[ogl]

K-7 will be Pentax top APS-C till 2011.
IMO

[Kunzite]

The 645D is a case in point, with a new version of an old lens released alongside it. And more to come.

FYI, the D FA55mm f/2.8 is not just a new version of the old A 55mm f/2.8. In fact, besides the focal length and the maximum aperture (and the brand, of course) those lenses don't seem to have anything in common.

[johnmflores]

I doubt Pentax would sell a FF for less than $1800. It would cannibalize the semi-pro APS-C camera if it was less than that.

FF: $1800+

Semi-Pro APS-C: $1100-1300

Entry APS-C: $$700-900

Exactly - it may cannibalize the semi-pro APS-C cameras of their competitors. Much like the 645D is expected to cannibalize sales from more expensive MF alternatives.

[falconeye]

Because a FF is never going to be the same price as APS-C. If the price of one comes down, so will the other, not only for cost reasons but so the manufacturers can differentiate their markets.

This isn't obvious. As soon as sensor cost is marginal compared to all the electro-optical-mechanical cost will this not be obvious at all. Eventually, an APS-C body will have to live on tighter electro-optical-mechanical tolerances and be more expensive. Has already happened. E.g., an Oly E3 isn't less expensive than a K-7.

[johnmflores]

Some of these proposed scenarios are hilarious, especially the ones that go "If a FF was the same price as an APS-C which one would you buy?" Because a FF is never going to be the same price as APS-C. If the price of one comes down, so will the other, not only for cost reasons but so the manufacturers can differentiate their markets.

Or more precisely, so manufacturers can differentiate their product lines. Just because Canikon says a top tier APS-C is $1800 and FF starts at $2300 doesn't mean that everyone has to follow. Pentax has proven their aggressive pricing strategy with the 645D, and with the K-x and K-7 as well.

Sony is the first to try to challenge this up with their ~$2k FF. Considering the featureset, it's understandable that people aren't choosing Sony as an alternative to the D300 and 7D - it's a different target market. But what if Pentax offered FF that offered greater IQ and high ISO than the 7D and D300 but was a step behind in AF? Sports shooters may still opt for the crop factor of the APS-C alternatives, but are there other markets where the choice isn't so clear? Are those markets big enough?

Ultimately, at what price point will a budget FF gain traction, and what other factors (i.e., legacy glass, AF speed camera size, weather resistance, etc...) are critical to success?

[JohnBee]

K-7 will be Pentax top APS-C till 2011.
IMO

Short and sweet!
That's what works best with a smaller company like Pentax.
As a minority in the race, I hope they use the same product delivery strategy as the K7.
Careful delivery dates with minimal competitive overlap.

TBH I don't care about FF at all.
I invested in a D700 purely for it's low light shooting advantages.
Though I would have gladly used a Pentax instead if it had the chops.
But I can't keep both kits going forever either....

Please make 2011 the year to Pentax!

Wishlist:

Better low light(at least... on par with Kx)
Tethering?
Better AF!
A bigger body for us heavy handed folk

*** optional: dual card slots, AF when recording video, lower ISO, articulated screen, advanced live view, larger RAW buffer & MAX fps.

[eurostar]

Or more precisely, so manufacturers can differentiate their product lines. Just because Canikon says a top tier APS-C is $1800 and FF starts at $2300 doesn't mean that everyone has to follow. Pentax has proven their aggressive pricing strategy with the 645D, and with the K-x and K-7 as well.

Sony is the first to try to challenge this up with their ~$2k FF. Considering the featureset, it's understandable that people aren't choosing Sony as an alternative to the D300 and 7D - it's a different target market. But what if Pentax offered FF that offered greater IQ and high ISO than the 7D and D300 but was a step behind in AF? Sports shooters may still opt for the crop factor of the APS-C alternatives, but are there other markets where the choice isn't so clear? Are those markets big enough?

Ultimately, at what price point will a budget FF gain traction, and what other factors (i.e., legacy glass, AF speed camera size, weather resistance, etc...) are critical to success?

