[Zygonyx]

We pentaxians don't want nor will get "low-cost" nor "pro-market sponsorised" nor "dumping priced" FF.
We want an enthusiasm product, top-quality build, with any high-end technology Pentax is able to mobilize in it.
And we will pay for it.

I people think under 1500 USD is a fair price for FF body, not me. If price is the only driver or the priority, go Canikon or Sony's light leaking A7 serie....
And buy next time their yes beautifull, big, expensive, and boring lenses.
End with 24-70 and 70-200 mm zooms, and be happy.

This will not be Ricoh's way, i am sure.
Because first of it, it is unsustainable for Pentax's finances.... Pentax is not able to "discount" where it sales a lot, and "profit" where it sales less. Their marketing mix has nothing to do with the big boy's milking strategy.

[RonHendriks1966]

Who cares, as it is available new for 1100 euro now (w/o vat)?

One thing is for sure: the time Pentax would eventually release a ff dslr, street prices for ff dslrs will have dropped below 1000 euro, probably 1000 $ too ...

wow or a D700 for 750 euro (second hand). The time to make money on a full frame is passing by very fast.

[Kunzite]

Who cares, as it is available new for 1100 euro now (w/o vat)?

One thing is for sure: the time Pentax would eventually release a ff dslr, street prices for ff dslrs will have dropped below 1000 euro, probably 1000 $ too ...

What I do not care about are those cheap FFs you're talking about. If I did, I'd have one of them.
We should discuss MSRP vs MSRP, and inside the same class; not heavily discounted street prices vs. an estimated MSRP of a supposedly higher class camera.
Pentax will not even attempt to compete with older, cheap DSLRs at discount prices - that would be insane, much worse than staying APS-C. IMHO their only chance is to launch a competent FF platform - otherwise the competition could easily crush them just by discounting old tech and cutting corners with body quality and dust-making shutters - plus higher volumes, having an already established market. I would like such a thing, based on the K-3's technology (which is more than advanced enough for my needs). Dedicated AF though, please.

No, it's not "for sure". Not for models comparable with what Pentax will want to make.

We pentaxians don't want nor will get "low-cost" nor "pro-market sponsorised" nor "dumping priced" FF.
We want an enthusiasm product, top-quality build, with any high-end technology Pentax is able to mobilize in it.
And we will pay for it.

Yep, we will pay for it.
How about people pointing to 6 years old cameras and unsustainably low prices?

[Uluru]

It is as clear as mud


Cameras can make some profit only for a while. Then they lose all value and barely break even. Lenses and accessories continue making the real profit.


The significant shift in ILC market will come when both Canon and Nikon introduce FF in all their DSLR models. But that will take some time. Indeed that is their mid- to long-term plan, as they see no point in maintaining two lines of, basically, same product. It is more economically feasible for them to invest into new FF bodies as they already have 5x more lenses for FF than for crop sensors. Their gain by investing in FF is maximised, and the state of chaos reduced.


See the current situation in Crop lens department:
C + N <= P
Pentax has as many crop lenses as Canon and Nikon combined. Yet, Nikon and Canon are withdrawing slowly from the Crop market.

That is interesting, because as Nikon and Canon both aim towards the state of lower entropy, some Pentax users are pushing Pentax in the state of higher entropy and higher disorder. The Pentax K-mount system is currently in the state of lowest entropy possible: the number of new Crop accessories and lenses is at its peak. Pentax is already enjoying better strategic focus and maximisation of the ROI, something Canon and Nikon would love to achieve from the manufacturing point of view.

In reality there is no "FF vs Crop battle", but the economic and strategic struggle to achieve a working system with lowest possible entropy, and then maximise the potential of such a system. Towards that end, Nikon and Canon strive by pushing forward the FF and substituting many mid-range Crop cameras with FF alternatives.

Pentax strives towards it by perfecting the Crop. If Pentax keeps their effort in perfecting the Crop sensor DSLRs, their ROI will be maximised and users granted with far more sophisticated cameras and lenses that maximise the potential of the highest level of order of the system.

The introduction of an FF into the perfect low-entropy system will cause disruption -- more or less so, depending how that FF camera is designed, of course, and how it may utilise the potential of the entire current system. As time goes, entropy will raise as newer and newer models of the FF camera will be introduced, pushing the system into higher state of chaos, therefore minimising its ROI and lowering its potential.

From this perspective, if I were Ricoh Imaging, I’d totally skip the FF within K-mount system as it will bring them no greater good, only long term minimisation of ROI and higher entropy. They should fare much better if maximising the potential of the 645 and Crop.

