realize the possible problems with my analogy above is, where do you stick Olympus and (when it was still its original self) Minolta? Who has to be Nissan or Mazda? Who has to be Isuzu? (Ugggh!) Why doesn't Olympus rather than Pentax get to be Subaru, the Zuikoholics will ask! 🙂
 
Bille said:
Pentax has a market-share of about 1% according to this:
http://photoscala.de/Artikel/Kameramarkt-2013-Weniger-Kameras-mehr-Smartphones

Thats not a position to introduce a large sensor camera in this market segment and compete with N and C. Unless you are Leica and can charge anything you want.
Click to expand...

That's hardly a position for Pentax to claw its way back to compete at all. I fear Pentax's negligent marketing for so many years has caught up with them. Brand loyalty may be the only thing keeping them going. I'm one of those who started out with Pentax and see no need to dump my investment in Pentax equipment simply for the relatively small benefits of FF.
 
Why doesn't Pentax have a digital full frame camera? The answer is the same as to why any for-profit corporation decides not to do something -- it does not think that this would be profitable/sufficiently profitable in light of the costs, risks, and investment required.

While I would welcome further entries in the full frame market (particularly an interchangeable lens full frame mirrorless camera), I personally think that Pentax has made the correct business decision. Nikon and Canon have long dominated the full frame market and their frame frame customers have invested in their lenses, making prying away those limited number of customers difficult. Moreover, designing, producing and marketing a full frame camera and necessary additional lenses would consume enormous financial resources.
 
methinks 6D and D600 opened the full frame game to new category that Pentax cannot ignore anymore. they have venerable K-mount history, but need to build AF-lens lineup in order to join fully. bring their version soon, or disappear further into dSLR-niche. with Ricoh backing, hopefully they work towards this right now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom