[ManuH]

Those market share numbers are not static, and would probably move in another tier.

This is assuming that the Pentax FF would be unique enough to be desirable by other people than old Pentaxians. Not an easy task as Sony found out. The A900/A850 flop is quite a lesson for Pentax. That's why I think than rather resurrecting old FA* zooms, they should concentrate on what makes them unique: compact bodies, small Ltd primes, low-price good features. I think there is a market for advanced amateur wanting a small high-performing kit. As has been already said many times It's not trying to overdo Canon and Nikon they can succeed.

Imagine this: a K-1 WR with a good sensor in a body not as much bigger than a K-5. Same smooth shutter. SR. Bring back the mechanical coupling for old lenses. Now release this with an updated line of FA Limited: D-FA 31, 43 and 77. Add quick-shift. Add maybe a 20mm f/4 ltd. Release small high performing f/4 zooms rather than the big bulky f/2.8 ones. Those can come later, much later.

That way the K-1 can end up in a Canon/Nikon bag. It can become a complementary system rather than a competing one.

[jsherman999]

This is assuming that the Pentax FF would be unique enough to be desirable by other people than old Pentaxians. Not an easy task as Sony found out. The A900/A850 flop is quite a lesson for Pentax. That's why I think than rather resurrecting old FA* zooms, they should concentrate on what makes them unique: compact bodies, small Ltd primes, low-price good features. I think there is a market for advanced amateur wanting a small high-performing kit. As has been already said many times It's not trying to overdo Canon and Nikon they can succeed.

Imagine this: a K-1 WR with a good sensor in a body not as much bigger than a K-5. Same smooth shutter. SR. Bring back the mechanical coupling for old lenses. Now release this with an updated line of FA Limited: D-FA 31, 43 and 77. Add quick-shift. Add maybe a 20mm f/4 ltd. Release small high performing f/4 zooms rather than the big bulky f/2.8 ones. Those can come later, much later.

That way the K-1 can end up in a Canon/Nikon bag. It can become a complementary system rather than a competing one.

I feel like I'm reading one of my Pentax-FF posts!

However one of the problems Sony had was lack of available lenses. Pentax will need to offer the big f/2.8 zooms to accelerate ROI and make the kit seem viable to the average FF shopper, I'm afraid. But, yes - the high-quality f/4 zooms is something Canon offers, but Nikon really doesn't. Pentax perhaps could keep SR in the body, making the f4 lenses a bit smaller than Canon's... Add in the rather unique FA Limiteds, and you begin to have a very interesting alternative in FF.


.

[Blue]

If people vote with their $$$'s, then quantitative economics says yes. After all someone actually had to make the effort to go to a MickeD's and place an order from a menu list of items.

Actually it would be a false assumption without taking into account at least 3 things, cheap, fast, and a McDumby's on every corner and more being built. Those things don't make it better. A commercial success yes. Good, well that is subjective and depends on who you ask.

[Aristophanes]

Actually it would be a false assumption without taking into account at least 3 things, cheap, fast, and a McDumby's on every corner and more being built. Those things don't make it better. A commercial success yes. Good, well that is subjective and depends on who you ask.

You're missing the point or are ignorant of economics.

It's not about subjective quality if there's exchange (money) at stake. Cheap and fast (and fat) and available are qualitative arguments. Argue yerself blue about them.

The Big Mac has sold the most so economically it IS the best hamburger ever, because the only metric that can be agreed upon is that they make enough money to make more Big Macs in perpetuity, the Laws of Thermodynamics applicable, but not a false assumption.

Pentax would not exist if that commercial success "assumption" was not the norm. Hardly false. It's the basis of commerce.

[Blue]

You're missing the point or are ignorant of economics.

It's not about subjective quality if there's exchange (money) at stake. Cheap and fast (and fat) and available are qualitative arguments. Argue yerself blue about them.

The Big Mac has sold the most so economically it IS the best hamburger ever, because the only metric that can be agreed upon is that they make enough money to make more Big Macs in perpetuity, the Laws of Thermodynamics applicable, but not a false assumption.

Pentax would not exist if that commercial success "assumption" was not the norm. Hardly false. It's the basis of commerce.

Your ignorant or missing the point if you think a big mac is better than a $5.99 burger for $4.99 at hardees just because McDonalds have sold 5 million of them since the beginning. If you go back and reread my post, you will see that I said it is arguably the most economically successful of all time. The Best and Most economically Successful are mutually exclusive. That said, McD wouldn't survive with it alone or only 2 other sandwiches on the menu. By your own logic, you should believe the K1000 is a better camera than the Leica M3 rangefinder. (I might agree with you on that one. )

When someone disagrees with you its an argument but I suppose you are a Greek philosopher. Why is it there are several folks around here that participate in the News and Rumors forum and then like to bitch about the debate aspects of the discussions. That was rhetorical. I assure you I am not blue in the face.

[Blue]

Back to the year old OP, I don't think most of us realistically expected any contemporary aps-c body, K-5, D7000 or 7d to dethrone the ff D700.

[falconeye]

It could mean that a Pentax FF would have 5% of 5% = 0,25% !

