[ElJamoquio]

This reminds me of the time when on the Pentax Yahoo Group people kept wondering why Pentax did not produce a top quality AF camera on par with the LX. And even when the MZS came, it was not a true Eos V1 competitor, and people continued to affirm that a true AF LX was behind the corner. All while Pentax clearly stated that for professional needs, their products were 67 and 645.

I, for one, think that missing the trend towards autofocus was a terrible blow to Pentax as a company.


Are you saying that missing the trend towards FF is going to deal Pentax an equal blow?

[monochrome]

This reminds me of the time when on the Pentax Yahoo Group people kept wondering why Pentax did not produce a top quality AF camera on par with the LX. And even when the MZS came, it was not a true Eos V1 competitor, and people continued to affirm that a true AF LX was behind the corner. All while Pentax clearly stated that for professional needs, their products were 67 and 645.

I am absolutely convinced, with absolutely no knowledge of Ricoh or of the market, that to succeed financially a FF dSLR must gain significant USA market share and volume. In order to gain such, the manufacturer must commit to lose millions of dollars on USA infrastructure, advertising, endorsements, pro support and B&M presence - just to encourage wealthy enthusiasts to enjoy status by association buying the camera - and then making it up downstream on low quality 'halo effect' consumer cameras..

IM imaginary HO Pentax decided with the LX that it would not make the investment, and thus discovered it would never truly succeed in the professional 36x24 market, espcially as Sports/Action journalism exploded on the scene. Consequently it began dismembering altogether the USA distribution infrastructure, which has proceeded to its logical and ridiculous extreme today.

Look at Pentax distribution infrastructure. Look at Pentax product structure (the quality). If my suppositions above are correct, given the condition of USA (and now EU and Canada) infrastructure and the high-quality consumer cameras, there will never be a K-mount Pentax FF dSLR.

That isn't to say Ricoh will never release a FF camera - but a FF K-mount Pentax dSLR just looks impossible to me.

[ElJamoquio]

IM imaginary HO

Your opinion is imaginary?

[monochrome]

Your opinion is imaginary?

Absolutely. No basis in fact whatsoever. Totally made up.

[GlassJunkie]

I am absolutely convinced, with absolutely no knowledge of Ricoh or of the market, that to succeed financially a FF dSLR must gain significant USA market share and volume. In order to gain such, the manufacturer must commit to lose millions of dollars on USA infrastructure, advertising, endorsements, pro support and B&M presence - just to encourage wealthy enthusiasts to enjoy status by association buying the camera - and then making it up downstream on low quality 'halo effect' consumer cameras..

IM imaginary HO Pentax decided with the LX that it would not make the investment, and thus discovered it would never truly succeed in the professional market. Consequently it began dismembering altogether the USA distribution infrastructure, which has proceeded to its logical and ridiculous extreme today.

Look at Pentax distribution infrastructure. Look at Pentax product structure (the quality). If my suppositions above are correct, given the condition of USA (and now EU and Canada) infrastructure and the high-quality consumer cameras, there will never be a K-mount Pentax FF dSLR.

That isn't to say Ricoh will never release a FF camera - but a FF K-mount Pentax dSLR just looks impossible to me.

You are so right... If you have 645z (and add some LONG/ Large Aperture lenses), why would one launch FF for a small segment. What the enthusiasts on this site don't realize is "pros" have been using and will continue to use High-res APSc cameras everyday. When they speak to each other, they look at IQ and toughness, not sensor size.

AdMen use MF/ specialty for products, Newspaper types use fast low res "pro" bodies for speed NOT IQ, doesn't matter in printed press delivery (above 16mp).

Birders want the APSc crop AND a 24mp sensor. If you put a 300mm f2.8 on it (with a converter or not) tons of reach. A roughly 250-600 F4 or F5.6 would streamline many kits. Financially challenging, though... If they have FF glass, they are in the middle of the image circle (questionable value, although theoretically better in the corners, lots of debate on the real life results though...), if not ,birders buy the best glass they can afford.

Sports pros use fast med res with BIG glass. Cost of entry for them, hence not a lot of Pentax equipped sports photographers. It's all about the glass... They beat it up, and there is not a current Pentax offering to replace it from every 4 years.

