[mecrox]

I don't think I'm missing anything; on the contrary.
Being a software engineer, I'm thinking this issue in terms of: issue -> fix. The first issue as you presented, is the lack of long lens products. The fix can only be "adding long lens products" to their range; which is work in progress. The second issue is the small market share; and obviously, the fix is: "increase market share". The fix must specifically address the issue, otherwise you either don't understand the issue or you're fixing something else.

Going for another markets, abandoning their traditional users is not a solution for these issues. In fact, it would only make them worse.

Lol, the answer you're missing is stay away from FF. Don't go there, don't be crushed by two players hugely stronger than Pentax, at least until you work out how to do more than milk a rather overmilked userbase. "Adding long lens products" is not a work in progress at all so far as I can see. Apart from the DA 560mm, which is a trophy product, it's not happening and hasn't happened since the film era. Increasing sales has nothing to do with "abandoning" traditional users but with reaching out beyond them since traditional users are a shrinking pool and not enough to support Ricoh's stated goals for growth. Honestly, I think a lot of the FF stuff on here is more or less urging Pentax to blow themselves up. Pentax need new sales from new customers to thrive. I think many of those new customers might like things like wifi, killer in-camera software, apps, touchscreen systems and so forth. I just don't think they want to spend $2000 or more buying grandpappy's conservative camera all over again.

[normhead]

I just don't think they want to spend $2000 or more buying grandpappy's conservative camera all over again.

Hey, I represent that statement.

[Kunzite]

Lol, the answer you're missing is stay away from FF. Don't go there, don't be crushed by two players hugely stronger than Pentax, at least until you work out how to do more than milk a rather overmilked userbase. "Adding long lens products" is not a work in progress at all so far as I can see. Apart from the DA 560mm, which is a trophy product, it's not happening and hasn't happened since the film era. Increasing sales has nothing to do with "abandoning" traditional users but with reaching out beyond them since traditional users are a shrinking pool and not enough to support Ricoh's stated goals for growth. Honestly, I think a lot of the FF stuff on here is more or less urging Pentax to blow themselves up. Pentax need new sales from new customers to thrive. I think many of those new customers might like things like wifi, killer in-camera software, apps, touchscreen systems and so forth. I just don't think they want to spend $2000 or more buying grandpappy's conservative camera all over again.

Let me think... nope, I'm not missing anything
"Stay away from FF" - what is this "solution" supposed to fix? Be specific... things like "don't be crushed" and "hugely stronger" are useless (as you're trying to appeal for an emotional response, which I refuse).
Pentax is competing with Canikon anyway, so expanding into the FF territory would help them to not be "crushed". It is in fact a method ("fix") to attract/keep ("issue") users interested in the higher-end (non-pro) spectrum of the DSLR market, either as buyers or as a "safety net".
Are you aware that the DSLR market is several times larger than the MILC one, and growing?

Adding long lenses is work in progress, because it already started (HD DA 560mm) and will be continued (long zoom on the roadmap).

So, you want Pentax to become a gadget-camera maker? Why necessarily Pentax? A Samsung Galaxy Camera would be perfect for you and those gadget-lovers, having wifi, in-camera apps (it runs Android, wow!), obviously touchscreen - all the things you're appreciating. I'd rather have a photographic tool.

[tclausen]

+1

myself, i am more interested in a new high end aps-c sensor based camera that covers shortcomings of prior ones...
thinking of movie mode, articulated screen,...

as hobby photographer, i don't see a reason to go FF.
For pentax to compete in professional league, yes...

I've been thinking about this for a bit: in the olden days, we'd buy a camera body and a handful of lenses.....then, miles and miles of film....seems that the camera manufacturer made do alright with that, but it's no longer enough?

Innovations in film technology, and the different types (slide, color print, B/W) made most of us shop around trying different films for the job at hand - and, perhaps, acquire a 2nd body so as to be able to use b/w and slide film at the same time, typically of the same brand as body #1 so as to use the same lenses. And, that was pretty much it, at least for me, until a body physically got worn out.

Autofocus screwed that up, adding "focusing speed" as a reason to upgrade....so I didn't buy into autofocus, but kept using my old manual bodies until digital came along and AF had matured.

Then, there were the different "program modes" offered as upgrade arguments: matrix metering, 3D matrix metering, scene programs, transcendental hypnotic Hogwarts programs, etc. Given that the exposure of a frame of film is, simply, a combination of an aperture and a shutter speed, I figured that all this could be summarized simply into "spot-metering, plus heuristics for letting the camera guess (often wrongly) which spot to measure". I did get the epiphany of spot-metering from reading Ansel Adams, and so acquired a camera with a built-in spot-meter (Olympus OM 2s/p, I think it was around 1984), and I've stuck to that form of exposure ever since.

