[eyeswideshut]

I really don't understand what you all are talking about. Does anyone realize that the reason that Leica came back was not because of the camera bodies (which were OK), but because of glass? If Pentax wants to gain market share, a full frame body might help, but having killer glass that is special in some way is key.

Fortunately one does not preclude the other, eh?

[eyeswideshut]

A FF camera which can be focused manually with eyes wide shut

No offend intended.

That'd be some viewfinder!

[monochrome]

What I see in this thread is a new groupthink coalescing around the idea that what everyone hoped for a year or two ago by way of growth and investment isn't going to happen

Growing from 3% share to 10% share isn't big but it certainly is growth and certainly requires products, energy and investment.

Growing from 10% share to 30% share requires an order of magnitude more capital because you need to build all the infrastructure to support that share.

[ElJamoquio]

I really don't understand what you all are talking about. Does anyone realize that the reason that Leica came back was not because of the camera bodies (which were OK), but because of glass? If Pentax wants to gain market share, a full frame body might help, but having killer glass that is special in some way is key.

Pentax cameras are clearly the best in the markets in which they compete, IMO.

I don't feel Pentax glass is lacking for APS-C but they don't have competitive long glass.

[Rondec]

Pentax cameras are clearly the best in the markets in which they compete, IMO.

I don't feel Pentax glass is lacking for APS-C but they don't have competitive long glass.

But lets say that they come out with a D800 camera, but 500 dollars cheaper (not likely, but lets go with it). There has to be some killer feature or glass that makes folks decide to come over to Pentax. Maybe that could be in body stabilization. Maybe they could release a 50mm f1.2 auto focus lens. I just don't buy that small size is the killer feature that professional photographers want, even though it is the thing that Pentax has flogged for years on end.

It's a tough market. Canon/Nikon have well filled in line ups that have been fleshed out over the years.

[Quicksand]

But lets say that they come out with a D800 camera, but 500 dollars cheaper (not likely, but lets go with it). There has to be some killer feature or glass that makes folks decide to come over to Pentax. Maybe that could be in body stabilization. Maybe they could release a 50mm f1.2 auto focus lens. I just don't buy that small size is the killer feature that professional photographers want, even though it is the thing that Pentax has flogged for years on end.

It's a tough market. Canon/Nikon have well filled in line ups that have been fleshed out over the years.

Why? What "killer feature" does a Toyota Tundra full-size pickup truck have in comparison to a Ford or Chevy or Ram? Toyota was very late to this market, and yet they sell a respectable number of trucks.

A hypothetical Pentax FF would need some differentiating features, killer or otherwise, that would lead some purchasers to prefer it, even slightly. It can't be 100% "me too," but why would it be?

[mrNewt]

All they need to do is get the K-3, slap a larger sensor inside of it with more mp... the end. FF is here

[Rondec]

Why? What "killer feature" does a Toyota Tundra full-size pickup truck have in comparison to a Ford or Chevy or Ram? Toyota was very late to this market, and yet they sell a respectable number of trucks.

A hypothetical Pentax FF would need some differentiating features, killer or otherwise, that would lead some purchasers to prefer it, even slightly. It can't be 100% "me too," but why would it be?

Yes, but the issue is that when you own Canon/Nikon/Sony, you often have some glass that you would have to replace if you came over. This is the reason why it is often easier to stay with a brand than to move back and forth. It isn't like if you buy a Toyota pickup, you have to replace your cell phone, driving gloves, etc.

Beyond which, Toyota's big selling feature over the years has been durability and customer support.

[philbaum]

Nobody has had the guts to make a manual focus only camera because they don't want to lose money. There's always somebody clamoring for something, but good market research will tell you if it will sell, and that's why nobody has made it.

I agree with you in the most part. Except that Sony, either on purpose or accidentally, just about did that with the Nex camera series - and enthusiasts with their legacy lenses loved the camera for that reason. As i understand it, the focus peaking technology was developed for video and then Sony transferred it to digital cameras (more assumption on my part, anyone got the facts :-))

When it works, focus peaking is even better than AF because it shows one where the dof is. As one adjusts the focus, one can see this shimmering cloud move towards one or away from one - so cool and what a lesson for beginners. Alas, focus peaking doesn't work well, if at all, in low light or low contrast areas, so apparently Sony built in the magnified view approach for focusing, so one can choose either of the approaches as appropriate for manual lenses.

