how much would you pay for ff?

philmorley · 02-03-2008, 12:59 AM

Another Poll

ok, I saw Richards post showing market percentages and how most people buy cameras under $2k and how most ff cameras are above this. So here is how much would you pay

(lets say roughly 15-20mp beastie with mostly similar specs to a k20d)

PePe · 02-03-2008, 04:46 AM

Something around $2500 under current market conditions would still be OK, provided the rest of the specification would be up to date.
Compatibility with earlier lenses, including shaft-drive AF, is essential for me. Without this I could just as well go for Canikon.

Tbear · 02-03-2008, 08:49 AM

Originally posted by philmorley

Another Poll

ok, I saw Richards post showing market percentages and how most people buy cameras under $2k and how most ff cameras are above this. So here is how much would you pay

(lets say roughly 15-20mp beastie with mostly similar specs to a k20d)

Mine choice would be the second, only if it was spec'd at least as well as the Nikon D3.

*isteve · 02-03-2008, 08:56 AM

Originally posted by Tbear

Mine choice would be the second, only if it was spec'd at least as well as the Nikon D3.

Nikon D3 is $5000 and they have a large established pro customer base and a raft of FF lenses.

What makes you think Pentax can make one for $3500 and turn a decent profit when they have neither?

Tbear · 02-03-2008, 08:58 AM

Originally posted by *isteve

Nikon D3 is $5000 and they have a large established pro customer base and a raft of FF lenses.

What makes you think Pentax can make one for $3500 and turn a decent profit when they have neither?

One word: Samsung

*isteve · 02-03-2008, 09:12 AM

Originally posted by Tbear

One word: Samsung

Yeah yeah, right on. A year ago everyone was saying they couldnt build an APS sensor, now they can break the laws of silicon physics.

Peter Zack · 02-03-2008, 09:17 AM

Couldn't care less at this time. If (that's a huge "if") I ever turned pro (ROTFLMAO) It might be worth thinking about.

Kunzite · 02-03-2008, 09:52 AM

I'd say around 2000-2500$. I don't think Pentax will be able to launch a (first) FF DSLR at this price, but this is what I'll be willing to pay.

d.bradley · 02-03-2008, 10:09 AM

it will be 5-10 years before FF reaches the $2500-$1500 marks. FF is a pro feature, so bodies with FF will have all the other bells and whistles that go along with pro gear.

The first $1500 FF camera would be interesting, but it will oudoubtedly be an intro level, plastic body with very few features, no vertical grip, pentamirror viewfinder, lower FPS, slower af....bla bla bla. I'm not interested in a intro level FF camera at all.

mattdm · 02-03-2008, 11:33 AM

I'm going to pay around $1000 for the next camera body I buy in two or three years. Probably the same three or so years from that. If there's a full-frame body which also fits my other needs for that price, I might consider it.

nosnoop · 02-03-2008, 03:35 PM

Originally posted by Tbear

One word: Samsung

I see no evidence that Samsung is even remotely interested in the pro market. Look at their P&S line up and you can see what type of market it is aiming at. Do you see any G9 type of camera?

To get to the top three in 2 years (their target), going FF is not the way. They need a strong foothold in the entry and mid level. Once they become established, they may go for "halo" product like FF. Even then, I think they would be more interested in making an EVIL camera (electronic viewfinder with interchangeable lens) or camera with HD video/GPS/WiFi/Phone/MP3.... the whole works rather than FF

.

fwbigd · 02-04-2008, 10:59 AM

Originally posted by *isteve

Nikon D3 is $5000 and they have a large established pro customer base and a raft of FF lenses.

What makes you think Pentax can make one for $3500 and turn a decent profit when they have neither?

Completely agree what the cost of a full frame is going to remain high. Limited market! As I said in my post, “Why the Obsession with FF” the market for PRO cameras is probably less than 200 thousand per year. The average photographer just doesn’t need that much power or speed. We are not making 60” wide direct prints.

VR
Darryl

nosnoop · 02-04-2008, 11:26 AM

The poll results have so far surprised me even with my modest expectations. With so many cries for FF from Pentax, it looks like if they manage to produce a D3 beater at 20% less price, it would have sold 0 unit to those replied so far!

So people don't just want a FF, they want a really CHEAP FF!

Pentaxke · 02-04-2008, 01:05 PM

I would pay zip for full frame. They actually would have to pay me if they wanted me to use a full frame...

Kunzite · 02-04-2008, 01:17 PM

Originally posted by nosnoop

So people don't just want a FF, they want a really CHEAP FF!

I bet even if they'll get that, they will complain about not enough fps, slow AF, small buffer, not so good viewfinder...

