[Supernaut]

The marketshare for FF is below 5%.

For the other brands maybe.

[befocus]

A good thing would be
1-Make e nice FF body in the pentax manner
2-Release again the old FA* - limited lens, but treated with digital coating
3-Competitive price.

[falconeye]

The marketshare for FF is below 5%.

I talked about demand, not current market share.

It is like predicting demand for ipads based on the market share of tablet pcs back in 2010.


In this thread, I just oppose the silly reflex to predict the future by simply extrapolating from what is now. Innovation doesn't work this way.

[Samsungian]

In the local camera club theres maybe 40 guys and gals who own a full frame camera. All but two are Canikon owners. Those two are Sony shooters, one A850 one A900.

No one has a 645D.

Other than me, no one has any Pentax dslr.

645D is $10,000 in USA.

For $10,000 one can instead buy alot of current, brand new gear including a basic 5D Mark II or D700 and still have spare change inhand.


I wanted full frame, so I bought it elsewhere. And thats what Pentax owners do who want 24x36platform, they shop elsewhere too.


In the meantime...

Its just 3 days till Ricoh buys out Pentax from Hoya.


If Ricoh annouces full frame dslr roadmap on Oct 1st 2011, I guess no Pentax owner will buy it because no Pentax owner wants/needs full frame digital camera.

Instead loyal Pentax owners who want more sensor real estate can buy crop format 645D to make Pentax, err I mean Hoya, oh actually I meant Ricoh, a stronger company.

The marketshare for FF is below 5%. That puts it in the same category as medium format was versus 35mm SLR in the film days....

APS is a high volume market. FF is a low volume high profit (if you're not Sony) market. The manufacturers have all reasons for keeping it so....

---

Last edited by Samsungian; 09-27-2011 at 05:30 AM.

[Aristophanes]

For the other brands maybe.

You are implying that Pentaxians are more likely than Canon, Nikon, or Sony users to buy FF.

Why?

With Nikon one can also get a phenomenal AF system and flash accessories for which Pentax has no comparable products, not even tethering.

Why would even a Pentaxians spend the same or more for FF than a Nikonian for inferior product support?

They won't. There are a lot if pieces to be laid out before Pentax can go FF at current prices, and these takes years to put together.

[Aristophanes]

Innovation may not, but price points are an immutable law. There is always going to be very limited demand for bodies over $2,000 unless discretionary income goes up.

Sine Pentax does not supply the sensors and those are very price sensitive components, there is limited demand-driven innovation at the current price/volume ratio.

I agree FF will cone, but not until Canikon and Sony drive volume from APS-C to FF as a capital investment. I see that in a 5-year window, maybe 4. My understanding is the current FF production capacity is not there. This is not a dynamic Pentax can change. Sony yes. Canon yes. Samsung maybe. Kodak maybe maybe.

I talked about demand, not current market share.

It is like predicting demand for ipads based on the market share of tablet pcs back in 2010.

In this thread, I just oppose the silly reflex to predict the future by simply extrapolating from what is now. Innovation doesn't work this way.

[falconeye]

Innovation may not, but price points are an immutable law.

Of course.

But it's not a limiting factor anymore. If you wanted, you could build a sub-$1000 FF camera now (i.e., an FF camera less than $500 to build out of factory).

But it would ruin your current cash-cow, APSC.

However, this is exactly why Pentax could go that route. Not much APSC business to protect. Nothing compared to what it could win. Selling only 300,000 FF cameras would probably double Pentax' current business. This is why Pentax is in the best position of all to do just that.

But it must be a convincing product, priced like the K-5 MSRP and with similiar specs, paired with 5µm pixel pitch to support APSC glass.

[Jan67]

Innovation may not, but price points are an immutable law. There is always going to be very limited demand for bodies over $2,000 unless discretionary income goes up.

I would be very carefull with the demand and market estimation, which is sometimes unlogical.

Look at Fuji X100. Who would predict its success ? Fuji just discovered a nice gap in the market - second camera for pros, semi-pros or enthusiasts, who just don't want to carry this Mk5II or similar FF "hammer weapon", if they just walk around. They don't mind that x100 has just fixed 36mm lens, because it's not a bad one and fits this purpose well.

I am convinced, that there is very similar market gap, waiting for FF retro style camera under $2000, something like digital LX (as somebody already mentioned), without unnecessary features like video, focused just on making photos (big OVF, good sensor, good AF). Try to compare LX's and K5's viewfinder, the difference is amazing!

I guess, we needn't to discuss benefits of FF (DoF, noise, DR, pixel pitch). It should not be a pro-camera but a second FF camera for pros and enthusiasts, who know very well, why they want FF. Just walkaround FF camera. It doesn't need to have complete line of FF lenses, just like X100. I can imagine, that somebody takes just one "limited" lens. Such camera combined with limiteds would be a killer. Who else than Pentax should make it ? Don´t tell me, that there is no demand, both from Pentax and nonPentax community.

