[jsherman999]

?
I thought that you need Sony's magic "FE" lenses to get a FF FOV/DOF on the A7? That's because of the shorter registration distance of the new body design.
So if you stuck FA Ltds on it, you'd see the same FOV/DOF as you would on a K-3

No, as I understand it with the K adapter it would be the same FOV as you'd see on a FF DSLR or film camera.

[derekkite]

I'm not sure it is irrelevant: the 645D vs FF vs APS-C vs M43 is like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. The article is about the view which comes from stepping back from that. I suppose the argument is that the camera companies have simply pushed out what suits them, convinced that an ever-expanding digital market entitled them to set the terms. Going for the 645D rather than FF suited Pentax but it's an open question whether it suited their customers. At a guess, nearly all the customers for whom APS-C isn't enough haven't moved on to a 645D, they've sold up and left the brand for FF elsewhere. Now the remaining ones are being tempted by near-parity pricing on some off-brand FF cameras and quite a lot more are sure to have moved on by the time a Pentax FF appears, if ever it does. That's your high-spenders gone. Suddenly, the choice of the 645D starts to look like a very, very expensive choice for Pentax even though it suited them at the time. I'm sure the same could be said of other forays by other manufacturers, the Nikon 1 line for example. They thought they could make customers pay huge sums of money not to use a DSLR: what could possibly go wrong?

On the other hand, consumers have voted with their pocketbooks by showing that they want connectivity and convenience, and if the camera companies won't provide it then they ain't buying but will happily use their smartphones instead. I suspect the next thing that consumers are going to turn down flat is any more lens lock-in, a mainstay of the K-mount concept. The interest in the A7 series must come from "use any lens + adapter" as much as from the series' form factor and sensors. This might not translate into sales, of course, but once consumers have smelled this particular coffee there will be no turning back.

So you see if there is a substantial shake-out in the camera market, which many say is now happening, companies really need to start with a clean sheet of paper. Canon, Nikon, Pentax, Panasonic, Olympus et al have spend the past few years selling what suits them with a hefty does of lock-in and that approach has landed a whole lot of them in the soup. Someone wants lens A on camera B in format C (with connectivity a given) or they ain't buying. They don't want "You will take lens A on camera A in format A and buy a separate wifi dongle for nearly the cost of a mobile phone - or hit the highway". That's the challenge over the next few years.

The camera that everyone has in their pocket right now on their phone has replaced almost all the compact camera sales. It is no longer available to the camera manufacturers. A pretty big market that they served well is done and gone.

But as good as the phone cameras are, there is still a market for better image quality. It is a tough one, because the sales to people who wanted to take pictures is gone, now the sales are to those who want to take better pictures. Everything is now a niche market. I think the interviewee understands this very well; they will not get automatic sales anymore, they need to have something that satisfies those who want more than the basic camera.

I think this explains why mirrorless sales have not taken the market by storm. I have a mirrorless in my pocket already. If I'm going to spend more money I want something more than a thicker iphone. I want a viewfinder, a good one. EVF's are just now on high end bodies adequate. I may want something longer. The bridge cameras with long zooms are selling. I want something that takes better photos. Dslr's are selling, although they have to take better shots than my phone. I think the days of a terrible kit lens on a cheap dslr is over. From there everything gets niche; long lenses for wildlife, wide angle stuff, the luxury compacts, the waterproof ones. Video cameras are another segment.

The $12-1500 plus market has always been rarified. With the bottom end gone, everyone is pounding away at each other to gain some of this market.

I suspect that for Pentax, as well as everyone else, the goal is to not lose money. I actually think Pentax is well situated since Ricoh bought them. They are profitable, they seem to have a very good notion of what they are. They have a very solid entry in the MF niche, an upgrade this year will keep it. They have very good low end models; the kit lenses are pretty good compared to the competition, and the OVF is very nice. Good value for someone who wants more than an iphone. They have waterproof.

Full frame, in sales numbers, is a niche as well, and they will address it very nicely next year. The A7 with adapters is alright, but I'd compare it to the Q with adapters; only dedicated tinkerers will do it, and you sure don't want to have a pile invested that needs return.

