msbarnes
Well-known
what's the hold up? they have a medium format digital, but no full-frame.
why doesn't pentax have a full-frame?
- Thread starter msbarnes
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 49
- Views 9K
btgc
Veteran
Good question often contains answer - probably Pentax has full frame, compact (APS-C) and subcompact (1/1.8" and smaller) sensors, but not crippled one (24x36).
gavinlg
Veteran
Because they're morons, honestly. The APS-C sensor size is a misfit. The 645d is too expensive compared to what can be achieved with a third of the cost in a full frame DSLR.
They have the lens lineup including gorgeous autofocus fast primes, and a full catalog of K mount lenses to back it. Why don't they do it? No one knows. They will though eventually, I guarantee it.
They have the lens lineup including gorgeous autofocus fast primes, and a full catalog of K mount lenses to back it. Why don't they do it? No one knows. They will though eventually, I guarantee it.
Sejanus.Aelianus
Veteran
so you're the new boss of Pentax Ricoh Imaging Company, Ltd? In that case, I'd like to talk to you about this SV that I bought, which seems to have lost the LCD off the back plate...
😀
ChrisN
Striving
The problem is that most of the recent gems in the lens lineup are designed for the APS-C crop sensor - their image circle is not big enough for full frame. And while many of the older FA (full-frame) lenses, especially the Limited series FA lenses, are excellent, it's generally accepted* that Pentax would need to develop and introduce new lenses to provide the resolution and the CA and other aberration control to provide excellent images with the newest sensors. They also need a generation-leap in their autofocus speed and accuracy. I think it's just too big a program for Pentax at this stage.
BTW I'm a big Pentax fan, with most of the Limited's (15, 21, 31, 43, 77) and a bunch of older lenses and several bodies, both film and digital. I'd hate to see Pentax sink the ship with a half-hearted effort.
* By that I mean that's my sense of the issue that has been discussed at length for several years on the various Pentax forums.
f6andBthere
Well-known
Pentax appear to be a conservative camera maker to me. (that recent strange styling exercise aside!)
When all the other manufacturers have gone full frame and all the hoopla over full frame sensors has died down, Pentax will quietly introduce a full frame camera that will be well thought out and highly competent but without all the trumpet blowing the rest have indulged in.
I like the way Pentax do things ... at their own speed!
When all the other manufacturers have gone full frame and all the hoopla over full frame sensors has died down, Pentax will quietly introduce a full frame camera that will be well thought out and highly competent but without all the trumpet blowing the rest have indulged in.
I like the way Pentax do things ... at their own speed!
Can pentax compete (I mean really compete) with Nikon and Canon in the full frame camera game? This may answer your question.
f6andBthere
Well-known
Have they ever?
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.
gavinlg
Veteran
I agree with your overall point, but the boat sailed a long time ago and they could have done this whole 35mm sized sensor thing one step at a time. The FA lenses may not be stellar in all areas, but they're still pretty wonderful on film cameras, and I'm guessing with a 16-24mp 35mm digital camera they'd still be wonderful. In fact I'd be happy to say (outlandishly enough) that the fa limited lenses are easily good enough for 35mm digital, and pentax fans are just trying to convince themselves that they don't need FF to make full use of the lenses (like nikon fans did before the d3). In Asia it's actually pretty popular to adapt them to 5d's to be able to use them the way they were intended.
The thing is that the so called 'hoo ha' over full frame cameras isn't some fad that's only come in now - Canon released their first proper full frame DSLR in 2003 (1ds), and the 5d in 2005, so full frame cameras are effectively 10 years old on the mainstream market. The trumpet blowing over 35mm digitals is well and truly done and over, and it's the reason Canon is a market leader now. Pentax actually showed a prototype camera called the MZ-D (pic below) with a full frame 6mp camera in 2001 and then dumped the project when the sensor manufacturer bowed out.
Yes. I can think of some seriously cool things they could do - bring out a k-1 loosely based on the k1000. Make it as tiny as possible - like significantly smaller than current FF cameras, bring back the metal FA limited lenses with USM autofocus, make it metal and weather sealed - like an om-d but 35mm sensor. They already have a 31mm, 43mm, 50mm and 77mm high quality lenses. Bring out the new body with a new usm focussing 50mm f1.8 that's all metal and tiny.
Even just a k5 body with a full frame sensor in it would be popular.
f6andBthere
Well-known
I've always admired the brand loyalty that Pentax owners seem to possess! 😀
I wonder how that strange styling creation is selling?
I wonder how that strange styling creation is selling?
Pentudlian
Established
I am one of the loyalists! I shall one day get a dSLR, but that day will not be before Pentax produce their Holy Grail. In the meantime I'll carry on using my old MX (plus an assortment of rangefinders, of course......)
valdas
Veteran
To me, loyalty is not about the brand, it is about a quality or features or something else objective (that goes with the brand) rather than "image" created by marketing people.
One can argue they competed in the past more so than they do now. Sure, I know its a niche product, but will Pentax users buy a lot of $2000+ full frame cameras? There's got to be a reason Pentax hasn't done it... and it's not because it can't be done.
I'd love this honestly, but there has got to be a reason no one is doing it. Maybe it's too niche?
