[24X36NOW]

There are plenty of high-spending APS-C users, too.

Yeah - and they all shoot Nikon or Canon LMAO. Clearly you haven't spent much time listening to the Pentax Faithful who wear out their shoulders patting themselves on the back for waiting until the price of every new body that comes out has dropped by nearly half before they pull the trigger.

[24X36NOW]

But the problem is that Nikon and Canon have a particularly hard grip on this marked segment, something they have had for decades long before digital. Pentax cannot hope to have the same percentage of their user base to use FF as Nikon and Canon have. In addition the FF segment is single digit percentage of the whole DSLR market. This strongly indicate how few FF cameras Pentax can realistically hope to sell. And I dismiss the notion that Pentax can realistically make an über super FF camera or an FF camera cheaper than anyone else.
However, Pentax appeal to the enthusiast; it is not a default choice. Often bought after research. In fact, many coming from other brands actually find Pentax appealing because they have emphasized the APS format with a very nice APS lens line-up underlining the format strenghts. I don't think Pentax can do the same trick for FF; among other things they don't have the FF lens line-up of Nikon and Canon.
There are in fact no shortage of people switching from FF to Pentax, either totally or complement their FF gear. I do think Pentax enthusiast are equally likely to spend as some FF users from other brands. LBA is widespread among the Pentax fans...

Seriously?! Nikon and Canon have the exact same "particularly hard grip" on the APS-C dSLR market. You might as well tell Pentax to fold up their tents! There is nothing "special" about APS-C that makes it easier for Pentax to compete in that market space.

[24X36NOW]

One high spending enthusiast cannot equal multiple new consumers who buy into the brand, and then get provided a path of upgrade in the future.

The way I'm seeing it from reading that is: Pentax should get back to basics on their current cameras and lens lineup and increase the distribution and get more converts over, more new customers - THEN introduce the upgrade path, the FF, the super pro APS-C, etc.

My opinion only, of course.

Pentax's bone-headed "APS-C only" strategy has lost them legions of customers relative to the handful of "new" customers gained during the same period, and continuing that trend by continuing that strategy will not bring success, but failure.

My opinion only, of course, but it is backed up by viewing the results of decades of camera market "bottom feeding" by Pentax since the dawn of autocfocus.

[24X36NOW]

Your statement is grossly incorrect. The Return on Invested Capital required to justify releasing a FF System cannot be met at such low volumes as a Pentax would generate, though the mark-up would be significantly higher than a high volume camera. Nikon and Canon have enough overall Gross Revenue to invest in the technology and then transfer technology bits into higher volume cameras later in the product cycle. They have enough market dominance in FF to profitably produce cameras in that sector, or at least break even. They have enough capital to also develop top-end lenses for FF - some of which are accessible only to professional users who can lease equipment - and support infrastructure to serve the professional user with the ancillary services necessary to their businesses. Canon and Nikon can design and develop a full suite of system accessories (that can be sold profitably).

The notion that a Pentax FF would generate "such low volumes" is pure speculation, and has no basis. Since Pentax's heyday was in the manual focus era, a FF dSLR would be highly valuable in K-mount, and would probably rival the ever shrinking sales of their latest APS-C offerings.

Sony hasn't been able to do that - Why would Pentax?

Sony doesn't have the aforementioned manual focus backward compatibility, and hence has a much smaller "legacy" fan base much of which had already switched over to Nikon and Canon before Sony got its dSLR product line established. Then, they made the bone-headed move of going with the "all Pellicle, all the time" line up that turns off more photographers than it turns on. Their early FF offerings were poor performers (ISO-wise), and that didn't help them gain any traction. I'm sure Pentax can manage to avoid these missteps, and today's sensors won't leave Pentax's FF offering lacking from a performance standpoint.

At this time it is not clear to me that Pentax has the volume or will ever have the volume to earn a profit directly from a Full Frame camera system. That doesn't mean they will not choose to intentionally lose money on such a system for 2nd derivative business reasons, but losing money on a product category is a strategic choice - a business risk - not a tactical product decision.

If this is true, the exactl same thing can be said about APS-C - might as well fold up the tents then! "Playing not to lose" is usually a guarantee that you won't win - just look at the last three decades of Pentax's history for a confirmation of the result of continuing to "bottom feed" in the marketplace!

[THoog]

- the wide-angle XS lens shown at CP+ 2012, more than a year ago (it could have been cancelled together with the K-0x product line, though)

I'm ~pretty~ sure at Photokina, someone from Pentax said that they had dropped it due to lack of interest. (Lack of interest on our part or their part, they didn't say... )

[ElJamoquio]

- the wide-angle XS lens shown at CP+ 2012, more than a year ago (it could have been cancelled together with the K-0x product line, though)

There was an answer in one of the interviews that made me think the new XS lens was definitely cancelled. It could've even been explicitly stated.

I also could be mis-remembering.

[monochrome]

They are going to have to take risks.

OK, someone else will Ignore me after this - but - that is called Business Risk. It is necessary that a company take Business Risk in order to earn a Return. In order to earn a larger Return, such as in order to increase market share, a company must take more Business Risk than in the past. In fact a company must take more Business Risk RELATIVE TO ITS COMPETITORS' Business Risk than in the past.