Nikon and Canon have all these covered as well, but would starve to death on sales volumes that Ricoh would consider a stunning success.

Everyone in the market faces the very nasty reality that something that generates cash for them right now may very well disappear as a market. Not lose to a competitor, but just plain disappear.

[mecrox]

Companies should not be expected to do something which doesn't "suits" them (whatever that means). They are entitled to choose their strategies, and in many time they're responsible to their shareholders for going with the "right" one. They are entitled to refuse to follow the strategies and directions made in 5 minutes on some internet forum.
Of course, they are surviving (and more than that, making a profit) by offering products people wants to buy. Yet they will never be able to please everyone.

Why 645D rather than "full frame"? I think that's an invalid question, because those aren't mutually exclusive (Pentax had for years both small format and medium format products).

645D was an easier target, with their ability to share R&D and components with the high volume APS-C, making an inexpensive and very competitive digital medium format camera - one that was guaranteed to be sold in high volumes for its market - was an easy task. And they already had a lens line-up. The digital medium format market allowing them to be "the big fish in small pond" better than anything else; I'm not surprised Pentax was able to persuade Hoya to have a go.

The small format, however, is a completely different matter; much more competitive, much more demanding. It requires considerable R&D effort, a new, comprehensive lens line-up; and they would have to align their prices with the competition's while selling much lower volumes.
An owner busy with cost-cutting, one that was looking for a buyer would not approve this.

By the way, I don't believe that people who would buy "connectivity and convenience" and would be happy with a smartphone won't ever consider something like an A7. Most likely, the alternative would be the cheapest, crappiest viewfinderless mirrorless; 3 years old models sold below cost.

I can't find any images of yours in the Photo Sharing and Galleries section. Are you a photographer?

[y0chang]

I can't find any images of yours in the Photo Sharing and Galleries section. Are you a photographer?

Mecrox, I think you need to read about what an ad hominem fallacy is. People have their own opinions of what Pentax's best course of action should be but there is no reason to use an ad hominem attack against another forum member. I'm pretty sure Ansel Adams has no images in the pentax forum gallery. Does that mean that he wasn't a photographer?

[K David]

I'm pretty sure Ansel Adams has no images in the pentax forum gallery. Does that mean that he wasn't a photographer?

y0chang, while we're throwing out Latin terms for logical fallacies: Ignoratio elenchi.

I support your point that everyone will have their own opinion. However, citing Ansel Adams in this case is not really the best example.

It is, yes, an error in judgement to ask if someone's actually a photographer simply because they have no photos here. I, for instance, use Picasa and have about 500 albums there but probably don't have any here. So I agree with your assertion that the above argument isn't a good one.

[mecrox]

Mecrox, I think you need to read about what an ad hominem fallacy is. People have their own opinions of what Pentax's best course of action should be but there is no reason to use an ad hominem attack against another forum member. I'm pretty sure Ansel Adams has no images in the pentax forum gallery. Does that mean that he wasn't a photographer?

Ansel Adams doesn't come on here and try it on every time I say anything (it was a direct response to a post from even me although it didn't quote me). I asked this gentleman to lay off by PM a while ago, but he's at it again nearly every time I post. I may not have a towering intellect but I have a right to express a view and not be pretty well ordered to change what I think in an aggressive and sarcastic fashion. So far as I am concerned, if someone wants to strut around here laying down the law then they can show they have some photographic experience to back up their claims. Otherwise I'm going to see them as about as convincing as a five-star general getting up for fighting talk without his trousers on. This is a photography forum. It's not a religion, FFS. Is this part of the site off limits to anyone who isn't a member of some strange cult? Someone else with thousands of posts came down on a new member the other day as if being a new member was some kind of affliction. What is wrong with some of the people on here? The other end of this forum, the photo-sharing bits, are a world away from it. Normal folk, normal posts, often a lot of fun.

[Kunzite]

My "claims" (i.e. opinions) stands by the means of argumentation and logic, as they should. I'd be happy to hear counter-arguments and counter-logic to prove them otherwise, because that would correct my perspective about Pentax (which is IMHO much more important than "winning" an argument over internet). Seeing your responses, I'd say there is no chance of this happening
Please don't try to make from a difference in opinions a "personal war". I simply disagree with some of your views; there's nothing beyond that.

