[mawz]

So then the strategy should be to produce second rate products and not even try to compete? Why not just cut your losses and liquidate now? I don't get the defeatism that often seems to be expressed here - the entire reason Canon/Nikon have the resources is that they invested heavily in top-notch product to build up their brands. If Pentax doesn't do the same, they'll be relegated to also-rans. No market share increases or economies of scale are going to be won with second-rate products. That thinking got Pentax from a point where they outsold the "big two" to a point where they have little market penetration left. Now that they've got some powerful new partners, why would you have them repeat the mistake by being in essence afraid to compete?

Pentax doesn't produce second rate products. Their kit is VERY competitive in that actual money-making segment of the market, which is consumer and amateur kit ($500-$1500). Note also that the reason Canon became one of the Big Two (Taking over from Pentax in the late 70's) is by making VERY good consumer kit. The Canon empire was built on the AE-1 Program. Canon never had any real pro market penetration until they introduced the EOS 1 in 1989, more than a decade after becoming the primary consumer camera company. Heck, they didn't even have a truly competitive pro-level SLR until 85 or so (the T90) as all of the F-1's were also-rans.

What Pentax has done only once is produce a pro-level small-format SLR. The LX. They've always left the Pro line to the Medium Format kit.

Also you seem to think that Pentax can simply wave a magic wand and produce a full FF lens line in addition to their current DA line. The real truth is that Pentax is already selling pretty much every lens and body they can build. The only stuff sitting on shelves is consumer kit from the late film era (Mostly 75-300 FAJ's from what I see) and that's most likely old stock. But look at the supply issues from when the DA*'s were launched. What Pentax needs to do is seriously increase their production capacity for lenses and bodies. Then they can think about expanding into FF (And Pentax Europe has stated that FF is the future, but that Pentax will not yet be headed that way, for several reasons). But they need to launch the lenses already in the roadmap and produce enough lenses and bodies so that people can actually keep them in stock.

[mattdm]

So then the strategy should be to produce second rate products and not even try to compete?

What? How does that follow? No, they should continue to do what they're doing -- produce first-rate products carefully targetted to make money.

[wll]

Agree that Pentax needs to do MORE, and NOT concede big lucrative chunks of the market; that's been their downfall to date. The K1D needs, for example, to be FULL FRAME, and lots of fresh, SHARP, FAST, CONSTANT APERTURE (for zooms) glass needs to be added to the lineup. Stop bottom feeding and start competing, in other words! Pentax/Tokina/Samsung can be an absolute BEAST in the dSLR market, but they have to think BIG.

The K1D does not need to be FF. Pentax has a K645D for that. I doubt Pentax will ever make a DSLR FF. The new camera has more resolution than FF now I believe.


wll

As I said not using the current sensor in as much models as possible is a grave mistake IMO. I am interested to get a qualified opinion about using only 12 Mp from the all 14,6 Mp in a "K300D" model. If I got the figures right the portion of 12 Mp would mean using roughly a portion of 23x14,27 mm - similar to the Rebel Xsi sensor but with much higher ISO. Also the "K300D" could very well get all the electronics from the K20D in a year's time. FPS, buffer size and even AF system I think are more than suitable for a premium entry level DSLR for end of 2008.

To be clear I mean an identical sensor with K20D for mass volume reasons but with 12 Mp enabled in firmware.

Pls, any help with the cropping sensor problem?

Radu

[mattdm]

To be clear I mean an identical sensor with K20D for mass volume reasons but with 12 Mp enabled in firmware.

You mean crippled just for market segmentation reasons? Seems like a waste -- if they can get the price down so they can afford to get the 14.6 sensor in an entry level camera, might as well leave it full-featured and blow away the competition.

[rvannatta]

You mean crippled just for market segmentation reasons? Seems like a waste -- if they can get the price down so they can afford to get the 14.6 sensor in an entry level camera, might as well leave it full-featured and blow away the competition.

but they also blow away their own product the k20. some market difference is needed if theya re to come out with a couple of products, although historically the differences haven't been much at times.---- such as differences between the 'super program' and the "program Plus', or some of the Zx models.--- or for that matter all the Dnnn models that had a button or 2 different by the same sensor.

