[monochrome]

SNIP

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)

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

I believe Ricoh is seriously looking at intorducing a ProSpec system in 2013 (I know nothing, but it is a well thought out feeling). Interchangeable VF (LX-D) would be a signature distinguishing factor. Technology could transfer to other models, with fixed VF optimized for use (including for video and for MILC)

1. AsahiFlex posits intechangeable VF would make FF "unique," as Pentax says they require.
2. Pentax product manager in the inteview directly stated there are no plans for a MILC FF.

ProSpec system by Pentax questions, since I am not a Pro:

1. Which segment of the pro market?
   1. For Sports/Action what do they need? serious AF/Shutter speed/Sync development?
   2. For Journalism (what is J. these days) they'll prob. need in-camera video. How much still journalism shooting still goes on?
   3. For portrait/Landscape (how big are those markets really, outside wedding)?
   4. ProSumer -
      1. Birding?
2. How will these markets react to a Pentax FF that is
   1. Smaller
   2. Lighter
   3. MagAlloy
   4. Eegonomic
   5. Processing engine tweaks (an unheralded Pentax strength)
   6. Optics (hiring engineers back)

Versus Canon they can gather merket share. Nikon is a different story.

[eddie1960]

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....

Sony had a whole range of issues with their FF launch not the least of which was the market was smaller then than now. they were also crippled by a very expensive lens line for those cameras that made Canon and Nikon look like the cheap option

I will have to look for the thread where i got the numbers from. Reliable worldwide share numbers are really not available unless you are paying for the market research BTW (when I was in retail we had those numbers and actually one of the reasons we dropped Pentax after the K10 was share had dropped not risen in Canada at least - and Canada is a stronger market for % of share and in store presence than the US is for Pentax (All our Major camera retailers carry Pentax and a large portion of the smaller retailers it's only the mid level and the big boxes where they have been dropped)

I really fail to understand the anti FF sentiment here. Tech like faster processors, better flash and improved AF and SR that get developed for FF will benefit APSC users as well. The lenses developed for FF will also work well with APSC and offer an option many got to Sigma for now. there is not a chance that initially FF will supplant upper end APSC enthusiast cameras and when it does sensors will be large enough that the auto crop function will allow the FF to operate as an APSC did and the pricing will be down to APSC pricing on them. Meanwhile more users will stay with the brand other users will be attracted to the brand and in general the brand will grow. this will result in a broader selection of 3rd party products all of which will work for the apsc users. No need to by every camera released.
If we continue with a 2 body brand (3 if you count MILC) we will continue to e marginalized . Get share back over 10% and we will see the 3rd party guys jumping back in to sell to the brand (I think they dropped us when m43 started hitting our volume and as a 2 brand mount it showed more potential compared to where things were headed under Hoya
Whether I buy FF or not myself I realise there are a ton of benefits for me if they launch it, and i can't see the negative side. Ricoh bought the brand to make it a major player (they never even mentioned Sony they are targeting Canikon's dominance) They have the cash to actually do it and the company cost them very little. Hoya was the opposite their goal was spend as little as possible while making the company attractive for sale but really they wanted the medical side of the brand and the camera was the poor cousin they wanted to fob off on someone else

Maybe you can explain why you think Ricoh shouldn't do this that makes sense in light of their stated intention of making Pentax a player again?

[eddie1960]

I[/LIST]Versus Canon they can gather merket share. Nikon is a different story.

Actually Canon is where the market share has to come from, it's where Nikon has been getting theirs as well. For a while their Canon absolutely Dominated both Pro and entry level having a massive share. they've since lost as chunk back to Nikon. They are the most vulnerable of the 2 as well IMO. The fact that Canon is also Ricoh's major rival and they do everything they can in that market to shut them down doesn't hurt when you try and look at where Ricoh may want Pentax to go. It's a massive uphill battle (too bad they didn't buy Pentax instead of hoya and flog off the medical ) But I think they have the Capital and the will to wage that war. Certainly they will take a different approach because it is the only way to even get noticed right now. As time goes on and the Brand Matures I think they may well introduce the more traditional designs chasing more of Canons market

As for the Journo question there are still a huge number of still being shot in that pursuit, but all those guys are shooting some video as well for the web sites. funnily enough though when i'm covering events I've seen the guys from the big dailys up here shooting stills with their big canons and Nikon then pulling out a small m4/3 for video clips. these guys are not videographers and when i talk to them about it they say it's easier to grab the video the want with the smaller body with the extra DOF it has for their purposes (after all they aren't chasing high art with their video just some motion for the short attention span crowd who can't read a whole newspaper article )
The TV news guys are still mostly using a much more serious video camera not a DSLR in many cases (they are after all Videographers not Photographers.)
The big use of DSLR video seems to be in stuff that is more produced and less spontaneous action oriented
So I agree video is needed but I think a lot of guys who would buy an lxd pro camera may well throw a K-01 in the bag with a hoodman as their quick video camera (that's your plan right the K-01 now and the LXD early next year )

[monochrome]

SNIP

(that's your plan right the K-01 now and the LXD early next year )

My sig is grayed-out. For now.

The reality is I don't qualify to use a high-end digital camera. I could buy one but it would be as a poseur, at least right now.

I think the K-01 will be an interesting step - and if the new ocular lens implant works out (right eye cataract replacement) we'll see what happens.

[Pål Jensen]

I really fail to understand the anti FF sentiment here.

[snip]

Maybe you can explain why you think Ricoh shouldn't do this that makes sense in light of their stated intention of making Pentax a player again?

