[jsherman999]

Wow, i hadn't read that before or i'm snoozing too much. Great news. an example of making an existing market niche much bigger. Obviously, there was an untapped demand for a much lower cost MF camera. Who could have guessed - i remember all the doom and gloom on this forum before the 645D got to market.

Go Ricoh/Pentax!!!

That would be great news... but I haven't heard it either. Pal, what is your source for those 645D sales figures? Worldwide MFD sales before the 645D were 6000 units/year from all manufacturers, and this would mean the 645D is shipping at least 6000 units per year now... Possible I guess, but that would be the first I've heard that.


.

.

[falconeye]

It appears that Sony has already made their deal with Nikon, which largely came at the expense of Sony's FF efforts, leaving probably no room for another party like Pentax.

I suspect that the deal between Nikon (design) and Sony (manufacture) excludes FF sensors going to another company.

I'd say Sony is the only good sensor source for Pentax, be it APSC or FF. Sony has a track record for not making exclusive deals. Their sensor business is rather independent. What they did though is give some customers (Nikon) a head start with some of the sensors, like the one going into the D90 which later was made available for Pentax going into their K-x. This lead time was not repeated for the K-5 sensor which Sony, Nikon and Pentax were all allowed to use at the same time.

There is little to none Nikon design expertise in the previous Sony FF sensor and I don't see this to be different now. After all, they just need to double the area of the K-5 sensor. I assume Sony offered the FF sensor to Hoya but that wasn't on their agenda (busy to sell to Ricoh).

You may be right that it may be a bit tough for Pentax to get access to a the new Sony FF sensors. But that shouldn't matter. They need to prepare a body and lens strategy too. So, a year delay is ok and Sony will then most likely give it to Pentax too.

Disclaimer: All this is purely speculative ...

[Pål Jensen]

You may be right that it may be a bit tough for Pentax to get access to a the new Sony FF sensors. But that shouldn't matter. They need to prepare a body and lens strategy too. So, a year delay is ok and Sony will then most likely give it to Pentax too.

Disclaimer: All this is purely speculative ...

I belive that getting a sensor is simply a matter of paying for it. If it's not available off the shelf then you can pay someone to make it for you.
However, the issue is whether Pentax can make an FF camera and make a profit on it. The fact that none exist so far means that they can't yet.

[falconeye]

However, the issue is whether Pentax can make an FF camera and make a profit on it. The fact that none exist so far means that they can't yet.

Possibly.
But I am pretty sure Hoya was rather cautious when it came to investing. They did the 645D which probably exhausted all entrepreneurship and I agree with you, a Pentax-FF wouldn't have been a no brainer.

[jsherman999]

However, the issue is whether Pentax can make an FF camera and make a profit on it. The fact that none exist so far means that they can't yet.

No, it doesn't necessarily mean that. It could mean that the ROI was too far out for a small company like Pentax to safely find cheap finance for, or to get internal political backing and executive sponsorship for, or too far out for a larger company like Hoya who didn't plan on keeping the imaging division long enough to even realize ROI, and who's FF initiative might not come back to them 1:1 in a sale price before it's fully implemented.

Contrast: A huge company like Ricoh who does care about building an interchangeable lens camera business and who can pay cash (if they wanted to) for a FF push - and who can easily wait for the ROI, aiming at an established presence in an emerging Asian market for decades to come.



.

[Blue]

Possibly.
But I am pretty sure Hoya was rather cautious when it came to investing. They did the 645D which probably exhausted all entrepreneurship and I agree with you, a Pentax-FF wouldn't have been a no brainer.

It appears to me that the only thing the Hoya boys did was give Pentax the go ahead o projects already in existence, i.e. the 645D and Q as well as lenses that were released. My guess is that there was a prototype for a ff but it got the red light from Hoya.

[RonHendriks1966]

I would like to see an expanded lineup for Pentax. Maybe a model like the K-5 without weatherproofing to fill the gap between the K-5 and K-r. And then a full frame model, a full frame with weatherproofing, and a medium format without weatherproofing to fill the huge gap between the K-5 and 645D.

I really think the sale to Ricoh is a good thing and have hope for a more aggressive sales plan and a faster R&D to store shelf roadmap.

Well I hope that in future Pentax goes in the direction of all wheater sealed lenses and camera's. Make it the outdoors camerabrand. That is a good salespoint. I was standing a time ago at an event where there was soem drizzle and my friend had to put away her Nikon D5000. If I had a K-r I would have to, but in future it should be just simple, No worry''s with Pentax in bad wheater!.

