Reading mode: Light Dark

FF minimal requirements.

Go to last post
P

PentaxNever

Active member
Messages
50
Reaction score
0
My minimal requirements for a Pentax FF DSLR would be:
-24x36mm sensor
-K-Mount
-compatibility with lenses : K, M, A, F, FA (DA), flashes
-1fps
-AF of a range of current Pentax DSLRs
-current amount of camera controls and current MENU layout

-size and weight of a camera not so important (as long as average)
-battery not so important (AAs or proprietary), life not very important
-ImageStabilisation not important
-WR not so important, build quality in a range of current products.

All in all, nothing specially new compared to existing technology!

I think of this like a help to Pentax in designing FF camera.
 
With known minimal user requirements for FF camera, this camera can be made quick, can be cheaper for users, because they can get feedback of what options and specifications users want from FF.
I hope to hear some answer, now...
 
I'm going to sleep a lot better tonight now that I know what your minimal requirements are for a digital camera with a 35mm sized sensor are.
 
PentaxNever said:
My minimal requirements for a Pentax FF DSLR would be:
-24x36mm sensor
Click to expand...
This is what FF means.
PentaxNever said:
-K-Mount
-compatibility with lenses : K, M, A, F, FA (DA), flashes
-1fps
-AF of a range of current Pentax DSLRs
-current amount of camera controls and current MENU layout
Click to expand...
All of these would come naturally with any Pentax DSLR because that's what they already provide; except, of course, for 1fps. They already have FF shutters (for film cameras) that work faster than that so they won't design something specially slow.
PentaxNever said:
-size and weight of a camera not so important (as long as average)
-battery not so important (AAs or proprietary), life not very important
-ImageStabilisation not important
-WR not so important, build quality in a range of current products.

All in all, nothing specially new compared to existing technology!

I think of this like a help to Pentax in designing FF camera.
Click to expand...
All you've said is that you want something that Pentax would provide anyway (except for fps). And you've told them what FF means! In what way do you think this will give any help to a design team?

--
---

Gerry


First camera 1953, first Pentax 1983, first DSLR 2006
http://www.pbase.com/gerrywinterbourne
 
PentaxNever said:
My minimal requirements for a Pentax FF DSLR would be:
-24x36mm sensor
Click to expand...
Obviously.
PentaxNever said:
-K-Mount
-compatibility with lenses : K, M, A, F, FA (DA), flashes
Click to expand...
Like the Nikon FF DSLRs, which can use DX lenses with a crop factor just as with FX lenses (with a loss of resolution, of course, since the camera is using a smaller part of the sensor).
PentaxNever said:
-1fps
Click to expand...
No way Pentax will ever be competitive with 1fps. Make this at very least 3 fps, 5fps being better.
PentaxNever said:
-AF of a range of current Pentax DSLRs
Click to expand...
At least as good as the K-5 or better. Same reason: Pentax needs to be competitive.
PentaxNever said:
-current amount of camera controls and current MENU layout
Click to expand...
Agreed.
PentaxNever said:
-size and weight of a camera not so important (as long as average)
Click to expand...
Agreed.
PentaxNever said:
-battery not so important (AAs or proprietary), life not very important
Click to expand...
Agreed, with a "if": the battery life needs to be good enough to last at least 500 shots or more. Below that, it will mean carrying one, two or more extra batteries. Not a big issue for most, but possibly a deal breaker if you plan on going hiking for three days in the wild...
PentaxNever said:
-ImageStabilisation not important
Click to expand...
Yes, most could live without it. However, since Sony can include IS in their FF bodies, I suppose Pentax could to it as well.
PentaxNever said:
-WR not so important, build quality in a range of current products.
Click to expand...
Agreed. I love WR, but I'm sure most people won't care much. That said, adding WR doesn't have a huge impact on the sale price, so why not?
PentaxNever said:
All in all, nothing specially new compared to existing technology!
Click to expand...
The main issue with FF sensors is the manufacturing cost of the sensor and the pentaprism and mirrorbox assembly. The rest is the same as with APS-C DSLRs.

