[D1N0]

Well gear threads have a tendency to spiral down into the black hole called Full Frame

[Rondec]

I don't really want to open the full frame can, but I will say that I expect Pentax to release a full frame camera that is closer to the D800 than the D600 and to actually pass it up in terms of frame rate and buffer size. It will be priced equivalently. Honestly, there is not a huge benefit to going with a D600 or A7 over the K3, as can be demonstrated in the most recent k mount lenses on the A7 review. I don't expect Ricoh to upset the APS-C market they have going now, by releasing a camera priced closer than a thousand dollars above the K3 and my expectation would be a 2700 dollar or so price tag. If you want a 6D or 600D price, better off leaving now.

[kenyee]

I don't think the manufacturing cost will be much more than $100 more than the k-3.

I'd echo the "huh?"
Go compare costs of APS-C sensors vs FF sensors to start with. There's no way the FF sensor is only $100 more. That doesn't even include the extra costs of R&D/distribution/manufacturing you'd have to recoup your costs on.

Sounds like you've never been an engineer (I have...HW and SW) or in product development...

[D1N0]

I'd echo the "huh?"
Go compare costs of APS-C sensors vs FF sensors to start with. There's no way the FF sensor is only $100 more. That doesn't even include the extra costs of R&D/distribution/manufacturing you'd have to recoup your costs on.

Sounds like you've never been an engineer (I have...HW and SW) or in product development...

Now that is the kind of argueing i absolutely despise. unsubscribing from this thread.

[kenyee]

Now that is the kind of argueing i absolutely despise. unsubscribing from this thread.

And remember that your argument was "ball park estimate."

Sorry, you can just randomly pull numbers out...why isn't it $5 more? $10 more? Same price? Free? Cars should cost $10...why? ballback estimate? :-P

[lytrytyr]

Sounds like you've never been an engineer (I have...)

So you can drive a train?

[Daikokuya]

Digital sensor is expensive. The reason why Olympus started m43 is that a full frame or even an APS-C sensor was costly for Olympus at that time to be breakeven in business. Pentax once gave up a full frame in 2001 even though they made a beta product called "K-1", which had a 6-megapixel full frame sensor. I think it's due to the cost of the sensor. Now, things are a little bit different, but I guess that the cost of sensor still accounts for much of the price.

Attached Images

View Picture EXIF

File Date

 

[ElJamoquio]

That sensor performance/quality was also pretty sub-par... it was generally accepted as the cause of the demise of Contax.

Digital sensors are expensive and always will be if they require a defined area... but due to optics involved, for many people (and most of the prosumer+ crowd) the sweet spot of the 'cheapness vs quality' graph is ~ff right now. As silicon becomes more expensive it'll eventually move to bigger sensors.

[DeadJohn]

...Plus, Pentax bodies are made of adamantium! Until the K-1 FF is released. That one will be made of vibranium!

Vibranium is good for a still camera: no more shutter sound.

[Alizarine]

You could say that Pentax has a niche - it does - with high end APS-C, but Pentax doesn't have any respectable glass above 300mm, and although I love the DA*300, it's still not a F/2.8 which many require.

Looking at Pentax's recent explanations on fast glass and why there aren't many recently, I think their focus really is making a balance between compactness and performance - probably why the DA* 60-250 and DA* 300 are f4 lenses, because "high ISO" is "improving."

If the FA Limiteds will be refreshed into HD FA Limiteds, then they're just optimizing the gems for digital, but no 1.4's or a digital/AF "HD A 50 f1.2" in the horizon, no. As long as Pentax maintains their view of "better high ISO > wider apertures" in low light or bokeh/shallow DoF not a priority, very fast glass in Pentaxland isn't going to become a reality... well that's how I see it. I may be wrong though

[ElJamoquio]

Looking at Pentax's recent explanations on fast glass and why there aren't many recently, I think their focus really is making a balance between compactness and performance - probably why the DA* 60-250 and DA* 300 are f4 lenses, because "high ISO" is "improving."

If the FA Limiteds will be refreshed into HD FA Limiteds, then they're just optimizing the gems for digital, but no 1.4's or a digital/AF "HD A 50 f1.2" in the horizon, no. As long as Pentax maintains their view of "better high ISO > wider apertures" in low light or bokeh/shallow DoF not a priority, very fast glass in Pentaxland isn't going to become a reality... well that's how I see it. I may be wrong though

I agree with your points.


My points:
1) Long- lens niche
I like the 300 F/4. I had a sigma 300 F/2.8 but it was worse at F/4 than the DA*. I think the AF was faster on the Sigma but didn't do back-to-back tests.

I personally don't care that 'ultra-fast' glass isn't on the horizon. F/2 is fast enough for me in the normal range. But if APS-C is Pentax's niche, a big portion of the high-end people is completely lost because they have no telephotos above 300mm and only one lens above 300mm... IMO severely overpriced.

2) General APS-C niche
Smaller sensors as a niche is fine but then the prosumers will eventually figure out their system is more expensive than other sensor-size systems.

[Alizarine]

My points:
1) Long- lens niche
I like the 300 F/4. I had a sigma 300 F/2.8 but it was worse at F/4 than the DA*. I think the AF was faster on the Sigma but didn't do back-to-back tests.

I personally don't care that 'ultra-fast' glass isn't on the horizon. F/2 is fast enough for me in the normal range. But if APS-C is Pentax's niche, a big portion of the high-end people is completely lost because they have no telephotos above 300mm and only one lens above 300mm... IMO severely overpriced.

2) General APS-C niche
Smaller sensors as a niche is fine but then the prosumers will eventually figure out their system is more expensive than other sensor-size systems.

As per system yes I also agree. Even the gap between the DA* 300 and DA 560 (in terms of price) is an ocean of $. Personally I find it weird that Pentax says it caters to the "outdoor photographer" thus the push for WR, yet their lens selection fails to live up to that detail, especially for sports and wildlife photographers.

[Uluru]

As per system yes I also agree. Even the gap between the DA* 300 and DA 560 (in terms of price) is an ocean of $. Personally I find it weird that Pentax says it caters to the "outdoor photographer" thus the push for WR, yet their lens selection fails to live up to that detail, especially for sports and wildlife photographers.

TC indeed fills in the gap in combination with DA300. But their explanation is far from coherent or intelligible. I often feel sorry for them, for they must speak utter nonsense in the lack of material proofs. I think they must hate that question — perhaps the only questions they hate same as the FF question and the gap between the $1,000 K-3 and $7,000 645D.

[pid]

The FA Limiteds only can be updated as HD version if they will have enough of the old glas in stock. Otherwise they will have to develop totally new constructions with new optical calculations. As far as I know they dont have enough of the old types of glass which are nessesary to update the FA Limited series.

[Driline]

Oh good, TRAINS. Finally a subject I'm familiar with. I model HO scale with an 8X11 layout in the basement. So what scale do you model?

---------- Post added 03-04-14 at 06:50 AM ----------

Now that is the kind of argueing i absolutely despise. unsubscribing from this thread.

Gotta wonder how many times he left the sandbox with his toys as a kid