What happened to the FA 21 Limited?

Started 4 months ago | Discussions
Seahbc Regular Member • Posts: 112
Re: What happened to the FA 21 Limited?
4

How is this thread about the forthcoming DFA21mm Ltd becomes a discussion about K-70 and KP? 

 Seahbc's gear list:Seahbc's gear list
Pentax K-3 Mark III Pentax smc DA* 55mm F1.4 SDM Pentax smc DA* 60-250mm F4.0 ED (IF) SDM Pentax smc D-FA 100mm F2.8 Macro WR Pentax 16-85mm F3.5-5.6 WR
PentUp Senior Member • Posts: 2,528
Re: What happened to the FA 21 Limited?
1

Seahbc wrote:

How is this thread about the forthcoming DFA21mm Ltd becomes a discussion about K-70 and KP?

Because it's a more interesting subject  <ducks all the verbal abuse heading his way!>

 PentUp's gear list:PentUp's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ300 Pentax K-x Pentax K-5 II Pentax K-50 Pentax K-3 Mark III +11 more
JeremieB Senior Member • Posts: 1,154
Re: What happened to the FA 21 Limited?
3

Seahbc wrote:

How is this thread about the forthcoming DFA21mm Ltd becomes a discussion about K-70 and KP?

Because K-70, 70 is 7 followed by 0.

The other APS-C is K3 mark III.

3 is the number of flagshipness, love, and luck.

3 x 7 = 21

==> DFA 21mm Ltd

Here's the link. Don't thank me, I don't deserve it

 JeremieB's gear list:JeremieB's gear list
Pentax K-70 Pentax K-3 Mark III Pentax smc FA 50mm F1.4 Pentax smc DA 18-55mm F3.5-5.6 AL Pentax smc D-FA 100mm F2.8 Macro WR +8 more
RBIV Contributing Member • Posts: 545
Re: What happened to the FA 21 Limited?
2

Seahbc wrote:

How is this thread about the forthcoming DFA21mm Ltd becomes a discussion about K-70 and KP?

Several answers come to mind.

1. Thread Creep is known to happen

2.  The new DFA21mm Ltd has to attach to something which as PentUp mentioned is interesting to discuss.

3.  The answer to KL Matt's original post was pretty much answered way up there.  Yes the lens is forthcoming and no, nobody on this forum knows for sure when, or if they do they are not willing to reveal.

4.  Regardless,  JeremieB posted the technical answer, a brilliant solution and one I have no problem with.

If this thread creep upsets the OP,  then I apologize for my little part in it.

 RBIV's gear list:RBIV's gear list
Pentax K-5 Pentax KP Pentax smc DA 21mm F3.2 AL Limited Pentax smc DA 40mm F2.8 Limited HD Pentax DA 15mm F4 ED AL Limited +2 more
Brentliris Veteran Member • Posts: 4,194
Re: What happened to the FA 21 Limited?

BryantP wrote:

James O'Neill wrote:

5r82 wrote:

Since this is a full frame lens, it will could be released with new K-1 Mark 3 one day.

Possibly the announcement it is shipping will coincide with the first showing of K1-iii prototype.

While it might be a nice lens to release in conjunction with a K-1 III, it is also a lens that would make a K-1 or K-1 II a much more attractive purchase to me. Lack of a ultra-wide angle prime has been my primary reason for not going full frame with Pentax.

My thinking as well. I'd think the DFA 21, FA 43 and the DFA 100 2.8 macro would be a great setup. The maybe the DFA 85mm portrait lens could be added when funds would allow.

-- hide signature --

Reflections, understandings, discoveries and intimations..

 Brentliris's gear list:Brentliris's gear list
Pentax smc DA* 55mm F1.4 SDM Pentax K100D Super Ricoh GXR S10 24-72mm F2.5-4.4 VC Ricoh GXR Mount A12 Pentax KP +19 more
Gary Martin
Gary Martin Veteran Member • Posts: 4,968
Re: What happened to the FA 21 Limited?
1

BryantP wrote:

James O'Neill wrote:

5r82 wrote:

Since this is a full frame lens, it will could be released with new K-1 Mark 3 one day.

Possibly the announcement it is shipping will coincide with the first showing of K1-iii prototype.

While it might be a nice lens to release in conjunction with a K-1 III, it is also a lens that would make a K-1 or K-1 II a much more attractive purchase to me. Lack of a ultra-wide angle prime has been my primary reason for not going full frame with Pentax.

I would love to see a 16-35 f4 as well; it would be nice to carry around a wide-zoom that weighed less than a kilogram.

-- hide signature --
 Gary Martin's gear list:Gary Martin's gear list
Ricoh GR III Pentax K-1 Fujifilm X-T4 Pentax smc FA 43mm F1.9 Limited Pentax smc FA 77mm 1.8 Limited +11 more
James O'Neill Veteran Member • Posts: 5,744
Re: What happened to the FA 21 Limited?

Gary Martin wrote:

BryantP wrote:

James O'Neill wrote:

5r82 wrote:

Since this is a full frame lens, it will could be released with new K-1 Mark 3 one day.

Possibly the announcement it is shipping will coincide with the first showing of K1-iii prototype.

While it might be a nice lens to release in conjunction with a K-1 III, it is also a lens that would make a K-1 or K-1 II a much more attractive purchase to me. Lack of a ultra-wide angle prime has been my primary reason for not going full frame with Pentax.

I would love to see a 16-35 f4 as well; it would be nice to carry around a wide-zoom that weighed less than a kilogram.

I wanted the the 15-30 f/2.8 but had to return it, 98x143mm doesn't sound huge, but it is (>1000cc) , and it tips the scales at over 1Kg. I have sigma's 12-24 but really don't feel a lot of love for it (unlike the popular 10-20 I had for APS-C)   the 24-70 is 2/3 the volume and 20% lighter but that's still heave and not super-super-wide.  (and still double the volume and weight of the 28-105, and the DA 10-17 fisheye is smaller still )

There is a sweet spot for very wide AND portable, but I'm not quite sure what is. I suspect the market is too small to develop one in house, so licensing someone else's design or just leaving it to third parties might be the answer.

 James O'Neill's gear list:James O'Neill's gear list
Pentax K-5 IIs Pentax K-1 Pentax smc FA 50mm F1.4 Pentax smc DA 18-250mm F3.5-6.3 Pentax smc FA 43mm F1.9 Limited +3 more
Phil A Martin
Phil A Martin Veteran Member • Posts: 6,318
50-200, has anyone compared?

Has anyone compared the Sigma 50-200mm F4-5.6 DC OS HSM to the Pentax 50-200mm f/4-5.6 ED?

BryantP Regular Member • Posts: 342
Re: What happened to the FA 21 Limited?

James O'Neill wrote:

Gary Martin wrote:

BryantP wrote:

James O'Neill wrote:

5r82 wrote:

Since this is a full frame lens, it will could be released with new K-1 Mark 3 one day.

Possibly the announcement it is shipping will coincide with the first showing of K1-iii prototype.

While it might be a nice lens to release in conjunction with a K-1 III, it is also a lens that would make a K-1 or K-1 II a much more attractive purchase to me. Lack of a ultra-wide angle prime has been my primary reason for not going full frame with Pentax.

I would love to see a 16-35 f4 as well; it would be nice to carry around a wide-zoom that weighed less than a kilogram.

I wanted the the 15-30 f/2.8 but had to return it, 98x143mm doesn't sound huge, but it is (>1000cc) , and it tips the scales at over 1Kg. I have sigma's 12-24 but really don't feel a lot of love for it (unlike the popular 10-20 I had for APS-C) the 24-70 is 2/3 the volume and 20% lighter but that's still heave and not super-super-wide. (and still double the volume and weight of the 28-105, and the DA 10-17 fisheye is smaller still )

There is a sweet spot for very wide AND portable, but I'm not quite sure what is. I suspect the market is too small to develop one in house, so licensing someone else's design or just leaving it to third parties might be the answer.

I wish Ricoh would rebrand Tamron's 17-35mm F/2.8-4.0 Di OSD lens as an affordable & compact alternative to the 15-30 f/2.8.  I have the Nikon version and find it to be surprisingly good and well made.  It would be ideal for the K-1.