If this sensor proves up to what is promised, it will set all the competiton on their cans because the 10's and 12's will have to look up to it, and if Pentax has enough patents on it, the competiton will have difficulty matching it.

One can assume once the 'get it down' they will have plans on making it faster, better and cheaper, and one must not forget that the high volume end of the market is the low end.
it's only a matter of time before someone makes a P & S that is so good that it does severe damage to the SLR market (and it won't be a full frame P & S either.).

You mean crippled just for market segmentation reasons? Seems like a waste -- if they can get the price down so they can afford to get the 14.6 sensor in an entry level camera, might as well leave it full-featured and blow away the competition.

Hi, Mattdm!

My argument is if Pentax has a kick a$$ sensor then it should use it in all cameras and reduce the cost of manufacturing across the board. It could be what Intel or AMD do with their CPU's which (mostly in a family) are identical physically and then binned for speed. Latter in time maybe all can do maximum MHz but some are "downgraded" just to meet some prices. If they could use the center of the sensor in a 12 Mp entry level DSLR they could:

- eliminate Sony from the supplier list;
- I believe reduce vignetting in the kit lens;
- add some 100-3200 ISO in Auto ISO ideal for a begginer;
- presumably add more DR than C and N;
- reduce more costs by unifying some electronics between K20D and K300D as long as K20D is still in production.

Radu

[24X36NOW]

So they should compete ONLY with low-tier products, i.e. APS-C sensor cameras, and surrender the rest to Canon and Nikon (and probably soon Sony)? There are some warped ideas about what being "competitive" is. The state of the art for digital SLRs is Full Frame. Pentax should be preparing a competitive product line (bodies and lenses) for that top tier now, not spending all their time figuring out ways to repackage the same sensor fifty different ways. The advance in the sensor technology is great; getting that technology within their own group rather than being dependent on competitors is great; now when they want to continue their resurgance, they should be shooting for the top. I'm not suggesting that they shouldn't make some further improved models in APS-C in the meantime, but time's-a-wastin'! They need to have an entry in the main event!

I guess I'm just someone who has higher aspirations for Pentax than those concerned with the drop in value of their "digital only" lenses, since so much of this "they don't need to" and "they don't have to" seems defensive to me. Suggesting that Pentax not introduce Full Frame dSLRs is like putting lead shoes on a track runner.

[proudtoshootpentax]

there's a very good article worth reading at OK1000 Pentax Blog about this very topic. I for one think they have a very good operating model... if Pentax stretched themselves as thin as the bloggers wanted, we'd all be shooting c/n because Pentax would be a distant memory. If you like c/n... then go c/n

So they should compete ONLY with low-tier products, i.e. APS-C sensor cameras, and surrender the rest to Canon and Nikon (and probably soon Sony)? There are some warped ideas about what being "competitive" is. The state of the art for digital SLRs is Full Frame. Pentax should be preparing a competitive product line (bodies and lenses) for that top tier now, not spending all their time figuring out ways to repackage the same sensor fifty different ways. The advance in the sensor technology is great; getting that technology within their own group rather than being dependent on competitors is great; now when they want to continue their resurgance, they should be shooting for the top. I'm not suggesting that they shouldn't make some further improved models in APS-C in the meantime, but time's-a-wastin'! They need to have an entry in the main event!

I guess I'm just someone who has higher aspirations for Pentax than those concerned with the drop in value of their "digital only" lenses, since so much of this "they don't need to" and "they don't have to" seems defensive to me. Suggesting that Pentax not introduce Full Frame dSLRs is like putting lead shoes on a track runner.

24x36NOW, I really feel your pain.

Believe me I want too that Pentax become a market leader but it has to be a slow and incremental process. Look at Sony which has maybe tens of fold more resources and they are still well behing even Pentax, let alone C and N. All I say is that today Pentax has no system for a FF to put up. Let's count the lenses: FA35 and 50 then 31, 43, 77 Limiteds, 2xDFA Macros. And no zooms at all.

Let Pentax capitalise on this sensor if it is as good as they say, strenghten on their weaknesses (AF, fps, new flashes maybe, many new lenses), produce a phenomenal K200D Super, or K300D as soon as possible AND a K1D for the upper market and gain market share across the APS-C world.