View Poll Results: how much would you pay for FF
Less than $1500	45	17.24%
$1500-$2500	103	39.46%
$2500-$3500	24	9.20%
any price!!!	2	0.77%
not interested in FF	87	33.33%
Voters: 261. You may not vote on this poll

02-03-2008, 12:59 AM	#1
philmorley Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: in a house in Armidale, Australia Posts: 472	how much would you pay for ff? Another Poll ok, I saw Richards post showing market percentages and how most people buy cameras under $2k and how most ff cameras are above this. So here is how much would you pay (lets say roughly 15-20mp beastie with mostly similar specs to a k20d)

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
I'll pay more	jeffkrol	General Talk	28	11-17-2010 09:21 PM
How much would you pay for this?	timstone	Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras	6	04-18-2010 10:56 AM
should I pay that much for an ME super?	tonyjayice	Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras	18	08-10-2009 12:28 PM
How much to Pay for a LX?	sixstring	Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras	13	05-11-2008 03:49 AM
How much to pay for a 50/1.2	Arpe	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	14	05-30-2007 11:18 PM

02-03-2008, 04:46 AM	#2
PePe Pentaxian Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Helsinki, Finland Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 597	Something around $2500 under current market conditions would still be OK, provided the rest of the specification would be up to date. Compatibility with earlier lenses, including shaft-drive AF, is essential for me. Without this I could just as well go for Canikon.

02-03-2008, 08:49 AM	#3
Tbear Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Pittsburgh, PA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 269	Originally posted by philmorley Another Poll ok, I saw Richards post showing market percentages and how most people buy cameras under $2k and how most ff cameras are above this. So here is how much would you pay (lets say roughly 15-20mp beastie with mostly similar specs to a k20d) Mine choice would be the second, only if it was spec'd at least as well as the Nikon D3.

02-03-2008, 08:56 AM	#4
*isteve Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: London, England Posts: 1,187	Originally posted by Tbear Mine choice would be the second, only if it was spec'd at least as well as the Nikon D3. Nikon D3 is $5000 and they have a large established pro customer base and a raft of FF lenses. What makes you think Pentax can make one for $3500 and turn a decent profit when they have neither?

02-03-2008, 08:58 AM	#5
Tbear Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Pittsburgh, PA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 269	Originally posted by *isteve Nikon D3 is $5000 and they have a large established pro customer base and a raft of FF lenses. What makes you think Pentax can make one for $3500 and turn a decent profit when they have neither? One word: Samsung

02-03-2008, 09:12 AM	#6
*isteve Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: London, England Posts: 1,187	Originally posted by Tbear One word: Samsung Yeah yeah, right on. A year ago everyone was saying they couldnt build an APS sensor, now they can break the laws of silicon physics.

02-03-2008, 09:17 AM	#7
Peter Zack Pentaxian Moderator Emeritus Join Date: May 2007 Location: Edmonton Alberta, Canada Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 10,643	Couldn't care less at this time. If (that's a huge "if") I ever turned pro (ROTFLMAO) It might be worth thinking about.

02-03-2008, 09:52 AM	#8
Kunzite Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Romania Posts: 15,132	I'd say around 2000-2500$. I don't think Pentax will be able to launch a (first) FF DSLR at this price, but this is what I'll be willing to pay.

02-03-2008, 10:09 AM	#9
d.bradley Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Ontario Photos: Gallery Posts: 631	it will be 5-10 years before FF reaches the $2500-$1500 marks. FF is a pro feature, so bodies with FF will have all the other bells and whistles that go along with pro gear. The first $1500 FF camera would be interesting, but it will oudoubtedly be an intro level, plastic body with very few features, no vertical grip, pentamirror viewfinder, lower FPS, slower af....bla bla bla. I'm not interested in a intro level FF camera at all.

02-03-2008, 11:33 AM	#10
mattdm Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Boston, MA Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,948	I'm going to pay around $1000 for the next camera body I buy in two or three years. Probably the same three or so years from that. If there's a full-frame body which also fits my other needs for that price, I might consider it.

02-03-2008, 03:35 PM	#11
nosnoop Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 1,299	Originally posted by Tbear One word: Samsung I see no evidence that Samsung is even remotely interested in the pro market. Look at their P&S line up and you can see what type of market it is aiming at. Do you see any G9 type of camera? To get to the top three in 2 years (their target), going FF is not the way. They need a strong foothold in the entry and mid level. Once they become established, they may go for "halo" product like FF. Even then, I think they would be more interested in making an EVIL camera (electronic viewfinder with interchangeable lens) or camera with HD video/GPS/WiFi/Phone/MP3.... the whole works rather than FF .

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

02-04-2008, 10:59 AM	#12
fwbigd Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Fort Worth TX Posts: 339	Originally posted by *isteve Nikon D3 is $5000 and they have a large established pro customer base and a raft of FF lenses. What makes you think Pentax can make one for $3500 and turn a decent profit when they have neither? Completely agree what the cost of a full frame is going to remain high. Limited market! As I said in my post, “Why the Obsession with FF” the market for PRO cameras is probably less than 200 thousand per year. The average photographer just doesn’t need that much power or speed. We are not making 60” wide direct prints. VR Darryl

02-04-2008, 11:26 AM	#13
nosnoop Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 1,299	The poll results have so far surprised me even with my modest expectations. With so many cries for FF from Pentax, it looks like if they manage to produce a D3 beater at 20% less price, it would have sold 0 unit to those replied so far! So people don't just want a FF, they want a really CHEAP FF!

02-04-2008, 01:05 PM	#14
Pentaxke Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Belgium Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 476	I would pay zip for full frame. They actually would have to pay me if they wanted me to use a full frame...

02-04-2008, 01:17 PM	#15
Kunzite Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Romania Posts: 15,132	Originally posted by nosnoop So people don't just want a FF, they want a really CHEAP FF! I bet even if they'll get that, they will complain about not enough fps, slow AF, small buffer, not so good viewfinder...