-- hide signature --

Bryant P.
Indianapolis, Indiana USA

 BryantP's gear list:BryantP's gear list
Nikon D700 Pentax *ist DS Pentax K-5 Pentax K-3 Pentax KP +9 more
Lessiter Regular Member • Posts: 276
Re: What happened to the FA 21 Limited?

Brentliris wrote:

BryantP wrote:

James O'Neill wrote:

5r82 wrote:

Since this is a full frame lens, it will could be released with new K-1 Mark 3 one day.

Possibly the announcement it is shipping will coincide with the first showing of K1-iii prototype.

While it might be a nice lens to release in conjunction with a K-1 III, it is also a lens that would make a K-1 or K-1 II a much more attractive purchase to me. Lack of a ultra-wide angle prime has been my primary reason for not going full frame with Pentax.

My thinking as well. I'd think the DFA 21, FA 43 and the DFA 100 2.8 macro would be a great setup. The maybe the DFA 85mm portrait lens could be added when funds would allow.

Being a prime shooter who dislikes having to many lenses (messes up my flow) I've been aiming for a three (+shift lens) setup. Without the "anchor" at the UWA end I've been flapping around accumulating lenses I don't like. Samyangs, various vintage lenses etc. Bit annoyed Pentax is working so slowly really

I know my uwa should be around 20mm and my tele around 100mm. Picking that middle focal length is tricky though! 43mm might be just right, 31 or 35 might do as well. I love 50mm visually but can't make it work in a three lens kit between 20 and 100mm.

James O'Neill Veteran Member • Posts: 5,744
Re: What happened to the FA 21 Limited?

Lessiter wrote:

Brentliris wrote:

BryantP wrote:

James O'Neill wrote:

5r82 wrote:

Since this is a full frame lens, it will could be released with new K-1 Mark 3 one day.

Possibly the announcement it is shipping will coincide with the first showing of K1-iii prototype.

While it might be a nice lens to release in conjunction with a K-1 III, it is also a lens that would make a K-1 or K-1 II a much more attractive purchase to me. Lack of a ultra-wide angle prime has been my primary reason for not going full frame with Pentax.

My thinking as well. I'd think the DFA 21, FA 43 and the DFA 100 2.8 macro would be a great setup. The maybe the DFA 85mm portrait lens could be added when funds would allow.

Being a prime shooter who dislikes having to many lenses (messes up my flow) I've been aiming for a three (+shift lens) setup. Without the "anchor" at the UWA end I've been flapping around accumulating lenses I don't like. Samyangs, various vintage lenses etc. Bit annoyed Pentax is working so slowly really

I know my uwa should be around 20mm and my tele around 100mm. Picking that middle focal length is tricky though! 43mm might be just right, 31 or 35 might do as well. I love 50mm visually but can't make it work in a three lens kit between 20 and 100mm.

I have two modes of working,
1. "travel mode". One lens stays on the camera, convenience trumps quality and it has to be a super-zoom.

2. "Prime lens mode".
When I graduated from the MG to the ME-Super I had the 50mm f/2 which came with the MG, a cheap 135 (which literally fell to pieces in the end) and a 28mm Tokina which I bought for my Dad so that I could use it. He sold his Pentax with that lens and sentimentalist that I am I found one not that long ago on ebay. It was easy I could put a lens in each packet of a jacket and a roll or two more film and go shooting.

Now I have an array of lenses but no good wide prime - I've never been convinced by 31mm as a focal length - the old FA* 24 calls to me from e-bay but I resist. The idea of the 43 on the camera and the 77 and new 21 in my pockets has some appeal, but part of me wants something longer than the 77 (the DFA 85 is too big for this scenario, brilliant as it is,) a compact 135 f/2.8 or a lovely eccentric limited like a 127 f/2.3 would be perfect

 James O'Neill's gear list:James O'Neill's gear list
Pentax K-5 IIs Pentax K-1 Pentax smc FA 50mm F1.4 Pentax smc DA 18-250mm F3.5-6.3 Pentax smc FA 43mm F1.9 Limited +3 more
miles green
miles green Veteran Member • Posts: 7,818
Re: What happened to the FA 21 Limited?

Brentliris wrote:

BryantP wrote:

James O'Neill wrote:

5r82 wrote:

Since this is a full frame lens, it will could be released with new K-1 Mark 3 one day.

Possibly the announcement it is shipping will coincide with the first showing of K1-iii prototype.

While it might be a nice lens to release in conjunction with a K-1 III, it is also a lens that would make a K-1 or K-1 II a much more attractive purchase to me. Lack of a ultra-wide angle prime has been my primary reason for not going full frame with Pentax.

My thinking as well. I'd think the DFA 21, FA 43 and the DFA 100 2.8 macro would be a great setup. The maybe the DFA 85mm portrait lens could be added when funds would allow.

the 100 macro is a bit harsh for portraits, imho. I'd go for the 77 (or 85 new or old) and keep the macro for when it's needed, and for landscapes.

-- hide signature --

Miles Green
Pentaxian since 1997!
Corfu, Greece
N.B. All my images are protected by Copyright

 miles green's gear list:miles green's gear list
Pentax K-1 Pentax K-1 II Pentax smc FA 31mm F1.8 AL Limited Pentax smc FA 43mm F1.9 Limited Pentax smc FA 77mm 1.8 Limited +7 more
miles green
miles green Veteran Member • Posts: 7,818
Re: What happened to the FA 21 Limited?

James O'Neill wrote:

Lessiter wrote:

Brentliris wrote:

BryantP wrote:

James O'Neill wrote:

5r82 wrote:

Since this is a full frame lens, it will could be released with new K-1 Mark 3 one day.

Possibly the announcement it is shipping will coincide with the first showing of K1-iii prototype.

While it might be a nice lens to release in conjunction with a K-1 III, it is also a lens that would make a K-1 or K-1 II a much more attractive purchase to me. Lack of a ultra-wide angle prime has been my primary reason for not going full frame with Pentax.

My thinking as well. I'd think the DFA 21, FA 43 and the DFA 100 2.8 macro would be a great setup. The maybe the DFA 85mm portrait lens could be added when funds would allow.

Being a prime shooter who dislikes having to many lenses (messes up my flow) I've been aiming for a three (+shift lens) setup. Without the "anchor" at the UWA end I've been flapping around accumulating lenses I don't like. Samyangs, various vintage lenses etc. Bit annoyed Pentax is working so slowly really

I know my uwa should be around 20mm and my tele around 100mm. Picking that middle focal length is tricky though! 43mm might be just right, 31 or 35 might do as well. I love 50mm visually but can't make it work in a three lens kit between 20 and 100mm.

I have two modes of working,
1. "travel mode". One lens stays on the camera, convenience trumps quality and it has to be a super-zoom.

2. "Prime lens mode".
When I graduated from the MG to the ME-Super I had the 50mm f/2 which came with the MG, a cheap 135 (which literally fell to pieces in the end) and a 28mm Tokina which I bought for my Dad so that I could use it. He sold his Pentax with that lens and sentimentalist that I am I found one not that long ago on ebay. It was easy I could put a lens in each packet of a jacket and a roll or two more film and go shooting.

Now I have an array of lenses but no good wide prime - I've never been convinced by 31mm as a focal length - the old FA* 24 calls to me from e-bay but I resist. The idea of the 43 on the camera and the 77 and new 21 in my pockets has some appeal, but part of me wants something longer than the 77 (the DFA 85 is too big for this scenario, brilliant as it is,) a compact 135 f/2.8 or a lovely eccentric limited like a 127 f/2.3 would be perfect

My current 5-lens prime setup is smc-M 20/4, FA 31, 43, 77, A* 200/4 macro it works very well.

The DFA 21 would be a welcome upgrade. I'm betting on f/2.4

I've wanting a nice 135/2.8 limited with really really smooth bokeh for a while! (I think i'll take my Pentacon for a spin this weekend, it's been a while, because it's a pain to use.)