Just for the record; I'm not anti FF. I would buy a Pentax FF camera the moment it is released. I have a full set of Pentax FF lenses from 18 to 600mm including such goodies as the three Limiteds and the FA* 200/4 Macro.

However, it is the idea that Pentax needs it; that the world will go FF really soon. That it can be sold cheaply and profitably in large numbers I have an issue with. Guess what, every time Nikon and Canon release an FF camera we have the same story; FF will soon dominate. Pentax missing the boat. The fact is that Pentax have been leaking customers to other brand since the 60's. Pentax DSLR future is not depenent on FF and FF will never make Pentax increase their DSLR marketshare significantly. That fight is done in the low to mid end for Pentax and all the rest.

When that is said, the digital camera market is getting increasingly fragmented due to the design freedoms inherited in digital as opposed to film. FF fits into this and it is a natural path for Pentax because the k-mount allows it and because Pentax cater to the high-end/well-built marketsegment. However, not only need Pentax to make an FF camera and lenses. They also need to update the camera with new sensor along with the competition. Keeping a high-end model unchanged in the line-up for 20+ years, like with the LX, is not an option in the digital age...
Anyone who thinks that FF is a no big deal profitmaking path that Pentax is for some reason too stupid to realize is plain wrong...

The thing is, the moment Pentax do release an FF camera, and I think they will at some point, the whining will start because it is not like the Nikon or Canon they compare it to. It is not mirrorless. Too small. Too big. Not enough lenses. Not a 1200/5.6 in sight. Not to mention that there is not tilt/shift lens available.....

[bossa]

My sig is grayed-out. For now.

The reality is I don't qualify to use a high-end digital camera. I could buy one but it would be as a poseur, at least right now.

I think the K-01 will be an interesting step - and if the new ocular lens implant works out (right eye cataract replacement) we'll see what happens.

If you don't qualify for a high-end DSLR (I am assuming you refer to Nikon D800 etc here) then why do you have an LX?

I am still awaiting the end user reports re' D800 to see if it's worth selling off some Pentax gear to finance it. But the more I think about getting rid of them, the more anal I become. And I do like the idea of a K-01 for my faster primes if the Focus Peaking works (and also displays the DOF) - I'd have to at least try one of those before jumping ship. Prior to the D800, I was also thinking of selling off my DA*50-135 and DA* 200 to replace them with a Sigma 70-200 OS, but it's raining today and I'm going out to shoot some pic's... ..then I remember that the Sigma isn't WR. Nothing's perfect, nothing, and for the time being I'm probably better off where I am. It's not like I'm a great, or even a good, photographer.

[monochrome]

If you don't qualify for a high-end DSLR (I am assuming you refer to Nikon D800 etc here) then why do you have an LX?

I wondered who would catch that.

[bossa]

I wondered who would catch that.

[bossa]

Nikon have released this guide on how to avoid blur with D800's. I guess pixel peeping will be less rewarding with one of these cameras if you can't avoid any kind of motion. They recommend using LV to flip up the mirror and a tripod. It seemed to me whilst reading these 'lessons' that a FF MILC would, at least, avoid the mirror vibrations and probably get better results innately as a result. The K-01 may indeed be a precursor to a Pentax FF MILC if these issues are a bigger problem for Nikon out in the field. I much prefer the D800 pic's to the D800E samples as well. The D800E seems to suffer from diffraction more than the D800, probably because the AA filter isn't there and people may be stopping the lens down more for DOF and to use diffraction to control moire instead of an AA filter. It will be very interesting to see where Pentax goes from here.

http://www.nikonusa.com/en_US/o/Y6wrkA9OU_z04IreazIXl_22UII/PDF/D800_TechnicalGuide_En.pdf

[Pål Jensen]

K-01 may indeed be a precursor to a Pentax FF MILC if these issues are a bigger problem for Nikon out in the field.

The one thing Pentax clearly stated was that there are no FF mirrorless in the plans...

[bossa]

You don't seriously believe they would tell us do you?

[ElJamoquio]

Sure, they'll tell us, a month or two before it's released in November of this year.

[cfraz]

Just for the record; I'm not anti FF. I would buy a Pentax FF camera the moment it is released.

Who are you and what have you done with the real Mr. Jensen?

The thing is, the moment Pentax do release an FF camera, and I think they will at some point, the whining will start because it is not like the Nikon or Canon they compare it to. It is not mirrorless. Too small. Too big. Not enough lenses. Not a 1200/5.6 in sight. Not to mention that there is not tilt/shift lens available.....

This has nothing at all to do with FF. PF members have made and will continue to make these criticisms equally to cameras with APSC, 645, or the absurd Q sensor (see, there's my critique), and will continue to do so for any camera of any conceivable form/design/technology/functionality.

[Aristophanes]

However, it is the idea that Pentax needs it; that the world will go FF really soon. That it can be sold cheaply and profitably in large numbers I have an issue with.

FF average price has been increasing, not decreasing.

This means the market reach is smaller, not larger, and can only grow:

1) At the total expense of another manufacturer.

2) If the market grows overall and you gain a larger growth share than the other guys.

Pentax has nowhere near enough lenses in FF to compete with Nikon or Canon under either scenario.

Not with so few people in the market due to the very high FF price (and no sensor).

The K-01 may indeed be a precursor to a Pentax FF MILC

It's all about sensor availability and price. Canon is in their own world. Nikon gets Sony's supply first, then Sony. None left for Pentax.

[ElJamoquio]

Nikon gets Sony's supply first, then Sony. None left for Pentax.

Just like the k5?