[Zygonyx]

Well, any of the A, A* and FA* lenses K or 645 should (or have already !) last(ed) far more than 10 years...

[Asahiflex]

Not really, these days. Focus motors, stabilization, build quality, changes of mount: all conspire to shorten the productive life of a lens, and repairs to modern electronic lenses can be expensive. The glory days of the bullet-proof MF lens which will last for 20-30 years are gone now (except for Leica and Zeiss perhaps if there no no major changes of mount which means they cannot be used as intended). Bodies 2-5 years, lenses 5-10 years perhaps?

I think you're a bit too pessimistic about the lifespan of bulletproof MF lenses. Most M42 Takumars still work like new after 50 years, even after a lot of abuse and without maintenance of any kind. I'm still unable to grasp that level of sheer perfectionism, which does not exist anymore (not even in the most expensive of expensive lenses made today, with the possible exception of lenses made for NASA and other scientific institutions).

Well, any of the A, A* and FA* lenses K or 645 should (or have already !) last(ed) far more than 10 years...

Even those legendary lenses are most definitely NOT on the same level as Takumars. Believe me. The build quality of the newer lenses is much lower. And I can safely say that, having owned and/or used lenses like the FA* 80-200, A* 135/1.8 and A* 85/1.4.

[RonHendriks1966]

I see this posted so often that it is taken as fact. But I wonder how correct it is?
Groups of buyers:

1. Those who buy the 1 or 2 lens kit and never buy another lens. When they get a new camera they buy a new kit, maybe even changing brands.
2. Those who buy the kit and maybe the DA 50mm f/1.8 or DA 35mm f/2.4. They will likely change bodies going forward but might never buy another lens.
3. Those who buy the 'standard' high end zooms like DA*16-50 and DA*60-250 and that's it. Will certainly change bodies going forward but maybe not need any new lenses.
4. Those who like and use a good collection of lenses such as DA* and Limited. Will buy a good number of expensive pieces of glass over time.
5. Those who have a good collection of vintage glass. Will certainly change up bodies but have no need for any 'new' glass.

I will say it is most likely the margins are higher on glass, but total dollars or total profit? I'm not so sure. We have no statistics to confirm or disprove anything but if we assume most buyers just buy a kit and maybe a couple of primes I don't see the dollars coming from the glass but rather in having customers buy new cameras every year or so.


Remember bodies come and go, glass is forever.
@Barry: not jumping on your comment specifically, just wondering. I've always assumed this to be true myself, but thinking about it, if it were true would not camera companies churn glass more and bodies less?

Well I'm the changer for body's and a builder on glass to use.

[jatrax]

Not really, these days. Focus motors, stabilization, build quality, changes of mount: all conspire to shorten the productive life of a lens, and repairs to modern electronic lenses can be expensive. The glory days of the bullet-proof MF lens which will last for 20-30 years are gone now (except for Leica and Zeiss perhaps if there no no major changes of mount which means they cannot be used as intended). Bodies 2-5 years, lenses 5-10 years perhaps?

Please take a look at my signature. All of those work just fine on all current k-mount cameras. As well as the new Sony A7 and on Canon DSLR's.

I understand your point, but I think even modern lenses will be functional longer than you think. FA & DA Limiteds? All old tech I agree but no reason they will not be usable in 20 years and survive a number of bodies.

[Cynog Ap Brychan]

Not really, these days. Focus motors, stabilization, build quality, changes of mount: all conspire to shorten the productive life of a lens, and repairs to modern electronic lenses can be expensive. The glory days of the bullet-proof MF lens which will last for 20-30 years are gone now (except for Leica and Zeiss perhaps if there no no major changes of mount which means they cannot be used as intended). Bodies 2-5 years, lenses 5-10 years perhaps?

I agree with much of what you say, but I have Pentax autofocus lenses that are still working perfectly after a quarter of a century. I don't hold out as much hope for lenses with built-in focus motors, though.

[Barry Pearson]

I see this posted so often that it is taken as fact. But I wonder how correct it is?
Groups of buyers:

1. Those who buy the 1 or 2 lens kit and never buy another lens. When they get a new camera they buy a new kit, maybe even changing brands.
2. Those who buy the kit and maybe the DA 50mm f/1.8 or DA 35mm f/2.4. They will likely change bodies going forward but might never buy another lens.
3. Those who buy the 'standard' high end zooms like DA*16-50 and DA*60-250 and that's it. Will certainly change bodies going forward but maybe not need any new lenses.
4. Those who like and use a good collection of lenses such as DA* and Limited. Will buy a good number of expensive pieces of glass over time.
5. Those who have a good collection of vintage glass. Will certainly change up bodies but have no need for any 'new' glass.

I like such analysis. I wish I had done that myself. I was incautiously repeating things I've often seen over the years.