-- hide signature --

-----------------------------------------
Miles Green
Pentaxian since 1997!
Corfu, Greece
N.B. All my images are protected by Copyright

 miles green's gear list:miles green's gear list
Pentax K-1 Pentax K-1 II Pentax smc FA 31mm F1.8 AL Limited Pentax smc FA 43mm F1.9 Limited Pentax smc FA 77mm 1.8 Limited +7 more
James O'Neill Veteran Member • Posts: 5,744
Re: What happened to the FA 21 Limited?
1

miles green wrote:

Brentliris wrote:

BryantP wrote:

James O'Neill wrote:

5r82 wrote:

Since this is a full frame lens, it will could be released with new K-1 Mark 3 one day.

Possibly the announcement it is shipping will coincide with the first showing of K1-iii prototype.

While it might be a nice lens to release in conjunction with a K-1 III, it is also a lens that would make a K-1 or K-1 II a much more attractive purchase to me. Lack of a ultra-wide angle prime has been my primary reason for not going full frame with Pentax.

My thinking as well. I'd think the DFA 21, FA 43 and the DFA 100 2.8 macro would be a great setup. The maybe the DFA 85mm portrait lens could be added when funds would allow.

the 100 macro is a bit harsh for portraits, imho. I'd go for the 77 (or 85 new or old) and keep the macro for when it's needed, and for landscapes.

I bought the manual  Tamron 90mm for portrait use and it served me well, and I keep saying I'll update it to an AF version. I've used it successfully at concerts (on APS it's equivalent to the 135 f/2.8 I used to use on film), so a non-Pentax macro/portrait lens is an option.

 James O'Neill's gear list:James O'Neill's gear list
Pentax K-5 IIs Pentax K-1 Pentax smc FA 50mm F1.4 Pentax smc DA 18-250mm F3.5-6.3 Pentax smc FA 43mm F1.9 Limited +3 more
James O'Neill Veteran Member • Posts: 5,744
Re: What happened to the FA 21 Limited?

miles green wrote:

James O'Neill wrote:

Lessiter wrote:

Brentliris wrote:

BryantP wrote:

James O'Neill wrote:

5r82 wrote:

Since this is a full frame lens, it will could be released with new K-1 Mark 3 one day.

Possibly the announcement it is shipping will coincide with the first showing of K1-iii prototype.

While it might be a nice lens to release in conjunction with a K-1 III, it is also a lens that would make a K-1 or K-1 II a much more attractive purchase to me. Lack of a ultra-wide angle prime has been my primary reason for not going full frame with Pentax.

My thinking as well. I'd think the DFA 21, FA 43 and the DFA 100 2.8 macro would be a great setup. The maybe the DFA 85mm portrait lens could be added when funds would allow.

Being a prime shooter who dislikes having to many lenses (messes up my flow) I've been aiming for a three (+shift lens) setup. Without the "anchor" at the UWA end I've been flapping around accumulating lenses I don't like. Samyangs, various vintage lenses etc. Bit annoyed Pentax is working so slowly really

I know my uwa should be around 20mm and my tele around 100mm. Picking that middle focal length is tricky though! 43mm might be just right, 31 or 35 might do as well. I love 50mm visually but can't make it work in a three lens kit between 20 and 100mm.

I have two modes of working,
1. "travel mode". One lens stays on the camera, convenience trumps quality and it has to be a super-zoom.

2. "Prime lens mode".
When I graduated from the MG to the ME-Super I had the 50mm f/2 which came with the MG, a cheap 135 (which literally fell to pieces in the end) and a 28mm Tokina which I bought for my Dad so that I could use it. He sold his Pentax with that lens and sentimentalist that I am I found one not that long ago on ebay. It was easy I could put a lens in each packet of a jacket and a roll or two more film and go shooting.

Now I have an array of lenses but no good wide prime - I've never been convinced by 31mm as a focal length - the old FA* 24 calls to me from e-bay but I resist. The idea of the 43 on the camera and the 77 and new 21 in my pockets has some appeal, but part of me wants something longer than the 77 (the DFA 85 is too big for this scenario, brilliant as it is,) a compact 135 f/2.8 or a lovely eccentric limited like a 127 f/2.3 would be perfect

My current 5-lens prime setup is smc-M 20/4, FA 31, 43, 77, A* 200/4 macro it works very well.

The DFA 21 would be a welcome upgrade. I'm betting on f/2.4

I've wanting a nice 135/2.8 limited with really really smooth bokeh for a while! (I think i'll take my Pentacon for a spin this weekend, it's been a while, because it's a pain to use.)

Currently I have

Manual focus Tokina (M era) 28mm f/2.8
Ltd 43
Lens baby 3G (approx. 50mm - meant to go to ebay)
FA 50 f/1.4
Ltd 77
DFA* 85 f/1.4
FA 85 f/2.8 soft (meant to go to ebay)
Tamron 90mm f/2.5 Macro (Adaptal mount, early 'A' era - keep saying I'll update to the AF version)

So 43 to 90 is extremely well covered, but you can see why I want a nice wide prime.

 James O'Neill's gear list:James O'Neill's gear list
Pentax K-5 IIs Pentax K-1 Pentax smc FA 50mm F1.4 Pentax smc DA 18-250mm F3.5-6.3 Pentax smc FA 43mm F1.9 Limited +3 more
Breakfastographer 2 Contributing Member • Posts: 544
Re: What happened to the FA 21 Limited?

MarBa wrote:

Breakfastographer 2 wrote:

James O'Neill wrote:

Breakfastographer 2 wrote:

James O'Neill wrote:

5r82 wrote:

Since this is a full frame lens, it will could be released with new K-1 Mark 3 one day.

Possibly the announcement it is shipping will coincide with the first showing of K1-iii prototype.

Not sure if you're being sarcastic now, because that would be a long way off - the next camera to be released will be APS-C.

General consensus is not. The investment in things which we see on the 3-iii was substantial and those things need to go other high price cameras. There was something Asahi man said a few months ago which made those of us waiting for the next FF feel optimistic. I'm hoping to see a K1-iii this year, but next year is more likely. But shown this year and shipping next year is possible.

Fair enough, maybe it's one rumour against another.

But having heard how much trouble they had scaling up the pentaprism production for this camera, and that the overall process took five years, I'm not too hopeful they can make an even bigger one with a low failure rate in production quite so soon, for a realistically priced K-1 III that includes it.

I don't think they need new pentaprism for K1. It has a large OVF. The problem always was APS-C, not FF. The OVF in K1 is bigger than in K-3 III. And I don't see any difference in "brightness/clarity". Remember that the FF OVF has 2x the amount of light to begin with (with the same max aperture lens).

With an upgrade of the K-1 line, the question in my mind would be how to create a substantial upgrade that would appeal at least to previous K-1 line users. Why is that so particularly relevant? Because the existing K-1/II users have shown that they are willing to go the full frame path, or at least live in a dual world of shooting both formats. So they are, obviously, the biggest, or at least safest, potential market for a K-1 III.

How can we appeal to them?

Touchscreen to me seems a given in the K-1 III. The required electronics are probably thin enough that the back of the camera doesn't have to be substantially changed. If it does, we're back at the discussion over the OVF, because one publicised property of the new prism material is that it results in greater eye relief, allowing more display tech to be installed behind the sensor (touchscreen, articulation).

Is that in itself enough to make folks upgrade? Hardly, imo.

So let's see what else we could include that isn't the new OVF, adapted for FF. A sensor resolution bump also seems a bit lame to me, honestly. A global shutter, on the other hand could be rather interesting, and there are already products advertised using those new sensors and e-shutters, albeit in other domains than consumer cameras.

A 60-megapixel sensor would give you an APS-C crop mode of about 26 megapixels - but then you have to wrangle with 60 megapixels when you take full frame images (I'm assuming you want to process raw - JPEG would presumably have downsampled modes).

So I'm not personally sure 60 megapixels is for everyone, given how often we hear of people waiting for the post-processing apps to get on with the job. Going from 36 megapixels is going to approximately double the wait (or worse for operations that work in context, i.e. O(n**2) or thereabouts - probably applicable to some "AI" features).

