[falconeye]

Who moved this thread?

It was Parallax.

I even got a User Infraction for creating the thread. Despite the fact that the thread had a good rating (before the move -- now, the rating is gone) and despite the fact that my reputation exceeded that of the Mod. Anyway, I was always suspicious that the reputation system serves no purpose.

And I created the thread in the News section because I wanted to disclose (and discuss) a news item: that Pentax plans to remain silent on the full frame topic during Photokina. It took me some consideration to highlight that particular news bit and share this at all. But now, I feel I won't disclose stuff again.

---

Last edited by falconeye; 08-07-2010 at 03:17 AM.

[Class A]

I even got a User Infraction for creating the thread.

That's just wrong. Have you told Adam?

It took me some consideration to highlight that particular news bit and share this at all. But now, I feel I won't disclose stuff again.

Don't let your actions be influenced by an incompetent moderator.

[falconeye]

That's just wrong. Have you told Adam?

Yes. But he seems to be busy with technical stuff.

Don't let your actions be influenced by an incompetent moderator.

Why not? I do this for fun. And if it's no fun, I won't do it.

[Class A]

And if it's no fun, I won't do it.

I fully agree. But some people are too unimportant to spoil any fun.

Perhaps back to a fun topic: Do you know anything about the new Sony 16MP ""Column-Parallel A/D Conversion Technique"? I wonder whether this sensor is good news only.

[falconeye]

But some people are too unimportant to spoil any fun.

That doesn't include Mods...

Do you know anything about the new Sony 16MP ""Column-Parallel A/D Conversion Technique"? I wonder whether this sensor is good news only.

Isn't this an old site? I believe to have seen it a year ago already (I'm not sure though). The site mentions a 2006 paper award too. I think it describes any Exmor sensor, including that in the K-x.

I even got a User Infraction for creating the thread.

What - are you serious??? On what grounds?

[Aristophanes]

Again, let me repeat that this wasn't meant to launch yet another FF vs. APSC discussion.

It was about Pentax communication strategy in a situation where it becomes likely that the entire APSC dSLR market will move full frame some day (partly to counteract the SLDs).

Many expect or expected Pentax to say something about full frame at Photokina 2010. My News is that they don't plan to do so. And my proposed discussion is about the consequences of said silence. Not the benefits of APSC or FF...

Btw, I think that Pentax can wait for launching FF until it hits the $1500 price point. But I think it has to communicate this. Btw, I have reason to believe that Tokyo has ongoing full frame activity which isn't communicated even to other Pentax country organisations.

Pentax does not need to announce FF if there is little price movement from Canikon.

However, there are rumours floating in Nikonland that the D700 will continue at a lower price point and the replacement will be at the original price point. That could move the existing (no-video) D700 to below $US 2,000 which is a real problem for Sony and the APS-C, 4/3 crowd. Now that Nikon makes its own sensors, they have motivation to maximize that investment. I think Thom is wrong. The best way to amortize those fab costs is through volume, not high-end, price margin seclusion.

There is no doubt that Pentax has FF prototypes in the field. It would be irresponsible to shareholders not to.

Silence will cause an exodus of high-spending Pentaxians to other brands regardless. Pentax will bleed revenue and future revenues if they cannot keep up with their installed base. The nice thing is that most entrenched users are open to shorter product cycles and owning more than one body. So every loss is devastating, but retention magnifies sales. It may actually be cheaper to lose some $ on FF for a few years to retain the gross revenues and margins elsewhere.

[falconeye]

However, there are rumours floating in Nikonland that the D700 will continue at a lower price point and the replacement will be at the original price point. That could move the existing (no-video) D700 to below $US 2,000 which is a real problem for Sony and the APS-C, 4/3 crowd.

Currently, a D700 body sells for $2140 before VAT at respected German retailers when purchased online. So, that's not a big move yet.

You noticed my supercooled fluid example

It's a perfect analogy, actually. Look here:
[YT]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YuPfsAdEG2E[/YT]

I could explain in detail why the current situation with full frame sensors is the same. The market looks perfectly like it would be APSC. But a small perturbation only may make it jump into its FF equilibrium state.

I expect this jump to happen for the Xmas season 2011 and Pentax better be ready But super-critical phase transitions are impossible to predict. That's their nature.

[Class A]

Isn't this an old site?

I don't know. The Sony article doesn't feature a date.