Yeah, I'm probably retrograde....or a slow learner....

Digital made for a certain necessary upgrade cycle, as sensors improved from "really bad" through to where they are today - which is pretty good, I'd say on par with most of what could be gotten out of film.

I've got an istD - nice camera, but I did run into its limits. It was the early days, and I had half-way expected that, but I got a lot of great photos from that and love this camera dearly, still. I got a K10D as soon as it came out, which I love and where the limit for me isn't the camera but the photographer. I picked up a K-01 mostly for its size, but also to have a 2nd body. There, too, the limit isn't the camera but the photographer.

If a Pentax designer sat down and asked me what I'd change in a future K-mount body, I'd talk about ergonomic issues, connectivity issues, and other "usability things", in particularly paring down a lot of what I consider unnecessary "bells and whistles": programs and scenic stuff and digital filters etc.

For example: I loved having the shutter speed ring around the lens mount on my Olympus OM bodies, would like better EyeFi integration and the ability to charge batteries whilst inside the body (& via USB), and a huge in-camera buffer would be great. Preserving spot metering and RAW is a given.....and I'd likely request all the digitial-filter-jpeg-whatnot-magic be removed, as it's just adding firmware complexity

Even if said Pentax designer build such a body, it'd have to be darn cheap for me to feel a reason for buying it, though. Just like with my good old manual film bodies, I'm feeling that I - not my camera bodies - now am the limiting factor in my photography.

So, just like in the film-photogoraphy-days, I am not really sure that I'm the target audience for any new Pentax camera bodies.

I'm pretty sure that there are those who need faster AF, or more pixels, or a full-frame sensor - but, I do think that given the current state of things, those are a minority.

Now, there may be something to be said for the marketing aspects: having "hard-core pro's" use BrandX may be what excites "Joe R. Consumer" to also want to buy BrandX -- as I said in another post, I'm just a lowly engineer and not well versed in such matters. I should hope that Pentax would have hired somebody who is, though.

Now, if Pentax wants to talk lenses, then I'm all for it: a 135/1.8 or 150/2 Limited would sit very very well with me, and I'd gladly pay a premium especially if it'd be compact

[glanglois]

If Pentax was willing to share some of the development cost of the mount and tooling I'd bet Sigma would market the lenses.

IIRC, there wasn't much support when I posted that same suggestion once or twice a few years back.

I'm glad to see that no one is jumping on you for it - we've matured on this forum. Somewhat ....

[monochrome]

IIRC, there wasn't much support when I posted that same suggestion once or twice a few years back.

It does defy logic that Pentax would invest money to allow Sigma to make a profit that Pentax forgoes.

I'm glad to see that no one is jumping on you for it - we've matured on this forum. Somewhat ....

Have you read any of the K-01 threads lately? They're dancing on its grave!

[Tesla]

Does anyone in this thread think that the Sigma 35mm F1.4 FF lens is an indicator that Pentax FF might be coming sooner than later?

Ya know, if ever I saw an obscure indicator that a Pentax FF camera were coming, the release of this Sigma FF coverage lens so quickly in K mount is the best one I have seen.

Given that Sigma regularly stiffs Pentax users by not producing FF oriented lenses in K mount, I'm frankly surprised to see it (and this quickly).

[thibs]

IWouldn't it be easier and more cost effective to have just one production line for the DFA lens and not waste money on an additional DA specific production line for international buyers? the lens still costs quite a bit the only real advantage the DA version of it has is that the DA25mm f/4 has slightly lower CA than the DFA lens does.

Not if, as it was suggested before, the DA version put less demand on the centering in the lens although I agree designing the lens for 'DA' from the beginning would have been best.

[joe.penn]

Does anyone in this thread think that the Sigma 35mm F1.4 FF lens is an indicator that Pentax FF might be coming sooner than later?

No, short focal lengths are the bread and butter for Sigma and this is a focal that every shooter can have in their bag - Sigma designs and manufacturers lenses that will turn a profit for them, and this lens in Pentax/K-Mount will turn a profit for them when Pentax users purchase them for their APS-C cameras. Also, sigma manufacturers almost all of the normal popular focal lengths in FF lenses...

[mecrox]

Let me think... nope, I'm not missing anything
"Stay away from FF" - what is this "solution" supposed to fix? Be specific... things like "don't be crushed" and "hugely stronger" are useless (as you're trying to appeal for an emotional response, which I refuse).
Pentax is competing with Canikon anyway, so expanding into the FF territory would help them to not be "crushed". It is in fact a method ("fix") to attract/keep ("issue") users interested in the higher-end (non-pro) spectrum of the DSLR market, either as buyers or as a "safety net".
Are you aware that the DSLR market is several times larger than the MILC one, and growing?