However, if they do go for a higher res sensor, it makes a lot of sense to go for the 60 megapixels one.

Getting back to the 26 megapixel mode - that's going to be afflicted by being small in the OVF! (But rangefinder users have lived with that for decades, and still do.)

I'm going to hold back belief that any major project that hasn't been firmly rumoured yet (which would be a reasonable prequel to it being "shown" by the end of the year) could be shipping before 2023. An APS-C body that's an update to the K-70 and/or KP, presumably without the new pentaprism, but maybe some other features carried across (touchscreen, AF using metering matrix) - sure, I can see that, even releasing by the holiday season if the upgrades are relatively minor and straightforward, or the platform is essentially the K-3 III with just a few differences in hardware (pentaprism, shutter-mirror-assembly, sensor, display articulation).

I agree .. the rumors should start soon .. then we will have at least half a year of teasers and then it will be postponed at least once. So earliest before the next summer?

I see no reason to push out "cheap" APS-C. Why? K-70 is still produced .. what improvements you could possible make that would not result in cannibalizing K-3 III sales?

I hear you, and I'm just following what the rumour said, rather than advocating. But let's look at whether and how there is a way to do it.

Well, the K-3 III has kinda laid the scene for that more than the K-70/KP if you see what I mean. Buffer performance could have been one of the big differentiators, but it's really so-so as you've pointed out in your review.

In my mind, you'd leave off many of the convenience features for entry-level. No joystick, old OVF, old sensor or take it down to 20 megapixels (but then give it touchscreen). Keep it plastic, lower max. burst rate. I'm torn on omitting 4k, because it's such a silly feature to have in the first place.

But you'd use the old AF sensor field, but you might include the cross-talk with the metering matrix. It would still be a good chunk less accurate than the K-3 III is capable of. And, of course, the old slim battery! A major factor given how you've seen the K-3 III consume more power than previous generations. If it really is the display sapping the juice, and you stick a similar display into the "KP-90", it would quickly prove that the bigger battery is a real advantage.

An entirely different possibility is that they're not looking to launch an entry level camera, but a differentiation at the top end, which is where the market is going!

The thing with the K-1 III is that they need to learn from the K-3 III and put all those lessons into the K-1 III for it to be a real success. And then iterate that again for the K-3 IIIs or whatever comes next in that line. The platform they have now has some very good parts, they just need to take a step back, take a good look, and tweak it right.

K-1 III needs to get a new sensor ... maybe the same as in Z7 II ... needs to keep everything that it already has (GPS, flip-screen etc.) and add AF module from K-3 III.

Well, would you want a touchscreen? Because I actually don't know the size of additional components required, and whether that means the display area at the back would need to be redesigned. So that might not be completely trivial.

Next redesign question, if they do include a new pentaprism, would they be able to fit the GPS? The bigger camera might give a bit more flexibility in that respect, but I don't have THE solution ready right now. I have ideas, but that's between me and Ricoh if they hire me. 😈

I get that you don't want the new pentaprism in the FF camera, but you need to remember the pentaprism is about four things:

- larger image

- slightly brighter

- better eye relief

- negligible distortion

I would argue that the last one is the reason you want this kind of technology on every camera, and there are reasons I believe it is one of Ricoh's most promising recent patents. It's possible they could make a version where the image isn't larger, only brighter, and I imagine you wouldn't oppose that.

But to take advantage of the AF, it would probably also need new mirror box and shutter for faster frame rate?

I don't think that's necessarily related, or perhaps I'm reading it wrong. You'd get benefits from better/faster AF even with a lower frame rate, and we know the currently known K-1 design can do at least 7fps (because that's what the APS-C mode does).

However, higher megapixel count with higher frame rate would also require a bump in processing power, buffer size and write speeds. But that would need redesign of the electronics.

If you want the same or faster frame rate and same processing, then likely yes.

In addition, it would be nice to get 4K/60 with no crop, no time limit, maybe 10bit etc .. that would be great .. but that would require even better electronics!

Yup.

And actually .. even new battery! K-3 III is worse than K-1 and if the future K-1 III would be even worse than that ... it would be bad.

They would have to look into that eventually, no doubt. But they should still be miles ahead of mirrorless cameras. If they can manage with normal size batteries, why shouldn't Pentax? I also keep hearing new battery technology is just around the corner. Been that way for five years now. Camera makers who have introduced new batteries have shown relatively modest improvements while maintaining form factor. I guess the major breakthrough(s) is/are still coming.

Seeing that K-3 III (current action camera flagship) is lagging in buffer size, speed of image processing and writing even behind 5-years old D500 .. I think it is fair to say that massive improvements in processing power are unlikely .. especially now during massive shortages of chips everywhere.

Remember that the D500 uses XQD cards. It has an SD slot as well, but I suspect you need XQD to get that peak performance. No IBIS, no accelerator... hard to say what role the accelerator plays in power consumption or pipeline delays, or how much lens it takes for IBIS to be the cheaper option.

Well .. actually just these shortages could be the reason why we'll not see anything new for a while!

That is a possibility.

Last note on the K-1 III: What I would personally like are the new bracketing and focus peaking modes from other current Pentax cameras, and the ability to switch OFF the accelerator for raw (and raw in "RAW+").

MarBa Contributing Member • Posts: 886
Re: What happened to the FA 21 Limited?
1

Breakfastographer 2 wrote:

MarBa wrote:

Breakfastographer 2 wrote:

James O'Neill wrote:

Breakfastographer 2 wrote:

James O'Neill wrote:

5r82 wrote:

Since this is a full frame lens, it will could be released with new K-1 Mark 3 one day.

Possibly the announcement it is shipping will coincide with the first showing of K1-iii prototype.

Not sure if you're being sarcastic now, because that would be a long way off - the next camera to be released will be APS-C.

General consensus is not. The investment in things which we see on the 3-iii was substantial and those things need to go other high price cameras. There was something Asahi man said a few months ago which made those of us waiting for the next FF feel optimistic. I'm hoping to see a K1-iii this year, but next year is more likely. But shown this year and shipping next year is possible.

Fair enough, maybe it's one rumour against another.

But having heard how much trouble they had scaling up the pentaprism production for this camera, and that the overall process took five years, I'm not too hopeful they can make an even bigger one with a low failure rate in production quite so soon, for a realistically priced K-1 III that includes it.

I don't think they need new pentaprism for K1. It has a large OVF. The problem always was APS-C, not FF. The OVF in K1 is bigger than in K-3 III. And I don't see any difference in "brightness/clarity". Remember that the FF OVF has 2x the amount of light to begin with (with the same max aperture lens).

With an upgrade of the K-1 line, the question in my mind would be how to create a substantial upgrade that would appeal at least to previous K-1 line users. Why is that so particularly relevant? Because the existing K-1/II users have shown that they are willing to go the full frame path, or at least live in a dual world of shooting both formats. So they are, obviously, the biggest, or at least safest, potential market for a K-1 III.

How can we appeal to them?

Touchscreen to me seems a given in the K-1 III. The required electronics are probably thin enough that the back of the camera doesn't have to be substantially changed. If it does, we're back at the discussion over the OVF, because one publicised property of the new prism material is that it results in greater eye relief, allowing more display tech to be installed behind the sensor (touchscreen, articulation).

Is that in itself enough to make folks upgrade? Hardly, imo.

So let's see what else we could include that isn't the new OVF, adapted for FF. A sensor resolution bump also seems a bit lame to me, honestly. A global shutter, on the other hand could be rather interesting, and there are already products advertised using those new sensors and e-shutters, albeit in other domains than consumer cameras.

A 60-megapixel sensor would give you an APS-C crop mode of about 26 megapixels - but then you have to wrangle with 60 megapixels when you take full frame images (I'm assuming you want to process raw - JPEG would presumably have downsampled modes).

So I'm not personally sure 60 megapixels is for everyone, given how often we hear of people waiting for the post-processing apps to get on with the job. Going from 36 megapixels is going to approximately double the wait (or worse for operations that work in context, i.e. O(n**2) or thereabouts - probably applicable to some "AI" features).