I have never (in 40+ years of working with pros of any flavor) heard a true "pro" (especially a journalist) wax lyracally about brand. A Lens... Yes, a Tough body...Yes, support network/ spares... Yes. FF vs APSc, a fantasy from those that don't make a living at it, or those that need to go wide. As delivered by Canon and Nikon (except the D8xx), are lower res, tougher, fast to cycle.

I knew AP photographers in the 80s using Mamiya Sekor 35mms. Newspaper photographers using Pentax and Minoltas because they were lighter.

Pentax's long delay to AF cost them. Worse yet, Asahi designed the firsr AF capabilities used in MOST of the other cameras. Wrong time to be a fast follower, as opposed to the R&D leader (of the 50s, 60s, 70s)... They started to slide when the LX wasn't as tough as the Nikon Fs. Beautiful finishing and high end optics were not needed in the global battlefields, Hence Nikon won. Sux, but history. Hell, Canon was hanging out with Bell & Howell. Ouch...

To be irreverent, I cannot fathom the groveling for a 70-210 (etc) FF FA* lens. Buy one on eBay. Had one. Became obsolete on K-3 with the 60-250. Old news. They are great workhorses, but it is a 105-300 on a K-3. Whats the big deal for a NEW one? IMHO the lighter, better coated DA*s work fine (had a 16-50 SDM blow,no biggy Pentax/CRIS were great.) Otherwise steller. Just spent a week in 110 degrees in the desert shooting. I'll take a lighter, non metallic DA* with updated coatings ANYDAY...

We don't need no stinking FF DSLR... Just long tele zooms, great coatings, big glass for 645z, and throw in a cheap 24MP FF ILC with an OVF to use all of the great older FF glass...

[mee]

Not once in your post against Full Frame did I see mentioned landscapes, portrait, architecture or anything beyond journalists and action photography (those that use tele lenses). haha

[GlassJunkie]

Not once in your post against Full Frame did I see mentioned landscapes, portrait, architecture or anything beyond journalists and action photography (those that use tele lenses). haha

Agreed. I missed the "Widies"..Landscape, Architecture, Real Estate, Interior Design (more MF).... I must have left them in other posts...

[LeeRunge]

Three things for Pentax that would make me very happy,

1. Faster lens motors to enable.....
2. AF on par with Nikon/Canon's higher end
3. Give me some faster glass! I'm jealous of that 56mm 1.2 Fuji or some of the .95 aperture lenses that the M-4/3, Leica M, Xmount and Sony "because they can adapt anything" users get.

The only thing that I wish I had in APS-C is shallow depth of field similar to FF, the 1.2 and .95 lenses bring you to 1.8 and 1.4 equivalence which for me is all I want. The limiteds are really well built nice lenses but I'd like to see modern renditions with faster apertures.

[GlassJunkie]

Three things for Pentax that would make me very happy,

1. Faster lens motors to enable.....
2. AF on par with Nikon/Canon's higher end
3. Give me some faster glass! I'm jealous of that 56mm 1.2 Fuji or some of the .95 aperture lenses that the M-4/3, Leica M, Xmount and Sony "because they can adapt anything" users get.

The only thing that I wish I had in APS-C is shallow depth of field similar to FF, the 1.2 and .95 lenses bring you to 1.8 and 1.4 equivalence which for me is all I want. The limiteds are really well built nice lenses but I'd like to see modern renditions with faster apertures.

I'm curious, how do you like your Sony RX-100?

[LeeRunge]

I'm curious, how do you like your Sony RX-100?

Its a soul-less but very capable compact camera. It's the only "point and shoot" or pocketable camera that will work in low light well. I used it for a trip to Italy without taking the DSLR (worried about theft) and it worked fine. Sony packed it with features but the handling can be confusing, mostly because you can customize almost all the buttons and then forget what you did. (that may just be me). I'd say if you want a point and shoot that has 90% the image quality of a DSLR (minus dof, it equates to @ F8 on a FF).

I have mostly replaced it's use with the Fuji X100s. I get more keeper's with the Fuji and prefer the colors. The Fuji won't fit in a pocket but it's very light.