[Aristophanes]

Of course.

But it's not a limiting factor anymore. If you wanted, you could build a sub-$1000 FF camera now (i.e., an FF camera less than $500 to build out of factory).

But it would ruin your current cash-cow, APSC.

However, this is exactly why Pentax could go that route. Not much APSC business to protect. Nothing compared to what it could win. Selling only 300,000 FF cameras would probably double Pentax' current business. This is why Pentax is in the best position of all to do just that.

But it must be a convincing product, priced like the K-5 MSRP and with similiar specs, paired with 5µm pixel pitch to support APSC glass.

It might also ruin the APS-C cash cows of Nikon and Sony and devalue the current high-margins of the FF sensors!

That's why it won't happen. That's why I suspect FF sensor supply is constrained by Sony and Nikon agreement. To buy in, Pentax may have to swallow profit, which may not be tolerable to Ricoh given the risk. Then Pentax would have to trim features from its FF model and compete on the larger sensor dynamic.

Pentax needs to protect all its APS-C biz because they have millions of purchasers of APS-C DSLR"s with serious DA lens investments. Convincing consumers their DA glass is "OK" but that Pentax has abandoned APS-C in favour of sensor crops will backfire because it triggers buyer's remorse based on company decision-making. That's a way to lose brand loyalty, fast. It has not worked for Nikon very well.

For the future, Pentax still needs to keep its APS-C DSLR offerings, in part because the whole FF ecosystem is simply not there. Things like a new, robust flash system, tethering, video control, PDAF, and 14-24, 24-70,, 70-200 lenses do not exist with quality to match the competition. The sensor alone is not enough of a motive for many consumers, even on this forum.

One reason the K-5 does well is the form factor. Any FF DSLR is going to erase that advantage. The K-5 is the smallest pro level DSLR body with perhaps the best ergonomic design.

So there's 3 reasons why FF Pentax may weaken demand, not strengthen it. And at the same time, Pentax has to think of the 645D lens line-up and the inevitable larger sensor, not to mention the mirrorless trend when it becomes obvious the Q cannot compete on the sensor/price ratio.

A bigger sensor in a DSLR does not solve these issues.

I don't disagree with you; I just think the timeframe is longer because of supply constraints. Creating demand is a huge risk.

[Pål Jensen]

I talked about demand, not current market share.

It is like predicting demand for ipads based on the market share of tablet pcs back in 2010..

Are there any signs that Nikon and Canon cannot meet demand on FF? Very unlikely and I haven't heard about it. They will do all they can to meet demand on high profit items.

[Pål Jensen]

But it's not a limiting factor anymore. If you wanted, you could build a sub-$1000 FF camera now (i.e., an FF camera less than $500 to build out of factory)..

How much does an FF sensor cost?
Preferable a new one that whose R&D isn't paid for....

[Blue]

Are there any signs that Nikon and Canon cannot meet demand on FF? Very unlikely and I haven't heard about it. They will do all they can to meet demand on high profit items.

I am just guessing, but I am certain we will be waiting a lot longer for CaNikon to meet the market demand for a ff k-mount body than we will for Pentax.

[fikkser]

Canikon has made FF for the PRO market with very expensive glass. Not strange ordinary people has kept away from thir FF.

Pentax could release one around 2k$, shouldn't be impossible - with kit lens.

As some one att apple said (prolly Jobs) something like "people doesn't know what they want until you give it to them".

I think Pentax can figure out a FF market and launch a camera towards them with the right advertising, people needs to know why they need it, why they want it and why they must get it. I myself think I can see a quite big group of possible buyers.

If the k-5 could be sold for the IMO too high price it had at the release, a slightly more expensive FF could easily sell. 5d MK2 is not far off the price of the launch price of K-5 at the moment. The 5d is like 3 years old, and it should be cheaper to develop a camera like that today.

I don't see any problems for a successfull Pentax FF camera or two it it comes at a reasonable price.

[Pål Jensen]

One reason the K-5 does well is the form factor. Any FF DSLR is going to erase that advantage. The K-5 is the smallest pro level DSLR body with perhaps the best ergonomic design..

I think the only chance Pentax potentially have in the FF market is to make a very small one not larger than the K-5.

Anyway, lets not forget the fact there is no general demand for better image quality or larger sensors, not to mention higher cost, among the majority of the buying public. That makes it harder to sell FF except to the few....

[Emacs]

Innovation may not, but price points are an immutable law.

1) Prices depends on the amount. More sensors, lesser their cost
2) Mirroless is cheaper than DSLR, so cost argument doesn't work for Pentax.