However, if they do go for a higher res sensor, it makes a lot of sense to go for the 60 megapixels one.

The advantage of 60Mp is that it is a substantial upgrade to the 36 we have now on K-1 in terms of resolution. So for people who want to squeeze a lot out of their lenses this might be important. So ... yes it might have to be the 60Mp sensor that is in A7RIV. I would upgrade even if it were the 45Mp in Z II. Hard to know what are the other pros/cons of those sensors. Like video, power consumption, read-out speed etc.

Getting back to the 26 megapixel mode - that's going to be afflicted by being small in the OVF! (But rangefinder users have lived with that for decades, and still do.)

I'm going to hold back belief that any major project that hasn't been firmly rumoured yet (which would be a reasonable prequel to it being "shown" by the end of the year) could be shipping before 2023. An APS-C body that's an update to the K-70 and/or KP, presumably without the new pentaprism, but maybe some other features carried across (touchscreen, AF using metering matrix) - sure, I can see that, even releasing by the holiday season if the upgrades are relatively minor and straightforward, or the platform is essentially the K-3 III with just a few differences in hardware (pentaprism, shutter-mirror-assembly, sensor, display articulation).

I agree .. the rumors should start soon .. then we will have at least half a year of teasers and then it will be postponed at least once. So earliest before the next summer?

I see no reason to push out "cheap" APS-C. Why? K-70 is still produced .. what improvements you could possible make that would not result in cannibalizing K-3 III sales?

I hear you, and I'm just following what the rumour said, rather than advocating. But let's look at whether and how there is a way to do it.

Well, the K-3 III has kinda laid the scene for that more than the K-70/KP if you see what I mean. Buffer performance could have been one of the big differentiators, but it's really so-so as you've pointed out in your review.

In my mind, you'd leave off many of the convenience features for entry-level. No joystick, old OVF, old sensor or take it down to 20 megapixels (but then give it touchscreen). Keep it plastic, lower max. burst rate. I'm torn on omitting 4k, because it's such a silly feature to have in the first place.

But you'd use the old AF sensor field, but you might include the cross-talk with the metering matrix. It would still be a good chunk less accurate than the K-3 III is capable of. And, of course, the old slim battery! A major factor given how you've seen the K-3 III consume more power than previous generations. If it really is the display sapping the juice, and you stick a similar display into the "KP-90", it would quickly prove that the bigger battery is a real advantage.

An entirely different possibility is that they're not looking to launch an entry level camera, but a differentiation at the top end, which is where the market is going!

The thing with the K-1 III is that they need to learn from the K-3 III and put all those lessons into the K-1 III for it to be a real success. And then iterate that again for the K-3 IIIs or whatever comes next in that line. The platform they have now has some very good parts, they just need to take a step back, take a good look, and tweak it right.

K-1 III needs to get a new sensor ... maybe the same as in Z7 II ... needs to keep everything that it already has (GPS, flip-screen etc.) and add AF module from K-3 III.

Well, would you want a touchscreen? Because I actually don't know the size of additional components required, and whether that means the display area at the back would need to be redesigned. So that might not be completely trivial.

I don't think the touch screen is a big deal, I rarely use it. But .. many people find it convenient and there are some advantages in LV/video. I would hope that the "touch" tech does take much of space these days.

Next redesign question, if they do include a new pentaprism, would they be able to fit the GPS? The bigger camera might give a bit more flexibility in that respect, but I don't have THE solution ready right now. I have ideas, but that's between me and Ricoh if they hire me. 😈

I have taken apart my 7years old GPS watch (Garmin) .. and the GPS antenna is not all that big. I think that placing it under the top display might make sense. Or even cutting a hole into the metal chassis. ... well .. even a weird bump somewhere would be better than no GPS.

I get that you don't want the new pentaprism in the FF camera, but you need to remember the pentaprism is about four things:

- larger image

- slightly brighter

- better eye relief

- negligible distortion

I would argue that the last one is the reason you want this kind of technology on every camera, and there are reasons I believe it is one of Ricoh's most promising recent patents. It's possible they could make a version where the image isn't larger, only brighter, and I imagine you wouldn't oppose that.

No, I would not oppose a better OVF .. but question is .. would you really see a difference? Larger - that is easy to see! And if they make K-1 even bigger, great! .. brighter (depends on how much but most of the time you probably have a lot of light going through anyway so it would be perceivable only under some conditions). And distortion? Maybe I would have to directly see a comparison .. but I don't think I see much distortion in K-1. I tried to look through K-1 and K-3 III back and forth .. and I did not see much of a difference  ... witch is great for K-3 III but I'm not sure how much better the K-1 can get. It could be one of the things that once you see it .. you don't want to go back

But to take advantage of the AF, it would probably also need new mirror box and shutter for faster frame rate?

I don't think that's necessarily related, or perhaps I'm reading it wrong. You'd get benefits from better/faster AF even with a lower frame rate, and we know the currently known K-1 design can do at least 7fps (because that's what the APS-C mode does).

Yes .. sure. I was thinking beyond 7 frames/s. But I agree even 7fps and better tracking is great. I seem to recall that Pentax mentioned that the faster mirror helps (is needed) for faster AF .. because the AF system is active only when the mirror is down.

However, higher megapixel count with higher frame rate would also require a bump in processing power, buffer size and write speeds. But that would need redesign of the electronics.

If you want the same or faster frame rate and same processing, then likely yes.

In addition, it would be nice to get 4K/60 with no crop, no time limit, maybe 10bit etc .. that would be great .. but that would require even better electronics!

Yup.

I think this is the main problem at moment. Pentax probably struggled with this even before .. they were never very good/best as far as electronics is concerned ... and now we have global shortage of processors/chips .. this will slow down development/ production even further.

And actually .. even new battery! K-3 III is worse than K-1 and if the future K-1 III would be even worse than that ... it would be bad.

They would have to look into that eventually, no doubt. But they should still be miles ahead of mirrorless cameras. If they can manage with normal size batteries, why shouldn't Pentax? I also keep hearing new battery technology is just around the corner. Been that way for five years now. Camera makers who have introduced new batteries have shown relatively modest improvements while maintaining form factor. I guess the major breakthrough(s) is/are still coming.

I think it is related also to the issues with no so modern electronics ... think about laptops ... these things have more and more processing power and last more and more on battery (roughly speaking). So .. Pentax needs better and more energy efficient chips. Smaller transistors, optimizations etc. I don't know where they stand on this compared to others but .. I kind of suspect that they are behind. That their chips are not as powerful and power efficient as others. So .. improving electronics will give them also better battery life.

Seeing that K-3 III (current action camera flagship) is lagging in buffer size, speed of image processing and writing even behind 5-years old D500 .. I think it is fair to say that massive improvements in processing power are unlikely .. especially now during massive shortages of chips everywhere.

Remember that the D500 uses XQD cards. It has an SD slot as well, but I suspect you need XQD to get that peak performance. No IBIS, no accelerator... hard to say what role the accelerator plays in power consumption or pipeline delays, or how much lens it takes for IBIS to be the cheaper option.

Yes.. but the modern UHS-II cards can write 300MB/s .. about 3x the speed that K-3 III is actually writing with at the moment. I would not think that IBIS plays a role ... I would hope that control of that is an independent process that does not slow down image processing. I'm not sure what the "accelerator" is doing exactly .. if it is not just a fancy name for something that other manufactures just have in their main processor. Again .. comes back to electronics design.

Well .. actually just these shortages could be the reason why we'll not see anything new for a while!

That is a possibility.

Last note on the K-1 III: What I would personally like are the new bracketing and focus peaking modes from other current Pentax cameras, and the ability to switch OFF the accelerator for raw (and raw in "RAW+").

YES!! I agree ... to have focus bracketing would be GREAT! Also .. I would like to have an option to do exposure bracketing and time-lapse at the same time. And I absolutely agree that there needs to be a setting to turn OFF any noise manipulation in raw!

 MarBa's gear list:MarBa's gear list
Pentax K-1 Pentax K-3 Mark III Pentax smc FA 31mm F1.8 AL Limited Pentax smc FA 43mm F1.9 Limited Pentax smc FA 77mm 1.8 Limited +3 more
Breakfastographer 2 Contributing Member • Posts: 544
Re: What happened to the FA 21 Limited?

