[gazonk]

Go into any good store that currently carries Pentax, Canon, Nikon, Sony and ask them if a K5 FF 24MP at $2000 would be a big hit or not. Even the Canon fanboys in the store will admit it would sell (I tried this over beer with a couple of Vistek guys the other week - this is Canada's biggest pro shop BTW.)

Personally, I'm more interested in a 24mp APS-C "K-3", but I'm also convinced that a nice-looking (a little smaller than the D800) FF Pentax in that price range could sell well. Suppose they supplied a very modest and compact (say something in the ballpark of the Tokina AT-X 28-85/3.5-4.5 that I used to use with my LX?), but optically decent kit lens - they could probably convince quite a few price conscious buyers to make the dive into FF.

[mecrox]

Personally, I'm more interested in a 24mp APS-C "K-3", but I'm also convinced that a nice-looking (a little smaller than the D800) FF Pentax in that price range could sell well. Suppose they supplied a very modest and compact (say something in the ballpark of the Tokina AT-X 28-85/3.5-4.5 that I used to use with my LX?), but optically decent kit lens - they could probably convince quite a few price conscious buyers to make the dive into FF.

It might be too late for that. In the UK, the 5D Mark II is already available for 1500 ukp (body only). I doubt Pentax could get an FF out for that price and still make a margin on it, and even if they could then the new lower prices from Canonikon mean that you are straight into a features war. So "modest and compact" from Pentax probably won't cut it whereas it might have done a year or two ago. If Pentax move into FF they will have to come up with more than cheap 'n' cheerful: that slot is already taken, and I expect Canonikon have room to offer even better deals on their older models if a competitor starts to bother them.

I guess what this all does is place a limit on how far up the scale Pentax can take any APS-C successor to the K-5. No nearly as far as Pentax might wish is my guess. Listen to the sound of squeezing.

[eddie1960]

Personally, I'm more interested in a 24mp APS-C "K-3", but I'm also convinced that a nice-looking (a little smaller than the D800) FF Pentax in that price range could sell well. Suppose they supplied a very modest and compact (say something in the ballpark of the Tokina AT-X 28-85/3.5-4.5 that I used to use with my LX?), but optically decent kit lens - they could probably convince quite a few price conscious buyers to make the dive into FF.

I wonder what that Dalsa 24MP FF sensor is worth (I can't think of anyone using it yet).

[Pål Jensen]

Exactly

People forever underestimate the size of this market. Market size is elastic as well people forget this. look at the MF market before the 645D came out. First year the market doubled due to one high value camera, and it made the others get more competitive as well

Go into any good store that currently carries Pentax, Canon, Nikon, Sony and ask them if a K5 FF 24MP at $2000 would be a big hit or not. Even the Canon fanboys in the store will admit it would sell (I tried this over beer with a couple of Vistek guys the other week - this is Canada's biggest pro shop BTW.)

The facts speak for themselves; FF has about 5% of the DSLR market peaking at about 7% after the release of a new model. In adiition Nikon has owned this market segment for about 50 years and Canon for about 10...

It is questionable whether Pentax can sell an FF camera at $2000. My guess is that if Pentax makes an FF camera it will be a luxury machine at around $3000 targeted primarily at existing Pentax users with the neccessary lenses.

[eddie1960]

The facts speak for themselves; FF has about 5% of the DSLR market peaking at about 7% after the release of a new model. In adiition Nikon has owned this market segment for about 50 years and Canon for about 10...

It is questionable whether Pentax can sell an FF camera at $2000. My guess is that if Pentax makes an FF camera it will be a luxury machine at around $3000 targeted primarily at existing Pentax users with the neccessary lenses.