The real problem is market: if you only produce 10 000 units a year, the sale price will remain high. If you produce 100 000 units instead, the price will be much better.

With the FF market already being quite competitive, I'm not sure there's room for another brand with a FF DSLR... but maybe it's actually the best thing that could happen to the FF market.

--

If photography can be considered like painting, then I'm still at the preschool "paint with your fingers" level.
 
For Pentax to make a successful 135 format DLSR, it will need to be bigger than a Nikon D300s, faster than a Canon EOS1DmkVIII (or whatever they are calling it now), will have to have 196 focus points, AF that is so fast that it can freeze a speeding bullet and work with perfect and absolute accuracy in any light condition from the bright side of Mercury to the dark side of the moon, be able to shoot 15FPS with an unlimited buffer, and be able to cook a gourmet meal, bring the photographer a beer and have amazing sex with him or her every night.

Anything less than that will be pilloried as a me too camera by all the camera forums, and everyone will jump ship because Pentax obviously doesn't have it's finger on the pulse of it's user base.
 
Wheatfield said:
For Pentax to make a successful 135 format DLSR, it will need to be bigger than a Nikon D300s, faster than a Canon EOS1DmkVIII (or whatever they are calling it now), will have to have 196 focus points, AF that is so fast that it can freeze a speeding bullet and work with perfect and absolute accuracy in any light condition from the bright side of Mercury to the dark side of the moon, be able to shoot 15FPS with an unlimited buffer, and be able to cook a gourmet meal, bring the photographer a beer and have amazing sex with him or her every night.

Anything less than that will be pilloried as a me too camera by all the camera forums, and everyone will jump ship because Pentax obviously doesn't have it's finger on the pulse of it's user base.
Click to expand...
$595 price tag and a 100% instant rebate if using Blue Chip Stamps. ;)

--

"...know the difference between photographers and puppies? Puppies eventually stop whining!!!..."
 
Gerry Winterbourne said:
Gerry Winterbourne wrote:
In what way do you think this will give any help to a design team?

--
---

Gerry


First camera 1953, first Pentax 1983, first DSLR 2006
http://www.pbase.com/gerrywinterbourne
Click to expand...
Well, maybe not to the design team, but some other team. I thought, If they know what their users want from FF body, know their minimal requirements from FF DSLR, and if they know there requirements are not so "high-spec-ed" it maybe could speed up the process of producing that camera.

For example, I need 1 fps. I don't need more than that. So, they don't need very fast procesors, big buffers, and fast and huge memory, to put into camera. Or, I dont need IS. They don't need to design another IS system. The IS system with (some) APS DSLRs had some issues, related to the mirror or curtain slap..etc. So, for the start, they don't need to bother with this system.
I dont know If this makes any sense to you. Regards.
 
Gerry Winterbourne said:
PentaxNever said:
My minimal requirements for a Pentax FF DSLR would be:
-24x36mm sensor
Click to expand...
This is what FF means.
Gerry Winterbourne said:
-K-Mount
-compatibility with lenses : K, M, A, F, FA (DA), flashes
-1fps
-AF of a range of current Pentax DSLRs
-current amount of camera controls and current MENU layout
Click to expand...
All of these would come naturally with any Pentax DSLR because that's what they already provide; except, of course, for 1fps. They already have FF shutters (for film cameras) that work faster than that so they won't design something specially slow.
Click to expand...
Well that is one of my points, there is actually no need to design almost anything completely new! Almost all is already available in some way. So Pentax is very close to succeed with FF, if there is a wish for that. And the costs would not be huge! The technology is here, just to put it together.
 
