[Uluru]

My feeling is that D610 may not be anything groundbreakingly new, it can be even boring spec wise and even made of cheaper materials, but it may be delivered at such a low price that it seriously establishes FF as the future's prefereed DSLR shape and flavour. I suspect it to be launched at below $1500 and already FF crazed mob will go bananas.
I'm afraid we can expect more 'Pentax is doomed' boohooing.

---

Last edited by Uluru; 09-25-2013 at 03:19 PM.

[Wired]

My feeling is that D610 may not be anything groundbreakingly new, it can be even boring spec wise and even made of cheaper materials, but it may be delivered at such a low price that it seriously establishes FF as the future's prefereed DSLR shape and flavour. I suspect it to be launched at below $1500 and already FF crazed mob will go bananas.
I'm afraid we can expect more 'Pentax is doomed' boohooing.

but can a FF built like a T4i full of plastic and clickty clack really compete against a fully featured and well built metal camera APSC or not? I already know the answer... but don't people pickup say a K50 and a T4i and go...wow, the Pentax feels remarkably better in terms of build quality...maybe I should do some research?

[Uluru]

but can a FF built like a T4i full of plastic and clickty clack really compete against a fully featured and well built metal camera APSC or not?..

I suspect Nikon is going to make a splash, no matter if the camera looks and feels cheap.
It isn't about quality. It's about price point, of perception, and pushing forward sales of the Nikkor lenses.

What options they have? Either Canon will do it before them, steal the thunder and be perceived as world's FF leader, or they 1) will come late, or 2) with wrong price, and 3) will have to adjust the perception in each case? Invariably they fall into the second place. A bridesmaid, not a bride.

Ricoh has punched them with a swift uppercut in that same game of perception in the GR vs Coolpix A match, and I think Nikon won't repeat the same mistake. Or will they? Can they afford it in the DSLR game?

I suspect they will play downright mighty and dirty — but now outside the sensor spots area.

[bxf]

but can a FF built like a T4i full of plastic and clickty clack really compete against a fully featured and well built metal camera APSC or not? I already know the answer... but don't people pickup say a K50 and a T4i and go...wow, the Pentax feels remarkably better in terms of build quality...maybe I should do some research?

This is how I interpret so many of the FF comments. One would have thought that once a camera is FF, nothing else matters. As if a cheap FF is better than anything APS-C can offer. This is pure BS.

[Cynog Ap Brychan]

As if a cheap FF is better than anything APS-C can offer. This is pure BS.

You know it, and I know it.... but getting that message across is extremely difficult, I imagine.

[Clavius]

This is how I interpret so many of the FF comments. One would have thought that once a camera is FF, nothing else matters. As if a cheap FF is better than anything APS-C can offer. This is pure BS.

If the only concern is the output, (the IQ, the low light performance, the DOF control, etc...) then yes absolutely it doesn't matter if it's built like a toy or a tank. As long as it will last its lifetime. Lifetime being, untill it is replaced by the next model. Which is (normally) about 1,5 to 2 years.

Personally, I don't care with what I shoot. As long as it does what I want it to do, does it for as little money as possible, and doesn't fall apart within ~two years. My other cameras certainly won't last as long as my sturdy K-5s, but they do what I want from them. And with the Pentax resale value as low as it is, sitting on the shelf the Pentax cameras will last even longer. Whilst I'll be perfectly able to sell those other cameras, those cheap toys, for a reasonable value. Because they will still do something other people want them to do.

[Parry]

Except "output" is highly dependent on many more factors besides just sensor specs. Serious nature photographers, for instance would be more than happy, all other things being equal, to sacrifice a small percentage of megapixels, field of view, etc. in exchange for a rugged body that can function for a whole expedition rather than a cheap, unsealed plastic body that is failing constantly under the same conditions.

Furthermore, not everyone agrees with you regarding the expected lifetime of a camera. Serious film shooters would laugh at your 1.5-2 year designation, since they are accustomed to camera lifetimes an order of magnitude greater than that.