My observation was really directed at the last of these: "Will certainly change up bodies but have no need for any 'new' glass". These are not the ideal customers for Ricoh/Pentax when they are deciding whether to develop an FF camera!

(I am in the category "Will buy a good number of expensive pieces of glass over time". I have never used a Limited lens, but have 3 DA* lenses, several DA lenses, and a couple of Sigma lenses, including the 500mm f/4.5 which I bought because of a hole in the Pentax line).

I will say it is most likely the margins are higher on glass, but total dollars or total profit? I'm not so sure. We have no statistics to confirm or disprove anything but if we assume most buyers just buy a kit and maybe a couple of primes I don't see the dollars coming from the glass but rather in having customers buy new cameras every year or so.

Remember bodies come and go, glass is forever.

Are people who just buy such lenses actually likely to buy cameras every year or two? And are the sort of people who will buy an FF camera in that category?

@Barry: not jumping on your comment specifically, just wondering. I've always assumed this to be true myself, but thinking about it, if it were true would not camera companies churn glass more and bodies less?

Observation: Ricoh/Pentax have recently "churned" 6 lenses by upgrading them with HD coating, etc.

(I don't see why camera companies would churn bodies less - but churning lenses more can make sense if their development and production capacity is up to it).

[Mistral75]

Asahiflex mentioned this last month. There was a fairly complete post about the A-mount (including the A-K-Q naming convention) on a credible French Pentax blog. Of course that rumor claimed the K3 would be A-mount.

(...)

That would be funny if it weren't sad to see people distort what other people wrote.

I happen to be the one who wrote "a fairly complete post about the A-mount (including the A-K-Q naming convention) on a credible French Pentax blog", as I reported back here. On two French fora by the way, Chassimages and PentaxOne.

And if I stand by my words of March 29th Une nouvelle monture?, May 1st Pentax au salon P&E 2013 (Chine) : 24x36, compact APS-C, etc. and August 25th PentaxOne - Rumeurs 2013, I NEVER claimed the successor to K-5 II would be A-mount.

If you think otherwise, please show me where I did.

[IchabodCrane]

I see this posted so often that it is taken as fact. But I wonder how correct it is?
Groups of buyers:

1. Those who buy the 1 or 2 lens kit and never buy another lens. When they get a new camera they buy a new kit, maybe even changing brands.
2. Those who buy the kit and maybe the DA 50mm f/1.8 or DA 35mm f/2.4. They will likely change bodies going forward but might never buy another lens.
3. Those who buy the 'standard' high end zooms like DA*16-50 and DA*60-250 and that's it. Will certainly change bodies going forward but maybe not need any new lenses.
4. Those who like and use a good collection of lenses such as DA* and Limited. Will buy a good number of expensive pieces of glass over time.
5. Those who have a good collection of vintage glass. Will certainly change up bodies but have no need for any 'new' glass.

I will say it is most likely the margins are higher on glass, but total dollars or total profit? I'm not so sure. We have no statistics to confirm or disprove anything but if we assume most buyers just buy a kit and maybe a couple of primes I don't see the dollars coming from the glass but rather in having customers buy new cameras every year or so.


Remember bodies come and go, glass is forever.
@Barry: not jumping on your comment specifically, just wondering. I've always assumed this to be true myself, but thinking about it, if it were true would not camera companies churn glass more and bodies less?

Don't know where I saw it (second hand) but there was a comment by Nikon some time ago that a majority of DSLR buyers fall into category #1. Now that likely applies to Nikon only so it may be different for Pentax.

[monochrome]

That would be funny if it weren't sad to see people distort what other people wrote.

I happen to be the one who wrote "a fairly complete post about the A-mount (including the A-K-Q naming convention) on a credible French Pentax blog", as I reported back here. On two French fora by the way, Chassimages and PentaxOne.

And if I stand by my words of March 29th Une nouvelle monture?, May 1st Pentax au salon P&E 2013 (Chine) : 24x36, compact APS-C, etc. and August 25th PentaxOne - Rumeurs 2013, I NEVER claimed the successor to K-5 II would be A-mount.

If you think otherwise, please show me where I did.

If I messed up, my apologies. I meant no harm.

I never said Asahiflex made the reference to the French websites - I said he mentioned it. I also never said you claimed the A-mount would be a successor to the K-mount for a FF camera, but that rumor circulated over the summer and there was discussion here about it.

I couldn't remember who actually made the link. My apologies for not spending the time to search out the OP and/or not declaring that the original link was made by another member. I'm happy you added the links to the original posts.

I merely wanted to call attention to the fact that the A-mount was not a new rumor, but had circulated earlier.

[jatrax]

Are people who just buy such lenses actually likely to buy cameras every year or two? And are the sort of people who will buy an FF camera in that category?