I'd like to see a specialized camera for "landscape photography" rather than just one for manual lenses. It seems like too many cameras are specialized for NFL football situations, but landscape shooters have some specialized needs. There's the manual lens needs as you mention, plus it would be nice if they made cameras with longer shutter speeds, whats so sacred about 1/30s which is the slowest for many cameras. Why can't that be 5 seconds - would save pulling out and rigging the shutter cables in many situations. I'm sure there are other things that would appeal to landscape shooters. AF lock button for a third thing. Once you have your camera on tripod for a landscape shot, theres no need for refocusing every shot - dang silly to do so.

---------------
Regards the discussion on killer features, i think the adjustable AA filter is close to that that killer feature. I think that Pentax should advertise that more, as in :

Nikon feels it necessary to sell you 2 cameras to give you a choice between AA filter or not, e.g. D800e/D800. Pentax with its K3, has adjustable AA filter all in one camera.

I think either Canon or Nikon would find it difficult to replicate that feature in any short amount of time.
BH Photo actually lists that Pentax feature in discussing the best cameras of the year, and so do several other reviews.

[ElJamoquio]

Why? What "killer feature" does a Toyota Tundra full-size pickup truck have in comparison to a Ford or Chevy or Ram? Toyota was very late to this market, and yet they sell a respectable number of trucks.

A hypothetical Pentax FF would need some differentiating features, killer or otherwise, that would lead some purchasers to prefer it, even slightly. It can't be 100% "me too," but why would it be?

A pentax would immediately have the best UI on the market. It would also have (presumably) the k-mount.

If it's a shorter mount that I could adapt to both K and Nikon F, hey great, as long as screwdrive compatibility is retained for the K.

[Uluru]

Small doesn't work in the consumer electronics industry. How many if any niche players trying to sell mainstream products on the high street are there in, say, mobile phones, TVs, computers, consumer operating systems, etc? Let alone in designing and fabbing silicon...0.

They are in fact in optics industry.
But the perceptual problem starts when their users start calculating wrong projections and drawing inaccurate conclusions because they have dumped them in a wrong bin.

[jcdoss]

A hypothetical Pentax FF would need some differentiating features, killer or otherwise, that would lead some purchasers to prefer it, even slightly. It can't be 100% "me too," but why would it be?

SR would be pretty killer in an FF, wouldn't it?

[mecrox]

They are in fact in optics industry.
But the perceptual problem starts when their users start calculating wrong projections and drawing inaccurate conclusions because they have dumped them in a wrong bin.

Optics is a niche, you are correct, but it isn't mainstream consumer electronics, I would suggest. A comparison in PCs might be to graphics cards or to a company like Logitech which often makes far better peripherals like keyboards or webcams than the OEMs - but they don't make the whole PC. If, say, Pentax sold lenses for other mounts, that would be a niche too. But as it is, they don't do that.

[ramseybuckeye]

An FF optimized for MF but still able to AF... I desire that!

That would work.

[cfraz]

What I see in this thread is a new groupthink coalescing around the idea that what everyone hoped for a year or two ago by way of growth and investment isn't going to happen.

I'd like to excuse myself from your "everyone" group, with your permission?

I see signs of Ricoh's influence that are exactly what I was hoping for. They pulled the plug on a K-5 replacement that was not ready for market. They are replacing the "we had better hit this one outta' the park, or we won't survive" mentality of product releases with development of cohesive product lines.

In the U.S., they are showing some business sense, like liquidating half million $ worth (IIRC) of old inventory, rebuilding dealer relationships and actual advertising (compare the K-3 promo of the ballet dancer shoot with the video of Paul and Penny Pentax dialoging about the K-5, apparently shot in the corner of the lunch room and no rehearsal). Imagine how difficult it is for Pentax to regain retail shelf space when they abandoned their dealers just a few years prior (just how dire this situation was may not be apparent to a U.K. resident).

I don't think anyone expected growth to near Canikon levels, if that's what your changing groupthink reference meant. Ricoh execs never implied anything of the sort, in fact stating quite different goals. I think most here were hoping for a climb from the lower single digit market share to the upper single digit area. In my view, that would be a huge success for the company.

I just don't get this mindset that Pentax needs to make cameras that are right in the very center of the consumer preference bell-curve in order to succeed. Or to put it another way, to make cameras that sell the most units. (If that's not your meaning, I misunderstand you, and I apologize).

The middle of the bell curve approach *always* leads to products that are bland and uninteresting to me. Are there enough of us oddballs for Ricoh to survive making cameras closer to the edges of the bell curve? Time will tell but 1) Ricoh have stated they can't and won't compete with Canikon on their terms, and 2) history shows that if the Pentaxes of the business world go under, other like-minded companies will come along.