Nikon didn't overtake Pentax in 35mm until the mid 70's actually. And looking at that market FF wasn't really the pro market it has become now. It was the journalist market, any other serious pro work was done with Medium format where Pentax had a very respectable share and Nikon and Canon had none.
Nikon and Canon both benefit for the FF in their apsc models. there is a halo effect of a high end upgrade path to sales of lower end product. I realise most people will never move up to the high level camera and that reality is most will never own more than 2 or at the outside 3 lenses. But those same people when making there decision all like to think they will own that top level product some day and for some reason believe by buying the low end version they are getting the same quality (a patently false idea but no-one ever went broke underestimating peoples gullibility)
Growth of the brand (which I believe is why Ricoh bought it) pretty much demands a FF camera in the lineup (and at least 3 apsc aside from mirrorless for that matter) - think Mercedes or BMW they sell tonmes of 1 series and a/b series because the high end mercedes built the brand perception
Building a me too product at the same pricing as the Nikons and Canons is not going to garner any attention from outside the current core. that same customer looking at a rebel though may well look at a KR instead because s/he can actually picture the day they can afford the $2000 FF but the Nikon and Canon will seem unattainable.
Pentax's biggest successes were always the Student camera (IE K1000) their Biggest Weakness was always exploiting that in a pro system later (I know tons of pro's who started on a K1000 in school) a more streamlined high quality $2000 FF will have huge appeal to the segment currently buying into D7000,7D as their camera for school. Follow up in 2 - 3 years with the truly pro higher end FF
Right now FF prices are maintained to protect the profitability of the high end (that sm,mall percentage is generating a huge part of canikons profit far out of proportion to. Canon and nikon have no need to change that model yet. Pentax OTOH has a huge reason to want that model to change. APSC is being squeezed at the bottom and top lev apsC is starting to be squeezed at the top. they know they need to change brand perception and FF helps do that
Being able to then advertise the K-01 system with a path all the way to FF with a huge (and ever growing) lens selection is something no-one else can do yet. You can bet that will change, and Pentax can't afford to be the last to the party this time they need to start to lead

[24X36NOW]

The facts speak for themselves; FF has about 5% of the DSLR market peaking at about 7% after the release of a new model. In adiition Nikon has owned this market segment for about 50 years and Canon for about 10...

Those "facts" are established based on historical pricing levels, which are falling. The $8,000 price point has moved down to a ~$6,000 price point, and the content of the cameras at the $3,000 price point (give or take) is being increased in value, which is also effectively a price reduction. The old low-priced FF models were often de-contented relative to the flagship models, with lower build quality and autofocus (5D series) or with less than 100% viewfinders (D700). Now, with the D800, we're seeing a game changer, and I doubt those "facts" of historical market share will continue to predict the future.

As for Pentax, the facts speak for themselves. Their lack of a FF dSLR has caused them to lose customers to Nikon and Canon, with their market share falling by half. They have lost third-party lens support from Zeiss, Voigtlander and Tamron, and have reduced support from Sigma, who releases only the most common lenses in K-mount. If they continue to drag their feet on making a FF dSLR, their market share will continue to decline, and Ricoh's investment in Pentax will not produce the growth in the camera industry that they hoped for. Pentax's refusal to compete in the portion of the dSLR market with the least competition and the highest margins is the business equivalent of hara-kiri. More "me too" APS-C dSLRs are not going to grow the Pentax dSLR business, especially as new FF models undermine the price/value proposition of high-end APS-C dSLRs. Upgraders will continue to leave the Pentax brand absent a FF dSLR to upgrade to.

It is questionable whether Pentax can sell an FF camera at $2000. My guess is that if Pentax makes an FF camera it will be a luxury machine at around $3000 targeted primarily at existing Pentax users with the neccessary lenses.

It is much more questionable whether Pentax can continue to sell APS-C dSLRs at a price point close to 2/3 that of a D800, with much less to offer in terms of viewfinder, image quality, and lens selection. Those "existing Pentax users with the necessary lenses" need to be "targeted" with a FF dSLR, now, before there isn't much of a Pentax user base left.

[Pål Jensen]

Nikon didn't overtake Pentax in 35mm until the mid 70's actually.

