[TOUGEFC]

Staff note: This post may contain affiliate links, which means Pentax Forums may earn a small commission if a visitor clicks through and makes a purchase. If you would like to support the forum directly, you may also make a donation here.

---

Pentax has to provide an incentive for people to make the switch. So...what kind of camera would make you dump all your gear and start over?

If PENTAX made the worlds smallest full-featured full-frame SLR around the same size as the K-5, Im sure that alot of the ff canikon users would be tempted to switch.
Im always hearing and reading that ff shooters complaing about lugging around bulky and heavy kits.

[imgorthand]

Nikon and Canon own the FF market right now, yet it hasn't persuaded us to sell our Pentax gear and make the jump. I don't think that Nikon and Canon shooters are all that different from us. Pentax has to provide an incentive for people to make the switch. So...what kind of camera would make you dump all your gear and start over?

Well they did persuade some of us
After 2 years of using K-7 and waiting for a decent update I finally bought D700 last week. I sold almost all Pentax lenses, left only k-7 body with one lens. I can't part with it
But my future investment moved from Pentax to Nikon.
It just took too long. It was a hard decision.

[falconeye]

Frankly, I suspect the costs are about the same. In fact, I bet the Fuji hybrid optical system is more expensive.

I think you're about right describing the status quo.

However, with the cost of electronics (incl. the sensor) in a system camera to become marginal (and the shutter to become electronic too), I foresee mirrorless cameras to soon drop below $200 and become the new P&S business. I actually can already buy a E-PL1 new for 150€.

It is at that point entry-level dSLR (and APSC SLRs in general then) aren't competitive anymore. Not because of parts, but because of cost of labor involved in calibrating the AF system, the mirror and focus screen.

[Caat]

Nikon and Canon own the FF market right now, yet it hasn't persuaded us to sell our Pentax gear and make the jump. I don't think that Nikon and Canon shooters are all that different from us. Pentax has to provide an incentive for people to make the switch. So...what kind of camera would make you dump all your gear and start over?

Canon and Nikon do not have FF DSLRs in all segments. They occupy the professional workhorse segment with their vertical grip models and the large professional DSLR segment with the D700 and 5D MKII.

A FF mirrorless with lenses designed to be as compact as possible (e.g. no IS/OS) could actually end up being thinner than the K5.

I suspect there are people with enough disposable income to spend that would like a FF camera but don't want to, or can't, lug around a 1 KG + lenses camera. Not exactly the Leica crowd but that kind of person. Beyond the massively epxensive M9 these people aren't really targated by manufacturers at the moment.

Such a camera would offer an alternative the D700/5D MKII by being much smaller/lighter but having similar image quality. IF Pentax go FF I think this is the best way to do it.

[Rondec]

If Pentax released a full frame camera that was K10/20 sized, included SR, and was priced around 2000 dollars, I think it could be a winner. I really don't think you can lose SR, without losing one of the major selling points that Pentax has had over the years. If price goes up over 2500, suddenly a lot of the market drops out. I know that for me personally, 1500 dollars is kind of a max spending limit -- for a lot of folks its lower than that.

Whether or not Pentax releases a full frame camera, they need to work on certain things. SDM needs to go away. It is just to slow and it limits sales. I can't imagine releasing a full frame camera with a 80-200 f2.8 lens powered by SDM. The lenses are mostly great optically, but even as auto focus improves on bodies, they are limited by the speed of these focus motors.

I am not convinced that it is an easy thing to get Canon/Nikon shooters to switch to Pentax, even with a smaller full frame option. The sense of inertia is high. Much easier to get folks to enter in at the entry/semi pro level and move up from there.

[Pål Jensen]

I think you're about right describing the status quo.

However, with the cost of electronics (incl. the sensor) in a system camera to become marginal (and the shutter to become electronic too), I foresee mirrorless cameras to soon drop below $200 and become the new P&S business. I actually can already buy a E-PL1 new for 150€.

It is at that point entry-level dSLR (and APSC SLRs in general then) aren't competitive anymore. Not because of parts, but because of cost of labor involved in calibrating the AF system, the mirror and focus screen.

The cost of mirrorassembly and finder is marginal too...Probably less than $10

[Asahiflex]

The cost of mirrorassembly and finder is marginal too...Probably less than $10

I think you are completely wrong. If that was the case, cheaper Pentax models with a pentamirror would not exist. I'm inclined to say that the finder is one of the most expensive parts of the camera (the other one is the sensor). Nowadays anything mechanical (especially small parts as found in our cameras) is very expensive to manufacture.

[Pål Jensen]

I think you are completely wrong. If that was the case, cheaper Pentax models with a pentamirror would not exist. I'm inclined to say that the finder is one of the most expensive parts of the camera (the other one is the sensor). Nowadays anything mechanical (especially small parts as found in our cameras) is very expensive to manufacture.

I am talking about the cheaper camera models. Not the 645D! This was about the competition at the bottom end of the market. An SLR cost hardly more than a similarly specced P&S....

[Aristophanes]

Personally, I think the Sony CMOS division is rather independent and want to own the market. I assume one would easily be able to source an FF sensor for about $200 from them, buying lots of 100,000.

In economic and production theory this should be possible.

In the world of finance, investor returns, contracts, and licensing, this is probably not going to happen for awhile.

To get there Sony (the only viable supplier of FF sensors) would have to ramp up FF production and sell to Pentax at price points obviating the SLT and NEX top-of-the-line APS-C models. I do not see Sony doing that to themselves with CEO blessing, and not in a manner that isolates their other major customer, Nikon.

