[JPT]

having to start again from scratch

If Pentax produces a FF mirrorless camera, it is true that they will have to start from scratch, but so will any prospective competitors (likely to be Sony at first). If you are in last place, you have little to lose from restarting the race. Just like APS-C mirrorless has allowed Fuji back into the game, FF mirrorless could do the same for Pentax.

If they make a FF DSLR, they will have to start almost from scratch - not many of their existing lenses would meet modern expectations. On the other hand, their competitors have had a huge head start on in terms of lenses, technology and user base. Perhaps I'm missing something, but I can't see what Pentax could add to a FF DSLR to lure customers away from the other brands. I don't think the body colours will work here! And if they have any intention to increase their market share, they have to attract people away from other systems.

I think recent developments in PDAF on the sensor make it likely that DSLRs will be in decline within a few years. Once mirrorless cameras outperform DSLRs in terms of AF performance, I think it is the beginning of the end for the mirror. So to start developing a system based on that technology seems a real mistake to me.

[Pål Jensen]

I think recent developments in PDAF on the sensor make it likely that DSLRs will be in decline within a few years. Once mirrorless cameras outperform DSLRs in terms of AF performance, I think it is the beginning of the end for the mirror. So to start developing a system based on that technology seems a real mistake to me.

Why develop a camera for a market that virtually don't exist? Mirrorless is in a decline. High-end DSLR's aren't.
Market research has shown that mirrorless are bought by causual shooters primarily and DSLR's by enthusiast, pros AND causual shooters. Selling an FF mirrorless is about 10 times harder than selling an FF DSLR. The larger the format the more prone people are to want an optical finder. In fact, a large optical finder is part of the FF experience. Removing such an important feature isn't going to make you more popular....

[mecrox]

Comparing a market with one system?

Let's say the NEX could be used as an example of a successful MILC system, but Sony did it with a lot of effort, the market is stagnating, and they didn't abandon their SLR mount. By the way, 30% of the MILC market barely equates with 7.5% of the DSLR one.
But your other examples... niche, niche, non-ILC Ricoh products, meh MILC, not a camera. FAIL.

You mean your intention is to spread FUD as long as you can get away with it?

That is offensive and you are going on the ignore list. I've had enough of this constant fanboy bullying from you.

[boriscleto]

That is offensive and you are going on the ignore list. I've had enough of this constant fanboy bullying from you.

Going on the ignore list for calling someone a fanboy...this thread is getting hard to follow with so many on the ignore list.

[boriscleto]

If Pentax produces a FF mirrorless camera, it is true that they will have to start from scratch, but so will any prospective competitors (likely to be Sony at first). If you are in last place, you have little to lose from restarting the race. Just like APS-C mirrorless has allowed Fuji back into the game, FF mirrorless could do the same for Pentax.

If they make a FF DSLR, they will have to start almost from scratch - not many of their existing lenses would meet modern expectations. On the other hand, their competitors have had a huge head start on in terms of lenses, technology and user base. Perhaps I'm missing something, but I can't see what Pentax could add to a FF DSLR to lure customers away from the other brands. I don't think the body colours will work here! And if they have any intention to increase their market share, they have to attract people away from other systems.

I think recent developments in PDAF on the sensor make it likely that DSLRs will be in decline within a few years. Once mirrorless cameras outperform DSLRs in terms of AF performance, I think it is the beginning of the end for the mirror. So to start developing a system based on that technology seems a real mistake to me.

Indeed you present the argument for concentrating on the APS-C market for the time being.

[mecrox]

Going on the ignore list for calling someone a fanboy...this thread is getting hard to follow with so many on the ignore list.

Forum: "A meeting or medium where ideas and views on a particular issue can be exchanged."

It's not possible to have a useful discussion with someone whose idea of an exchange is "I am right and you are wrong".

So sorry but that's it for now.

[Aristophanes]

If Pentax produces a FF mirrorless camera, it is true that they will have to start from scratch, but so will any prospective competitors (likely to be Sony at first). If you are in last place, you have little to lose from restarting the race. Just like APS-C mirrorless has allowed Fuji back into the game, FF mirrorless could do the same for Pentax.

If they make a FF DSLR, they will have to start almost from scratch - not many of their existing lenses would meet modern expectations. On the other hand, their competitors have had a huge head start on in terms of lenses, technology and user base. Perhaps I'm missing something, but I can't see what Pentax could add to a FF DSLR to lure customers away from the other brands. I don't think the body colours will work here! And if they have any intention to increase their market share, they have to attract people away from other systems.