If a company's competitors increase business risk, that company must increase its Business Risk JUST TO STAY EVEN, much less to gain market share.

Increased Business Risk does not include the apparent discontuniation of the DA16~45, DA35/2.4, the deal packaging of the FA Limiteds with the K5II's, the Q10, silence on the Ricoh brand, 400 DA560's a month for a 6 month planned production run.

The keiretsu are not the power arbiters they once were, nor are the core banks within them. The Diet doen't control the economy as it once did. The Yen is declining relative to the dollar and the Euro for at last a while, but now that so much of the manufacturing is offshore that might not help as much as it once did.

When your market share is 24% a bad business decision - a misplaced Business Risk - that costs you 2% won't cost you the entire company (see Canon sensors and Nikon QC). When your market share is 5% ...........

The outlook wasn't brilliant for the Mudville Nine that day;
The score stood four to two, with but one inning more to play,
And then when Cooney died at first, and Barrows did the same,
A sickly silence fell upon the patrons of the game.

A straggling few got up to go in deep despair. The rest
Clung to that hope which springs eternal in the human breast;
They thought, if only Casey could get but a whack at that -
They'd put up even money, now, with Casey at the bat.

...........................

---

Last edited by monochrome; 04-11-2013 at 01:36 PM.

[monochrome]

If this is true, the exactl same thing can be said about APS-C - might as well fold up the tents then! "Playing not to lose" is usually a guarantee that you won't win - just look at the last three decades of Pentax's history for a confirmation of the result of continuing to "bottom feed" in the marketplace!

250,000 - 300,000 APSc units annually is a different scale altogether than a few 10's of thousands, at best, after the legacy users that want one all have one. How many FF bodies will I need? How many crossover buyers will also buy legacy lenses on eBay?

But I don't disagree with you in theory. I just wonder whether Ricoh will permit the capital commitment necessary in the early years to build a FF system, which will be a requirement if they are to compete head-to-head with CaNikon.

[mecrox]

250,000 - 300,000 APSc units annually is a different scale altogether than a few 10's of thousands, at best, after the legacy users that want one all have one. How many FF bodies will I need? How many crossover buyers will also buy legacy lenses on eBay?

But I don't disagree with you in theory. I just wonder whether Ricoh will permit the capital commitment necessary in the early years to build a FF system, which will be a requirement if they are to compete head-to-head with CaNikon.

Interesting, that little word "system". I'd reckon it is a requirement even if you don't want to compete in FF head to head with Canonikon. One-offs aren't going to cut it once you move beyond basic compacts. The core of Pentax at present isn't a K5II or a K30, it's an APS-C system. One weakness of Mr Malcolm's recent interview is that he left it a bit open whether "system" features highly in Pentax thinking; he talked more about individual cameras as stand-alones and mentioned the "Pentax family" which is not the same thing if it means anything at all. The only time he got excited about the system angle was when talking about the Q which is a little unsettling.

Hmmn. There's little reason to invest in Pentax (or anyone else) if they stray from the core of offering a system - cameras, lenses, flashes, accessories - as a solid, long-term business which will grow as you do. It isn't about to fold because its parent megacorp has decided to invest instead in solar power or dishwashers. That's the kind of reliable, consistent view which enables folks to "buy with confidence" to the tune of several thou in high-end lenses. So in a way the most important thing about the next camera from Pentax isn't its specifications but how the new regime sells it: a camera for a system or a stand-alone?

[Kunzite]

Perhaps the solution is to gradually increase the APS-C DSLR market sales, and this could already be happening when the FF will be ready.

[monochrome]

Interesting, that little word "system".

IIRC Olympus always calls it a system whether it is or not.

[24X36NOW]

Of course not. The volume of APS is much higher. Pentax makes 100 000's of APS DSLR's a year; a million isn't impossible. Pentax share of the DSLR marked together with FF's share of the same market clearly speaks of a few thousand units of a Pentax FF model....

You're assuming that Pentax's share of FF vs. APS-C will be the same as the overall market, which is pure speculation. In point of fact, Pentax's heyday was in the manual focus era, so a FF dSLR (with a FF viewfinder, not the garbage APS-C viewfinders Pentax digital shooters are saddled with now) would be more appealing to the potential Pentax user base (i.e., becuase much of the glass that will work on it is manual focus). Pentax's autofocus to date has been sub-par as well, so another reason for bigger viewfinders (more usable for manual focus) to be appealing for Pentax shooters.

[Kunzite]

I doubt people who would not buy modern (i.e. AF) lenses would gladly pay $2000+ for a full frame camera.

[Tesla]

@24X36NOW

I totally agree with your comments! Nice Username!

[steelcup]

I doubt people who would not buy modern (i.e. AF) lenses would gladly pay $2000+ for a full frame camera.

I love my SMC-A's and I would drop 2k on a full frame Pentax immediately. The viewfinder is priority #1 for me. No crop on my beloved old manual glass is priority #2. New lenses is low on my priority list. If I jump ship to a D600 my first lens will probably be a manual 24mm.