MarBa wrote:

Breakfastographer 2 wrote:

MarBa wrote:

Seeing that K-3 III (current action camera flagship) is lagging in buffer size, speed of image processing and writing even behind 5-years old D500 .. I think it is fair to say that massive improvements in processing power are unlikely .. especially now during massive shortages of chips everywhere.

Remember that the D500 uses XQD cards. It has an SD slot as well, but I suspect you need XQD to get that peak performance. No IBIS, no accelerator... hard to say what role the accelerator plays in power consumption or pipeline delays, or how much lens it takes for IBIS to be the cheaper option.

Yes.. but the modern UHS-II cards can write 300MB/s .. about 3x the speed that K-3 III is actually writing with at the moment. I would not think that IBIS plays a role ... I would hope that control of that is an independent process that does not slow down image processing. I'm not sure what the "accelerator" is doing exactly .. if it is not just a fancy name for something that other manufactures just have in their main processor. Again .. comes back to electronics design.

Quick clarification on the IBIS part - I meant IBIS consumes some power, but so does lens-based IS, and big lenses probably have larger IS elements, so consume more power, also drawn from the camera battery. So it's not clear that IBIS consumes more energy when comparing with lens IS, but I have not found any hard data with a quick web search.

And for the record, in case it matters: XQD does 125 to 500 MB/s. Using your ballpark figure of 33MB times 12fps, we get 400MB/s, which means XQD could in theory give unlimited raw bursts on the K-3 III, while UHS-II at full speed comes close enough that you should be able to maintain around 8fps (to account for margins of variation).

The potential silver lining is that if your card writing speed matches or exceeds your data capture rate, you don't need much buffer. For a fully optimised camera with similar characteristics as the K-3 III even 200MB of RAM would seem slight overkill - rather than 1GB as it currently needs.

So in my mind, eliminating the buffer should be an engineering priority.

It's a house of cards, of course, in the sense that when the user inserts a slow card, everything falls apart. That's the nice thing about using a completely new card standard like XQD - it's got an added up front cost to the user, but at least you know they'll be using a fast card because no slow and/or "legacy" cards exist.

I think reception of a stellar camera that requires a new card would have been better than of a camera that provides only moderate performance, but with all sorts of cards.

Well .. actually just these shortages could be the reason why we'll not see anything new for a while!

That is a possibility.

Last note on the K-1 III: What I would personally like are the new bracketing and focus peaking modes from other current Pentax cameras, and the ability to switch OFF the accelerator for raw (and raw in "RAW+").

YES!! I agree ... to have focus bracketing would be GREAT! Also .. I would like to have an option to do exposure bracketing and time-lapse at the same time. And I absolutely agree that there needs to be a setting to turn OFF any noise manipulation in raw!

James O'Neill Veteran Member • Posts: 5,744
Re: What happened to the FA 21 Limited?

Breakfastographer 2 wrote:

MarBa wrote:

Breakfastographer 2 wrote:

James O'Neill wrote:

Breakfastographer 2 wrote:

James O'Neill wrote:

I don't think they need new pentaprism for K1. It has a large OVF. The problem always was APS-C, not FF. The OVF in K1 is bigger than in K-3 III. And I don't see any difference in "brightness/clarity". Remember that the FF OVF has 2x the amount of light to begin with (with the same max aperture lens).

With an upgrade of the K-1 line, the question in my mind would be how to create a substantial upgrade that would appeal at least to previous K-1 line users. Why is that so particularly relevant? Because the existing K-1/II users have shown that they are willing to go the full frame path, or at least live in a dual world of shooting both formats. So they are, obviously, the biggest, or at least safest, potential market for a K-1 III.

There are 3 groups of possible customer. Existing K1 users. Non-FF K-mount users moving up to FF. Outside of K1 and K3-iii owners there is a choice go stay APS-C or go FF, and the K3-iii offers better high ISO, better AF, better wifi, and faster FPS in a more portable package without needing to the change any lenses. The K1 offers a tilting screen, built in GPS and the last word in image quality - though this is more in theory than leaping out of the prints. The brighter viewfinder which comes with full frame is mostly offset by the new prism in the K3-iii. The third group don't own a Pentax want an SLR and are interested in FF. Why wouldn't they buy the camera K1-ii ? For 2021 36MP is below expectations at this level. The AF wasn't great for 2016, and really won't do for a new camera today. It has WiFi but it takes 45 seconds to transfer a raw file. It's a Pentax so a huge range of old lenses but not so many new ones.

How can we appeal to them?

New sensor, new AF. And ship it. Oh, well, put the K3-iii motherboard in an all that comes with that

Touchscreen to me seems a given in the K-1 III.

TBH I don't think many care much. Quite a lot of people would like it, but not many see it as must have. Offer me a 50-60MP version with much better AF and it's "Shut-up and take my money"
However to get sensible throughput with 50-70% more pixels (and useful WiFi) means a new motherboard. Barring stupidity, the K3-iii motherboard will have been designed to go in other cameras. (IIRC the 645Z uses the K7 motherboard, and it would be extremely sensible if the boards in the K5, K3, K1, KP, and K3-iii were all the same form factor). Changing the MB means new CPU and new OS which is touch driven

The required electronics are probably thin enough that the back of the camera doesn't have to be substantially changed. If it does, we're back at the discussion over the OVF, because one publicised property of the new prism material is that it results in greater eye relief, allowing more display tech to be installed behind the sensor (touchscreen, articulation).

The question re-working the K1 is can they put a touch screen in the present articulating arrangement, or can they keep the body shell with a non-articulated screen, or do they need to something else.

Is that in itself enough to make folks upgrade? Hardly, imo.

We agree, see above.

So let's see what else we could include that isn't the new OVF, adapted for FF.

That's one possible, but we don't know what the effect would be. It might be the thing that tips the balance for some people.

A sensor resolution bump also seems a bit lame to me, honestly. A global shutter, on the other hand could be rather interesting, and there are already products advertised using those new sensors and e-shutters, albeit in other domains than consumer cameras.

A 60-megapixel sensor would give you an APS-C crop mode of about 26 megapixels - but then you have to wrangle with 60 megapixels when you take full frame images (I'm assuming you want to process raw - JPEG would presumably have downsampled modes).

63MP crops to 28, 54 crops to 24, 45 to 20 (4/9 of the number). The need to wrangle more pixels pushes the new mainboard - see above.

So I'm not personally sure 60 megapixels is for everyone, given how often we hear of people waiting for the post-processing apps to get on with the job.

How many K1 owners have you met who say it just doesn't have enough pixels ? A new camera needs to have a life of 3-5 years so selling 36MP in the late 2020s may not work but it's the least needed upgrade. 44MByte files from the K1 are killing me today. I shot 500 frames last weekend. ~20GB and my laptop is already full (2/3 of the disk space has gone in pictures).
I tried out 4 frames with adobe's magic up sampling and stitched them to make an 30,000x8,000 image - the DNG file was over 1GB in size, and lightroom just about coped, but I couldn't print it big enough to see the difference from 15000x4000

I've said for some years that A1 size paper (841x595mm or 33x23") is big as anyone is likely to print, and 30x20" @ 300 pixels per inch is 9,000x6000 pixels. 54MP. Outputting more than that doesn't have great deal of point. 4K screens are only 3840x2160 ~ 8MP.

Going from 36 megapixels is going to approximately double the wait (or worse for operations that work in context, i.e. O(n**2) or thereabouts - probably applicable to some "AI" features).

Very little is order n-squared, but even adding 50% to the time wouldn't be great

I see no reason to push out "cheap" APS-C. Why? K-70 is still produced .. what improvements you could possible make that would not result in cannibalizing K-3 III sales?

I hear you, and I'm just following what the rumour said, rather than advocating. But let's look at whether and how there is a way to do it.

Well, the K-3 III has kinda laid the scene for that more than the K-70/KP if you see what I mean. Buffer performance could have been one of the big differentiators, but it's really so-so as you've pointed out in your review.