0.25% = 25000 units or 50M$ revenue. That's actually good enough for such an easy development.
The point though would be to up both 5% figures (e.g., a well-executed FF K-1 could score better than 5% among Pentaxians, I guess).

But then this thread is a zombie, why do I reply?

[Aristophanes]

The Best and Most economically Successful are mutually exclusive.

Not if you're a McDonald's shareholder, employee, supplier, or creditor, they are not.

The only false assumption is the insistence of YOUR perspective. Just because YOU say a relationship is mutually exclusive does not mean that this is true for ALL perspectives.

When someone disagrees with you in an argument, it's because you cannot escape from your own circular reasoning. Just because you think they are mutually exclusive, doesn't mean they are.

An economist cuts through that by looking at where people vote with their $$$. By economic stats, the Big Mac is the best hamburger ever because it probably returned more profit to more shareholders than any other burger in history. I cannot ever get consensus on whether it tastes the best, but that's a moot subjective. It sold the best. It sold the best even if all 5 million who bought it thought it tasted like crap. 1,000 year from now is someone is doing a thesis on food habits of our generation, and they want to write their piece on the best hamburger, if the #'s are still around, they'll easily be able to say which hamburger was the best over the last 20 years, and prove it using sales data, because you will not be around to argue with them.

Why do you think marketers religiously use the terms best-selling or best-in-class rather than simply the best? Because they can defend themselves against false advertising by rolling out sales data or checklists of comparative features per pricing unit. You can argue until you are blue about the term best being subjective and mutually exclusive, and the guy holding McD stock merely looks at his 20 year profit return to know better.

[RonHendriks1966]

0.25% = 25000 units or 50M$ revenue. That's actually good enough for such an easy development.
The point though would be to up both 5% figures (e.g., a well-executed FF K-1 could score better than 5% among Pentaxians, I guess).

But then this thread is a zombie, why do I reply?

Well that is still what I think. When sales are on that number you can make a productionline for 2.000 units a month (something between 2000 and 2500). I guess that these numbers can be sold for the coming 3-4 years.

Just figure what to put in. New AF unit. New processor and electronic lay-out. New body-design. Maybe even a new SR-system (or an upgrade from current one). Al those new things can also go into K-3 and 645D-II.

[riff]

Well I guess that settles it then.

The iphone is a better camera than anything for pe/n/ica
And the Kodak Instamatic is probably the best camera ever!!!!!!
OR maybe those camera things in a cardboard box are even better.

A Pentax FF would be sweet but my guess is that Pentax continues to improve asp-c.

Regards

[Blue]

Well I guess that settles it then.

The iphone is a better camera than anything for pe/n/ica
And the Kodak Instamatic is probably the best camera ever!!!!!!
OR maybe those camera things in a cardboard box are even better.

A Pentax FF would be sweet but my guess is that Pentax continues to improve asp-c.

Regards

[Blue]

Not if you're a McDonald's shareholder, employee, supplier, or creditor, they are not.

The only false assumption is the insistence of YOUR perspective. Just because YOU say a relationship is mutually exclusive does not mean that this is true for ALL perspectives.

When someone disagrees with you in an argument, it's because you cannot escape from your own circular reasoning. Just because you think they are mutually exclusive, doesn't mean they are.

An economist cuts through that by looking at where people vote with their $$$. By economic stats, the Big Mac is the best hamburger ever because it probably returned more profit to more shareholders than any other burger in history. I cannot ever get consensus on whether it tastes the best, but that's a moot subjective. It sold the best. It sold the best even if all 5 million who bought it thought it tasted like crap. 1,000 year from now is someone is doing a thesis on food habits of our generation, and they want to write their piece on the best hamburger, if the #'s are still around, they'll easily be able to say which hamburger was the best over the last 20 years, and prove it using sales data, because you will not be around to argue with them.

Why do you think marketers religiously use the terms best-selling or best-in-class rather than simply the best? Because they can defend themselves against false advertising by rolling out sales data or checklists of comparative features per pricing unit. You can argue until you are blue about the term best being subjective and mutually exclusive, and the guy holding McD stock merely looks at his 20 year profit return to know better.

I like how you dodged the K1000 (25 year production span) and Leica M3 (12 year production span) comparison. By your logic, you have to agree that the K1000 is the best camera.

[Aristophanes]

And the Kodak Instamatic is probably the best camera ever!!!!!!

They took tens of millions of amazing photographs.

My mother's photo albums are full of them and I still remember getting one under the Christmas tree in 1973, and those photos are in the albums and look terrific.

Could be the best camera ever. Show me the sales stats.

[Aristophanes]

I like how you dodged the K1000 (25 year production span) and Leica M3 (12 year production span) comparison. By your logic, you have to agree that the K1000 is the best camera.

Ever tried to load film in an M3?

I'll take the K1000 on that metric alone.

Show me the sales stats.

[magkelly]

I say whatever works for you is fine by me, but I'm still saving my pennies for getting a K-5 descendant a few years down the road. I'd probably use a Nikon if I won it in a lottery or something and it came full equipped with lenses. (I'd sell a Canon...) Nikons are okay, but I'm already set up for using Pentax in terms of my current lenses and besides I like the looks of the K5 already. End of debate, shrug.