BTW, are you sure you received an infraction?
Perhaps it was just a reminder about posting rules (in which case the moderator action would not be as bad as it first appeared to be).

[Pål Jensen]

Thanks for the laugh, I really needed that today. That would be like a Canon Rebel becoming the new go to camera for wedding photographers. Pentax is in 4th place in the MF arena, and will probably stay there. The 645d is not upgradable so will be of little interest to most pros. It may be of interest for someone just starting their studio, but if they are established they will stay with their Hasselblads, Mamiya, or Phase One. Not having a removable back pretty much relegates the 645d to high end amateur status (where the film 645 cameras were)

Pentax have made more 645D bodies so far than the whole accumulated MF digital sales world-wide last year.
You are wrong about the Pentax film MF cameras as well. They had up to 50% of the MF market and had the largest pro share in business at 50% as opposed to Hasseblads 20% (80% of Hasseblads was bought by amateurs).

[falconeye]

BTW, are you sure you received an infraction?

I'm no expert at this. This is what it looks like in my control panel:

User Infraction

Active WarningMisplaced Thread

Expires09:13 PM 08-16-10
Left ByParallax
09:13 PM 08-06-10

Adam replied and said he would inform the mods to move it back ...

[TaoMaas]

...there are rumours floating in Nikonland that the D700 will continue at a lower price point and the replacement will be at the original price point. That could move the existing (no-video) D700 to below $US 2,000 which is a real problem for Sony and the APS-C, 4/3 crowd.

Not only is it NOT a problem for this APS-C user, it's not even worthy of a sideways glance.

[lurchlarson]

With all due respect, professional photography is dying. Photojournalism is almost dead except for a very few elite shooters, and those that remain make far more money writing books about their work than what their clients pay them.

This advanced technology and the internet-based self-help system (like this forum) have levelled the playing field, as is being done in print journalism, music, sewing patterns, etc.

Same for the old standby wedding photography, and portraiture, etc. Photoshop is a also a great equalizer as is Facebook. Why pay mega-$$$ for a wedding shoot when it's JPEG's online forever? That's becoming a dominant methodology reducing the weeding photog income stream.

Purists may argue otherwise, iStockphoto sells vastly more work from amateurs who have mainline jobs than those of the Magnum class now.

The concept of "getting paid" for being a photographer is being replaced by getting paid for the photo, regardless of what the career label the photographer wears or aspires to.

Tax revenues from the photographic employment sector are way, way, way down, far below the levels that employed the mini-labs. It's now into the meat.

Pro Photography is dying but I still believe that people still want to hold on to the "pro" designation. Even if "Pro" is during more into "Luxury-Wizz-Bang-Features" that real "pro", it is a marketing gimmick that I believe still works when selling camera bodies. If Pentax doesn't sell a model that they call "pro" they need to market that their cameras Shoot pictures of "Pro-Quality". As stupid and in many ways meaningless as the pro label is today, it is a way for Pentax to pull in people and their money.

Face it, Pentax needs all the money they can get right now. Even if revenues are up they still need more if the camera division isn't going to get sold off. I just want the K-mount to survive.

[ogl]

16 MP APS-C with full HD video in body of K-7 is not my camera. Alas...
No FF camera and lenses, no future for Pentax.

[falconeye]

Pro Photography is dying but I still believe that people still want to hold on to the "pro" designation.

Ok, after this is the second mention of dying pro photography, I have two cents to add too

I think that pro photography is not dying. It's only in sharp transformation. Away from artistic photography (gallery photography, photo books, travel books etc.) Towards contract work.

To hire a good photographer for the "not-to-be-missed" photos (fashion, corporate event, wedding, article portrait, product shot, advertisement, restricted area photography) is still expensive exceeding the $1000/day threshold. But it is increasingly difficult to be regarded good enough to be hired.

Artistic photography can actually pay off to be regarded good enough, i.e., pays off indirectly.

But everything not on demand is covered by stock agency photography and a flood of amateur photographers. So far, with the noteworthy exception of erotic photography which, if done with high quality, can pay off directly via pay web sites. But there aren't pay web sites for other kinds of photography. Which is not that understandable as photo books used to be expensive.

Anyway, I don't see pro photography die. A professional photo still clearly stands out from the flood of amateur work. There are exceptions. But to pick the exceptional amateur is just as expensive as to hire a pro.