Don't know where I saw it (second hand) but there was a comment by Nikon some time ago that a majority of DSLR buyers fall into category #1. Now that likely applies to Nikon only so it may be different for Pentax.

In my experience, with non-enthusiast folks, yes they do buy a new camera every year or so and often don't buy the same brand. They need a camera for a vacation, go to the local megamart and buy whatever is on sale on the endcap. I base this on friends and relatives mostly who over the years have shown up at parties and gatherings with a new camera which is inevitably the low end dslr of the line with the kit lens. And do the same thing year after year because the new camera "takes better pictures". I read this to mean they never took the time (or had the interest) to actually learn how to use the camera (or invest in good glass) and thus chase a new one as the magic bullet that will transform them into photographers.

Are these folks FF potential? Probably not, but they make up a large portion (IMHO) of the total sales of DSLRs and so my curiosity about where the dollars come from. Are most dollars coming from the enthusiast base that buy high end glass or the casual user that buys a camera but no glass? I think without statistics to show something this is just speculation but I suggest that the casual user base is far larger than the enthusiast base and therefore it is possible that more revenue comes from people buying low end kits than from high end glass. Revenue, not necessarily margin.

I think something could be gleaned from relative sales of kits versus bare bodies but I've no idea where that information could come from.

[Fontan]

But you know going from APS-C to FF will be like going from P&S to DSLR. If the price is right, people will buy it. Most people I imagine really do not need DSLR, and that a kick ass P&S will suffice in most situations. But DSLR did sell probably better than initially thought. I think it will be similar with FF. WIth the price point approaching the sweet spot, the demand will be there created largely by people who do not need FF. But that has always been the landscape of this industry; come up with sexy shit that you don't need, but market it big and charge for it, and traditionally people have gone for it.

[Andi Lo]

But you know going from APS-C to FF will be like going from P&S to DSLR. If the price is right, people will buy it. Most people I imagine really do not need DSLR, and that a kick ass P&S will suffice in most situations. But DSLR did sell probably better than initially thought. I think it will be similar with FF. WIth the price point approaching the sweet spot, the demand will be there created largely by people who do not need FF. But that has always been the landscape of this industry; come up with sexy shit that you don't need, but market it big and charge for it, and traditionally people have gone for it.

No, the gap from APSC to FF isn't anywhere as big as P&S to APSC imho. My APSC certainly is capable for great images with good DR in demanding situations, my P&S can't.

Although, I've never handled an advanced P&S that have good sensor and raw capability, so perhaps my opinion on this isn't so valid.

[monochrome]

Most people I imagine really do not need DSLR, and that a kick ass P&S will suffice in most situations

If my wife qualifies as the typical "Most User" (and I think now she is very typical since she doesn't want to shoot film and print any more) kick ass is overkill. An Optio A40 was more than sufficient for several years. Now, a $200 Q/02 kit and a Mobi Wi-Fi card is more than sufficient for her needs. The best thing about that set-up, according to her, is that when she comes home, wakes the camera and opens her MacBook the new images transfer immediately. And if she needs them she can always use my good Q lenses and card-transfer RAW files.

[Rorschach]

But you know going from APS-C to FF will be like going from P&S to DSLR. If the price is right, people will buy it. Most people I imagine really do not need DSLR, and that a kick ass P&S will suffice in most situations. But DSLR did sell probably better than initially thought. I think it will be similar with FF. WIth the price point approaching the sweet spot, the demand will be there created largely by people who do not need FF. But that has always been the landscape of this industry; come up with sexy shit that you don't need, but market it big and charge for it, and traditionally people have gone for it.

Not even close. The change is negligible as the cameras are identical, controls are the same and so on. The next big jump would be to go to large format from DSLR.

But sure, if the price is right AND if the size is right AND iq plus features are right, a lot of people would buy a full frame.

[Fontan]

Not even close. The change is negligible as the cameras are identical, controls are the same and so on. The next big jump would be to go to large format from DSLR.

But sure, if the price is right AND if the size is right AND iq plus features are right, a lot of people would buy a full frame.

Gee, you guys aren't getting it, man.

For ordinary consumers, unlike nerdy people like us who have nothing better to do other than to frequent camera brand forum sites, it has nothing to do with their needs. If a neighbor gets a FF and the price point is doable, the other guy simply cannot resist not buying FF. That was how DSLR got itself established in the market place, despite the fact that there were plenty of capable P&S. It is not about IQ or how pretty the pictures are going to be. Size also have nothing to do with it. It is about what the next guy has that you don't. Reading many posts here, I even think that it is more about looking cool and unique, rather than pursuing the ultimate picture quality (btw there is nothing wrong w dat).

Current line up of DSLRs by all brands are a complete overkill for most of us.

We buy these stupid things because we cannot stand the thought of ourselves not having it while that dumb ass next door has one while him having no clues as to how to use it.

We are suckers for it.