[Kunzite]

They have Ricoh, Q, K and 645 mounts. Each needs lenses. Each needs accessories. That would only be twelve to 15 release dates a year - but they'd certainly stay in the news. Certain websites would be forced to put Pentax on the front page for a week every month for 6 months, 12 months, hwoever many months.

My bad, I was assuming you're talking only about cameras. They have 11 products on the lens roadmaps, though some might be postponed; and they still have to launch several cameras. Probably they will group the announcements.

[Pål Jensen]

Quite right.

The days of higher-end DA* and even Ltd APS-C lenses are disappearing. Higher-end money is going to FF.

Huh? There are no Pentax FF camera and FF share is static in spite of new models (supposedly game changers as well). Canon needed to dump the 5D MKII and they probably still have unsold stock. This year we will see the Pentax K-3, The Nikon D400 and a new APS Canon. They are not going to diminish the market for higher end APS lenses. The fact that APS is the preferred format for the majority of DSLR users out there and that there are an ever increasing number of APS cameras in use needing lenses will keep the demand for suitable lenses intact or increasing. .

[Aristophanes]

You cannot get the same margins off APS cameras as they drop in relative value. FF is creaming the high-end margins leaving far less market space for elite APS lenses or bodies. A great number of prosumer shooters who "buy up" in value will go all the way to FF even if that means a system jump, as many a posting in our own PF marketplace shows. Nikon will likely produce far fewer D400s than they did 300s.

APS Ltd and DA* glass had its day. As the market for APS cameras notches down price points on average, so too must lenses follow. All players are doing it (except Fuji who I think may get burned by this trend on their very pricey X stuff). Kudos to Pentax for going there as well, but they cannot stop now with the 35/40/50. The delta between APS body prices and lenses is unsustainable. The same buyers who want value bodies want-and will buy-value lenses. If Pentax won't, others will. Watch the Canon EOS-M APS space for just that market structure. And the T-series also looks to spur new lower end prime development alongside. Emerging markets buying $250 bodies will be looking for lots of variety in $200 glass, not $700 Ltd's. That's the future.

[monochrome]

I really want to see real market studies that back up your arguments.

Linky Linky?

[Digitalis]

Cheater.

Move with the times. 8X10 film is rather thin on the ground these days I have no intention of wasting it- especially the good Kodak stuff.

[jatrax]

The same buyers who want value bodies want-and will buy-value lenses.

Is this not the trend Pentax chased with cheap plastic cameras and lenses back in the 1990's? Producing cheap junk in a race to the bottom that resulted in their being bought from disaster by Hoya? Producing some lenses that even today clog up ebay with no takers and are an embarrassment to anyone who values a quality product?

I am not arguing that you are wrong. I really have no idea. But I do think that business model has been tried and Pentax failed at it miserably. I'm not eager to see a repetition.

[Fogel70]

You cannot get the same margins off APS cameras as they drop in relative value. FF is creaming the high-end margins leaving far less market space for elite APS lenses or bodies. A great number of prosumer shooters who "buy up" in value will go all the way to FF even if that means a system jump, as many a posting in our own PF marketplace shows. Nikon will likely produce far fewer D400s than they did 300s.

But with Pentax small market share, they might struggle to get any profit out of FF. So in Pentax case FF might only be to keep users base, and to get more users of APS-C.

[Kunzite]

Is this not the trend Pentax chased with cheap plastic cameras and lenses back in the 1990's? Producing cheap junk in a race to the bottom that resulted in their being bought from disaster by Hoya? Producing some lenses that even today clog up ebay with no takers and are an embarrassment to anyone who values a quality product?

I'm not sure about which Pentax you're talking about, but it must belong to another Universe

[Aristophanes]

But with Pentax small market share, they might struggle to get any profit out of FF. So in Pentax case FF might only be to keep users base, and to get more users of APS-C.

Correct. But not at FF lens price points. APS-C doesn't have the room to have elite pricing anymore. A huge chunk of that consumer discretionary spending is going to D800/600's. FF lenses can be cheaper to manufacture. To get the same revenue from APS-C they need to maintain unit sales by appealing to the broader market and that means lower prices.

[monochrome]

Correct. But not at FF lens price points. APS-C doesn't have the room to have elite pricing anymore. A huge chunk of that consumer discretionary spending is going to D800/600's. FF lenses can be cheaper to manufacture. To get the same revenue from APS-C they need to maintain unit sales by appealing to the broader market and that means lower prices.

Interesting assertion. Show me numbers, Say, audited CIPA numbers.

[Pål Jensen]

You cannot get the same margins off APS cameras as they drop in relative value. FF is creaming the high-end margins leaving far less market space for elite APS lenses or bodies. A great number of prosumer shooters who "buy up" in value will go all the way to FF even if that means a system jump, as many a posting in our own PF marketplace shows. Nikon will likely produce far fewer D400s than they did 300s. .