David Hughes
David Hughes
Hi,
I guess they are happy with things as they are and don't want to go head to head with others. I doubt if there's much demand for full frame, even less with more makers sharing a small market. And even their much smaller ones are very nice in digital, judging by my grand-daughter's Christmas present.
Of course, in 35m they still have many happy users, even with the K1000. And many would call that 'full frame' even though film come in 48" by 36" sheets still, I hope. Someone I know who uses it went digital a while ago so I'm not up-to-date there.
Regards, David
I guess they are happy with things as they are and don't want to go head to head with others. I doubt if there's much demand for full frame, even less with more makers sharing a small market. And even their much smaller ones are very nice in digital, judging by my grand-daughter's Christmas present.
Of course, in 35m they still have many happy users, even with the K1000. And many would call that 'full frame' even though film come in 48" by 36" sheets still, I hope. Someone I know who uses it went digital a while ago so I'm not up-to-date there.
Regards, David
Spanik
Well-known
Problem is that their medium format digital camera is almost in the difital FF territory. It is one of the cheapest options to go digital MF. Where would they position their FF camera?
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Yes. In the early 60s Pentax SLRs were better regarded than Canon SLRs, and the SV was a lot more svelte than the Nikon F.
Cheers,
R.
tstermitz
Well-known
It could be that Nikon, Canon and Sony have locked up the licensing on FF sensors, at least for a certain length of time.
FF Sensors are more expensive than APS, and the retail price of a FF camera is a LOT more expensive. So, the marketing question is whether Pentax could sell enough to make a dent in the FF market which is dominated by Nikon & Canon. Business success for a smaller player means defining your niche, and then serving it very well.
I don't think APS sensors should be snubbed.
(1) Since this is a Leica forum, What's not to like about a small, solid body with a trio of prime-lenses? The K5 is waterproof, and only a little bigger than the Lieca M. A K5 with limited 15mm, 31mm and 77mm lenses fits in the same photo-runner bag as my Leica kit. (Okay, I can squeeze a 4th Leica lens into that bag.)
(2) Pentax actually serves up a full-set of APS lenses, something you can't say about Nikon.
(3) Using a Nikon 300mm Telephoto the Nikon D7000 gives you "more pixels on the subject" (as Thom Hogan would say) than the D800 if you are doing wildlife or birds, and they are high-quality, middle of the lens pixels. 18-24M pixels is quite sufficient unless you are doing large landscape prints.
Yes, the D800 has a lot of pixels, but arguably the more significant benefits of FF or medium format are shallower depth-of-field and better wide-angle options.
The cost of FF includes needing a lot more computer power, and a lot higher-quality lenses to actually resolve all those pixels to the edge of the frame. I'm not sure that Pentax's lovely Limited lenses would be good enough for FF. Even Nikon's lens don't quite match up to the D800, so if you want to play that game you're paying $2,000 and up.
FF Sensors are more expensive than APS, and the retail price of a FF camera is a LOT more expensive. So, the marketing question is whether Pentax could sell enough to make a dent in the FF market which is dominated by Nikon & Canon. Business success for a smaller player means defining your niche, and then serving it very well.
I don't think APS sensors should be snubbed.
(1) Since this is a Leica forum, What's not to like about a small, solid body with a trio of prime-lenses? The K5 is waterproof, and only a little bigger than the Lieca M. A K5 with limited 15mm, 31mm and 77mm lenses fits in the same photo-runner bag as my Leica kit. (Okay, I can squeeze a 4th Leica lens into that bag.)
(2) Pentax actually serves up a full-set of APS lenses, something you can't say about Nikon.
(3) Using a Nikon 300mm Telephoto the Nikon D7000 gives you "more pixels on the subject" (as Thom Hogan would say) than the D800 if you are doing wildlife or birds, and they are high-quality, middle of the lens pixels. 18-24M pixels is quite sufficient unless you are doing large landscape prints.
Yes, the D800 has a lot of pixels, but arguably the more significant benefits of FF or medium format are shallower depth-of-field and better wide-angle options.
The cost of FF includes needing a lot more computer power, and a lot higher-quality lenses to actually resolve all those pixels to the edge of the frame. I'm not sure that Pentax's lovely Limited lenses would be good enough for FF. Even Nikon's lens don't quite match up to the D800, so if you want to play that game you're paying $2,000 and up.
tstermitz
Well-known
For a moment I thought this was a Pentax MZ-S. Now that is a seriously sweet camera. The end-of-the-line film cameras were all wonderful, from the Nikon F6 to the pro medium format systems, like Hasselblad, and even the Pentax 645N.
If you need a hit of GAS, go handle a Hassy or even a P645N.... but, this is just a transparent thread hijack.
Note the generous use of dials as opposed to menus in this MZ-D prototype. Pentax has always been very good with haptics.
If you need a hit of GAS, go handle a Hassy or even a P645N.... but, this is just a transparent thread hijack.
Note the generous use of dials as opposed to menus in this MZ-D prototype. Pentax has always been very good with haptics.
Pentax actually showed a prototype camera called the MZ-D (pic below) with a full frame 6mp camera in 2001 and then dumped the project when the sensor manufacturer bowed out.
divewizard
perspicaz
The 645D is not a full frame 645. It is bigger than full frame 35mm, but smaller than 645 film.