[Fogel70]

Would it be a bad idea to show a prototype and release it a couple of months later?
It would tell everyone that they're developing, and would give them a couple of additional months to develop.
It would kind of destroy the surprise, but...

It will be bad if Pentax will try to do something different than already existing FF cameras. It will then make it possible for the competitors to catch up quicker.

If they just want to make a copy of already existing FF cameras, then they can gain someting with showing a prototype.

[Class A]

There's nothing in this prediction. Of course the prices will come down.

I don't understand what you are trying to say.

Jim said Pentax was surprised by the sudden drop in FF retail prices. My point was that this development should not have come as a surprise to them. Ever since the A850, anyone believing that FF prices can continue to be outrageously high was living on borrowed time, AFAIC. The A850/900 didn't work out for Sony, but there were a number of reasons for that. Falconeye also made a number of good points as to why it is only a matter of time till FF will be a cheaper option for a certain IQ than APS-C. No APS-C camera can compete with an FF camera that offers higher IQ for a lower price (lenses included).

In my book, when you are late to the party, you cannot assume that the status quo will still be there when you finally arrive. You have to aim for the context that will be in place once you have arrived to the party. For Pentax that translates into the need to having realised a while ago that when they are finally laying their FF-egg, then it won't be placed in the nice "high price"-structure nest that existed while they were still hesitating.

I don't want to be hard on Pentax and realise that they were heavily constrained under Hoya. But I'm really surprised that Pentax claims to have been surprised by the FF-price structure development. Maybe they should secure the services of falconeye. They would not have been surprised then (among other benefits). Note that Falk did not just make a lucky guess, but systematically argued why the development is inevitable. Maybe some industry players were counting on the process to take a little bit longer, but there should definitely not been an element of surprise for anyone.

It isn't too late, nor a 'do or die' situation (that's an exaggeration).

True, but with the current level of "jumping ship"-activity (not helped by MAP games), every month feels precious.

APS-C is still a very desirable format, and with the development of MILC, may be a high IQ CSC option.

Yes, APS-C still has its place. But is has become a smaller place and it will continue to shrink in the future (definitely with respect to its use for mounts that support larger formats).

[Class A]

It's quite difficult to be the forerunner of anything if you're suffering from cost cutting and have to meet drastic margins targets. But in any case, Pentax is no longer a cheap brand - we should get used to it.

Pentax were a forerunner with the 645D. If anything, being a forerunner with a budget FF camera should have been easier (same mount, same body, etc. as existing APS-models).

I disagree that Pentax is no longer a cheap brand (not a fan of the term "cheap" here, but anyhow). Pentax camera bodies still have a great value for money ratio. You could even call it "fantastic" given their smaller volume disadvantage.

Regarding lenses, Pentax cannot sell its main, high-quality zooms (the 16-50 and the 50-135) for a higher price than the competition while having SDM issues. Something needs to happen here. They also need to get more creative regarding back into stores. So far, the MAP games, only seem to have created big damage to online sales without any positive effects. Maybe the latter are still invisible, I don't know. I agree that sadly the days when an FA 50/1.4 could be had for $199 seem to be gone. Big shame, because I do not believe that some of the current prices are necessary to keep Pentax alive and may only serve to slowly sink the ship. I hopefully do not need to stress how much I'd hate that.

[Ash]

Class A, I mentioned in my previous post that as technology develops, so too does its affordability to the general public by virtue of being more widely accessible. When the first FF sensor was available, it wasn't cheap. Now we have more advanced FF sensors in cameras that are much cheaper. That is all I was saying; nothing profound. As for APS-C getting smaller as a result of FF - how do we then explain the success of micro 4/3? The product surrounding the format rather than the format itself determines its popularity in the market. The Q and Q10 are testament to that.

[Winder]

how do we then explain the success of micro 4/3? The product surrounding the format rather than the format itself determines its popularity in the market. The Q and Q10 are testament to that.

The size to IQ ratio for m4/3 is very good. Lenses like the 12mm, 45mm, & 75mm deliver really good IQ in a small package with really fast accurate AF. Then there is also the advantage of being able to use practically any brand of old glass with an adapter. Demand for the OM-D is high enough that it can sell for more than the K-30. I have a collection of old Canon, Olympus, & Contax glass that I can use on an EVIL body. I am just waiting for the technology to mature to decide if it will be Fuji, Olympus, or Sony. Once I buy an adapter for X-mount/E-mount/M4/3 then I can switch back to different bodies from different manufacturers as technology changes. I'm not tied to one system.