---

Last edited by Uluru; 03-16-2014 at 06:11 PM.

[ruggiex]

As long as all the big players continue to make everyone believes that they NEED to have FF to be like pros... all this back and forth continue...

[monochrome]

Remember, it has to be different. Even Sony recognizes this. We already have Canon and Nikon. The question will be, are the things that make and will make a Pentax different different enough for Ricoh?

[DSims]

And buy next time their yes beautifull, big, expensive, and boring lenses.

Don't say this about Sony Zeiss lenses - expensive, yes, but boring? You've obviously never used one.

---------- Post added 03-16-14 at 06:24 PM ----------

Pentax strives towards it by perfecting the Crop. If Pentax keeps their effort in perfecting the Crop sensor DSLRs, their ROI will be maximised and users granted with far more sophisticated cameras and lenses that maximise the potential of the highest level of order of the system.

The introduction of an FF into the perfect system will cause disruption -- more or less so, depending how that FF camera is designed, of course, and how it may utilise the potential of the entire current system. As time goes, entropy will raise as newer and newer models of the FF will be introduced, pushing the system into higher state of chaos, therefore minimising its ROI and lowering its potential.

From this perspective, if I were Ricoh Imaging, I’d totally skip the FF within K-mount system as it will bring them no greater good, only long term minimisation of ROI and higher entropy. They should fare much better if maximising the potential of the 645 and Crop.

Interesting thoughts, but I think filling the gap between the APS-C and 645D may actually increase 645D sales and elevate the brand. It's such a big leap (in price) right now that it's hard for many of us to even conceive of moving to a 645D system. Also, new buyers understand they can't move up to FF later, so they lose potential customers there too.

I understand they could spread themselves too thin if they're not careful, but I think the FF models (because I expect at least 2, eventually) will help them beyond the direct ROI they get specifically on FF camera and lens sales.

---

Last edited by DSims; 03-16-2014 at 06:26 PM.

[Uluru]

As long as all the big players continue to make everyone believes that they NEED to have FF to be like pros... all this back and forth continue...

Yes, that will always be present at some level of conversation, but quickly denied as there are systems with bigger sensors and more sophisticated lenses than FF, and Pentax has one.





So the point about the best (xyz) quality for pros is a moot point because the 645 system will outclass FF at any given moment in certain departments. The definition of the (xyz) is important: is that image quality, or is it AF + fps?



To clearly distinguish themselves as different from Nikon and Canon, Ricoh Imaging clearly states that their aim is not pursuing the biggest system, and fastest specs, but building dependable cameras and suited lenses that are always with an user and offer an uncompromising image quality for what they were designed for.



Is that definition of a pro -- to pursue the ultimate image quality? Yes, but expressed in another terms, and from another angle. For those who understand the nuances of the game, there is no confusion and it is also better for the health of the overall imaging industry that there are players that play the different tune and re-educate the market.

[DSims]

The 645D is probably going to face some competition in the next while; Sony is not going to be content selling their medium format sensors only to Pentax. There is a certain urgency to establish themselves in that market firmly.

Sony aren't selling their medium format sensor to Pentax only, but also to Hasselblad (H5D-50c) and Phase One (IQ250).

In short, to all manufacturers of medium format cameras / digital backs but Leica.

That was my initial reaction too. But I believe the implication was that Canon, Nikon, or Sony itself may enter this market.

[monochrome]

Is that definition of a pro -- to pursue the ultimate image quality? Yes, but expressed in another terms, and from another angle. For those who understand the nuances of the game, there is no confusion and it is also better for the health of the overall imaging industry that there are players that play the different tune and re-educate the market.

I think they're trying:

• 5 reasons to choose Pentax
• One more lens just right for you
• Awaken your creative instincts

In the 60's and 70's the User Guides included several pages of instruction on how to focus, meter, set aperture for DoF, hold a camera and select a lens. Take the curious Green Mode buyer back there.

[Uluru]

..
Interesting thoughts, but I think filling the gap between the APS-C and 645D may actually increase 645D sales and elevate the brand. Also, new buyers understand they can't "move up" to FF with Pentax, so they lose buyers there too.

I understand they could spread themselves too thin if they're not careful, but I think the FF models (because I expect at least 2, eventually) will help them beyond the direct ROI they get specifically on FF camera and lens sales.

|


When Nikon and Canon aim towards the lower entropy to help themselves, please explain how the higher entropy will help Pentax? I cannot explain, but can you?