We have a couple of unknowns here. The size of the buffer looks to be 1GB (frames x size isn't 0.5GB or smaller or 2GB or bigger). One could change the size of RAM chips on the motherboard and make it bigger for a high-end or smaller for an entry level camera. We don't know if the buffering is between sensor and Prime and how much between prime and SD card.
Can the prime + accelerator crunch more than the sensor/shutter can send it AND more than the SD interface can write so the buffer is a write through cache for the disk ? OR Is the prime only able to do 26MP frames at the rate of 2-3 sec , and buffer is frames waiting to be processed (slow SD would mean the prime taking frames from the buffer more slowly)

In my mind, you'd leave off many of the convenience features for entry-level. No joystick,

The joystick might be thought essential to the new AF. The main thing for entry level is would it still be saleable without the new AF

old OVF, old sensor or take it down to 20 megapixels (but then give it touchscreen). Keep it plastic, lower max. burst rate. I'm torn on omitting 4k, because it's such a silly feature to have in the first place.

Old shutter, old body, no premium prism makes sense. Buying more of the same sensor might be cheaper, and entry level buyers might be less hard core about shooting stills and want better video

But you'd use the old AF sensor field, but you might include the cross-talk with the metering matrix. It would still be a good chunk less accurate than the K-3 III is capable of. And, of course, the old slim battery!

Probably keep an entry level small with the slim battery. I've doubts about selling any more cameras with the old AF.

A major factor given how you've seen the K-3 III consume more power than previous generations. If it really is the display sapping the juice, and you stick a similar display into the "KP-90", it would quickly prove that the bigger battery is a real advantage.

A slightly smaller off the shelf display ? Perhaps. But what what we know from phones, tablets and laptops with touch displays is that's not a big factor. I suspect there is some excess chimping with new cameras, more use of machine gunning frames, and the new chips may do more processing and use slightly more joules per frame. Again there's an assumption a new entry level camera would use the same motherboard but possibly with half the RAM and a smaller buffer.

An entirely different possibility is that they're not looking to launch an entry level camera, but a differentiation at the top end, which is where the market is going!

The reason we talk about K1 / 645 first is those things they've made for the K3-iii need to go on a high priced camera. Once the K3-iii has been out for 12-18 months they can think about putting some of it's tech onto entry level cameras.

K-1 III needs to get a new sensor ... maybe the same as in Z7 II ... needs to keep everything that it already has (GPS, flip-screen etc.) and add AF module from K-3 III.

Well, would you want a touchscreen? Because I actually don't know the size of additional components required, and whether that means the display area at the back would need to be redesigned. So that might not be completely trivial.

See above. New camera = new motherboard. New motherboard = New (touch) OS. Therefore touch screen is a given (whether we want it, or not)  with whatever changes are forced (hopefully none).

Next redesign question, if they do include a new pentaprism, would they be able to fit the GPS? The bigger camera might give a bit more flexibility in that respect,

GPS may be determined by the motherboard. One version I read said the choice of material for the top plate meant it didn't go in the K3-iii. If the choice is between brighter prism and GPS, my hunch is more people would take the prism....

I get that you don't want the new pentaprism in the FF camera...

It's desirable rather than essential.

But to take advantage of the AF, it would probably also need new mirror box and shutter for faster frame rate?

I don't think that's necessarily related, or perhaps I'm reading it wrong. You'd get benefits from better/faster AF even with a lower frame rate, and we know the currently known K-1 design can do at least 7fps (because that's what the APS-C mode does).

I think I said something similar. I don't think we need a 12fps FF. 98% of the time I'm on single shot, the rest it's slow speed continuous so I would think that.

However, higher megapixel count with higher frame rate would also require a bump in processing power, buffer size and write speeds. But that would need redesign of the electronics.

If you want the same or faster frame rate and same processing, then likely yes.

And we're back to new motherboard.

In addition, it would be nice to get 4K/60 with no crop, no time limit, maybe 10bit etc .. that would be great .. but that would require even better electronics!

AIUI the K3-iii doesn't down-sample 6K  native to 4K, but crops. I can see a sensor having a "8K area, read alternate rows and columns" mode, but that's for Sony to put on the sensor. To date the K1 has been aimed at people who don't use it for video.

Yup.

And actually .. even new battery! K-3 III is worse than K-1 and if the future K-1 III would be even worse than that ... it would be bad.

The last shoot I did was 500 in four hours and the battery read full. I wouldn't mind if the camera told me to change batteries at 400-500 shots (the *ist-D took AA batteries and need changing at 150-200 shots) It's a non-issue to those who chimp little and machine gun less.

... I also keep hearing new battery technology is just around the corner. Been that way for five years now. Camera makers who have introduced new batteries have shown relatively modest improvements while maintaining form factor. I guess the major breakthrough(s) is/are still coming.

More capacity in the same space, yes good. A bigger body to let us shoot 1000 frames between changes instead of 600-700 , no thanks. I'd like the K1 to get smaller (it won't)

Last note on the K-1 III: What I would personally like are the new bracketing and focus peaking modes from other current Pentax cameras, and the ability to switch OFF the accelerator for raw (and raw in "RAW+").

Bracketing and focus peaking, come with the new mainboard. Changing how raw the data in a DNG file is probably won't happen - it only matters to the most committed pixel peepers.

 James O'Neill's gear list:James O'Neill's gear list
Pentax K-5 IIs Pentax K-1 Pentax smc FA 50mm F1.4 Pentax smc DA 18-250mm F3.5-6.3 Pentax smc FA 43mm F1.9 Limited +3 more
Phil A Martin
Phil A Martin Veteran Member • Posts: 6,318
Re: What happened to the FA 21 Limited?

James O'Neill wrote:

Breakfastographer 2 wrote:

MarBa wrote:

Breakfastographer 2 wrote:

James O'Neill wrote:

Breakfastographer 2 wrote:

James O'Neill wrote:

I don't think they need new pentaprism for K1. It has a large OVF. The problem always was APS-C, not FF. The OVF in K1 is bigger than in K-3 III. And I don't see any difference in "brightness/clarity". Remember that the FF OVF has 2x the amount of light to begin with (with the same max aperture lens).

With an upgrade of the K-1 line, the question in my mind would be how to create a substantial upgrade that would appeal at least to previous K-1 line users. Why is that so particularly relevant? Because the existing K-1/II users have shown that they are willing to go the full frame path, or at least live in a dual world of shooting both formats. So they are, obviously, the biggest, or at least safest, potential market for a K-1 III.

There are 3 groups of possible customer. Existing K1 users. Non-FF K-mount users moving up to FF. Outside of K1 and K3-iii owners there is a choice go stay APS-C or go FF, and the K3-iii offers better high ISO, better AF, better wifi, and faster FPS in a more portable package without needing to the change any lenses. The K1 offers a tilting screen, built in GPS and the last word in image quality - though this is more in theory than leaping out of the prints.

Have you compared prints between the K1ii and the K3iii and if so, at what size?

The brighter viewfinder which comes with full frame is mostly offset by the new prism in the K3-iii. The third group don't own a Pentax want an SLR and are interested in FF. Why wouldn't they buy the camera K1-ii ? For 2021 36MP is below expectations at this level. The AF wasn't great for 2016, and really won't do for a new camera today. It has WiFi but it takes 45 seconds to transfer a raw file. It's a Pentax so a huge range of old lenses but not so many new ones.

How can we appeal to them?

New sensor, new AF. And ship it. Oh, well, put the K3-iii motherboard in an all that comes with that

Touchscreen to me seems a given in the K-1 III.

TBH I don't think many care much. Quite a lot of people would like it, but not many see it as must have. Offer me a 50-60MP version with much better AF and it's "Shut-up and take my money"
However to get sensible throughput with 50-70% more pixels (and useful WiFi) means a new motherboard. Barring stupidity, the K3-iii motherboard will have been designed to go in other cameras. (IIRC the 645Z uses the K7 motherboard, and it would be extremely sensible if the boards in the K5, K3, K1, KP, and K3-iii were all the same form factor). Changing the MB means new CPU and new OS which is touch driven

The required electronics are probably thin enough that the back of the camera doesn't have to be substantially changed. If it does, we're back at the discussion over the OVF, because one publicised property of the new prism material is that it results in greater eye relief, allowing more display tech to be installed behind the sensor (touchscreen, articulation).