You do the mistake of equaling value with sensor size. It is not so. Theres no reason why you cannot have the same margin on high end APS as FF. Theres no automatic wish for everyone using APS to "upgrade" to FF. Besides, the entry level FF cameras from Nikon and Canon are not high margin products; rumors has it that both the Canon 5D and 5D MKII had to be virtually given away at heavy discount and that it took years to clear stock. The D600 was immmediately reduced in price due to dissapointing initial sales reflectred in the marketshare of FF that is more or less static. I'm sure Sony's FF initatives are all economic disasters.
Five years ago (or was it less?) 12mp were all you could dream about from APS; now it is 24mp. Hence, the output quality of the smaller sensor is getting better making more people satisfied with its output. Better sensor only make smaller sensors more compelling. As FF marketshare is fixed, theres no reason why higher end APS should be less viable now than, say, four years ago.

[Pål Jensen]

Interesting assertion. Show me numbers, Say, audited CIPA numbers.

The numbers show that the FF marketshare is static except for small fluctuations from new model releases. Hence, theres no basis for suggesting people are abandoning APS (or anything else) for FF.
My guess is that we will see a decrease in FF share when the K-3, D400, and 8D(?) are released...

[Aristophanes]

You do the mistake of equaling value with sensor size. It is not so. Theres no reason why you cannot have the same margin on high end APS as FF. Theres no automatic wish for everyone using APS to "upgrade" to FF. Besides, the entry level FF cameras from Nikon and Canon are not high margin products; rumors has it that both the Canon 5D and 5D MKII had to be virtually given away at heavy discount and that it took years to clear stock. The D600 was immmediately reduced in price due to dissapointing initial sales reflectred in the marketshare of FF that is more or less static. I'm sure Sony's FF initatives are all economic disasters.
Five years ago (or was it less?) 12mp were all you could dream about from APS; now it is 24mp. Hence, the output quality of the smaller sensor is getting better making more people satisfied with its output. Better sensor only make smaller sensors more compelling. As FF marketshare is fixed, theres no reason why higher end APS should be less viable now than, say, four years ago.

Of course I equate market value with sensor size!!!

645D costs more than FF costs more than APS-C costs more than...

It is so. In fact, it's the primary dividing line between cameras on price point right now. This is very different than the 135 film days when you could upgrade a decent camera with better film.

Th data shows that FF is driving margins. It is commoditized APS-C that is powering unit sales but a low returns. The EU is in recession. China is growing less than anyone expected, and the Yen is recovering from a hangover, while the US is still recovering. It's no wonder $2,000 bodies struggle to sell.

Sony is a disaster anyway. They have a hedge calling for it to be split up.

I agree more people are happy with APS-C and FF is a costly dream. But they are still not going to pay price approaching what FF prosumers pay, and where there are gluts or over-production, prices fall. FF prices will grind down as APS-C did. Where bodies come down in price, so will lenses. APS-C top line cameras now compete with used D700's and soon a lot of D600's as some move up to the D800 and so on. An APS-C camera trying to come in at $1,600 for a body will not compete, but that's what the top-end norm was awhile ago. They've been displaced.

The industry right now is trying to milk margins on existing tech, like APS-C as it turns into commodity. They are over-pricing new products like MILC leading to fire sales and Thom Hogan's value rant (in which he is bang on IMO). It's not sustainable.

The Ricoh GR is a case in point. It's coming in only $100 more in price than its predecessors, with a much, much larger sensor and accompanying IQ. To top it off, it's got no smaller sensor companion. The GRD IV is discontinued. The GXR looks to be, too.

The price to value ratio is grinding down and there is no doubt it will continue to do so. And this will happen for lenses as well. People in the $300 body price point are not going to then look for a $700 lens. Some manufacturers will start to offer $300 lenses as well in similar FL's and speeds as what is on for $700. We are already seeing it in the middle FL's and this will keep going.

[monochrome]

The numbers show that the FF marketshare is static except for small fluctuations from new model releases. Hence, theres no basis for suggesting people are abandoning APS (or anything else) for FF.
My guess is that we will see a decrease in FF share when the K-3, D400, and 8D(?) are released...

why do some people obsessively post how stupid Pentax is, with such logical assertiveness, but never show anything real to prove their points? I mean, just go away and let us sink or swim, eh!

Sure, I'm concerned. Silence bothers me. Price volatility bothers me. But fer ...sake, leave us alone already.

[Pål Jensen]

Of course I equate market value with sensor size!!!

645D costs more than FF costs more than APS-C costs more than...

It is so. In fact, it's the primary dividing line between cameras on price point right now. This is very different than the 135 film days when you could upgrade a decent camera with better film.

Th data shows that FF is driving margins. It is commoditized APS-C that is powering unit sales but a low returns. The EU is in recession. China is growing less than anyone expected, and the Yen is recovering from a hangover, while the US is still recovering. It's no wonder $2,000 bodies struggle to sell..

...and the solution in a recession is to sell more expensive cameras and lenses?
I'm sure the top of the line FF cameras and lenses are higer margin products. But theres no reason to assume the cheaper FF bodies are. The basis for the viability of Nikon and Canons DSLR systems are the huge volumes of smaller snesor DSLR sales. FF is simply not large enough segment to keep these companies floating or fill their production capacity. You also seem to have a wrong idea about pricing as if it is based on "what we can get away with principle". It isn't.
Of course a camera with smaller sensor are cheaper than the same body with larger one but this doesn't mean that no APS camera can't be as expensive as an FF one in order to sell. The same goes for lenses. There are plenty of 35mm system lenses that cost more than medium format lenses. And so what?