I propose a simple solution: "The FF is future for all" is a myth perpetuated through passive understanding of the market strategy of the biggest camera market players. It is something that sounds like future on the surface, but many do not go deeper than that to understand why it makes sense for big two and not for all others. To insist on its universal applicability is the fallacy of reason.

People seldom reach beyond the second Why? question in any inquiry, and therefore enthusiast users and analysts confuse the two: the realities of different players and how the maximum benefit is achieved. So what is good for big two is not good for everyone else, as all players aim to simplify, but in their own terms.

It is all about economisation of the resources. The level of satisfaction, however, may remain same in all categories if that state is achieved.

[monochrome]

|


When Nikon and Canon aim towards the lower entropy to help themselves, please explain how the higher entropy will help Pentax? I cannot explain, but can you?

I propose a simple solution: "the FF is future for all" is a myth perpetuated through passive understanding of the market strategy of the biggest camera market players. It is something that makes sense on the surface, but many do not go deeper than that to understand why it makes sense for big two and not for all others. People seldom reach beyond the third Why? question, and therefore enthusiast users and analysists confuse the two: the realities of different players and how the maximum benefit is achieved. So what is good for big two is not good for everyone else, as all players aim to simplify, but in their own terms.

It is all about economisation of the resources. The level of satisfaction, however, may remain same in all categories if that state is achieved.

When Honda started out in the USA 40-ish years ago they had a tiny Civic CVCC and a new small egg-shaped coupe called an Accord. That was it. No one ever thought they were serious when they said their plan was to be a core, global auto maker.

It took a long time (and Consumer Reports' help) but who's laughing now? Hondas just plain work and they NEVER feel cheap or poorly engineered or like corners were cut (except the radio control layout - crazy!) Some of their stuff, like the 4-cyl engine, is best-in-class.

One off our problems is likely that Ricoh's time horizon to measure success is longer than ours. There may be things they have to do before FF.

Then again, they might surprise us sooner than we think.

[Uluru]

W..

One off our problems is likely that Ricoh's time horizon to measure success is longer than ours. There may be things they have to do before FF.
Then again, they might surprise us sooner than we think.

They will surprise us all by never introducing the FF camera
Or, they will surprise those who expected one. But others will not care, as they should not care about it anyway.

If the FF camera is ever introduced, it will surely be one that rises entropy to the smallest degree possible. But I’m becoming highly suspicious because of the following: it is easier to further narrow the usability gap between the Crop and FF DSLR by advancing the Crop DSLR than introducing higher level of undesirable entropy.

When the K-3 came with the 100% pentaprism and 0.96 magnification, I have pushed the thoughts of the inevitability of the FF even farther away, almost as irrelevant. Ricoh Imaging is indeed closing the gap in usability reach of the Crop camera beyond those commonly accepted.

The current Crop system can further advance, maintaining best possible ROI and lowering the entropy, with the following:

• To address the issue that FF DSLR have even bigger VF than Crop cameras, an optical magnifier in the redesigned eyepiece can be introduced in a new camera that utilises current K-3 pentaprism, but magnifies the view in a similar manner as the TC works with lenses — with no deterioration in quality. The size of the mirror becomes irrelevant then but shooting experience same.
  
• To address the issue that EVF is ‘better and cooler’ than a pentaprism, a dual OVF with EVF overlay can be designed. Again, the solution uses current Crop system lenses and cameras and simply building on it with no raised entropy (disorder).

[derekkite]

They will surprise us all by never introducing the FF camera
Or, they will surprise those who expected one. But others will not care, as they should not care about it anyway.

If they don't bring one out it is because they don't see a way of doing it profitably. Which would mean that there wouldn't be many buyers anyways.

We shall see. I'm not in that market so I don't really care that much.

[Uluru]

If they don't bring one out it is because they don't see a way of doing it profitably. Which would mean that there wouldn't be many buyers anyways.
We shall see. I'm not in that market so I don't really care that much.

We should ask several important questions:

1. Does the FF solves any crucial problem that current Crop sensor system and 645 system cannot solve?
2. Can two current systems address any unique advantage FF may have and nullify it?
3. What is the cost of (a) developing an FF system with high entropy versus (b) improving current systems with zero new entropy?

Based on those answers, we can see there is very little reason for the FF in the form that users may be expecting, because the FF fundamentally solves nothing in Pentax’s case because it already has two sufficient systems that surpass any logical need for the FF.

But beside this, any sane company investing in something should first thoroughly investigate all of the above and similar questions, establish a comprehensive risk matrix and do a thorough cost-benefit analysis.

So far, all I can see that cost is big, entropy high, diversification further complicated, but benefits .. negligible.

I wonder, is this so hard to understand?