Well, I agree with You, but "to be competitive" is another step above "minimal requirements". I'm not into marketing and economics etc, but I agree that some product CAN actually sell better IF it is competitive in specifications AND price than the product that is not so competitive but cheaper. Anyway, I would buy not-so-competitive Pentax product, fulfilling my minimal requirements, like I believe most of long-time Pentax shooters would do! That would be Pentax's strenght for selling new FF product. The problem could be new users, because Pentax is "out of fashion" for some time in Europe, so competitive or not so competitive product would not IMHO change sales that much. I vote for cheaper FF DSLR.
tigrebleu said:
PentaxNever said:
My minimal requirements for a Pentax FF DSLR would be:
-24x36mm sensor
Click to expand...
Obviously.
tigrebleu said:
-K-Mount
-compatibility with lenses : K, M, A, F, FA (DA), flashes
Click to expand...
Like the Nikon FF DSLRs, which can use DX lenses with a crop factor just as with FX lenses (with a loss of resolution, of course, since the camera is using a smaller part of the sensor).
tigrebleu said:
-1fps
Click to expand...
No way Pentax will ever be competitive with 1fps. Make this at very least 3 fps, 5fps being better.
tigrebleu said:
-AF of a range of current Pentax DSLRs
Click to expand...
At least as good as the K-5 or better. Same reason: Pentax needs to be competitive.
tigrebleu said:
-current amount of camera controls and current MENU layout
Click to expand...
Agreed.
tigrebleu said:
-size and weight of a camera not so important (as long as average)
Click to expand...
Agreed.
tigrebleu said:
-battery not so important (AAs or proprietary), life not very important
Click to expand...
Agreed, with a "if": the battery life needs to be good enough to last at least 500 shots or more. Below that, it will mean carrying one, two or more extra batteries. Not a big issue for most, but possibly a deal breaker if you plan on going hiking for three days in the wild...
tigrebleu said:
-ImageStabilisation not important
Click to expand...
Yes, most could live without it. However, since Sony can include IS in their FF bodies, I suppose Pentax could to it as well.
tigrebleu said:
-WR not so important, build quality in a range of current products.
Click to expand...
Agreed. I love WR, but I'm sure most people won't care much. That said, adding WR doesn't have a huge impact on the sale price, so why not?
tigrebleu said:
All in all, nothing specially new compared to existing technology!
Click to expand...
The main issue with FF sensors is the manufacturing cost of the sensor and the pentaprism and mirrorbox assembly. The rest is the same as with APS-C DSLRs.

The real problem is market: if you only produce 10 000 units a year, the sale price will remain high. If you produce 100 000 units instead, the price will be much better.

With the FF market already being quite competitive, I'm not sure there's room for another brand with a FF DSLR... but maybe it's actually the best thing that could happen to the FF market.

--

If photography can be considered like painting, then I'm still at the preschool "paint with your fingers" level.
Click to expand...
 
PentaxNever said:
Anyway, I would buy not-so-competitive Pentax product, fulfilling my minimal requirements
Click to expand...
No, you won't; your nick is Pentax Never ;)

Alex S.
 
PentaxNever said:
Well that is one of my points, there is actually no need to design almost anything completely new! Almost all is already available in some way. So Pentax is very close to succeed with FF, if there is a wish for that. And the costs would not be huge! The technology is here, just to put it together.
Click to expand...
"succeed" as in successfully going bankrupt?

Alex S.
 
For me, going FF is expensive investment and my expectations are therefore high. They are:

Safety, i.e. no risk whatsoever of maker getting sold in the next 5 years
Top class reliability, reputation, supoport, service,
Access to service outlets and rentals for occasional use of specialised lenses.

A range of professional, made for digital lenses, e.g. 85mm f/1.2 or f/1.4, ultra wide lenses like 20mm
Comparable camera features to competitors', in AF, flash, ...
Support from independent makers

And a price that is signifcantly lower than Canikon since they are safer, since they are safer, have the lenses, .... ... ....
 
To have a FF body a company needs to have the appropriate AF system - speed, accuracy, consistency, CAF.