You seem to be confusing feature-fetishism and brand recognition with utility. If I recall you were also the same guy that was saying the new Pentax lenses were going to be useless to you because the "red Ricoh ring" was going to be so off-putting to your customers that they would not take you seriously anymore (where you were finding these customers that cared that much about the Pentax brand is beyond me). But you need to stop focusing on the nameplate and a single spec and consider that the entire suite of features might be important.

It would be like deciding that speed and brand prestige are the only important features for all automobiles, then buying a new Porsche (1d-X, etc.) every two years, or if you don't have the money for that, then a Corvette (the d610) . But then you realize that you have to haul firewood up a dirt road for the next 15 years and don't have the budget to sign a new lease every 2 years. Maybe that GMC or Toyota truck is starting to make more sense.

Can we not have a sturdy body (K-5) housing a full frame sensor (Sony, Toshiba etc)? A camera for photographers, not a toy with flippy screens and irritating plastiky gizmos?

I mean it's all there already, Pentax just need to add the one to the other. The K-mount crop primes could still be used, the PK FF could automatically detect and switch to crop format. Everybody wins.

I would hazard a guess there are many like me ready and willing to pay real money for such a FF Pentax body. It would give us the best of both worlds.

[monochrome]

If I recall you were also the same guy that was saying the new Pentax lenses were going to be useless to you because the "red Ricoh ring" was going to be so off-putting to your customers that they would not take you seriously anymore (where you were finding these customers that cared that much about the Pentax brand is beyond me).

That's like hiring a financial advisor based on what kind of car he or she drives to your office. If it isn't at least a BMW 5-series, you aren't doing well enough to be my financial advisor.

(OK. Every 5 years, for $80M I can get a Honda Accord EX-L 6cyl. and 1000 shares of a $50 stock or a new BMW. Let's see . . . . .)

[Clavius]

Except "output" is highly dependent on many more factors besides just sensor specs. Serious nature photographers, for instance would be more than happy, all other things being equal, to sacrifice a small percentage of megapixels, field of view, etc. in exchange for a rugged body that can function for a whole expedition rather than a cheap, unsealed plastic body that is failing constantly under the same conditions.

That's a pretty bad example. Not just some, but literally ALL of the birders that I know don't rely on WR, but protect their equipment with sleeves. Which is logical, why sacrifice nice features and pay premium for WR body and lenses, when you can use a few dollars worth of sleeve? And that sleeve works on ALL lenses too, not just the few chosen to be fitted with WR by the manufacturer.

Furthermore, not everyone agrees with you regarding the expected lifetime of a camera. Serious film shooters would laugh at your 1.5-2 year designation, since they are accustomed to camera lifetimes an order of magnitude greater than that.

For some people 2 years constitues the entire lifetime of a shutter mechanims.

Digital kinda changed the way we use cameras. Try doing a 250 frame macro focus stack with a stackshot pro with a film camera. Try making a timelapse video during 6 weeks of a construction site with that film camera. My K-5 has hit 150.000 shutter actuations a few months ago. Pretty darn freaking impressive imho, for a camera that has a shutter guaranteed to 100,000. That's only a 3 year old camera! It won't hold up much longer. All that money wasted on extra durability, magnesium body and excellent ergonomics will not prevent that shutter from collapsing. The camera is a consumable which is almost empty and that's ok, because it's outdated too.

About the previously mentioned example. That "flimsy" D600 has a shutter guaranteed to 100.000 actuations, just as that sturdy Pentax of yours.

All I'm saying is that it's perfectly understandable for Pentax users to wish for a cheap FF.

[Clavius]

That's like hiring a financial advisor based on what kind of car he or she drives to your office. If it isn't at least a BMW 5-series, you aren't doing well enough to be my financial advisor.

(OK. Every 5 years, for $80M I can get a Honda Accord EX-L 6cyl. and 1000 shares of a $50 stock or a new BMW. Let's see . . . . .)

So you hired that guy in the Opel Manta then? You know, the one with the white socks and slippers, the training pants, Puma T-shirt, and the baseball cap on backwards?