I was talking about the market segment that typically buy FF cameras; the high-end users. Nikon have had "monopoly" on this fir 50 years.

Since then Nikon have transformed into a mass market manufacturer and withoiut the mass market products FF at the prices we see today would have been unthinkable.

[Pål Jensen]

As for Pentax, the facts speak for themselves. Their lack of a FF dSLR has caused them to lose customers to Nikon and Canon, with their market share falling by half. .

This is not true. Pentax production numbers have been on a steady increase.

[ElJamoquio]

This is not true. Pentax production numbers have been on a steady increase.

Those two statements aren't mutually incompatible in a growing market... given a 30 year delay since the peak of market share, total production could still be increasing with market share falling.

[Pål Jensen]

Right now FF prices are maintained to protect the profitability of the high end (that sm,mall percentage is generating a huge part of canikons profit far out of proportion to. Canon and nikon have no need to change that model yet. Pentax OTOH has a huge reason to want that model to change. APSC is being squeezed at the bottom and top lev apsC is starting to be squeezed at the top. they know they need to change brand perception and FF helps do that
Being able to then advertise the K-01 system with a path all the way to FF with a huge (and ever growing) lens selection is something no-one else can do yet. You can bet that will change, and Pentax can't afford to be the last to the party this time they need to start to lead

The FF camera prices are due to the sensor prices not artificial pricing strategies. FF will continue to be expensive as long as sensor prices are the most important cost factor in a digital camera.
APS is not under any kind of pressure and won't be as long sensor cost is high and/or cost difference between sensor sizes are high. APS sensor volume and share is on the increase. Which camera type that suceed to what extent in the market is not related to sensor size. If anything the trend is towards smaller sensors with increasing sensor quality. Cost and coolnes factors will be the defining factors for public acceptance. APS is long past the point where image quality is the defining factor for the average consumer....

[Pål Jensen]

Those two statements aren't mutually incompatible in a growing market... given a 30 year delay since the peak of market share, total production could still be increasing with market share falling.

Yes, but i Believe that Pentax peak DSLR (that is in the digital age) markedshare was last year....

[eddie1960]

This is not true. Pentax production numbers have been on a steady increase.

but they haven't kept pace with the increase in the DSLR market resulting in lower market share. the hoya years halved the Pentax market share (while returning it to profit if I am not mistaken so not all bad) Ricoh needs to now expand that share while maintaining profitability. ignoring the highest margin segment of the market is a surefire way to reduce profit potential, and as the market evolves towards FF (and it will) it's also a sure way to lose more share.
Nikon did do well with the F photomics at the high end in the late 60's early 70's - cut they were the only player in the market there was no other high end so to speak Canon was still miles away from the F1 system when the F came out (not coming out with theirs until late 71), and Pentax was selling as many cameras as they could make already (they beat Nikon to 1M SLR by a substantial margin) There were also a number of pro's still using the higher end Pentax as well at the time, but the F system was a game changer and the Pentax response (the lx) came way too late in the game IMO (it is a fantastic system camera but by release there was far more competition Nikon already had the third Generation F3 and the Canon F! third Generation released a year later. the 70's era Kx, Mx and K2 models from Pentax were all great cameras but they weren't a full fledged system

the one thing that really made these systems great for me (I owned a Nikon F system with 2 bodies 6 lenses 2 different finders a drive and a bulk film back for a period) was the interchangeable finders. One of the reasons I keep touting a Digital LX is this would be unique in the market and still have a purpose (though the LCD panel can be used for some of the functionality)
God I'd even settle for an apsc LX as long as I could slap a huge sports finder on it but I think it would be a shame to build a pro type system around a small sensor
It would be even easier to implement this as a FF MILC since the finders would just be variants on a simple mirror box the LCD could also be flipped so the WL wasn't a reversed image

[eddie1960]

Yes, but i Believe that Pentax peak DSLR (that is in the digital age) markedshare was last year....