[mecrox]

My "claims" (i.e. opinions) stands by the means of argumentation and logic, as they should. I'd be happy to hear counter-arguments and counter-logic to prove them otherwise, because that would correct my perspective about Pentax (which is IMHO much more important than "winning" an argument over internet). Seeing your responses, I'd say there is no chance of this happening
Please don't try to make from a difference in opinions a "personal war". I simply disagree with some of your views; there's nothing beyond that.

Back on the list with you then, you naughty boy.

[Mr Spocko]

Lol, excellent point. I can't believe Sony is almost making the same big mistake twice (compelling FF option in A900/A800 with only a small fleet of expensive lenses to go with them)



.

difference is Sony users buy lots of s/h AF Minolta and Tamron lenses. There are a lot of good Minolta lenses about for peanuts, and they're AF lenses too. Far more than K mount has.
I'm not loving Sony much myself as I don't really like their ideas, but most of the A mount users I know pick up s/h Minolta glass for peanuts and built up a system for a very modest outlay indeed.


Once you mix in (like K mount) Tamron glass too (the usual ones) you've got a stabilised system for not that much. I suspect Sony are overpricing their FF A mount body to compensate for that. A mistake I think but don't underestimate the impact of those lenses to attract bargain hunters.

[monochrome]

Someone else with thousands of posts came down on a new member the other day as if being a new member was some kind of affliction. What is wrong with some of the people on here?

Said thousands of posts member, IIRC, also apologized for the unintentional affront, retracted the offending single sentence of a long reply, edited the original post but maintained the sense and thrust of his argument. The Reply was not intended (as three members vocally concluded) to suggest there should be a Rite of Passage before an opinion should be valid. Rather the statement was meant to suggest that we had been over the argued ground (and settled the argument) many times in the past, especially as regards the technology in the K3.

Conclusions are often drawn quickly on the internet. Sometimes after one sentence.

[mecrox]

Said thousands of posts member, IIRC, also apologized for the unintentional affront, retracted the offending single sentence of a long reply, edited the original post but maintained the sense and thrust of his argument. The Reply was not intended (as three members vocally concluded) to suggest there should be a Rite of Passage before an opinion should be valid. Rather the statement was meant to suggest that we had been over the argued ground (and settled the argument) many times in the past, especially as regards the technology in the K3.

Conclusions are often drawn quickly on the internet. Sometimes after one sentence.

I am so sorry, apologies.

[Clavius]

On the other hand, if they get an FF camera out within a few months, they might even start with just the refreshed FA limiteds and still have a more complete lineup than the A7/A7r currently has :-)

What are you talking about? The A7/A7r can mount more lenses then Pentax, Canon & Nikon current and historical lens lineup put together.

How long does the FE mount exist now? Almost a whole two and half months, and they've already released and announced more completely new high quality lenses then Pentax has in the last 2 years. Yeah, lets compare that with revamping some old lenses with some cosmetics and coatings... Or with just using Tamron and Tokina lenses with a different badge and price.

[monochrome]

What are you talking about? The A7/A7r can mount more lenses then Pentax, Canon & Nikon current and historical lens lineup put together.

How long does the FE mount exist now? Almost 3 whole months, and they've already released and announced more completely new lenses then Pentax in the last 2 years. Yeah, lets compare that with revamping some old lenses with some cosmetics and coatings...

Oh i agree. I agree. m4/3 is better than any Pentax. Sony is better than any Pentax. Any CaNikon is better than any Pentax.

Silly us. Pentax just keeps plugging along and we benighted sycophants just keep buying the same old, tired K-mount technology, fooled as we are by a bit of fresh paint.

[Clavius]

Yeah, and 3 revamped FA ltds is a much more complete lineup then the 5 currently existing Sony FE lenses. That is objective?

[Fl_Gulfer]

EVERY Sony product I ever bought broke not to long after I purchased it. That was up to the 90's and I've never bought another. Sony makes nothing but cheap junk. I think the last Sony thing I bought was a Walkman and it died in 2 months.
I will never buy another piece of electronics from them.....
HAPPY NEW YEAR!!!!!