What if Pentax 24x36 is built over 645 bayonet to offer a faster (AF and fps) alternative or companion to the 645 digital? Wouldn't make sense for Pentax enlarge the user base of the digital "medium format", creating new, faster 645 lenses instead of creating a third line (after APS-C and 645) of lenses?

[rparmar]

Answer this then if I turn down the hilarious factor by a couple of hundreds. If the aps-c was $1200 and a similar featured FF was $1500 which one would you buy?

By the time that happens I can afford the 645D which will be worth say... (since we are picking numbers out of thin air) $2000. And I already have lenses for it. Done deal.

[thibs]

IMO no. It would be huge for an FF, exactly the opposite of Pentax traditional thinking.

[Supernaut]

By the time that happens I can afford the 645D which will be worth say... (since we are picking numbers out of thin air) $2000. And I already have lenses for it. Done deal.

The Sony850 is $1800 today. I'm very far from picking numbers out of thin air. Why would the price drop suddenly stop? $1500 is next generation FF.

[Tommy]

What if Pentax 24x36 is built over 645 bayonet to offer a faster (AF and fps) alternative or companion to the 645 digital? Wouldn't make sense for Pentax enlarge the user base of the digital "medium format", creating new, faster 645 lenses instead of creating a third line (after APS-C and 645) of lenses?

But the registration distance for the current 645 system is huge. Not a problem for a MF user but not many will consider a Pentax 24x36 sensor in a body as thick as the 645D over the (relatively small) 5DMkII. Unless they shorten the registration distance but then they have another line of lenses anyway. And if they do that (which I don't think they will, but if) they might as well go all the way and shorten the registration distance to a minimum to create an FF EVIL.

/Tommy

[Angevinn]

Supernaut is right.

I'm glad Pentax passed on the older Sony FF sensor (24MP) used in the Sony A900, A850 and Nikon D3. It was noisy, expensive and Sony had problems in the fabrication/manufacturing of the sensor (small yield was a factor in the sensor's high price). Sony has reportedly fixed the problems and has designed a better FF sensor that costs less to produce and outperforms the older FF sensor. This new Sony FF sensor is coming in a series of less expensive FF DSLRs from different manufacturers. Plus, Samsung is still involved in sensor manufacturing. I'm not sure if Pentax still does business with Samsung though.

Nikon is supposed get first dibs (licensing) on the new Sony FF sensor and is using it in the upcoming D700 replacement, (the D700s or D800 whatever it winds up being called). Sony is also readying another FF DSLR that will cost much less than the FF A850. Canon has been quiet but is rumored to be working on a replacement FF DSLR for the 5D MkII for 2011. Price has not been discussed anywhere on the Canon. Canon had been designing their own sensors but who knows what they have planned in the future.

For those that argue that legacy glass does not work well on FF cameras, this myth is not true. Look on Flickr for samples taken with the Sony A850 & A900 and Canon 5D & 5D MkII, even the old M42 Carl Zeiss Jena and Meyer/Pentacon lenses produce some stunning images. Some are even taken with older single-coated lenses!

some examples:


Sony A900 FF + M42 Single-Coated Meyer-Optik Görlitz 50mm 1.8 Oreston


Canon 5D FF + M42 Tomioka Single-Coated (sold under Sears & Ricoh brands in US) 55mm 1.4


Canon 5D MkII FF + M42 SMC Takumar 85mm 1.8


Canon 5D FF + M42 SMC Takumar 85mm 1.8


Canon 5D FF + M42 (Single-Coated Zebra) Carl Zeiss Jena Pancolar 50mm 1.8

The Sony850 is $1800 today. I'm very far from picking numbers out of thin air. Why would the price drop suddenly stop? $1500 is next generation FF.

[snostorm]

OK, Steve reluctantly, with a tear in his eye, got him a Nikon D700

Hows that?

A person who continually questioned peoples' desires for Pentax full frame just cashed out of Pentax' best gear:
K-7 & K20D & Limiteds to add Nikon D700 full frame

Pentax doesn't care if they loose people like Steve.
Pentax has a whole new group of customers thesedays (sic) that are happy to buy spray painted color cameras & plastic mount lenses.

Hi Samsungian,

How's that? -- It's pretty typical of you -- an infantile attempt to misrepresent a situation to degrade Pentax in a Pentax forum for whatever bizarre satisfaction it seems to afford you. . . but at least you spelled everything right this time -- except for the word you made up. . .

Pentax is unable to support traveling independent pros, except perhaps on a one-on-one basis if one has the standing to establish a rapport with the company, and even then it might not be exactly local and timely. They don't have the infrastructure, and don't have enough market share in enough regions to make it worthwhile for them to establish one. Their niche in DSLRs has always been advanced amateurs, and there's not much they can do to change that without spending a whole lot of money on a timely worldwide professional repair/loaner/rental support system that would give them little or no return in the short term. Establishing and staffing even one center per continent would probably not be close to cost effective, and this would still leave them far behind the big 2 in their ability to support a pro's needs in a timely manner. They also can't entice third party mfgs to support their system since they haven't been able to secure a sufficient market share to warrant this. This isn't because they're bad, it's because they're just comparatively small. Bigger may have its advantages, but isn't necessarily better. Think Lehman Brothers, Countryside, GM, Toyota, and BP -- or ask any Apple user or Subaru driver.

I don't know if a "FF" Pentax body would have made the difference, especially the entry level (for the format) body that most here seem to be concentrating on promoting/predicting, but I won't pretend to speak for Steve. . . nor anyone else for that matter.

I likely wouldn't buy one, except perhaps as a low light specialty body if the sensor/processor is exceptionally good with low light AF performance to match the sensor's potential, the sensor-based SR works as well as it does on the smaller format, the body is at most K10/20 sized, and (as in anything) there would be a price ceiling . Any one of these could be a potential deal-breaker for me. If/when this camera appears, I'd make a final decision whether or not it might worth it for me, but I'd not give up my APS-C bodies. I'd love the ability to shoot ISO 6400 and beyond with little regard for noise.

I'm sure that many purists look down on Pentax for the multi-colored K-x marketing scheme, but purists don't make up the bulk of the market as it is developing now. I would think that Pentax USA has decided to expand the range of colors that are available in the US because there has been success with them in the Asian market. I seem to remember lot more Pentaxians scoffing at the "Storm Trooper" K2000 than the muticolored Kx. . . maybe this is a sign that times are changing -- as they inevitably do. I'm sure that these same shooters also look down on having Alex Agassi and Ashton Kutcher as the faces most associated with their respective brands to the general public, but Canon and Nikon bean counters don't seem to mind. . .what works -- works.

As far as the plastic lens mounts for kit lenses, I believe that both Canon and Nikon have offered kit/low-end lenses with plastic mounts to shave the price for the entry level buyers whose primary concern is price, but I'm sure you already knew this as a knowledgeable camera guy. . . This is neither new nor something to crow over.

I'm answering your snarky post to address the misinformation that your post contains or implies. I'll look for a real response in a few years to give you some time to grow up. . .

Scott

[lurchlarson]

In order for Pentax to effectively market both APS-C and FF and have the FF under $1800 they will have to market APS-C very differently. Perhaps they would take APS-C the EVIL rout with it a la NX-10 and take the mirror out of it completely. The FF would be the only true SLR they sell. Then they could price them pretty similarly.

Short of a radical change in price (sell APS-C for much lower) or another significant technological switch, I fail to see how they could market the two formats side-by-side.

Now if only they could figure out those viewfinder/noise/AF issues on EVIL.

Also. If Pentax were to make a FF, they'd have to resurrect their FA/DFA lines and ramp up production on them. They'd have to do that well in advance of their FF drop date in order to accommodate the new sales. While there is a lot of old glass floating around, newcomers to Pentax will likely want new gear. This all represents a significant investment and risk for Pentax. If the FF were to come and then flop, Pentax would likely lose much of the credibility it has regained over the past few years.

While I would personally would love a FF, I am skeptical that we are going to see it soon. However, if Pentax made an impressive FF for a price I can afford, I'd be all over it.

[Samsungian]

I'll guess most Pentaxians leave Pentax due to lack of 24x36 sensor

Or I'll guess Pentaxians who add a second brand of gear thesedays is due to 24x36 sensor availablity from Canon, Nikon, Sony, Leica.

Canon and Nikon and Sony and Leica owners have an obvious upgrade path.

Well, and so do Pentaxians, they can choose Canon or Nikon or Sony or Leica or as seems to be popular to suggest:

"drop $9500 on a Japan market 33x44mm 645D"

So

K-7 at B&H is $868

&

645D Japan market camera is $9,500

Seems there's a huge hole in the Pentax line up that full frame could address?

Hi Samsungian,

How's that? -- It's pretty typical of you -- an infantile attempt to misrepresent a situation to degrade Pentax in a Pentax forum for whatever bizarre satisfaction it seems to afford you. . . but at least you spelled everything right this time -- except for the word you made up. . .

Pentax is unable to support traveling independent pros, except perhaps on a one-on-one basis if one has the standing to establish a rapport with the company, and even then it might not be exactly local and timely. They don't have the infrastructure, and don't have enough market share in enough regions to make it worthwhile for them to establish one. Their niche in DSLRs has always been advanced amateurs, and there's not much they can do to change that without spending a whole lot of money on a timely worldwide professional repair/loaner/rental support system that would give them little or no return in the short term. Establishing and staffing even one center per continent would probably not be close to cost effective, and this would still leave them far behind the big 2 in their ability to support a pro's needs in a timely manner. They also can't entice third party mfgs to support their system since they haven't been able to secure a sufficient market share to warrant this. This isn't because they're bad, it's because they're just comparatively small. Bigger may have its advantages, but isn't necessarily better. Think Lehman Brothers, Countryside, GM, Toyota, and BP -- or ask any Apple user or Subaru driver.

I don't know if a "FF" Pentax body would have made the difference, especially the entry level (for the format) body that most here seem to be concentrating on promoting/predicting, but I won't pretend to speak for Steve. . . nor anyone else for that matter.

I likely wouldn't buy one, except perhaps as a low light specialty body if the sensor/processor is exceptionally good with low light AF performance to match the sensor's potential, the sensor-based SR works as well as it does on the smaller format, the body is at most K10/20 sized, and (as in anything) there would be a price ceiling . Any one of these could be a potential deal-breaker for me. If/when this camera appears, I'd make a final decision whether or not it might worth it for me, but I'd not give up my APS-C bodies. I'd love the ability to shoot ISO 6400 and beyond with little regard for noise.

I'm sure that many purists look down on Pentax for the multi-colored K-x marketing scheme, but purists don't make up the bulk of the market as it is developing now. I would think that Pentax USA has decided to expand the range of colors that are available in the US because there has been success with them in the Asian market. I seem to remember lot more Pentaxians scoffing at the "Storm Trooper" K2000 than the muticolored Kx. . . maybe this is a sign that times are changing -- as they inevitably do. I'm sure that these same shooters also look down on having Alex Agassi and Ashton Kutcher as the faces most associated with their respective brands to the general public, but Canon and Nikon bean counters don't seem to mind. . .what works -- works.

As far as the plastic lens mounts for kit lenses, I believe that both Canon and Nikon have offered kit/low-end lenses with plastic mounts to shave the price for the entry level buyers whose primary concern is price, but I'm sure you already knew this as a knowledgeable camera guy. . . This is neither new nor something to crow over.

I'm answering your snarky post to address the misinformation that your post contains or implies. I'll look for a real response in a few years to give you some time to grow up. . .

Scott