Actually AFAIK market share peaked with the K10. Total units may have peaked last year (I understood at K10 time they were close to 10% share, by the time Hoya was done it was less than 5% )

[Pål Jensen]

but they haven't kept pace with the increase in the DSLR market resulting in lower market share. the hoya years halved the Pentax market share (while returning it to profit if I am not mistaken so not all bad) Ricoh needs to now expand that share while maintaining profitability. ignoring the highest margin segment of the market is a surefire way to reduce profit potential, and as the market evolves towards FF (and it will) it's also a sure way to lose more share.

Where do you have these numbers from? As far as I know Pentax DSLR markedshare is 7%. This is all time high. It was never over 5% in the pre Hoya days.

FF is only a high margin market if you can sell lots of FF bodies. It is debatable how many Pentax can sell. Sony couldn't in spite of low price and probably the planets largest marketing and distribution channel for digital cameras....

[eddie1960]

The FF camera prices are due to the sensor prices not artificial pricing strategies. FF will continue to be expensive as long as sensor prices are the most important cost factor in a digital camera.
APS is not under any kind of pressure and won't be as long sensor cost is high and/or cost difference between sensor sizes are high. APS sensor volume and share is on the increase. Which camera type that suceed to what extent in the market is not related to sensor size. If anything the trend is towards smaller sensors with increasing sensor quality. Cost and coolnes factors will be the defining factors for public acceptance. APS is long past the point where image quality is the defining factor for the average consumer....

I would be pretty certain that at this point FF sensors are costing a lot less than 3 years back, yet the FF cameras are selling for the same price structure as 3 years back. yest the new sensor will be more expensive than the old one was at end of life, but I highly doubt it is the same as the old one was at launch. it's just not the way electronics work, and from the sound of the nikon order on the 36mp it's also being ordered in a much larger qty up front. I think the idea that FF is a minor market is in the midst of a big change. If Nikon does keep the D700 in production adn drop it's price to $2000 or so as is rumoured then Pentax has missed their chance. a $2000 D700 will steal a lot of the upper end apsc market from Pentax because it's a psychological price point thing

Personally if they don't launch a FF i'll still be around for at least on more camera cycle for me but the longer it takes the more enthusiasts will leave and the harder it will be to attract new young users (which is where the long term money comes in because people get vested in a brand. there are loads of young kids starting out who don't even look at the brand because the FF doesn't exist even if they are aware of the brand (all 4 big stores near the biggest photography program in Canada carry Pentax on the floor but if i go by the chool 97% of what i see will be Canon and Nikon and a good 30% of that is in FF, the other 70% desperately want that FF but it wasn't in the budget for the first camera. That is a huge opportunity for Pentax to leverage IMO. Selling FF to the crowd here is a small benefit (many already have the lenses so they won't be spending more) all those new kids though need both lenses and bodies and have a much larger lifetime spend ahead of them than a bunch of established guys arguing about it here. The K-01 actually fits well in this as it may end up getting in the hands of the kids who will be the ones off at Uni Photography programs in 4 years and they will already have lenses drawing them to a Pentax FF

As for FF is primarily a Pro market I think that is a fallacy. Enthusiasts upgrade more frequently and will find a way to spend on what they want a Pro spends as little as possible and milks every purchase for all it's worth and if he can't justify the cost of adding it to the system he just rents it when he needs it
7years back I had a couple of long time Nikon shooting friends make the jump to Canon with the 5D because it was taking Nikon so long to get a FF out (and even when they did 2 years later the first good one the D3 was twice the price - Nikon lost a lot of pro's between 2002 and 2007 to Canon the majority once the 5D released
The D800 may well drag a lot of those users back if they didn't sell all their Nikon gear when they switched
Meanwhile Pentax will continue to bleed their higher end customer to Canikon while attracting fewer and fewer entry level customers
It's a recipe for failure - and not the way i have seen ricoh operate - they are very aggressive in their core business and show signs of bringing that idea to this business