And about FF IMO it is not without flaws at least for some of us. From the top of my mind: larger, heavier, good for wide angle but what about the tele end, what about in body SR - that could mean larger lenses? Obviously a more expensive sensor to make and so on ...

Radu

P.S. Now that Nikon has announced D60 it starts to become clear that a hypothetical K300D with 12 Mp and ISO up to 6400 plus a real buffer and at least 3 fps + all the strenghts of K200D (wheater sealed body, SR in body, etc) would have a very great chance on the market against D60 and Rebel XSi IMO.

[creampuff]

Pentax better hurry to go FF because Sony has just announced a brand new 24.81 megapixel CMOS sensor and will target for mass production later this year.

Sony Japan�bƒvƒŒƒXƒŠƒŠ�[ƒX | 35mmƒtƒ‹ƒTƒCƒY‚Å—LŒø2481–œ‰æ‘f‚Æ�‚‘¬“Ç‚Ý�o‚µ‚ðŽÀŒ»�@ƒfƒWƒ^ƒ‹ˆêŠáƒŒƒtƒJƒ�ƒ‰Œü‚¯CMOSƒCƒ��[ƒWƒZƒ“ƒT�[ ŠJ”*
Steve's Digicams - Breaking News - Sony 1/29/2008 Press Release

[nosnoop]

Pentax better hurry to go FF because ...

What's the hurry? Did you see the new road map?
Pentax is committed to the APS-C format more than ever. The current FF market share is minuscule. Pentax would be wise and sit tight and watch the market acceptance of the Sony 24MP FF A900 (when it eventually arrives after a zillion years). And if it bombs, Pentax should just stay away.

[zntgrg]

Doing the low end marketing it's not a shame, maybe it's more difficult to make a compact, simple, cheap but effective camera [oh, my K110 ] than a bulky, heavy and expensive one.
Then, if you look at Pentax history, they're very lucky in this segment...K1000 is the most selling SLR ever mainly because it was a very well made brick.

Regarding FF, if Samsuntax CMOS will continue to improve in the future Pentax could stick with APS-C as a rational engineering decision. Camera makers mission is not "do what the others are doing" but "do well made cameras".
Then at this point FF could be an ill-fated standard, and Sony is burning money trying to mimic Canon, being already too late...like Betamax, UMD, Memorystick, Minidisk...

To put this "bring FF now!" debate to rest I wonder if anybody here knows the number of 5Ds sold from the announcement (I believe summer-fall 2005)?

This to put in perspective what the market is for a such camera (and in fairness with many more lenses for FF than we have).

I'll say again (and I try to be the last time ) FF right now is for bragging rights not to make money. In fact I won't be surprised if C lost money with 5D all those years.

Radu

[d.bradley]

As I said not using the current sensor in as much models as possible is a grave mistake IMO. I am interested to get a qualified opinion about using only 12 Mp from the all 14,6 Mp in a "K300D" model. If I got the figures right the portion of 12 Mp would mean using roughly a portion of 23x14,27 mm - similar to the Rebel Xsi sensor but with much higher ISO. Also the "K300D" could very well get all the electronics from the K20D in a year's time. FPS, buffer size and even AF system I think are more than suitable for a premium entry level DSLR for end of 2008.

To be clear I mean an identical sensor with K20D for mass volume reasons but with 12 Mp enabled in firmware.

Pls, any help with the cropping sensor problem?

Radu

So you're saying that the sensor crop would be higher ISO than the Canon? I mean using a 12mp crop from the middle of a 14.6mp sensor would not change any of the imaging characteristics of the sensor. It would be the same as cropping the image in photoshop. As mentioned previously, Canon crippled some of their DSLR's in firmware back in the day...and sony sold a whole lineup of camcorders with the same guts, but different bodies and firmware. People hacked both

If pentax were to cripple a camera, I think they'd just set the output from the full 14.6 mp sensor to 12mp. Re-sample the image in-camera, not crop the sensor. That way you're not confusing buyers with different crop factors (effective focal lengths), viewfinders, etc etc. That being said, the 'crippled electronics' strategy has been used in the past, but I honestly don't think it's a great idea.