I think recent developments in PDAF on the sensor make it likely that DSLRs will be in decline within a few years. Once mirrorless cameras outperform DSLRs in terms of AF performance, I think it is the beginning of the end for the mirror. So to start developing a system based on that technology seems a real mistake to me.

Sony already started from scratch with the RX-1.

If they go to FF with NEX about 2/3 of the existing E-mount lenses are already FF capable.

Highly unlikely Sony will drop the A-mount. That's why they bought Minolta in the first place.

Pentax wouldn't have to start from scratch with FF as many of their lenses are already there as are patented optical formulas. Re-design had to occur with APS-C, especially wide and full-range tele's. FF has been mostly designed out on the 135 side for decades. The lens array issue for Pentax DSLR FF relates to how many models and their prices, all in a highly competitive, low-volume environment where bodies start at $2,000. It's the total system cost that shrinks the market.

Mirrorless FF doesn't solve that dilemma.

AF may reach parity between CDAF and PDAF, but it's visual acuity through the VF that's going to make or break the OVF. EVF's are not there. A great many people have a strong, visceral reaction to EVF's. Even in high-end videocams the EVF is often panned (sic) for the flip-down LCD. I've used the Sony's and they have their advantages (HUD) some of which are also distractions. But their lag and tearing and smearing are very, very distracting. A straight optical path is still the lowest cost, easiest and truest way to frame a photo.

---

Last edited by Aristophanes; 07-10-2013 at 07:09 AM.

[JPT]

Why develop a camera for a market that virtually don't exist? Mirrorless is in a decline. High-end DSLR's aren't.
Market research has shown that mirrorless are bought by causual shooters primarily and DSLR's by enthusiast, pros AND causual shooters. Selling an FF mirrorless is about 10 times harder than selling an FF DSLR. The larger the format the more prone people are to want an optical finder. In fact, a large optical finder is part of the FF experience. Removing such an important feature isn't going to make you more popular....

There have been two recent trends in the market, towards mirrorless and towards cheaper FF. However, at present customer have the choice of one or the other. There are no mirrorless systems that have really tried to go head-to-head with the established DSLR systems. So, it might seem that mirrorless cameras have failed to unseat DSLRs, but none of them have really been aimed high enough.

And I'm still waiting to hear a convincing reason why a Pentax FF DSLR would be more attractive to customers than a Canon, Nikon or Sony. At this level, WR is the norm, so that ceases to be a selling point. In-body stabilisation is offered by Sony, but many people believe that in-lens stabilisation is more effective. I just think they could sink a huge amount of resources into the project, make a small number of Pentaxians very happy, but not get anywhere in attracting new users.

And for the record, I'd probably buy an FF Pentax DSLR anyway if I could afford it. I know it would probably be a great camera and I have a modest collection of FA lenses I would like to use on FF. I just don't think it would be much of a success.

[cali92rs]

Comparing a market with one system?

I am comparing Pentax of all flavors, of which i have met no one in person besides myself that owns one, to Sony, where you can't go to a big event or zoo, or amusement park, etc without running into people that don't have a NEX.
So for people to say that Pentax should ignore what Sony is doing, is silly because it is obvious that Sony is doing something right.

[Aristophanes]

I am comparing Pentax of all flavors, of which i have met no one in person besides myself that owns one, to Sony, where you can't go to a big event or zoo, or amusement park, etc without running into people that don't have a NEX.
So for people to say that Pentax should ignore what Sony is doing, is silly because it is obvious that Sony is doing something right.

Sony is bleeding red ink from their imaging division. It's one reason why they took a 2-year hiatus from FF.

I don't see a NEX everywhere. I see far more m43 than I do NEX and I see a cruise ship a day discharge a block from work.

[JimJohnson]

because it is obvious that Sony is doing something right.

Sony in its entirety is being propped up by its media sales (movies, music), wholesale electronics components (like the sensor in Pentax bodies), and licensing royalties. Looking at just the retail hardware side of the company, Sony has been losing money for nearly a decade. Using Sony cameras as a comparison business model probably isn't the best choice.

[THoog]

Sony in its entirety is being propped up by its media sales (movies, music), wholesale electronics components (like the sensor in Pentax bodies), and licensing royalties. Looking at just the retail hardware side of the company, Sony has been losing money for nearly a decade. Using Sony cameras as a comparison business model probably isn't the best choice.