To have a FF body a company needs to have the appropriate lens line up - this means fast, high resolution lenses with good contrast and colour rendition lacking any AF issues. All the way from fish-eye to super telephoto.

To have a FF body a company needs tethering support and third party producers support(the last one is not so important, but still many have their preferred third party gear)

Canon and Nikon have meet these two requirements and they have FF systems. Sony has Minolta and Zeiss lenses to meet the second one and is working hard on its AF system.

What does Pentax do in this terms? The AF system is behind the competitors, noticeably and visibly. The lens line-up is dated and no matter that some of these are really good lenses they are not on pair with the Canon's L glass or Sony's Zeiss glass both in terms of resolution and in terms of corrections.

Pentax does not develop its software anywhere near Nikon's or Canon's proprietary solutions. Pentax is not supported any more by third party producers due poor ROI of theses producers and the poor ROI is due to its poor ranking in terms of sales - Very far behind the market leaders

I am not trolling or insulting Pentax - I use Pentax myself and like it, I am just being realistic regarding FF.

I would really love a FF Pentax, but then I would love some good lenses for it with sane pricing - the current outdated, but expensive line is comparatively overpriced imho.

Cheers!
--
Kind Regards,
Yanko Kitanov

I am dreaming to enhance the sensitivity of my own perception and not the sensitivity of my camera's sensor...
 
Your point is exactly what any Pro user (and this is the 90% market of FF DSLR) will want to see in order to buy such a camera.

Why on earth should someone dump it's L lens line and fully supported system to try to see how the dated pancakes or Pentax zooms work on a FF body? :)

I have tried some of the on 5D MkII - they are worse than their L alternatives in all terms (resolution, colour reproduction, soft corners, higher CA) plus they are MUCH slower. The only thing they did better in my opinion is very subjective - the so called "drawing" - they draw better to my eye (3d-ishness, volume rendering, plasticity of the objects) but then again this is very subjective and this is not the reason to buy FF DSLR and if you need FF with such good "drawing" then you can always go for the much better "drawing" good old Leica M system :)

Cheers!
--
Kind Regards,
Yanko Kitanov

I am dreaming to enhance the sensitivity of my own perception and not the sensitivity of my camera's sensor...
 
Yanko Kitanov said:
To have a FF body a company needs to have the appropriate AF system - speed, accuracy, consistency, CAF.

To have a FF body a company needs to have the appropriate lens line up - this means fast, high resolution lenses with good contrast and colour rendition lacking any AF issues. All the way from fish-eye to super telephoto.

To have a FF body a company needs tethering support and third party producers support(the last one is not so important, but still many have their preferred third party gear)

Canon and Nikon have meet these two requirements and they have FF systems. Sony has Minolta and Zeiss lenses to meet the second one and is working hard on its AF system.

What does Pentax do in this terms? The AF system is behind the competitors, noticeably and visibly. The lens line-up is dated and no matter that some of these are really good lenses they are not on pair with the Canon's L glass or Sony's Zeiss glass both in terms of resolution and in terms of corrections.

Pentax does not develop its software anywhere near Nikon's or Canon's proprietary solutions. Pentax is not supported any more by third party producers due poor ROI of theses producers and the poor ROI is due to its poor ranking in terms of sales - Very far behind the market leaders

I am not trolling or insulting Pentax - I use Pentax myself and like it, I am just being realistic regarding FF.

I would really love a FF Pentax, but then I would love some good lenses for it with sane pricing - the current outdated, but expensive line is comparatively overpriced imho.

Cheers!
--
Kind Regards,
Yanko Kitanov

I am dreaming to enhance the sensitivity of my own perception and not the sensitivity of my camera's sensor...
Click to expand...
The most realistic and accurate assessment I read so far on a Pentax FF.
 
