A Site for Photographers by Photographers

K3 ?

Richard Harris , Jun 16, 2012; 05:19 a.m.


What do you think?


    1   |   2     Next    Last

Jean-Yves Mead , Jun 16, 2012; 06:42 a.m.

Sounds like desperate wishful thinking; but I wouldn't object to being proved wrong.

Leslie Cheung , Jun 16, 2012; 01:34 p.m.

If it is true, great for Pentax!

Matt Burt , Jun 17, 2012; 01:21 a.m.

Sounds cool. Seems possible. But only time will tell.

Michael Elenko , Jun 17, 2012; 09:10 p.m.

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. 


Miserere Mei , Jun 18, 2012; 11:48 a.m.

Hey Richard, good to see you around these parts!

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.

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 is the way of the Pentaxian, after all.

Justin Serpico , Jun 18, 2012; 03:09 p.m.

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

A lot depends on cost of the sensor and cost of the supply chain for the camera.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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?

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."

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?

Guy Gervais , Jun 18, 2012; 09:01 p.m.


Wouldn't the Taks & Super Taks be compatible with a FF K3?


Patrick Withem , Jun 18, 2012; 11:46 p.m.

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.

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?

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.

Antoni Tomadakis , Jun 19, 2012; 12:51 a.m.

I agree with Justin, I just want to clarify that he is talking about new lenses in production. In other words, money for Pentax.
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.
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.
Recycling old lenses does not help the brands bottom line...

    1   |   2     Next    Last

Back to top

Notify me of Responses