For your cameraline: Just some more models would be great.

• For 645D the current camera is already entry level, so a model above it makes sence. That is two options in 645D.
• A Full Frame camera would be great (and a must). (Personally a APS-H would also be good).
• A top of the line APS-C camera above K-5 in specs would be great.
• In APS-c current camera's K-5 and K-r are fine, just successors with some improvements are fine.
• An entry level under K-r, well I don't know since this is only a succes when you sell them like cupcakes.

Makes it two 645D, a Full Frame and 4 APS-C models. And then there is Q. That is a lot!

[RonHendriks1966]

Any thoughts about a K-mount video camera? Is this a road to go or is that field taken by other company's?

[Pål Jensen]

It appears to me that the only thing the Hoya boys did was give Pentax the go ahead o projects already in existence, i.e. the 645D and Q as well as lenses that were released. My guess is that there was a prototype for a ff but it got the red light from Hoya.

It is clear even before Hoya that Pentax had a clear APS strategy judging from the lenses they released.
The market is not moving towards larger sensors (why should it? Smaller sensors are only getting better) but smaller ones. Whereas the idea of APS as a compomise in the early days of digital was a natural one, the current situation proves that APS is the new "standard" format replacing 35mm. My guess is that FF share of the DSLR market is probably on the decrease....

[Blue]

It is clear even before Hoya that Pentax had a clear APS strategy judging from the lenses they released.
The market is not moving towards larger sensors (why should it? Smaller sensors are only getting better) but smaller ones. Whereas the idea of APS as a compomise in the early days of digital was a natural one, the current situation proves that APS is the new "standard" format replacing 35mm. My guess is that FF share of the DSLR market is probably on the decrease....

APS-C being the standard is sort of a fact at present whether people are willing to except that officially or not. I would like to see the standard be around aps-h but different from the exact Cannon size, . The problem with aps-c being standard is that there are 3 basic ones, Pentax/Nikon/Sony (~ 1.5x), Canon (~1.6x), and Sigma (~1.7x).

[Aristophanes]

I'd say Sony is the only good sensor source for Pentax, be it APSC or FF. Sony has a track record for not making exclusive deals. Their sensor business is rather independent. What they did though is give some customers (Nikon) a head start with some of the sensors, like the one going into the D90 which later was made available for Pentax going into their K-x. This lead time was not repeated for the K-5 sensor which Sony, Nikon and Pentax were all allowed to use at the same time.

There is little to none Nikon design expertise in the previous Sony FF sensor and I don't see this to be different now. After all, they just need to double the area of the K-5 sensor. I assume Sony offered the FF sensor to Hoya but that wasn't on their agenda (busy to sell to Ricoh).

You may be right that it may be a bit tough for Pentax to get access to a the new Sony FF sensors. But that shouldn't matter. They need to prepare a body and lens strategy too. So, a year delay is ok and Sony will then most likely give it to Pentax too.

Disclaimer: All this is purely speculative ...

Yes, all speculative.

But the dominant evidence is provided by Sony's issuance of the A850 and its sudden non-existence. This may have something to do with Nikon's ability to out-market Sony in the FF market; so Sony dedicates FF supply to Nikon and re-tools for NEX and other projects. Sony clearly had a strategic decision to make in being an industrial supplier to a competitor at large profits, or suffer losses supplying itself. Clearly someone at Sony's Head Office made that prioritization.

I can see Sony making a strategic decision to be a turnkey FF supplier to Nikon as a hedge against Canon, but not to 2 FF competitors, including a new entrant Pentax. That does not make sense. Sony did not exit its FF entry-level to make room for Pentax as a commodity CMOS FF sensor supplier; Sony likely made a partial exit to leverage an extended agreement with Nikon who can deliver. The A900 remains in production or NOS to keep some FF loyalty.

Sony will re-enter when Nikon and Canon have grown the market and driven fab costs lower through their incremental volumes. Pentax cannot do that. Sony can with a FF mirrorless, which is the speculation around Sony for 2012. Let Nikon blood the new sensors in DSLR's while Sony tries something different. The last thing Sony wants is Pentax in the mix with low volumes and separate technical demands.

Unit sales for FF are so low there is really space only for 2 players for the foreseeable future. Pentax cannot enter the FF market and make it bigger as Sony failed coming from a much larger installed base with superior distribution and marketing. There is a very limited # of consumers willing or able to spend over $2,000 for a FF DSLR body, especially when the whole future of the DSLR vs. mirrorless is a factor.