[Parry]

That's a pretty bad example. Not just some, but literally ALL of the birders that I know don't rely on WR, but protect their equipment with sleeves. Which is logical, why sacrifice nice features and pay premium for WR body and lenses, when you can use a few dollars worth of sleeve? And that sleeve works on ALL lenses too, not just the few chosen to be fitted with WR by the manufacturer.





For some people 2 years constitues the entire lifetime of a shutter mechanims.

Digital kinda changed the way we use cameras. Try doing a 250 frame macro focus stack with a stackshot pro with a film camera. Try making a timelapse video during 6 weeks of a construction site with that film camera. My K-5 has hit 150.000 shutter actuations a few months ago. Pretty darn freaking impressive imho, for a camera that has a shutter guaranteed to 100,000. That's only a 3 year old camera! It won't hold up much longer. All that money wasted on extra durability, magnesium body and excellent ergonomics will not prevent that shutter from collapsing. The camera is a consumable which is almost empty and that's ok, because it's outdated too.

About the previously mentioned example. That "flimsy" D600 has a shutter guaranteed to 100.000 actuations, just as that sturdy Pentax of yours.

All I'm saying is that it's perfectly understandable for Pentax users to wish for a cheap FF.

Not even a cheap full frame. Personally, I'm willing to pay D800e money for a PK FF. However, with the instability of the Pentax brand and the risk of losing the K-mount in the future, I'm quite worried about spending anything more with Pentax. Over the past few years I've spent around £7500 on bodies and lenses and wotnot. The AIV 31mm Limited copy I got was a huge disappointment too and very expensive for what it is.

I'm in Thailand right now and have just priced up a D800e system with the Nikkor Trinity (14-24, 24-70, 70-200 f/2.8) and 50mm f1.4G and 85mm f1.4G, with grip and 910 Speedlight and the lot comes in a well under that. It is cheap here mind.

I love the Pentax build quality, it feels like something that's properly engineered, unlike most things these days. I've handled the D800 and it's surprisingly light but doesn't have that 'carved from granite' feel like the K-5.

If they would pop a FF sensor of 24MP into a K-5 body, not bother with the frilly stuff, I'd be in. Not just because of the camera but because I think Pentax has to go FF to stay in the game. Full frame is where all DSLR's are heading, I see no future for APS-C in DSLR's. APS-C will become the preserve of compact systems and super-compacts with fixed lenses. It's simply evolution. Pentax need to evolve with it.

[Parry]

My feeling is that D610 may not be anything groundbreakingly new, it can be even boring spec wise and even made of cheaper materials, but it may be delivered at such a low price that it seriously establishes FF as the future's prefereed DSLR shape and flavour. I suspect it to be launched at below $1500 and already FF crazed mob will go bananas.
I'm afraid we can expect more 'Pentax is doomed' boohooing.

If the flood waters keep rising around the Ayutthaya Industrial Estate in Thailand (as they are right now) I think the launch of the D610 will be by flat bottomed boat.

[Aristophanes]

I suspect Nikon is going to make a splash, no matter if the camera looks and feels cheap.
It isn't about quality. It's about price point, of perception, and pushing forward sales of the Nikkor lenses.

A large segment of the market sees the camera body as an electronics product with obsolescence in a few years. So why overspend on limited use features when a new model is on the radar a few years from now?

It's a fine balance, a factor.

Lenses....not so much. Some value cheapies, but also an emphasis on high-end.

[monochrome]

So you hired that guy in the Opel Manta then? You know, the one with the white socks and slippers, the training pants, Puma T-shirt, and the baseball cap on backwards?

I didn't mean my Financial Advisor. I drive a Honda.

The point is to know what you need and want, spend only what you must to get it, avoid waste on appearances, then invest the balance in - say - lenses.

[Clavius]

I didn't mean my Financial Advisor. I drive a Honda.

The point is to know what you need and want, spend only what you must to get it, avoid waste on appearances, then invest the balance in - say - lenses.

That's almost exactly what I said. Anything saved on cosmetics and not useful durability is better spent on lenses. Remember the more then excellent test images from the cheap & flimsy Sony A3000 with the fantastic lens.