The question re-working the K1 is can they put a touch screen in the present articulating arrangement, or can they keep the body shell with a non-articulated screen, or do they need to something else.

Is that in itself enough to make folks upgrade? Hardly, imo.

We agree, see above.

So let's see what else we could include that isn't the new OVF, adapted for FF.

That's one possible, but we don't know what the effect would be. It might be the thing that tips the balance for some people.

A sensor resolution bump also seems a bit lame to me, honestly. A global shutter, on the other hand could be rather interesting, and there are already products advertised using those new sensors and e-shutters, albeit in other domains than consumer cameras.

A 60-megapixel sensor would give you an APS-C crop mode of about 26 megapixels - but then you have to wrangle with 60 megapixels when you take full frame images (I'm assuming you want to process raw - JPEG would presumably have downsampled modes).

63MP crops to 28, 54 crops to 24, 45 to 20 (4/9 of the number). The need to wrangle more pixels pushes the new mainboard - see above.

So I'm not personally sure 60 megapixels is for everyone, given how often we hear of people waiting for the post-processing apps to get on with the job.

How many K1 owners have you met who say it just doesn't have enough pixels ? A new camera needs to have a life of 3-5 years so selling 36MP in the late 2020s may not work but it's the least needed upgrade. 44MByte files from the K1 are killing me today. I shot 500 frames last weekend. ~20GB and my laptop is already full (2/3 of the disk space has gone in pictures).
I tried out 4 frames with adobe's magic up sampling and stitched them to make an 30,000x8,000 image - the DNG file was over 1GB in size, and lightroom just about coped, but I couldn't print it big enough to see the difference from 15000x4000

I've said for some years that A1 size paper (841x595mm or 33x23") is big as anyone is likely to print, and 30x20" @ 300 pixels per inch is 9,000x6000 pixels. 54MP. Outputting more than that doesn't have great deal of point. 4K screens are only 3840x2160 ~ 8MP.

Going from 36 megapixels is going to approximately double the wait (or worse for operations that work in context, i.e. O(n**2) or thereabouts - probably applicable to some "AI" features).

Very little is order n-squared, but even adding 50% to the time wouldn't be great

I see no reason to push out "cheap" APS-C. Why? K-70 is still produced .. what improvements you could possible make that would not result in cannibalizing K-3 III sales?

I hear you, and I'm just following what the rumour said, rather than advocating. But let's look at whether and how there is a way to do it.

Well, the K-3 III has kinda laid the scene for that more than the K-70/KP if you see what I mean. Buffer performance could have been one of the big differentiators, but it's really so-so as you've pointed out in your review.

We have a couple of unknowns here. The size of the buffer looks to be 1GB (frames x size isn't 0.5GB or smaller or 2GB or bigger). One could change the size of RAM chips on the motherboard and make it bigger for a high-end or smaller for an entry level camera. We don't know if the buffering is between sensor and Prime and how much between prime and SD card.
Can the prime + accelerator crunch more than the sensor/shutter can send it AND more than the SD interface can write so the buffer is a write through cache for the disk ? OR Is the prime only able to do 26MP frames at the rate of 2-3 sec , and buffer is frames waiting to be processed (slow SD would mean the prime taking frames from the buffer more slowly)

In my mind, you'd leave off many of the convenience features for entry-level. No joystick,

The joystick might be thought essential to the new AF. The main thing for entry level is would it still be saleable without the new AF

old OVF, old sensor or take it down to 20 megapixels (but then give it touchscreen). Keep it plastic, lower max. burst rate. I'm torn on omitting 4k, because it's such a silly feature to have in the first place.

Old shutter, old body, no premium prism makes sense. Buying more of the same sensor might be cheaper, and entry level buyers might be less hard core about shooting stills and want better video

But you'd use the old AF sensor field, but you might include the cross-talk with the metering matrix. It would still be a good chunk less accurate than the K-3 III is capable of. And, of course, the old slim battery!

Probably keep an entry level small with the slim battery. I've doubts about selling any more cameras with the old AF.

A major factor given how you've seen the K-3 III consume more power than previous generations. If it really is the display sapping the juice, and you stick a similar display into the "KP-90", it would quickly prove that the bigger battery is a real advantage.

A slightly smaller off the shelf display ? Perhaps. But what what we know from phones, tablets and laptops with touch displays is that's not a big factor. I suspect there is some excess chimping with new cameras, more use of machine gunning frames, and the new chips may do more processing and use slightly more joules per frame. Again there's an assumption a new entry level camera would use the same motherboard but possibly with half the RAM and a smaller buffer.

An entirely different possibility is that they're not looking to launch an entry level camera, but a differentiation at the top end, which is where the market is going!

The reason we talk about K1 / 645 first is those things they've made for the K3-iii need to go on a high priced camera. Once the K3-iii has been out for 12-18 months they can think about putting some of it's tech onto entry level cameras.

K-1 III needs to get a new sensor ... maybe the same as in Z7 II ... needs to keep everything that it already has (GPS, flip-screen etc.) and add AF module from K-3 III.

Well, would you want a touchscreen? Because I actually don't know the size of additional components required, and whether that means the display area at the back would need to be redesigned. So that might not be completely trivial.

See above. New camera = new motherboard. New motherboard = New (touch) OS. Therefore touch screen is a given (whether we want it, or not) with whatever changes are forced (hopefully none).

Next redesign question, if they do include a new pentaprism, would they be able to fit the GPS? The bigger camera might give a bit more flexibility in that respect,

GPS may be determined by the motherboard. One version I read said the choice of material for the top plate meant it didn't go in the K3-iii. If the choice is between brighter prism and GPS, my hunch is more people would take the prism....

I get that you don't want the new pentaprism in the FF camera...

It's desirable rather than essential.

But to take advantage of the AF, it would probably also need new mirror box and shutter for faster frame rate?

I don't think that's necessarily related, or perhaps I'm reading it wrong. You'd get benefits from better/faster AF even with a lower frame rate, and we know the currently known K-1 design can do at least 7fps (because that's what the APS-C mode does).

I think I said something similar. I don't think we need a 12fps FF. 98% of the time I'm on single shot, the rest it's slow speed continuous so I would think that.

However, higher megapixel count with higher frame rate would also require a bump in processing power, buffer size and write speeds. But that would need redesign of the electronics.

If you want the same or faster frame rate and same processing, then likely yes.

And we're back to new motherboard.

In addition, it would be nice to get 4K/60 with no crop, no time limit, maybe 10bit etc .. that would be great .. but that would require even better electronics!

AIUI the K3-iii doesn't down-sample 6K native to 4K, but crops. I can see a sensor having a "8K area, read alternate rows and columns" mode, but that's for Sony to put on the sensor. To date the K1 has been aimed at people who don't use it for video.

Yup.

And actually .. even new battery! K-3 III is worse than K-1 and if the future K-1 III would be even worse than that ... it would be bad.

The last shoot I did was 500 in four hours and the battery read full. I wouldn't mind if the camera told me to change batteries at 400-500 shots (the *ist-D took AA batteries and need changing at 150-200 shots) It's a non-issue to those who chimp little and machine gun less.

... I also keep hearing new battery technology is just around the corner. Been that way for five years now. Camera makers who have introduced new batteries have shown relatively modest improvements while maintaining form factor. I guess the major breakthrough(s) is/are still coming.

More capacity in the same space, yes good. A bigger body to let us shoot 1000 frames between changes instead of 600-700 , no thanks. I'd like the K1 to get smaller (it won't)

Last note on the K-1 III: What I would personally like are the new bracketing and focus peaking modes from other current Pentax cameras, and the ability to switch OFF the accelerator for raw (and raw in "RAW+").

Bracketing and focus peaking, come with the new mainboard. Changing how raw the data in a DNG file is probably won't happen - it only matters to the most committed pixel peepers.

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads