[Angevinn]

K-7 does OK, but probably more critical success than sales success. In the month of April 2010, K-7 ranks 55th and 69th in DSLR sales chart in Japan; despite price drop.

The Pentax K-7 hasn't done too badly in US sales (I believe in the US it hit the top ten in Amazon DSLR sales), I'd be willing to bet that it did well in Europe too. You need to look at overall worldwide sales, not just one particular region like Japan. Some Japanese were turned off to Pentax for the work Pentax did with a Korean firm, Samsung.

To be honest, K-7 has enough features for most users. And most people would not move beyond that category. Pentax can produce a 7D/D300 class camera if they want; but it would be a for a niche market. And the demand for moving up from APS-C to FF is simply too small - especially beyond the boundary of this forum and dpreview.

IMO, Canon overshot the mark with the 7D. After the release of the 7D, Canon had to quickly release firmware updates for it to fix a number of technical bugs. Canon does have the "Cock of the block" with the 7D, but a nicely spec'd and similarly priced FF DSLR could easily clobber it. I wouldn't say that demand is too small or beyond the boundary of this forum. The last user poll on this forum showed that most users are interested in an affordable FF camera. Look up the poll on this forum.

Some users need or want a FF, but that's a minority; and not near enough volume to sustain the high cost development of FF.

Have you conducted marketing research to prove this? I'm sure Hoya/Pentax has. Photokina will clear up everything. The patent application that was posted a few days ago and the lack of any new DA lenses should give you a hint at the direction Hoya/Pentax is moving.

And why would you assume Pentax FF would be well received? I won't be totally surprised by complaints about poor AF, banding, poor dynamic range... and it would probably be shredded to pieces by R*ce H*gh.

I believe a FF Pentax DSLR and a Pentax EVIL camera would both be very well received. lice sty is a joke. If Hoya/Pentax is worried about that loser than Hoya/Pentax needs to close up shop. It's obvious that thing is all about Pentax bashing, through its thinly veiled "reviews". Are you one in the same?

On the contrary, they had a great year in 2008 with A200/300/350. They hit a home run with those trio, establishing as a solid #3 in Japan. But somehow they made a blunder in their follow-ups, perhaps the most fatal was the lack of HD movies in their entire line-ups. It just shows how fast the industry can change, from riches to rags with a blink of the eye. This also happened to Pentax going from K10D/K100D to K20D/K200D/K-m.

The industry does move quickly. The true influence of Hoya on Pentax became apparent with the release of the K-X and K-7. Both are successes.
The K20D/K200D/K-m were the last vestiges of the old Pentax. The Pentax that was done in by poor business decisions, like not releasing the MF 645D or a FF DSLR.

Warm Regards,

A.

[aliquis]

Out of the standard 50mm 1.4 lenses from Nikon (G), Canon, Pentax (FA 50) and Sony (Minolta 1.4 50mm) the Sony is not that great.

Another unfavorable Sony lens review (35mm 1.4 G):

Well, since I'm looking at all systems I must say that Nikons current prime setup seem to suck, at large.

Canon got much more to choose from and often at better prices.

The 35mm canon and nikon primes don't seem that impressive and nikon have removed their 28 or whatever it was. They have very little to choose from.

Also looking at macros canons are much cheaper because the 100mm can be bought without is and with is and L-class. The nikon 105mm only with VR.

Similar I think Nikon may only have 70-200/2.8 but no /4, while Canon does.


But then again I don't know if I should are for primes. They seem popular around here but it gets expensive with all the lenses and maybe zooms would be sufficient, less to carry. But I like the out of focus backgrounds :/

I think that Pentax may have a better prime selection than Nikon. Lacks glass compared to Canon though.

And Olympus zooms seem to own but the sensor is small and they cost more than everything else

But one can get 14-35 + 35-100 f/2 zooms from olympus

[Lance B]

To be honest, K-7 has enough features for most users. And most people would not move beyond that category. Pentax can produce a 7D/D300 class camera if they want; but it would be a for a niche market. And the demand for moving up from APS-C to FF is simply too small - especially beyond the boundary of this forum and dpreview.

Some users need or want a FF, but that's a minority; and not near enough volume to sustain the high cost development of FF.

And why would you assume Pentax FF would be well received? I won't be totally surprised by complaints about poor AF, banding, poor dynamic range... and it would probably be shredded to pieces by R*ce H*gh.

It is irrelevent whether people want FF or not. If the price of FF sensors reduces enough, then they will creep down the price tree and find their way into main stream cameras. It is the same argument that was forwarded when people said they didn't need 15Mp but it was foisted upon us due to marketing pressures. At the end of the day, FF has a generally better IQ and therefore will always be the preferred option all other things being equal.

Also, if Canon and Nikon and Sony produce a FF camera at the price, about US$1,500, of a current high end APS C camera and near the same size and weight, are you really going to purchase an APS C camera in preference if you were prepared to spend that amount anyway?

[ogl]

Also, if Canon and Nikon and Sony produce a FF camera at the price, about US$1,500, of a current high end APS C camera and near the same size and weight, are you really going to purchase an APS C camera in preference if you were prepared to spend that amount anyway?

Lance, I know that you have some info about new cameras this years...Any hints?

[Angevinn]

Hi Aliquis,

You are right, Nikon is very expensive. The quality is there but you can find quality in a lot of other camera makers too like Pentax. You seem to be interested in primes. If you do not need dedicated flash support Pentax DSLR's can handle older Nikkor lenses very, very well and the results are excellent. I have a collection of Nikon Nikkor lenses (pre-Ai, AI & AI-S). The Nikkor AI & AI-S lenses were the best lenses Nikon ever made. Pre-AI mount easily, but with the AI and AI-S lenses you will need to Dremel the indexing notches down on the lens mount to make it smooth and even allowing it to mount.

After that, the lens will attach to a Pentax DSLR without the need for an adapter. Depending on the lens you may get it to clear the Pentax mount's locking pin. You will need to have the Pentax DSLR in AV mode to read available light from the lens. If you want to use flash you will need a flash meter and some trial and error adjusting the shutter speed and aperture. The sad thing about Nikon is that you can use these old Nikon lenses much easier on a Pentax DSLR than you can a modern Nikon DSLR.

Check out the Nikon Lens Club here on this forum:

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-slr-lens-discussion/60225-nikkor-lens-club.html

If this is something that interests you here is the holy grail for Nikon lens information and production numbers:

Nikon Lens Serial Nos

If you attach a pre-AI lens to a current Nikon DSLR (except the motorless D40) you will seriously damage the camera. The AI & AI-S lenses cannot be used in a true AV mode on a Nikon DSLR because the older Ai & AI-S lenses are not computer chipped. So you have to set the Nikon DSLR to display a histogram, read the levels and set the shutter and aperture accordingly. What a pain and slow!

When I was still shooting Nikon film cameras I bought the the 50mm 1.4 D (D was the computer chipped version introduced in the early 90's) in 1992 or 1993 for around $225.00 from B&H. Fast forward to digital and the current Nikon 50mm 1.4 G (G for digital) will set you back almost $500.00! The performance of the new G lens isn't that much better than the older D lens. Some people still prefer the D lens.

Here's a comparison:

Nikon Nikkor Lens Comparison 50mm f/1.4D vs. 50mm f/1.4G

There is another comparison on the web comparing the new Nikon G 1.4 50mm to the much older pre-AI Nikkor 50mm 1.4 from the late 1960's or early 70's. The results might surprise you. I thought I bookmarked the page but I can't find it now and I can't seem to pull it up through Google. The older Nikkor primes are sharp and very well built. Check them out!

I believe when Pentax unveils its FF DSLR at Photokina or early next year there will be some great new D-FA primes. Pentax has a lot to offer, and more is coming!

Well, since I'm looking at all systems I must say that Nikons current prime setup seem to suck, at large.

Canon got much more to choose from and often at better prices.

The 35mm canon and nikon primes don't seem that impressive and nikon have removed their 28 or whatever it was. They have very little to choose from.

Also looking at macros canons are much cheaper because the 100mm can be bought without is and with is and L-class. The nikon 105mm only with VR.

Similar I think Nikon may only have 70-200/2.8 but no /4, while Canon does.


But then again I don't know if I should are for primes. They seem popular around here but it gets expensive with all the lenses and maybe zooms would be sufficient, less to carry. But I like the out of focus backgrounds :/

I think that Pentax may have a better prime selection than Nikon. Lacks glass compared to Canon though.

And Olympus zooms seem to own but the sensor is small and they cost more than everything else

But one can get 14-35 + 35-100 f/2 zooms from olympus

[nosnoop]

It is irrelevent whether people want FF or not.

I don't agree with this view, as consumer's demand dictates how well the camera would sell.

At the end of the day, FF has a generally better IQ and therefore will always be the preferred option all other things being equal.

But that's the whole point, it will NOT be equal! No matter how much price drop FF has, APS-C will ALWAYS be cheaper. The price gap may narrow somewhat, but the gap would still be very significant in the foreseeable future.

[gazonk]

But that's the whole point, it will NOT be equal! No matter how much price drop FF has, APS-C will ALWAYS be cheaper. The price gap may narrow somewhat, but the gap would still be very significant in the foreseeable future.

I'm not sure about that, it depends on a lot of things. If FF sensor prices sink, sales numbers for a high-level APS-C body vs. a similar specced FF body may be more important for price than the sensor price. And also, if they can charge more for FF lenses than APS-C lenses, the camera makers may decide to sell FF bodies with considerably lower margins.

[Supernaut]

But that's the whole point, it will NOT be equal! No matter how much price drop FF has, APS-C will ALWAYS be cheaper. The price gap may narrow somewhat, but the gap would still be very significant in the foreseeable future.

When the price gap decreases, there will be a point where a low spec FF can be had for the same money as a high spec aps-c. As I see it, Pentax will more easily develop a simple FF than a 7D-killer.

[mattdm]

I'm not sure about that, it depends on a lot of things. If FF sensor prices sink, sales numbers for a high-level APS-C body vs. a similar specced FF body may be more important for price than the sensor price.

Meanwhile, the image quality difference between APS-C and full-frame will shrink — look at all the research going into getting quality images out of a cell phone camera. I know, Actual Physics comes into it, but I heard similar arguments for why we'd never have CPU clock speeds higher than 200Mhz. Sure, full-frame will always have an edge, but as image quality increases in general, the relative difference decreases, just as it will with price.

Sooooo, it really comes down to marketing, not to technology. And full-frame is definitely a marketing advantage. I'm just gonna be sad if it kills off non-entry-level cameras the size of the K-7.

[gazonk]

I'm just gonna be sad if it kills off non-entry-level cameras the size of the K-7.

But don't you think that FF cameras soon could be made in approximate K-7 size?

Anyway, I will be very tempted by an APS-C K-7 successor if it keeps all the good features and adds a little better high ISO, probably more tempted by that than by a FF camera. I'm completely hooked on the DA35 these days, and I wouldn't mind a new body to mount on it :-)

[Lance B]

Lance, I know that you have some info about new cameras this years...Any hints?

No, I really wish I did have inside info, but I don't.

I asked Ned B whether Pentax is going to introduce a FF DSLR but he said that he cannot say one way or the other. In my book, that means yes, but this is pure specualtion on my part. Previously, Pentax have denied any move to a FF sensor but a non committal this time by Ned seems to suggest to me that may be there is a FF camera in the pipeline otherwise he would have flatly denied it like Pentax have previously. Let's hope it is a fact.

[ogl]

No, I really wish I did have inside info, but I don't.

I asked Ned B whether Pentax is going to introduce a FF DSLR but he said that he cannot say one way or the other. In my book, that means yes, but this is pure specualtion on my part. Previously, Pentax have denied any move to a FF sensor but a non committal this time by Ned seems to suggest to me that may be there is a FF camera in the pipeline otherwise he would have flatly denied it like Pentax have previously. Let's hope it is a fact.

My source says that Pentax FF will be.
Optimistic forecast - Photokina 2010.
Non-optimistic - Winter, 2011.

I also have info that K-7 has no strong replacement this year. Just something like K-7 super. Maybe.

But, I can't trust 100% to this source.

[WMBP]

Meanwhile, the image quality difference between APS-C and full-frame will shrink — look at all the research going into getting quality images out of a cell phone camera. I know, Actual Physics comes into it, but I heard similar arguments for why we'd never have CPU clock speeds higher than 200Mhz. Sure, full-frame will always have an edge, but as image quality increases in general, the relative difference decreases, just as it will with price.

This is, I think, critical.

Absolute image quality isn't everything, and once a camera can take "extraordinarily good" photos, people like me who think of cameras as tools to make money aren't going to go out and spend a ton of money for an improvement in image quality that is so small you have to view images at 100% to see it. If absolute image quality were all that mattered, nobody would be using full-frame cameras: they'd all be buying medium format digital cameras.

Sooooo, it really comes down to marketing, not to technology. And full-frame is definitely a marketing advantage. I'm just gonna be sad if it kills off non-entry-level cameras the size of the K-7.

Me, too.

Will

[aliquis]

but I heard similar arguments for why we'd never have CPU clock speeds higher than 200Mhz.

Atleast we stopped putting it into good use by then ;D

Nowadays it's all used up to render flash banners and heavy AJAX applications anyway ;D


I remember seeing a clip with a what was then "modern PC" or mac or something against something like a mac classic.

Both machines where turned on, writer application launched, something written and saved or if it was printed, everything quit and turned off.

The old machine did it faster.



Sure the new apps got more options (and bloat ...) but how many people really need it and put it to good use?

[Lance B]

Meanwhile, the image quality difference between APS-C and full-frame will shrink — look at all the research going into getting quality images out of a cell phone camera.

True, but the same advantages applied to APS C sensors to better the IQ can be applied to FF making the difference the same once again. The laws of physics stipulate that the advantages will always be there, so if APS C looks good at ISO 3200, then FF will look good at say, ISO5000 which will be great for capturing low light fast moving images.

Sooooo, it really comes down to marketing, not to technology. And full-frame is definitely a marketing advantage. I'm just gonna be sad if it kills off non-entry-level cameras the size of the K-7.

I can guarantee that entry level cameras will still be small, like the K-7, because there is a market that dictates that size of camera. In fact, the APS C sensored camera will still be very much used for the foreseeable future, IMO.