A few travel photo's using strictly the RX100:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/51388332@N05/sets/72157633340465273/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/51388332@N05/sets/72157633363595334/

[Uluru]

I am absolutely convinced, with absolutely no knowledge of Ricoh or of the market, that to succeed financially a FF dSLR must gain significant USA market share and volume. ..
That isn't to say Ricoh will never release a FF camera - but a FF K-mount Pentax dSLR just looks impossible to me.

Well, Ricoh Imaging is doing well despite USA market. And they say the grow sales as well.
Please note that some brands are niche, and Pentax is such a brand. Leica too. Fujifilm as well.
If they make 100,000 of K-3 cameras and find it a success, or a similar number of GRs, why would not 20,000 of FFs also be a success, if based on 100% of the same tech as the K-3?
The argument above you pose is illogical, and the restructure of the company signalised that the way to launch products on the market must be different to a classical scenario of a sheer market share. Restructure, sharing of cost and technology and components is the ticket for Ricoh Imaging to deliver an FF DSLR — or any other camera concept for that matter — despite US market's failure and despite lower presence factor in the West.

[JPT]

Take all of this with a huge pinch of salt, because I don't have any real knowledge of the "pro" market in Japan, but here's a bit of speculative observation.

In the times in my career that I've come across obviously pro photographers in Japan, I can't remember a single case of anyone using a Nikon. It's ALWAYS Canon. I think the pro market in Japan is more based around big companies like PR and ad agencies, and also the Corporate Communication sections of companies in general. I don't think that many pros are individuals who choose their own equipment. Knowing the way that Japanese companies deal with procurement, I think it's highly likely that their camera purchases are a small part of a larger deal for office and imaging equipment. Canon can provide a much more comprehensive solution than Nikon, so I think they get the lion's share of that market. Of course, Nikon does fine selling pro-grade gear to wealthy enthusiasts.

This is interesting because Ricoh's overall business is quite similar to Canon's. If Ricoh feels they are missing out on larger deals because they lack the FF DSLR piece of the puzzle, that might be an incentive for them to press ahead with making one. I remember Ricoh stated at the time of the merger that they wanted to be "on a par with" Canon. They might mean it in this larger sense, rather than talking about cameras in isolation. In other words, to offer better end-to-end solutions from capture to reprographics.

Another pure speculation is that if Nikon were weakened to the extent that they were subject to takeover, Fujifilm or Konica-Minolta would be logical buyers.

[monochrome]

This is interesting because Ricoh's overall business is quite similar to Canon's. If Ricoh feels they are missing out on larger deals because they lack the FF DSLR piece of the puzzle, that might be an incentive for them to press ahead with making one

I recall reading the 'institutional order volume' for 645Z is part of the reason production is pre-ordered through December.

Another pure speculation is that if Nikon were weakened to the extent that they were subject to takeover, Fujifilm or Konica-Minolta would be logical buyers.

Nikon is part of the Friday Club of the Mitsubishi Group - i.e. some 40%+ of the shares of Nikon are cross-held by other Mitsubishi Banks and companies. Any attempt to take over Nikon would need willingness on the part of the plurality-owning shareholders.

Since Nikon Precision Division is also one of the world's leading manufacturers of photolithographic steppers for use in semiconductor manufacturing - this seems unlikely.

[monochrome]

Well, Ricoh Imaging is doing well despite USA market. And they say the grow sales as well.

Thank you for confirming my totally speculative supposition.

[JPT]

I recall reading the 'institutional order volume' for 645Z is part of the reason production is pre-ordered through December.Nikon is part of the Friday Club of the Mitsubishi Group - i.e. some 40%+ of the shares of Nikon are cross-held by other Mitsubishi Banks and companies. Any attempt to take over Nikon would need willingness on the part of the plurality-owning shareholders.

Since Nikon Precision Division is also one of the world's leading manufacturers of photolithographic steppers for use in semiconductor manufacturing - this seems unlikely.

Yeah. I know. I'm not suggesting that either of those companies is actually looking to buy or that Nikon's owners are looking to sell. I just mean that by my line of thinking, they'd be a good business fit. I have no credentials as a business analyst, by the way. I just know how Japanese companies tend to think from experience.