Adding long lenses is work in progress, because it already started (HD DA 560mm) and will be continued (long zoom on the roadmap).

So, you want Pentax to become a gadget-camera maker? Why necessarily Pentax? A Samsung Galaxy Camera would be perfect for you and those gadget-lovers, having wifi, in-camera apps (it runs Android, wow!), obviously touchscreen - all the things you're appreciating. I'd rather have a photographic tool.

Let's agree to differ. But if you think that what I outlined is gadgetry then you aren't seeing what will be the lifeblood of the imaging industry over the next decade, I'd suggest anyway. In my view, that is where Pentax must head if it is to thrive regardless of whether the end result is an MF costing $7000 or a simple compact costing $70. Once, excellent hardware alone was enough. Now analogue has given way to digital and hardware isn't enough without excellent electronics and software too. Just my view, of course. For example, i don't think we are far off the point where the particular rendering of any lens can be replicated in software. You take a shot - want the Zeiss 50mm look and bokeh? Press button A; for Leica, press button B, etc. Perhaps you'd prefer a Contax look? You can download the app for the Contax efffect for $25 using your camera's wifi. This is the future even if we don't much care for it.

[Kunzite]

It is gadgetry, how else should I call it?
For example, the touchscreen - for point&shooters it would be neat (the ability to play AngryBirds and such other useful things); but IMHO photographers would rather have the tactile feedback of the classic button&dial interface.
Or Android with its apps; AngryBirds again? Its effect on the photographic-related part of the camera would be the necessity of a quad-core 1.5+GHz processor with 2GB RAM (excluding the buffer), for a decent but not blazingly fast performance. Of course, the camera's batteries won't last a day.
Your lens-emulating applications won't work nearly as well as you hope, if at all. Being useless but claiming big things - it's a gadget.

[Ash]

The FF market isn't over saturated with products just like there are so many different car companies producing small, medium and large cars, and yet they all still sell. Cars are just as much a non-essential item as cameras are (but that's just my opinion - I'm sure a good number of people would consider a car essential). Nevertheless, there are fewer camera companies producing FF cameras than car companies producing luxury model cars (for lack of a better analogy). Having Pentax in the FF fold doesn't mean it has to fight over Canisony for the existing userbase, it is an opportunity to create its own user base from current APS-C or 4/3 enthusiasts who were looking for something more but weren't happy enough with the current FF cameras (ergonomics, weight and UI come to mind as good reasons to not go FF at the moment).

[Chris Mak]

The FF market isn't over saturated with products just like there are so many different car companies producing small, medium and large cars, and yet they all still sell. Cars are just as much a non-essential item as cameras are (but that's just my opinion - I'm sure a good number of people would consider a car essential). Nevertheless, there are fewer camera companies producing FF cameras than car companies producing luxury model cars (for lack of a better analogy). Having Pentax in the FF fold doesn't mean it has to fight over Canisony for the existing userbase, it is an opportunity to create its own user base from current APS-C or 4/3 enthusiasts who were looking for something more but weren't happy enough with the current FF cameras (ergonomics, weight and UI come to mind as good reasons to not go FF at the moment).

I have to agree here. The American guy for Pentax said in an interview that Pentax did not enter the FF market any sooner, because the projected price level of full frame was too steep, making it destined to become a niche product. Pentax obviously does not want to launch an elitist product, and this is the time that they feel it makes sense to enter the FF market. They have people there, that thoroughly now the ins and outs of the DSLR market, way better than any of us. I'm sure that there are other ways of making FF successful, than trying to compete with Canon or Nikon. They will probably concentrate on making it as much "Pentax" as possible.

[Kunzite]

They will compete with an enthusiast-level FF camera in the same way as with an APS-C one; I can't understand why anyone would believe they're different things. It's just a higher market positioning/price point; otherwise, everything's exactly the same.
Yes, there are issues which needs to be addressed (e.g. lenses); but that's something they've done in the past and can be done again.

[kenyee]

I've been thinking about this for a bit: in the olden days, we'd buy a camera body and a handful of lenses.....then, miles and miles of film....seems that the camera manufacturer made do alright with that, but it's no longer enough?

That's because the "body" nowadays is the "film". Like the 645D was basically the cost of a MF digital back, just that it came w/ a free "body".

I think the FF response now is probably appropriate because Canikon have pushed it and the cost down to "enthusiast" levels...the K-5 when initially released was $1500 for the body IIRC...if they released another APS-C body at that price point against Canikon FF bodies (down to around $1700 now), it'd be suicide as well...