From what I've read, Sony's biggest profit-maker is actually Life Insurance, followed by media.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/28/business/global/sonys-bread-and-butter-its...anted=all&_r=0

[ManuH]

I maybe in the minority here but I prefer an EVF for its unmatched previewing capabilities. I used a GH2 for a while and I would die to get an EVF like this on my K-01. The OVF will die faster than we think IMO, especially in high end cameras where the mirror box is just to slow to compete : the Nikon V1 is already capable of doing 60fps at full resolution. I cannot see how a DSLR could match that with an OVF and mirror unless there is some sort of hybrid solution.

As for Pentax FF, why not a K-01 type of camera? But add an EVF, PD-AF, flippy LCD and WR... and it can be made cheaper and much lighter by removing the prism/mirror box. And start selling it for 1200$. I would buy that in a heart beat, even at 1500$.

[JPT]

AF may reach parity between CDAF and PDAF, but it's visual acuity through the VF that's going to make or break the OVF. EVF's are not there. A great many people have a strong, visceral reaction to EVF's. Even in high-end videocams the EVF is often panned (sic) for the flip-down LCD. I've used the Sony's and they have their advantages (HUD) some of which are also distractions. But their lag and tearing and smearing are very, very distracting. A straight optical path is still the lowest cost, easiest and truest way to frame a photo.

The situations with EVFs reminds me of touch screens on phones. I found them annoying and frustrating to use until one day I tried an iPhone and it was fine. It was just a cumulation of improvements in processor speed and screen quality. I think EVFs will quite soon reach a stage where their lag is imperceptible and the dynamic range is close enough to satisfy most users. Then you are left with a long list of advantages that EVFs have over OVFs - both for users and manufacturers.

- More flexibility/customisation in what is displayed (magnification, peaking, histogram, picture review, etc.)
- More accurate AF (potentially equal to or faster than DSLR PDAF with new sensors)
- Continuous AF in video mode
- No need for calibration / no risk of misalignment due to impact (reduced cost)
- Far fewer moving parts and optical elements required (reduced cost)
- Design flexibility (placement of viewfinder, no viewfinder at all)
- No mirror shock and less noise
- Viewfinder size not limited by image circle
- Possibility to reduce flange distance and create smaller cameras

EVFs don't need to match OVFs in all aspects, they just need to become more attractive overall. So that's why I'm optimistic.

I'm not sure about the comparative cost of OVFs vs. EVFs, but I read somewhere that mirroless camras have only 40% the number of parts that a DSLR has. That must end up reducing cost overall. Imagine if a FF mirrorless were launched at a similar cost to the K-5 when it was released. If F2.8 zooms were available from the start, it would be taken more seriously than any other mirrorless camera to date.

[Aristophanes]

As for Pentax FF, why not a K-01 type of camera? But add an EVF, PD-AF, flippy LCD and WR... and it can be made cheaper and much lighter by removing the prism/mirror box. And start selling it for 1200$. I would buy that in a heart beat, even at 1500$.

The starting price for an FF sensor but supporting electronics pushes $700 alone. The sensors apparently push $400 just for the silicon imprint.

By the time you add it all in you're well above $1,400 body alone. Now you need to add profit, distribution, marketing, etc.

And a kit lens. Starting price for a kit is now above $2,000. You've just shrunk your market to below 10% of the whole dedicated camera market. Within that 10% you're competing with everyone else: Canon and Nikon FF, Sonny's A-series and the RX-1, plus even Leica.

The prism/mirror box are old tech that are essentially R&D free. Paid for by previous generations.

New things like an EVF need to recoup R&D and adoption cost so they are actually more expensive. Many of these companies use the same assembly line used to do both lenses and camera bodies where a prism and mirror is not much different than an optical grouping. All of this is hands-on assembly. It's a big reason why DSLR's have been able to consistently drop in price while sensors get better.

This is a big reason why mirrorless sales have stalled; though more compact, they offer value compromises, especially in slower AF, less than OVF quality in their consumer-level, add-on EVF's (Olympus), and consistently worse low-light shooting. These are factors why we're seeing mirrorless go down in sensor size, such as 1"/CX and m43. And when you add in zoom lenses, many mirrorless systems are not actually all that much smaller than a compact DSLR (K-x, 100D). None are really pocketable. Certainly the Fuji's are not. To many, they feel like tech toys and not "real" cameras. The SLR has a huge loyalty and legacy. While the market is saturated sales are still fairly steady.