•12.1 megapixel full-frame sensor (8.45µm pixel pitch)
•Image Sensor Cleaning (vibration) *
•ISO 200 - 6400 (with boost up to ISO 25600 and down to ISO 100)
•Also supports APS-C lenses
•Ultra-fast startup and shutter lag
•shutter with 150,000 exposure durability *
• 51-point, 15 cross-type, more vertical coverage
•Auto-focus tracking by color (using information from 1005-pixel AE sensor)
•95% coverage, 0.72x magnification viewfinder *

•Auto-focus calibration (fine-tuning), fixed body or up to 20 separate lens settings
•Scene Recognition System (uses AE sensor, AF sensor)
•5 frames per second continuous with auto-focus tracking*
•3.0" 922,000 pixel LCD monitor

•Live View with either phase detect (mirror up/down) or contrast detect Auto Focus
•Virtual horizon indicates if camera is level (like an aircraft cockpit display)
•HDMI HD video output
•Detailed 'Control Panel' type display on LCD monitor, changes color in darkness
•Magnesium alloy body with connections and buttons sealed against moisture
 
Manchu said:
Yanko Kitanov said:
To have a FF body a company needs to have the appropriate AF system - speed, accuracy, consistency, CAF.

To have a FF body a company needs to have the appropriate lens line up - this means fast, high resolution lenses with good contrast and colour rendition lacking any AF issues. All the way from fish-eye to super telephoto.

To have a FF body a company needs tethering support and third party producers support(the last one is not so important, but still many have their preferred third party gear)

Canon and Nikon have meet these two requirements and they have FF systems. Sony has Minolta and Zeiss lenses to meet the second one and is working hard on its AF system.

What does Pentax do in this terms? The AF system is behind the competitors, noticeably and visibly. The lens line-up is dated and no matter that some of these are really good lenses they are not on pair with the Canon's L glass or Sony's Zeiss glass both in terms of resolution and in terms of corrections.

Pentax does not develop its software anywhere near Nikon's or Canon's proprietary solutions. Pentax is not supported any more by third party producers due poor ROI of theses producers and the poor ROI is due to its poor ranking in terms of sales - Very far behind the market leaders

I am not trolling or insulting Pentax - I use Pentax myself and like it, I am just being realistic regarding FF.

I would really love a FF Pentax, but then I would love some good lenses for it with sane pricing - the current outdated, but expensive line is comparatively overpriced imho.

Cheers!
--
Kind Regards,
Yanko Kitanov

I am dreaming to enhance the sensitivity of my own perception and not the sensitivity of my camera's sensor...
Click to expand...
The most realistic and accurate assessment I read so far on a Pentax FF.
Click to expand...
Nice comment, indeed. But it leads me to conclude that Pentax cannot make FF camera. No precise AF, no lens lineup. I always thought that FF DSLR requires even more precise AF, compared to APS, because of smaller DOF, and during that time, Pentax had alot problems with not precise focusing, FF and BF and poor tracking. So, FF would put even higher demand on AF system.
 
IMHO, You should go with Nikon..... :(
canderanet said:
•12.1 megapixel full-frame sensor (8.45µm pixel pitch)
•Image Sensor Cleaning (vibration) *
•ISO 200 - 6400 (with boost up to ISO 25600 and down to ISO 100)
•Also supports APS-C lenses
•Ultra-fast startup and shutter lag
•shutter with 150,000 exposure durability *
• 51-point, 15 cross-type, more vertical coverage
•Auto-focus tracking by color (using information from 1005-pixel AE sensor)
•95% coverage, 0.72x magnification viewfinder *

•Auto-focus calibration (fine-tuning), fixed body or up to 20 separate lens settings
•Scene Recognition System (uses AE sensor, AF sensor)
•5 frames per second continuous with auto-focus tracking*
•3.0" 922,000 pixel LCD monitor

•Live View with either phase detect (mirror up/down) or contrast detect Auto Focus
•Virtual horizon indicates if camera is level (like an aircraft cockpit display)
•HDMI HD video output
•Detailed 'Control Panel' type display on LCD monitor, changes color in darkness
•Magnesium alloy body with connections and buttons sealed against moisture
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top