I really hope that the Sony/Olympus deal results in Olympus making a larger 4/3 aspect ratio camera for the E-mount and making E-mount glass. The wide 3:2 format creates problems corner for the FF E-mount and a 4:3 format could solve these problems. Probably just wishful thinking.

[Kunzite]

Pentax were a forerunner with the 645D. If anything, being a forerunner with a budget FF camera should have been easier (same mount, same body, etc. as existing APS-models).

I disagree that Pentax is no longer a cheap brand (not a fan of the term "cheap" here, but anyhow). Pentax camera bodies still have a great value for money ratio. You could even call it "fantastic" given their smaller volume disadvantage.

Regarding lenses, Pentax cannot sell its main, high-quality zooms (the 16-50 and the 50-135) for a higher price than the competition while having SDM issues. Something needs to happen here. They also need to get more creative regarding back into stores. So far, the MAP games, only seem to have created big damage to online sales without any positive effects. Maybe the latter are still invisible, I don't know. I agree that sadly the days when an FA 50/1.4 could be had for $199 seem to be gone. Big shame, because I do not believe that some of the current prices are necessary to keep Pentax alive and may only serve to slowly sink the ship. I hopefully do not need to stress how much I'd hate that.

The situations are very different, in fact complete opposite:
- in the DMF market, Pentax had, has and will have a competitive advantage: their K-mount line allows them to build cheaper and higher volume cameras. I expect big things from Pentax, and they already started by bringing in-lens stabilization (a technology so far reserved to the "lesser" formats); they won't stop there, and there is little the competition could do about it.
- in the small format market, Pentax is at a disadvantage, competing with stronger players. It will be difficult for them to raise to a level comparable to the big 2.

I was intentionally using the term "cheap" you dislike; because a "cheap" brand has only one advantage: the price. Pentax is indeed great value for money, but that's not the same as being "cheap".

I also wholeheartedly agree that things MUST happen on the lens arena; it will take years, but I'm sure they will work as fast as they can to fix any such issue. Maybe that DA* on the roadmap is part of the solution... we'll see.
I don't care much about MAP, being from another continent

About the FF price shock, maybe Pentax wasn't really expecting cameras like the D600 - I'm not talking about now, but even under Hoya, when probably Nikon started the development (I don't think Jim was specifically talking about the moment of the official announcements). There are some who are saying the D600 is not selling very well, people hoped for it to be ~$1500 (which means $2100 is still too much for many), so it's not that unreasonable. Pentax was until recently under the obligation to target larger margins, a sort of a low volume D600 being very unlikely IMO.
Also, Pentax had some "blackout" when they couldn't really react - when they were prepared for sale, sold, the PRI was formed and until they formulated a new strategy. We have to be patient, but good things will happen this year.

[GabrielFFontes]

Uh, i forgot to tell you guys about SDM issues... (i talked to the guy for 30 min, so i can't remember everything heheh)
I told him that i personally wouldnt buy a SDM lens until they fixed the problem, and also told him that i would love to see cheap primes using DC motor, or maybe every new lens using the DC motor, since it is cheaper than SDM, and he said :
- Yes, it is a bit cheaper, but we really want to keep having 2 different motors...
I have no idea why they would want to keep 2 motors if the DC is only a bit cheaper.

[Kunzite]

I hope that means they're developing "SDM II".

[JinDesu]

Whoever's next on the call list - just ask if there will be more budget DC WR lenses, and if SDM failures have really made Pentax look into fixing the current SDM motor.

[Blue]

The size to IQ ratio for m4/3 is very good. Lenses like the 12mm, 45mm, & 75mm deliver really good IQ in a small package with really fast accurate AF. Then there is also the advantage of being able to use practically any brand of old glass with an adapter. Demand for the OM-D is high enough that it can sell for more than the K-30. I have a collection of old Canon, Olympus, & Contax glass that I can use on an EVIL body. I am just waiting for the technology to mature to decide if it will be Fuji, Olympus, or Sony. Once I buy an adapter for X-mount/E-mount/M4/3 then I can switch back to different bodies from different manufacturers as technology changes. I'm not tied to one system.

I really hope that the Sony/Olympus deal results in Olympus making a larger 4/3 aspect ratio camera for the E-mount and making E-mount glass. The wide 3:2 format creates problems corner for the FF E-mount and a 4:3 format could solve these problems. Probably just wishful thinking.