By the same logic, industry should be able to drop APS-C costs further in response. So this play of Pentax would force all APS-C cameras down in price as FF edges into APS-C territory. Fair enough, but I don't see the market shifting like that because gross revenues would then rely on greater sales numbers, which are occurring anyway. So companies facilitating lower price APS-C are in fact forfeiting profit.

I said a long time ago watch what Canon does as they have the leverage to move the market this way. Sony tried and could not. Pentax cannot either.

[Aristophanes]

I think you are completely wrong. If that was the case, cheaper Pentax models with a pentamirror would not exist. I'm inclined to say that the finder is one of the most expensive parts of the camera (the other one is the sensor). Nowadays anything mechanical (especially small parts as found in our cameras) is very expensive to manufacture.

My understanding is that the sensor is the #1 cost and the shutter is #2. Is any top camera using an electronic shutter?

I have not read anything about the cost of production differences between SLR and MILC, but I suspect the differences favour MILC, but not by a large amount. Both systems have to go into an alignment and calibration vise.

A long time ago I stated that one of the benefits to DSLR's from mirrorless is that, as the price premium for DSLR edges upwards, the tendency may be to upscale the DSLR in features. So bye-bye pentamirror and hello pentaprism.

The financial dynamics of the camera market has always been based on withholding affordable features from price points. OVF with pentaprism will become a higher price point.

I routinely see low-end Canikon's here for C$429 in kit, but as low as $329 on sale. They are cheaper than many P&S. Nikon is even manufacturing and promoting the non-VR 18-55 to keep prices low. The new Nikon J1 is $200 more than the lowest end Nikon DSLR. The Panasonic Lumix GF2 is $150 more than the Nikon D3100 kit.

They would not make and price them such if they did not sell. What is commanding a premium in the market is not the larger sensor, but the size and aesthetics of the smaller system. For the time being and the next few years, I still see DSLR's sitting alongside mirrorless in comparable price points. The DSLR's will have many advantages as technical cameras (sensor, OVF, PDAF, backwards compatibility, flash systems) but are bigger. I still think they will sell and sell well.

[gtl]

If Pentax released a full frame camera that was K10/20 sized, included SR, and was priced around 2000 dollars, I think it could be a winner. I really don't think you can lose SR, without losing one of the major selling points that Pentax has had over the years. If price goes up over 2500, suddenly a lot of the market drops out. I know that for me personally, 1500 dollars is kind of a max spending limit -- for a lot of folks its lower than that.

Whether or not Pentax releases a full frame camera, they need to work on certain things. SDM needs to go away. It is just to slow and it limits sales. I can't imagine releasing a full frame camera with a 80-200 f2.8 lens powered by SDM. The lenses are mostly great optically, but even as auto focus improves on bodies, they are limited by the speed of these focus motors.

I am not convinced that it is an easy thing to get Canon/Nikon shooters to switch to Pentax, even with a smaller full frame option. The sense of inertia is high. Much easier to get folks to enter in at the entry/semi pro level and move up from there.

Not sure if I am right here, but I notice that the focus throw is much longer on pentax lenses, which results in slower AF as the motor has to turn a longer distance, so the speed of the AF is not SDM's fault. Perhaps new lenses with shorter focus throws could be the solution? The reliability of SDM on the other hand....

Any canon users care to share whats the focus throw like on a fast focusing canon lens? Say the super popular 70-200mm F4?

[Rondec]

Not sure if I am right here, but I notice that the focus throw is much longer on pentax lenses, which results in slower AF as the motor has to turn a longer distance, so the speed of the AF is not SDM's fault. Perhaps new lenses with shorter focus throws could be the solution? The reliability of SDM on the other hand....

Any canon users care to share whats the focus throw like on a fast focusing canon lens? Say the super popular 70-200mm F4?

You are right to a certain extent, but having used Sigma's HSM enabled lenses, the speed difference is considerably higher. Sure, a lens like the 50-135 would do better if you shortened the focus throw (same with DA *55), but the lens motor is pretty slow as well. At least the K5 locks pretty quickly, on older bodies there used to be considerable hesitation from the camera before you would achieve a focus lock.

[RonHendriks1966]

You are right to a certain extent, but having used Sigma's HSM enabled lenses, the speed difference is considerably higher. Sure, a lens like the 50-135 would do better if you shortened the focus throw (same with DA *55), but the lens motor is pretty slow as well. At least the K5 locks pretty quickly, on older bodies there used to be considerable hesitation from the camera before you would achieve a focus lock.

Well to my surprise the SDM on DA*60-250 is at the "same" speed as Sigma 70-200, only the sigma starts earlier and thus is faster ready. But the run from infinity to close is the "same" (no exactly measurment done).

[Aristophanes]

If PENTAX made the worlds smallest full-featured full-frame SLR around the same size as the K-5, Im sure that alot of the ff canikon users would be tempted to switch.
Im always hearing and reading that ff shooters complaing about lugging around bulky and heavy kits.

This is a contradictory expectation.

The reason why the D700 is as large as it is comes from "full-featured" items like the autofocus array. The Nikon version is super-fast and accurate because it is large. All of the support components for features like video, and high FPS, and dense LCD's and top LCD's all come at a size premium. They need considerable power, so the battery must be larger. They require cooling space. They have sensitive components that must be shock resistant so require larger physical buffers. You still have to accommodate a mirror box. The mount must be very strong, anchored to the chassis, to support big glass.

It all adds up. If you want to lose size, do without features. It's a no-win game until you look at mirrorless with the sacrifice of the OVF and mirror and other SLR attributes like PDAF.

[Blue]

With the Kodak sensor division in play on the market, Ricoh could change the game if they could get their hands on it.