And the whole "Asian market" hype is nonsense. It's still a playing field where Canon and Nikon have huge leads already. Pentax has no competitive advantage there nor market opportunity where others have failed or been lax.

[jsherman999]

Yes, all speculative.

But the dominant evidence is provided by Sony's issuance of the A850 and its sudden non-existence. This may have something to do with Nikon's ability to out-market Sony in the FF market; so Sony dedicates FF supply to Nikon and re-tools for NEX and other projects. Sony clearly had a strategic decision to make in being an industrial supplier to a competitor at large profits, or suffer losses supplying itself. Clearly someone at Sony's Head Office made that prioritization.

I can see Sony making a strategic decision to be a turnkey FF supplier to Nikon as a hedge against Canon, but not to 2 FF competitors, including a new entrant Pentax. That does not make sense. Sony did not exit its FF entry-level to make room for Pentax as a commodity CMOS FF sensor supplier; Sony likely made a partial exit to leverage an extended agreement with Nikon who can deliver. The A900 remains in production or NOS to keep some FF loyalty.

Sony will re-enter when Nikon and Canon have grown the market and driven fab costs lower through their incremental volumes. Pentax cannot do that. Sony can with a FF mirrorless, which is the speculation around Sony for 2012. Let Nikon blood the new sensors in DSLR's while Sony tries something different. The last thing Sony wants is Pentax in the mix with low volumes and separate technical demands.

Unit sales for FF are so low there is really space only for 2 players for the foreseeable future. Pentax cannot enter the FF market and make it bigger as Sony failed coming from a much larger installed base with superior distribution and marketing. There is a very limited # of consumers willing or able to spend over $2,000 for a FF DSLR body, especially when the whole future of the DSLR vs. m
mirrorless is a factor.

A speculative house of cards, teetering on collapse, but wonderful while it stands.

Especially the distinction made between the A850 and A900 - Nikon was OK with one, but not the other? And what of the rumors of more Sony FF bodies in 2012?

How did Nikon pull this exclusive deal off? Threaten to go to another manufacturer for it's sensors?

It may be possible that Sony just didn't see the point of having two FF models so close together in specs, but different in price, especially when they may be coming out with something new in 2012 to fit into the A850 space. And I still can't see how it's in any way to Sony's advantage to refuse sensor business from Pentax, or anybody.

And the whole "Asian market" hype is nonsense. It's still a playing field where Canon and Nikon have huge leads already. Pentax has no competitive advantage there nor market opportunity where others have failed or been lax.

Ricoh doesn't seem to find it so barren.


.


.

[loveisageless]

Add to this that current FF cameras are largish (to give the customer a lot of size/weight per dollar & allowing "pro" ownership pride to develop) and Pentax has excelled in producing small cameras then there seems to be a window of opportunity for Pentax to be first with an economically priced and very compact FF camera that mounts lenses that do not cost an arm and a leg.

I don't know that I agree with this somewhat patronizing view of the reason current FF cameras are "largish" or why customers buy them. One of the benefits of a larger body is stability when using heavier lenses. One can use a Nikon D700 without a grip and not even need a stabilized lens. A smaller camera with a large lens needs a grip to improve balance even with SR. I found this to be particularly true with my K7 when using the DA* 50-135mm. I have been seeing a lot of Nikon users try the D7000 and then sell them in favor of the D300S because they found the D7000 too small to balance well (even with a grip). I don't think of my D700 in weight per dollar terms and I am not deluded enough to think that the mere fact of having one makes me more like a "pro". I bought it for its larger body, high ISO capability and stablized lenses. The bonus was excellent AF and finding that I could get better results from an unstabilized Tamron 28-75mm lens with it, than I could ever achieve with the SR in my K7 body. I for one would be delighted if Pentax came out with a K20 size body again whether FF or APS-C. I have found that the weight of a larger camera is forgotten when I am excited about the IQ of the photos it takes. For the record, I am female, 5'2'' tall and have small hands.

[fikkser]

I don't know that I agree with this somewhat patronizing view of the reason current FF cameras are "largish" or why customers buy them. One of the benefits of a larger body is stability when using heavier lenses..

I have been seeing a lot of Nikon users try the D7000 and then sell them in favor of the D300S because they found the D7000 too small to balance well (even with a grip).

Some people never use big lenses. Why not make a small camera and sell a lead grip to the simple brutes wanting to be as the canikonians?

I've always thought of balance to depend on weight and not size. D7000 with a grip is both bigger and heavier than a d300s. So either way it doesn't add up to me.

[kent]

I love females