I am switching all my "old" glass to use on the K-01. With these lenses and any worth having with the m4/3 does away with its size/pocketing potential for me anyway. Plus, in event lighting situations, I seem to get creamed trying to use the GF2 much less the e-p1. Plus, I don't want to spend LTD price money for 12mm, 45mm, 75mm or the Panny offerings. That said, Sigma just entered the arena with a 15mm and 30mm that shows promise. However, with 4 DA LTD and an FA LTD lenses plus other lenses I have in K-mount, the K-01 just makes more sense for me. Plus, it has a sensor based on the K-5 sensor.

[ElJamoquio]

Class A, I mentioned in my previous post that as technology develops, so too does its affordability to the general public by virtue of being more widely accessible. When the first FF sensor was available, it wasn't cheap. Now we have more advanced FF sensors in cameras that are much cheaper. That is all I was saying; nothing profound. As for APS-C getting smaller as a result of FF - how do we then explain the success of micro 4/3? The product surrounding the format rather than the format itself determines its popularity in the market. The Q and Q10 are testament to that.

In general, it seems like the average sensor size sold is getting larger, not smaller, to me. (in non-cell-phone applications)

I know some have gone from DSLR to Micro 4/3rds but I think more have gone from P&S to micro 4/3.

[Fogel70]

In general, it seems like the average sensor size sold is getting larger, not smaller, to me. (in non-cell-phone applications)

I know some have gone from DSLR to Micro 4/3rds but I think more have gone from P&S to micro 4/3.

I think most have gone P&S to smartphone. So if not including cell-phones you don't show the whole trend.

[ElJamoquio]

I think most have gone P&S to smartphone. So if not including cell-phones you don't show the whole trend.

I agree, but I was talking about where micro 4/3rds 'success' has come from, and including the embiggening of the DSLR sensors as well as a second point.

Even smartphone sensor sizes have been growing, too.

[Kryscendo]

Just finished up with Mr. Malcolm. Cool dude. Very passionate about photography because right away, he gives off the impression that he's been there and done that.

I simply touched based with the things I felt important. Rough paraphrases here, please don't quote.

I have a Q, I like the Q, thanks for keep supporting the Q with new lenses. "Oh yes, keep an eye out this year for more new lenses." He particularly mentioned the pin hole lens that was featured on the lens roadmap.

I mentioned that I like the 645D system and to keep advertising it, showing it off with big sexy lenses in the trade shows. "Yup, we love our 645 system and will continue to champion it around at shows. I've shot Hasselblads in the past, etc." Pretty cool that he 'gets it' when it comes to the 645D. It's an exceptional camera, not meant for the masses, but what it offers is very alluring. He mentioned also to look at the Pentax Photo Gallery specifically for 645D shots.

I also mentioned how I would like to never see Marc Newson again. He had a good laugh and said "Either you love it or you hate it."

Next I brought up FF and just glossed over it and said to him, "Look, you guys have been hearing this for a while, and I think you making one that is a true full frame rather than these odd entry-level full frame cameras is important." I mentioned how I'd rather have a 7D over a 6D, and he basically acknowledged the brief feedback I had.

Lastly, I discussed other sales opportunities, namely that I work at Best Buy and some customers really get excited when I bring up the website and talk about the camera. Partly because it looks bad ass on paper and in specs and all. The other part because it is WHITE OR BLUE. This was something that he replied back that was certainly an asset to Pentax and asked how important is it to have the product in store and I just replied that it is paramount. I mentioned how I have sold a Nikon D7000 over a Canon 60D or vice versa because of which one we had in stock at our store at that moment in time. He assured me for the moment, Pentax would be focusing on specialty camera stores but that larger stores "Like Best Buy are the next, logical step." and that it is a challenge with having reps swing by, making sure everything is functional, batteries charged and all that.

Over all, very impressed with him. I feel very confident about the products so I didn't dwell on them too much. Over all, pretty happy that he's been doing these.

[JinDesu]

It's good to hear that he states "that it is a challenge with having reps swing by, making sure everything is functional, batteries charged and all that". That shows at least there's some thought into logistics of the NA Pentax support. I'd have been disappointed if he just gave a stock answer about it.

Pentax NA's game has been increasing, with more and more ads popping up, and more and more reviewers/magazines covering them. It's a good thing to see.